the Islamic banking industry Ho‚ G. T. S.‚ Lau‚ H. C. W.‚ Lee‚ C. K. M.‚ and Ip‚ A. W. H. (2005). An intelligent forward quality enhancement system to achieve product customization Iglesias‚ M. P.‚ & Guille’n‚ M. J. Y. (2004). Perceived quality and price: Their impact on the satisfaction of restaurant customers Islamic Bank of Brunei Bhd. (2000). Annual report. Brunei Darussalam: Author. Kayis‚ B.‚ Kim‚ H.‚ & Shin‚ T. H. (2003). A comparative analysis of cultural‚ conceptual and practical constraints
Premium Bank Islamic banking
Duopoly Behavior in Asymmetric Markets: An Experimental Evaluation Author(s): Charles F. Mason‚ Owen R. Phillips and Clifford Nowell Source: The Review of Economics and Statistics‚ Vol. 74‚ No. 4 (Nov.‚ 1992)‚ pp. 662-670 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2109380 . Accessed: 21/05/2013 14:48 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use‚ available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR
Premium Archive
Laura Lindroth GBS 235 Paper #1 Prof Cherivtch 21 March 2015 Response Paper: Coke and Pepsi Learn to Compete in India 1. The political environment in India has proven to be critical to company performance for both PepsiCo and Coca-Cola India. What specific aspects of the political environment have played key roles? Could these effects have been anticipated prior to market entry? If not‚ could developments in the political arena have been handled better by each company? There have been several aspects
Premium Coca-Cola Soft drink
Strategy – NCC 5090 Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in 2006 Case Part 1: Why was concentrate manufacturing profitable until the late ‘90s? Porter’s Five Forces provides an in-depth understanding as to how the interconnected relationship between Entrants‚ Buyers‚ Suppliers‚ Substitutes‚ and Rivals allowed concentrate producers to increase profitability. Entrants: Existing Concentrate Producers create high barriers to entry Despite low capital requirements to enter the
Premium Soft drink Barriers to entry Coca-Cola
A Duopolistic Market Structure: Who Wins? For most of us its just part of everyday life decisions. Where to shop for the week‚ Coles or Woolworths? Should I drink Pepsi or Coke today? Do I go to MYER or David Jones to buy new make up from? We take in consideration a few prices‚ how convenient it will be to get there‚ what would we rather do‚ and that’s it. But there’s something bigger behind this. What is the impact on such big rivals‚ for us and the economy? It’s not
Premium Customer Pricing Loyalty program
Strategy Assignment week two: “Cola Wars Continue: Coke vs. Pepsi in the 1990s” Professor: Orlando Rivero D.B.A. April‚ 3‚ 2008 Cola Wars Continue: Coke vs. Pepsi in the 1990s Overview This paper will explore Porter’s Five Forces ( Porte 6) and Branderburger and Nalebuff’s Value Net to answer this questionnaire and describe soft drinks industry characteristics. The soft drink industry is concentrated with the three major players‚ Coca-Cola‚ Pepsi‚ and Cadbury Schweppes Plc.‚ making up 90 percent
Premium Soft drink Coca-Cola Pepsi
Coke Is Better Than Pepsi Pepsi and Coca Cola have long been rivals in the marketing industry and two most recognizable names in soft drinks. Together they produce the #1 (Coca Cola)‚ #2 (Diet Coke) and #3 (Pepsi) soft drinks in the United States and each make tens of billions of dollars in profits every year. Since 1886‚ Coke has been going strong holding the award of "Best Soda Drink in the World." In 2011‚ Coke still beats Pepsi in sales and long-term taste tests. I totally agree because to
Premium Coca-Cola Pepsi Soft drink
The case of Coke and Pepsi in India is a lesson that all marketers can observe‚ analyze and learn from‚ since it involves so many marketing aspects that are essential for all marketers to take into consideration. Both companies had many difficulties‚ especially Coca-Cola‚ and it’s useful to observe how it dealt with the different aspects‚ stating from the political environment of the Indian market and the trade barriers it faced‚ going through the market entry and penetration strategies considered
Premium
Case 2.4 Coke and Pepsi Learn to Compete in India BRIEF SUMMARY OF CASE CONTENT: This is a detailed and comprehensive case describing the market entry of two global consumer product companies‚ PepsiCo and Coca-Cola Corporation into a Big Emerging Market (BEM)‚ India. It traces the history of the challenges encountered by these two companies in the developing country environment of India from the late 1980s to the present time. Emphasis is placed on lessons learned by the two companies as they
Premium Coca-Cola Pepsi Soft drink
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’. From the view
Premium Soft drink Coca-Cola Pepsi