Leonard Vs. Pepsico Inc. Essay

1. Consider Coca-Cola’s advertising throughout its history. Identify as many commonalities as possible for its various ads and campaigns. (For a list of Coca-Cola slogans over the years, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Colaslogans.)

In the reading Advertisements R Us, Melissa Rubin expands upon her analysis of Coca-Colas’ 1950 magazine advertisement, and brings many points to light about how the company uses cleverly crafted advertising tactics to appeal to a specific group of Americans. By clearly communicating her evidence to back up the analysis of the advertisement, Ruben composes a thoughtful and persuasive paper. For example, Rubin explains how simple details, such as the use of their slogan on the vending machine pictured which reads “Drink Coca-Cola - Work Refreshed”, and the placement of “Sprite Boy” in the ad, all work together to send a message that makes consumers want to buy their product. Consequently, because of the evidence presented in her writing, Rubin has crafted a paper that I find logical and persuasive.

1. Using the current ratio, discuss what conclusions you can make about each company’s ability to pay current liabilities (debt).

4. What was Pepsi’s meaning management game? Was it really a threat to Coke? How should have responded to Pepsi’s

     PepsiCo. Incorporated and The Coca-Cola Company are the two largest and oldest archrivals in the carbonated soft drink (CSD) industry. Coca-Cola was invented and first marketed in 1886, followed by Pepsi Cola in 1898. Coca-Cola was named after the coca leaves and kola nuts John Pemberton used to make it, and Pepsi Cola after the beneficial effects its creator, Caleb Bradham, claimed it had on dyspepsia. The rivalry between the soda giants, also known as the "Cola Wars", began in the 1960’s when Coca-Cola's dominance was being increasingly challenged by Pepsi Cola. The competitive environment between the rivals was intense and well-publicized, forcing both companies to continuously establish and

Liebeck v. McDonald’s, also known as the McDonald’s Coffee Case, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit. This lawsuit became one of the most famous in the US history because after the court’s awarded Stella Liebeck $2.9 million, after she was severely burned by the coffee she brought from McDonald, there were debates over tort reform in the US.

During Cola Wars, a critic from the Onion, which is a satirical website. The Onion makes a reference to the Cold War, but it is about the Cola Wars, this is a written article,” Ad Industry Veterans Honored With Cola War Memorial,” discusses. The purpose of this article is to criticize those who make simple, unimportant things become an over exaggerated situation when there are bigger problems out there. The intended audience is for those who make irrelevant things bigger so he uses emotions and client testimonials. The attitude towards the audience is mocking the audience and burlesque which these both things are satirical. Therefore, the Onion uses the rhetorical devices of client testimonials, distortion and hyperbole.

Exchange rate gains or losses are brought to account in determining the net profit or loss in the period in which they arise, as are exchange gains or losses relating to cross currency swap transactions on monetary items. Exchange differences relating to hedges of specific transactions in respect of the cost of inventories or other assets, to the extent that they occur before the date of receipt, are deferred and included in the measurement of the transaction. Exchange differences relating to other hedge transactions are brought to account in determining the net profit or loss in the period in which they arise. Foreign controlled entities are considered self-sustaining. Assets and liabilities are translated by applying the rate ruling at balance date and revenue and expense items are translated at the average rate calculated for the period. Exchange rate differences are taken to the foreign currency translation reserve.

The commercial also incorporated a presentation of the country's varying sprawling landscapes and metropolitan areas, along with Americans of different ethnicities, races, and families partaking in real life activities. With these elements: a patriotic song, playing on emotion, and an invocation of profound imagery, we see several of the tactics mentioned in both articles tackled in Coke's commercial. So why did Coca Cola receive such monumental uproar, if it made use of some of the fifteen basic appeals that make ads effective?

During the “Pepsi Challenge,” the person would prefer one product to the other. In the late 1990s, “Pepsi launched its most successful long-term strategy of the Cola Wars, Pepsi Stuff.” The Consumers were “invited” to “Drink Pepsi, Get Stuff” by using codes on cans and bottle caps to redeem points for free Pepsi lifestyle merchandise. The battle continues today “as they battle for brand supremacy…through advertisements, slogans, and celebrity endorsements.”

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.

The plaintiff Leonard used drastic interpretations of substantive and contract law to express his understanding of the Pepsi Stuff promotion. Plaintiff feels if "an advertisement is clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation [then] it constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract"(Leonard v PepsiCo, 6). In such a case, an advertisement that is so specific leaves no grounds for questioning, therefore a contract is formed. The plaintiff attempts to stretch the boundaries of unilateral contracts claiming that PepsiCo made a clear offer and that he should receive the reward promised for his performance of the specified act. This is backed by the commanding 1892 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. case stating, "If a person chooses to make extravagant promises…he probably does so because it pays him to make them, and if he has made them, the extravagance of the promises is no reason in law why he should not be bound by them" (Leonard v PepsiCo, 6). The plaintiff claims that the commercial posed an offer to him and through this offer he should be granted a reward even though there is no legally binding

The Pepsi Harrier case (Leonard v. PepsiCo) is an example of a situation where the four elements of a contract are simply not met. Advertisements in general constitute an invitation to treat, rather than an offer. Therefore, Leonard was not able to accept the offer, because the offer never existed. As such, the basic elements of a contract were not present in their entirety, meaning that no contract existed between Pepsi and the Seattle man.

EVA stands for economic value added. EVA is a value based financial performance measure based

“A Coke is a Coke, and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same, and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it."(Andy Warhol, 1975) Regardless of its corporate reputation, the organizational performance and its social responsibility of Coca-Cola makes it loved around the world. Ever since its creation in 1886 Coca-Cola has been a household brand known globally for generations of families. I have to mention, of all the cases researched this is my least favorite not only because of my childhood love for the product because the ethical issues in one way or another always manage to resolve themselves not before further tainting the reputation Coke worked so hard to obtain. Most times, whether an organization is innocent of an unethical act, it becomes secondary to the suspicion of the original act. Almost as if the court of public opinion has the power to ruin the reputation of an organization based on an unfounded accusation. In spite of my loyalty after having ready the case, I do believe Coca-Cola to be flawed. The contamination scare in Belgium is a great example of a public relations nightmare. The slightest hint of impurity should have pushed Coca Cola into crisis management mode but they were slow to react, citing it a minor issue (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, (2011). It was not until local officials