The Real Lesson of New Coke
The Real Lesson of New Coke:
The Value of Focus Groups for Predicting the Effects of Social Influence
By Robert M. Schindler n April 1985, the management of Coca-Cola Co. announced its decision to change the flavor of the cotnpany 's flagship brand. The events that followed from this decision, as well as the faetors which led up to it, have been reviewed, discussed, and extensively analyzed in the popular press, the trade press, and in marketing textbooks. Two books and at least two marketing cases have been written on the events surrounding the flavor change decision. Also, a well-known, but somewhat older Harvard Business School marketing case deals with some of the key events which led up to the decision. Despite the extent of this attention, more can be learned from this dramatic pieee of marketing history. Pepsi began communicating these findings to consumers through "Pepsi Challenge" television ads .showing taste tests where Coca-Cola drinkers expressed preferences for a cola which was then revealed to be Pepsi, This campaign contributed to Coca-Cola 's slow, but steady decline of market share in the soft-drink category. This erosion was most apparent in foodstore sales, which reflect consumer preferences more directly than do vendingtiiachine or fountain sales. By 1977, Pepsi had actually pulled ahead of Coke in foodstore market share. Although publicly expressing a lack of concern about the Pepsi Challenge advertising, Coca-Cola 's managetnent privately was quite worried because blind taste tests by the company 's own market research department had confirmed Pepsi 's claims. Secretly, Coke 's management began researching the possibility of reformulating Coca-Cola to respond to the apparent changes that had occurred in consumer tastes. By 1984, researchers had arrived at a new formula for Coke whieh, in blind taste tests, beat Pepsi by as much as six to eight percentage points. In addition to beating Pepsi, cola drinkers chose this new formula over the
The Value of Focus Groups for Predicting the Effects of Social Influence
By Robert M. Schindler n April 1985, the management of Coca-Cola Co. announced its decision to change the flavor of the cotnpany 's flagship brand. The events that followed from this decision, as well as the faetors which led up to it, have been reviewed, discussed, and extensively analyzed in the popular press, the trade press, and in marketing textbooks. Two books and at least two marketing cases have been written on the events surrounding the flavor change decision. Also, a well-known, but somewhat older Harvard Business School marketing case deals with some of the key events which led up to the decision. Despite the extent of this attention, more can be learned from this dramatic pieee of marketing history. Pepsi began communicating these findings to consumers through "Pepsi Challenge" television ads .showing taste tests where Coca-Cola drinkers expressed preferences for a cola which was then revealed to be Pepsi, This campaign contributed to Coca-Cola 's slow, but steady decline of market share in the soft-drink category. This erosion was most apparent in foodstore sales, which reflect consumer preferences more directly than do vendingtiiachine or fountain sales. By 1977, Pepsi had actually pulled ahead of Coke in foodstore market share. Although publicly expressing a lack of concern about the Pepsi Challenge advertising, Coca-Cola 's managetnent privately was quite worried because blind taste tests by the company 's own market research department had confirmed Pepsi 's claims. Secretly, Coke 's management began researching the possibility of reformulating Coca-Cola to respond to the apparent changes that had occurred in consumer tastes. By 1984, researchers had arrived at a new formula for Coke whieh, in blind taste tests, beat Pepsi by as much as six to eight percentage points. In addition to beating Pepsi, cola drinkers chose this new formula over the
References: Allvine. Fred C. (1987), Marketing: Principles and Practices. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Alsop, Ron (1985), "Coke 's Flip-Flop Underscores Risks of Consumer Taste Tests," Wall Street JournaHiuly 18), 23. (1987), "New Coke Is a Smash Success With Consumers in This Poll," Wall Street Journal {Feb. 26), 23. Alter, Stewart (1985) "Coke Hurting Research Image," Advertising Age (July 22), 58. Anderson, W. Thomas Jr. and Linda L. Golden (1984), "Bank Promotion Strategy," .lournal of Advertising Research, 24 (April/May) 53-65. Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), "Reference Group Inlluence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 183-194. Boure, Hrancis S. (1957). "Group Influence in Marketing and Public Relations," in Some Applications of Behavioral Research, Rensis Likeri and Samuel P. Hayes Jr., eds. Paris: The UNESCO Press. Clark, John B. (1987), Marketing Today: Successes. Failures, and Turnarounds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Crawford. C. Merle (1987), New Products Management, 2nd ed. Homewood, IL: lrwin. Engel, James F., Roger D. Black well, and Paul W. Miniard (1990), Consumer Behavior, 6th ed. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press. . (December), 3-8. Enrico. Roger and Jesse Kornbluth (1986). The Other Guy Blinked. New York: Bantam Books. Feldman, Sidney P. and Merlin C. Spencer (1965), "Ihe Effect of Personal Influence in the Selection of Consumer Services," in Proceedings of ihe Fall Conference of the Ameriean Marketing Association, Peter D. Bennett, ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association. Fisher, Anne B. (1985), "Coke 's Brand-Loyalty Lesson," Fortune, i 12 (Aug. 5). 44-46. Gelb, Betsy D. and Gabriel M. Gelb (1986), "New Coke 's Fizzle—Lessons for the Rest of Us," Sloan Management Review (Fall), 71-76. Giges, Nancy (1985), "Coke 's Switch a Classic," Advertising Age, 56 (July 15), 1,82. ___^__ (1986), "Adman of ihc Year: Coca-Cola 's Roberto Goizueta Engineers Startling Comeback," Advertising Age, 64 (Dec. 29), 1,26-27. Greenwald, John (1985). "Coca-Cola 's Big Fizzle," Time (July 22), 48-52. Harvard Business School (1978), "Pepsi-Cola (A)," Case # 9-579-108. Hendon, Donald W. (1989), Cta.ssic Failures in Product Marketing. New York: Quorum Books. Hollie, Pamela G. (1985), "Coca-Cola Changes Its Secret Formula, In Use far 99 Years," New York Times (April 24), 1. . and Robert J. Kegerreis (1969), "How Information is HonomichI, Jack (1985), "Missing Ingredients in "New ' Coke 's Research." AdvfiUsing Age (July 22), 1,58. Kotler, Philip (1988), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, implementation, and Control, 6th cd. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Louis, J. C. and Harvey Z. Yazijian (1980), The Cola Wars. New York: Everest House. Martin, Stephen H. (1987), "Marketing Can ^Make A Good Life Better ' If It Is Properly Practiced," Marketing News, 21 (April 10), 2. McCarthy. Michael J. (1990), "Coke II Survives One Test City, Heads to Second," Wall Street Journal {Oct. 5) BLIO. __^ (1991), "Coca Cola is Facing New Pepsi Challenge: Avoiding Signs of Age," Wall Street Journal