Preview

coke vs pepsi strategy

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
312 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
coke vs pepsi strategy
Coke v. Pepsi – 5 Forces Analysis Industry concentrate produces
High intensity (depends on price/advertising cost/ high number of substitutes(low calorie drinks/no carb drinks/ not carbonated drinks like orange juice)
Pepsi products /Coke products
New Entrants (barriers/rivalry) High Intensity-Brand recognition dominant market/ patents on style and colors
Network relationships & high cost of entry established such as distribution, warehouse, bottlers, and shelf-location high marketing costs
Coke dominance on international market makes it hard for Pepsi to enter international markets where Coke is dominant (Mexico)
Suppliers (Bargaining Power of Supplier)
Medium intensity- Coke and Pepsi can and do renegotiate contracts with bottlers on prices, marketing, distribution territories, and etc.
High intensity- for new entrants because the bottlers determine price of product (price takers), shelf- place is determined by retailer and less price discount control. There is a small number of important suppliers since Coke and Pepsi supported suppliers to buy other smaller suppliers to keep up with their needs.
Buyers (Bargaining Power of Buyers)
High Intensity- due to the high number of substitutes, health concerns, and few key buyers (fountain outlets/vending machines)
E.g.) Coke and Pepsi battled for the right to sign a contract with fast food restaurants like Burger King.
Substitutes ( threat of substitutes)
Medium Intensity- high number of substitutes(low calorie drinks/no carb drinks/ not carbonated drinks like
Orange juice /ice tea/ flavored water/etc.
Low intensity – competition among other pop drink because it’s based on brand recognition.

After Coke & Pepsi bought major bottlers, they started bottling in house and delivering their own products directly to retailers. Suppliers have seen their bargaining power dwindle. Concentration produces especially the ones with the highest market share (Cola and Pepsi) bottlers, retail

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    There are great many players in the same industry; some of them are locally based and the other ones operate internationally, but for years, Coca-Cola has been the fiercest rival of Pepsi Co and vice versa. Being one of the most dynamic transnational organizations, both the companies have their business and manufacturing sites established in overseas countries. Products of PepsiCo and Coca Cola are overwhelmingly loved by people from all of the countries in which they operate.…

    • 1930 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Both Coca-Cola and Pepsi have an agreement with their own bottler who specializes in this field. Moreover, the agreement restrains the bottlers to carry other brand. For instance, Coke bottler could not carry Royal Crown Cola.…

    • 487 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    1) Franchise agreements between bottlers (buyers) and concentrate producers locked bottlers into exclusive deals and made switching costs high, compelling bottlers to accept pricing and promotion schema.…

    • 990 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Coke and Pepsi are two big players in the market. The competition in the market has been such in which one company goes ahead with some new product and other company adopts a proactive approach and it comes up with something new that no one takes the advantage, Because of the customer base and the market share they affect the profit of the…

    • 373 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Cola Wars Case

    • 1195 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Using Porter’s Five Forces analysis for the CPs industry, we determined that the Bargaining Power of Buyers was low. In 1987, Coke’s Master Bottler Contract granted Coke the right to determine the concentrate price based on a pricing formula that adjusted quarterly and stated a maximum price for the sweetener used in the production. Pepsi’s Master Bottling Agreement required that top bottler purchased its raw materials from Pepsi on terms and conditions determined by Pepsi. These agreements limited the opportunity for price negotiations between the buyers and the CPs.…

    • 1195 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Five Forces (Coke Wars)

    • 350 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The barriers to entry in this market are fairly high. Both Coke and Pepsi have franchising agreements with existing bottling companies. These agreements prohibit the bottler’s from taking on new soft drink companies. This makes it very hard for a new soft drink company to find a bottler willing to distribute their product. Coke and Pepsi have also been able to develop loyal customers through their brand image, which would make it hard for a new soft drink company to find consumers.…

    • 350 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    cola wars continue

    • 395 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The bargaining power of buyers – the bottlers - was relatively low. The main costs components of bottlers are concentrate and syrup. However, ever since the concentrate producers such as Coke and Pepsi built a nationwide franchised bottling network, the bottlers were put under their control. Also, after the 1987 Master Bottler Contract, the concentrate industry had the right to determine concentrate price and other terms of sale. As the concentrate companies of CSD expanded into different categories, the concentrate producers bottled some products on their own.…

