Pespsi 349

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

Marketing strategies began to take broader dimensions as the soft drink industry continued to expand and became more complex. In 1976, Pepsi introduced the Pepsi Challenge in its campaigns, a moved that directly challenged Coca-Cola’s longstanding dominance. In 1985, responding to the pressure of the taste tests, which Pepsi always won, Coca-Cola decided to change its formula. This move set off a shock wave across America. Consumers angrily demanded that the old formula be returned, and Coca-Cola responded three months later with Classic Coke. Five years after the infamous Coke fiasco, the Coca-Cola

Rivalry: The rivalry between Coca-Cola and Pepsi is extremely high; however, both companies continue to remain profitable. Prior to the 1980s, pricing wars negatively affected profitability for Coca-Cola and Pepsi. After Coca-Cola renegotiated its franchise bottling contract and both companies increased concentrate prices, the rivalry began to focus on differentiation and advertising strategies. Through creative advertising campaigns, such as the “Pepsi Challenge” where Pepsi ran blind taste tests to demonstrate that consumers

The appeals court ruled that there was no evidence to show that the defendant’s conduct was willful or wanton or in reckless disregard to safety.

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

For more than a century, Coca Cola and PepsiCo have been the major competitors within the soft drink market. By employing various advertising tactics, strategies such as blind taste tests, and reward initiatives for the consumer, they have grown to become oligopolistic rivals. In the soft-drink business, “The Coca-Cola Company” and “PepsiCo, Incorporated” hold most of the market shares in virtually every region of the world. They have brands that the consumers want, whether it be soft-drink brands or in PepsioCo’s case, snacks. With only one soft-drink market, the two competitors have no choice but to increase sales by stealing the other competitor’s clients. This led to the term, the “cola wars” which was first used

Executive summary: The case mentions about how PepsiCo had to withdraw all its assets from Burma despite the fact that they were doing very well in this country.

Defendant PepsiCo conducted a promotional campaign in Seattle, Washington from October 1995 to March 1996. The promotion, titled "Pepsi Stuff," attempted to persuade consumers into collecting numerous "Pepsi Points" in order to redeem them for merchandise featuring the Pepsi logo. During this campaign, PepsiCo launched a promotional commercial intended for the ‘Pepsi Generation,' in order to gain the largest possible response to help push their campaign. One such commercial shows a well dressed teenager preparing for school simultaneously advertising a t-shirt, leather jacket and sunglasses for various reasonable point values. As the scene

The rivalry between coke and Pepsi is legendary and not just only product development and occasionally get personal collusions which sometimes resonate their marketing and promotional activates.

This case describes the complexity of PepsiCo's competitive position in the Mexican soft-drink market during the late 1990's. Between 1993 and 1996 PepsiCo and Coca-Cola waged a classic cola war in Latin America. The goal for both companies was to gain market share and by the end of 1996, Coca-Cola had clearly won the Latin America cola war. In 1993 PepsiCo enjoyed a 42% market share in Venezuela thanks to the success of its bottling partner, the Cisneros Group but by the end of 1996, PepsiCo held less than 1% of the Venezuelan cola market. Following PepsiCo's anchor bottler in Mexico, Gemex, the case details the strategies employed by PepsiCo's senior management beginning in 1993 to expand its

Pepsi is a world famous carbonated soft drink made by American company PepsiCo. Its distinctive blue packaging makes a huge contrast with its long-time rival’s signature red packing, Coca-Cola. First introduced as 'Brad's Drink' in North Carolina, USA at 1893 before renaming to Pepsi at 1898, Pepsi has always trying to be the dominant brand in soft-drink market while completing with Coca-Cola, known as the Cola War, where the two brands used a series of television advertisements and marketing campaigns trying to get more influence in the soft-drink market among the consumers. Pepsi launched its new commercial advertisement ‘Live For Now Moments Anthem’ in April 2017, as a part of its previously launched Pepsi's first global campaign ‘Live For Now’ in April 2012. The protest-themed advertisement, however, not only was nowhere near Pepsi’s original expectation, but it causes a huge ethical issue, backlash and controversy that made Pepsi took down the advertisement and issue an apology in less than a few days.

Pepsi Co started in 1965 and became one of the world 's highest end user product businesses with a number of important and precious trademarks (Bongiorno, 1996, p 70).

Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., is a contract case which was tried in New York in 1999, in which John Leonard sued Pepsico, Inc., in an effort to enforce an “offer” to redeem 7,000,000 “Pepsi Points” for a militarized jet which PepsiCo had briefly shown in television commercial.

PepsiCo Inc.: The challenge of Pepsi (as an opponent to Coca-Cola) has never lost its fizz for

“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