Porters Five Forces

Kool-Aid, a brand that offers flavored drink mix owned by Kraft Foods is part of the soft drink industry. Three main players control the soft drink industry and they are Coke (42.8%), Pepsi (31.1%), and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group (15%). First of all, a soft drink is defined as any drink that contains water, but not alcohol. This includes soda, juice/punch, energy drink, tea, sports drink, and water. There are more than a thousand different soft drinks in the U.S. market, and among the one thousand variety of drinks, the three main players offer about 400 of them (40%). Since the three dominant brands pretty much control the market, most of the small players compete by offering inexpensive drinks that are often only sold in particular retail chain such as Sam’s Choice and Shasta Beverages. They also compete in the newer category of soft drinks such as tea and energy

The soft-drink industry capitalizing on creating the best product. Each product has a different taste, formula, and color to entice the consumer. It is important for the product to remain innovative in order to keep the consumers interested. The suppliers can easily differ, because they do not hold much value or put

The soft drink industry is one of the most highly profitable industries in the USA. Also, the competitive market is a very large market. Americans consumed about 53 gallons of soft drinks per person a year in 2000 by $ 60.3 billion!! Comparing with the market in 1990, since it was 47 gallons. In recent years, the market growth has slowed.

The existing concentrate business is largely controlled by Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) and PepsiCo (Pepsi), together claiming a combined 72% of the U.S. carbonated soft drink (CSD) market sales volume in 2009. Refer to Exhibit 1 for an illustration of the CSD industry value chain. For more than a century, Coca-Cola and Pepsi have maintained growth and large market shares through mastering five competitive forces, shown in Exhibit 2, that drive profitability and shape the industry structure.

The first of Porter’s Five Forces is the threat of new entrants. According to the case study, there has been a wave of new entrants to the retail industry. These include Best Buy, Costco, Wal-Mart, Old Navy and the recently irrelevant, Target Canada. The second force, the threat of substitute products or services, is also prevalent in the retail market. Inevitably, the target audience that the Hudson’s Bay Company is trying to cater to, will shop at other retail stores for the same goods due to consumers behaviours and preferences. Another impacting force is the bargaining power of suppliers. However, this force does not play as large of an impact to HBC as one might initially assume. Traditionally, HBC among other large retail stores makes a large percentage of their

Customers have bargain power in the market since soft drink is an elastic product which is not necessary for daily life.

An industry analysis through Porter’s Five Forces reveals that market forces are favorable for profitability.

Our client, Premier Drinks of Sofia, Bulgaria specializes in the production and distribution of soft drinks and has been the primary soft drink company in Bulgaria for over 20 years. The company produces a variety of products that include carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks, table water and energy drinks. For the past year Enhanced Analytics has delivered an expensive and competitive marketing campaign for Premier Drinks, but despite the continuous effort, careful management and professional dedication Premier Drinks have reported a drop in sales.

Of equal noteworthiness is the competition within the sport drink market. As a potential segment that Crescent could enter, it is vital to realize that the market is primarily controlled by two firms, Gleam and Drip, who hold 73% and 21% of all purchases made. The growth of the market leaves much to be desired however, as it showed only marginal improvements over the years. The projected growth of this segment is only 3.28

In an industry dominated by two heavyweight contenders, Coke and Pepsi, in fact, between 1996 and 2004 per capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks (CSD) remained between 52 to 54 gallons per year. Consumption grew by an average of 3% per year over the next three decades. Fueling this growth were the increasing availability of CSD, the introduction of diet and flavored varieties, and brand extensions. There is couple of reasons why the industry is so profitable such as market share, availability and diversity and brand name and world class marketing.

Energy drinks have outperformed the growth in carbonates in the last few years, and present a substantial opportunity for beverage manufacturers to extract further growth from their sales. There are many driving forces of change and critical success factors in the energy drink industry. Companies such as Coke Cola and Pepsi contend with criticism from health officials due to the excessive caffeine in most high-energy drinks. However, before the 2000’s consumers were accustomed to carbonated soft drinks as the traditional beverage. The shift to an energy drink, sports drink, and vitamin enhanced waters increased sales while becoming an alternative beverage choice for a fast-paced mobile society. Therefore, this industry endures many

The industry of Carbonated Soft Drinks (CSD) is highly concentrated. The three major companies, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, and Cadbury Schweppes accounted in 1998 for more than 90% of market share by case volume –Exhibit 1-.

The last two topics within Porter’s Five Force Analysis are the threats of substitutes and new entries. The threat of substitutes for PepsiCo and Pepsi products could be considered quite high. In recent years, Americans have been cutting back soda consumption, approximately 1.2% in 2015, and 0.9% in 2014 (Taylor, 2016). Customers have been replacing soft drinks, in particular, with water, coffees, and all natural juices. This also leads the way for the threat of new entries. As people are tending to lean away from traditional soft drinks, the threat of new entrants could be considered moderate. This is because the cost of entry is relatively low as it is not a technology driven industry. Most of the cost of entry would be related to branding and marketing of the new product (Thompson, 1996). In recent years many competitors have entered the market with desirable ingredients and non-soft-drink beverages.

PepsiCo has the potential to encourage consumers into drinking water and eating healthier snacks that they promote. Bottled water is rising and it is a healthy substitute to sugared drinks. Restaurants, clubs and venues are using their beverage to make special drinks. This is where alcohol industries gains more profit to their company. However, with the ability to adjust customer’s demands with new and appealing products it can dominate to success.

The focused Corporation of the subject strategic proposal is PepsiCo Beverages North America. This company was originally founded in 1898 by a North Carolina druggist. PepsiCo Beverages North America (herein referred to as the ‘Company’) sells several brands of consumer beverages in the United States and Canada. The various beverage products span through carbonated soft drinks, juices, readymade teas, isotonic sports drinks, bottled water, and enhanced waters. Several established brands include Diet Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Gatorade, Tropicana products, Aquafina Water, Sierra Mist, Mug, Propel, Sobe, and Dole. Refer to the Competitor Analysis section for in depth product information and listings.