    • 395 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The barriers are high. They can be up-front advertising, R&D cost, bottling lines equipment, and brand awareness. Firstly, megabrands such as Coke and Pepsi already take about 60% market share, left fierce competition to the other brands. Secondly, On supply-side economies of scale, the megabrands such as Coke and Pepsi already take about 60% market share and the larger volumes of products to spread fixed cost over more units. Thirdly, on demand-side benefits of scale, the impact of brand reputation is huge, for customers are more willing to buy products of megabrands. Coke and Pepsi spent $244,000 and $140,000 on average each year in 2008 and 2009,which could be an unaffordable up-front cost for new entrant.…

    • 504 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The retailers have a low to moderate buyer power over the consumer soft drink industry, due to the producer’s ability to forward integrate, the sheer number of buyers, and the buyer’s ability to forward integrate. Buyer power is the degree of influence customers have on the producing agent. Soft drink companies such as Coca Cola and Pepsi have used forward integration to take over their channels of distribution. They created contracts that gave them the ability to set concentrate prices for their bottlers; in turn bottlers would respond to price fulgurations by adjusting retail pricing. In 2000, when Coca Cola raised concentrate prices by 7.6%, bottlers raised the retail prices by 6 to 7%. This demonstrates that buyers have limited control over the price changes. Coca Cola has also made great efforts to take over the bottling of their product, by establishing the independent subsidiary Coca Cola Enterprises. They began by acquiring bottlers to produce one third of their volume during 1986 which increased to 80% in 2004. This gave Coca Cola more control over retail pricing, and distribution of their products to retail stores. Since there are so many retail stores that carry products that consumer soft drink, CSD, companies make, it is hard for buyers to create a collaborative effort to resist price increases.…

    • 1842 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Demand for Coca-Cola supplier’s products is low because the ingredients used for soft drinks are commodities. In addition, materials such as cans and plastic bottles are also commodities that can be purchased from any chosen supplier because it has a low switching cost. Therefore, the bargaining power of suppliers is weak.…

    • 430 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) industry is enormous. In 2000, more Americans drank soft drinks than water. The production and distribution of soft drinks involve concentrate producers (basic flavors), bottlers (add sweetener and carbonated water), and retailers. Of all the retailers available for distribution to customers, grocery stores and supermarkets account for about 31% of sales. There are three major competitors in the soft drink market (Coca-Cola, 44.1%; Pepsi-Cola, 31.4%; Dr Pepper/Seven Up, 14.7%). Each competitor spends a lot of money on advertising their brand through promotions, and consumer price discounting. Concentrate producers and bottlers usually share advertising costs because bottlers can target markets locally while producers focus on the bigger picture.…

    • 3374 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    associated bottlers, commanding 73% of the case market in 1994. Adding in the next tier of soft drink…

    • 3389 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Cola Wars Case Study

    • 1010 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Buyers can be divided by three categories – bottlers they have to buy the concentrate and had no power over the suppliers because they were dependent on them to exist. Second the merchandiser buyers were extremely important channel - they had fair buyer’s power. Pepsi was more focused on big outlets like Wal mart and Coke was dealing with more the fountain sales.…

    • 1010 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The economics of the CP and bottling is very different from each other in terms of number and size of rivals, and the scope of competitive rivalry. There are two giants competing head to head on the CP industry, smaller national producers, such as Seven-Up and Dr Pepper, are relatively trivial. There are a lot of players of same size in the bottling industry. Unlike the furious competition between Pepsi and Coke, no sense of competition can be felt in bottling industry. Reasons are that, first, Pepsi and Coke control the majority of bottlers in 1990s; second, intrabrand competition is restricted by the franchise agreement, which is protected by 'Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act'.…

    • 1931 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Practice Exam 1

    • 1253 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Choose four (4) of the following questions and answer them in short essay format. All questions are worth equal marks. (12.5 marks each)…

    • 1253 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics