Cola Wars: Porters 5 Forces

Porter’s Five Forces (1980), named after Michael E. Porter, is a critical framework to access the level of risk and degree of potential profitability of each industry in which firms are competing. Specifically, five forces are shown in Figure 1, are includes competition between rivalry, potential of new entrant, threat of substitute products, and pressure on bargaining power of suppliers and customers.

The intensity of rivalry, which is the most obvious of the five forces in an industry, helps determine the extent to which the value created by an industry will be dissipated through head-to-head competition. The most valuable contribution of Porter's “five forces” framework in this issue may be its suggestion that rivalry, while important, is only one of several forces that determine industry attractiveness.

Entry Barriers: Both Coca-Cola and Pepsi have strong entry barriers for new competitors, especially in high-end markets like the US. Because of the two companies’ sizes, market maturity, and good market position, many barriers exist for new entrants.

The competition between Coke and Pepsi reached its peak to become a real war battle by the year 1980. This war had affected the industry profit for both concentrate producers and bottlers, while the effect of bottlers was much higher. After the successful “Pepsi Challenge” (blind taste tests: sales shot up) in 1974, Coke countered with rebates, retail price cuts and significant concentrate price increases. Pepsi followed of a 15% price increase of its own. During the early 1990’s bottlers of Coke and Pepsi employed low price strategies in the supermarket channel in order to compete with store brands. The concentrate producers were always able to increase their profits by increasing the concentrate price, while the bottlers, especially the

Due to globalization and this fast-growing business environment, firms struggle to earn above-average returns. They strive to establish a competitive advantage in order to earn higher returns. It is not enough for firms to establish a competitive advantage, they should also figure out ways to sustain it. There are several factors that can affect the competitiveness of a firm including customers, suppliers, existing rivals, new entrants, and substitutes. Firms should take into account these factors in order to sustain their competitive advantage. This paper analyzes Yoffie 's (2009) Cola War case, assesses concentrate producers, bottlers, and retailers in terms of Porter’s (2008) five forces of competition and provides recommendations to Coca-Cola.

Power of buyers: The soft drink industry sold to consumers through five principal channels: food stores,

Since there are a wide range of products available, the pricing for both Coca Cola and Pepsi is done according to the Market demands and the geographic segment and thus both the products pricing are set around the same level. Neither of the brands can win if they enter into a price war, simply because the cost of manufacturing and transportation is huge. The advantage to either of the companies was if they enter into a brand war. Since, Coca Cola always had competitors constantly driving them to be smarter, better and faster and since they were successfully been existing for more than a century, they have had to remain consistent with their pricing strategy. Throughout the years, Coca Cola has made many pricing decisions, but eventually the ultimate goal is to maximize the shareholder value. Coca Cola uses lower price point to penetrate new markets to face competition and also to raise brand awareness. This strategy is strongly implemented till it repositions itself as the Premium beverage as compared to its competitors.

The Concentrate Producer industry can be classified as a Duopoly with Pepsi and Coke as the firms competing. The market share of the rest of the competition is too small to cause any upheaval of pricing or industry structure. Pepsi and Coke mainly over the years competed on differentiation and advertising rather than on pricing except for a period in the 1990’s. This prevented a huge dent in profits. Pricing wars are however a feature in their international expansion strategies.

Rivalry: The market is very competitive and the threat of competition is high. Many companies are present and they are more successful than Brita. It seems to appear a rivalry both in terms of product and location

In his article “The five competitive forces that shape strategy“, Michael Porter (2008) updates and extends his “five forces” framework he first introduced in 1979 and which has influenced the academic and business research for decades. He reaffirms that “THREAT OF ENTRY”, “THE POWER OF SUPPLIERS”, “THE POWER OF BUYERS”, THE THREAT OF SUBSTITUTES”, and “RIVALRY AMONG EXISTING COMPETITORS” are the forces that shape every single industry, and a thorough understanding of such forces help analyze everything from the intensity of competition to the profitability and attractiveness of any industry. The framework has two dimensions; the vertical dimension that connects

Porter (1980) identified some competitive forces that shapes and fosters competition in a market and determines the inherent long run attractiveness of a market. He also said that, this analytical tool could be effectively used to understand the industry level situation. However, the findings based on the Porter's model clarify that, the company has strong competitive situation now in the UK as ASDA has strong rivals like; Tesco, Sainsbury's, Morrisons etc.

The economics of the concentrate business and bottling is different from each other in terms of number and size of rivals and cost structure etc. Concentrate business has few buyers and through its value chain compare to bottling business has many buyer and mid-way player in the soft drink industry. The concentrate manufacturing process involved a little capital investment in machinery, overhead, or labour to reduce the risks whereas bottlers involving high capital investment. Franchise agreements with soft drink industry allowed bottlers to handle the non-cola brand of other concentrate producers. It also allowed bottlers to choose whether to market new beverages introduced by a concentrate producer. Concentrate producers product cost structure is mostly based on variable costs such as advertising, promotion, market research, and bottler support however, bottler products cost constitution is mostly based on fixed costs and have higher cost leverage. Concentrate producers also took charge of negotiating customer development agreements with nationwide retailers such as Wal-Mart. Concentrate producers collaborated to make more profitable control with bottlers, for example, raw material negotiation with suppliers and sales price

Porter's fifth force that Porter describes is current rivalry among existing firms. In the specialty eateries industry,

In the case of PepsiCo, analyzing the non-alcoholic beverage industry using Porter’s Five Force Analysis allows for assessment and adjustment to the strategic plans implemented to sustain competitive advantage. Porter’s Five Forces model helps outline the competitiveness of the current market through analysis of the industry rivalry between companies, supplier power, buyer power, threat of substitution, and the threat of new entries (Strategic Planning Tools, 2009). All of these forces affect not only a company but an industry. To begin, competitive rivalry within an industry analyzes the current competition within that market. When a market is competitive it “encourages companies to innovate, utilize production capacity, reduce costs and

Porter’s Five Forces model is used to evaluate the degree of rivalry between competitors in a given industry through assessing the four forces that lead to this outcome. These forces are the threat of new entrants, the bargaining power of suppliers, the bargaining power of buyers, and the threat of substitute products.