The energy beverage companies are targeting same group of people as Red Bull and it is hard to make significant increase in profit. To make more profit companies should target diverse types of consumers to differentiate your company from the other companies in the same branch. The heavy consumers of energy beverages are consist of males between 12 and 34 ages. In this market is high brand loyalty which means that average consumer is limiting his/her choice to only 1.4 different brands. The convenience stores and supermarkets are the dominant off-premise retail channels for energy beverages.
Brand positioning was seen as its best leverage as Coke Zero competes in a category where factors such as price, costs, competition and distribution are relatively unchanging. A Needscope assessment revealed that the Needstate ‘Vibrancy’ was indicated the largest segment of ‘Needs’ opportunity for beverages. However, diet colas are sold in the ‘Control’, ‘Composure’ and ‘Tranquillity’ space, which are less brand desirable and represent less ‘Needs’ opportunity in the beverages sphere. Furthermore, Coke Zero’s target audience was young adults 16-29, for whom the notion ‘living life’ wielded a greater influence than ‘exercising self-control’, a notion synonymous with ‘diet’. Thus, it was necessary to reposition Coke Zero to recapture the attention of their target audience and successfully compete with Pepsi Max.
Old Navy and IKEA are both accessible stores that can be found across North America and online. Both companies make eye-appealing products for the whole family, but do not age well. For example, IKEA pre arranges its products to lessen the thought of assembling products. When products become less of a hassle for the buyers, they tend not to look at the cons of the products. IKEA does this buy distracting its customers by making their products colourful, stylish, and cheaper than other competitors’ products.
Healthy choices are always more expensive than bad choices. In “A Tax That Invests in Our Health” by Richard F. Daines, he remarks the reason that people prefer bad choice over healthy choice. He writes, Healthy choices are rising in price while the cost of bad choices falls. Low-fat milk costs more than soda. So grocery stores in poorer neighborhoods stock less milk and more soda, and the relentless advertising from the beverage industry and fast food joints makes sweet drinks an expected part of daily living.
Another reason people like to defend Wal-Mart is because they have better prices than most everyone else which is easier on peoples wallets. Wal-Mart has become such a household name that most people will shop there without checking out other business when they realistically could be spending a little extra pocket change and helping their economy and help control this giant corporation. The savings people get are on account of cheap foreign goods that aren’t as good as American goods and people don’t realize it because they just remember the good deals. In my opinion there aren’t any other reasons to defend
They can do somehow a better job in making sound investments and control the marketing with their products. I see that there were some challenges from some years especially when PepsiCo and Coco-Cola were at a war to compete each other with their businesses. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are a few years apart, but both of them are well known and have such popularity with people drinking their sodas. Coca-Cola has been trying to surpass PepsiCo in their annual sales; however, from review, PepsiCo somehow has the highest number in their annual sales than Coca-Cola. PepsiCo has shown the best current ratio and is able to pay off their debts, which Coca-Cola does not have that and is struggling to pay off their debts.
Walmart sells many items at ridiculously low prices. They are able to offer low prices on their items due to an incredible mark-up on imported products. Especially in today's economy, the buck is the big winner. Everyone wants to save money, and they can do that by shopping at Walmart, where many items are the lowest price in town, even if it's only by a few pennies. But consumers aren't helping their fellow countryman earn his own living by buying these imported items.
According to an article that dismisses the fear of HFCS, “Out with Gout.” Our increase in our waistline is not necessarily tide to HFCS, rather to the consumption of soda. The soda we drink today is sweetened with HFCS, but if it were not sweetened with HFCS, it would be sucrose-sweetened which in turn would have the same effects as HFCS. The article continues to point to the fact that, “we are getting bigger at the waistline because of what we are consuming, but nothing concrete says that we would be thinner if we had been consuming regular sugar.” (1) HFCS or not, the obesity issue would be happening regardless. It seems to be that we are taking in a larger amount of foods and drinks that are high in sugars, real or not. The article suggests that we cut back on products that are highly sweetened with HFCS or any other sugar.
I believe whole-heartedly that government intervention as well as taxation should be justified when these industries are not providing optimal amount of a good for society’s well-being. When a tax is put on someone’s favorite soda, they are either going to buy a similar drink that is untaxed or not buy the drink at all. Typically, the body does not account for liquid calories as much as it does food calories, therefore making it easier to drink more sugared drinks. Usually people do not to feel full from a sugary drink, which makes it less likely to buy foods that will replace the taxed beverage. They would be more likely to drink one or two more cans of soda rather than eating a snack or a full meal.
We need to make these sugary drinks not so easy to buy. Everyday the soda companies come out with some new drink to suck us in to buying them and getting us hooked. Pepsi and coke are famous for this, but we still feel the need to try the drinks that come out. Even though most of us know that these drinks we consume are bad for us. In conclusion I believe having a tax that increases the prices on sugary drinks is a good place to start for the obesity epidemic.