Moreover, in the late 2007 the market was still growing up with variety kinds of energy beverage products. Weakness of the Dr Papper Snapple Group, Inc is advertising. The only one who has TV advertising from energy drink market is Red Bull. That sets them apart from others competitors. The energy beverage companies are targeting same group of people as Red Bull and it is hard to make significant increase in profit.
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.
1. Why was it important for Coke to reposition the brand away from being a "diet" brand and towards a mainstream "aspirational" perception? Pepsi Max, Coke Zero’s biggest competitor, was heavily discounted and as a result Coke Zero was up to 58% more expensive. Considering that 75% of cola is sold on price promotions, Coke Zero needed something to justify the price premium to be able to successfully compete. Coke Zero’s communication strategy was taste-led in a category which was already suffering from the stigma of perceived bad taste.
| Total stockholders’ (shareholders’) equity | 17325 | 21,744 | Not many corporations can boast of a 100 Year rivalry. The beverages industry witnessed such intense competition between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Co That one can say that the competition between the corporations was, and still is so intense it could be likened to sibling rivalry, albeit a very serious one since finances are involved. The product offerings of both companies are so similar, that if one were to remove the brand names from their respective products, an individual would not be able to distinguish one from the other. The companies not only compete in soft drinks, but also have branched out to other beverages including coffee, juice drinks and even water. If Pepsi were to offer a new product it wouldn't be surprising to see Coca-Cola follow suit.
In the case, it was mentioned that the $20 million project generated $66 million worth of media value, despite a drop in sales linked to the increasing health consciousness of consumers which also affects Coca-Cola. However, it was Pepsi Refresh Project’s first year, it would be expected to generate the most buzz and excitement. The second year may or may not generate as much media value. Then again, would measuring “media value” this way be meaningful if it does not increase sales, nor market share? Secondly, as the project was launched in the Pepsi cola drink trademark instead as PepsiCo, it remains to be seen what positive externalities the project has brought along – i.e.
PepsiCo have outperformed Coca Cola by earning annual revenue of $29.2 billion compared to Coke’s annual revenue of $21.9 billion in 2004. (Coca Cola Company, 2005)2. The contributing factors of the fall to second place in 2004 was Coke’s unwillingness to strike a balance between tradition and changes, loss of its objective of placing it’s consumer as first priority has left the company unable to adapt to consumer’s demands on new drinks, from sports drinks, New Age teas to gourmet coffees, that have eaten into the cola king's market share. Being undifferentiated targeting, it had made the company more susceptible to competitive inroads. While PepsiCo have diversified into healthier products and snack food business, Coca Cola have fell in marketing investments (advertising and marketing research) to maintain short term profit.
Unlike people in Europe, Americans don’t drink as much sparkling water. They also prefer Coke or Pepsi versus generic soda that represents less than 2% of all soda sales in U.S. In my opinion, one of the ways to overcome this challenge is to create co-opetition by partnering with Coke or Pepsi and deliver consumer’s preferred flavors. Another option is to take advantage of a new health trend and offer to the customers many varieties of naturally flavored water. While spending $80 to $200 on soda maker might be a good
But the premium pricing on the successful products covered the loss on the failures. The product in itself was marketed with the accompanying mantra of “100% Natural” and proved to be quite popular among a very difficult to define market segment. Snapple was neither defined as a “lifestyle” brand or a “fashion” brand, it was somewhere in the middle, generally grouped in the “alternative” beverage category. Price: The Snapple was sold at $24 for a pack of 24 bottle case on the street which is a very aggressive price for the product category. Premium price could be one of the reasons for propagating the premium nature of the brand to the customers.
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
Additionally, the continuously increasing steel prices leading to higher production costs and impacting product’s margin. Other players initiated price war (price differential of 5 to 10 % of Fortis discounted prices) while Fortis refused to continuously cut its prices, which caused Fortis to lose market share to its competitors. Increasing price sensitiveness of Fortis customers, decreasing market share coupled with low production utilization (70%) is increasing more and more pressure on Fortis to lower prices. In addition to its standard “4-8-14” discount, Fortis can apply price-flex strategy in order to selectively meet lower competitor prices. Question 3) Fortis marketing strategy focuses on value-added service to customers.