Competative strategy of coca cola

Competative strategy of Coca Cola BY arjun238 Examines the Industry structure and competitive strategy of Coca-Cola and Pepsi over 100 years of rivalry. The most intense battles of the cola wars were fought over the $74 billion CSD industry In the united States. where the average American consumes 46 gallons of CSD per year.

In a “carefully waged competitive struggle,” from 1975 to the mid-1 9905, both Coke and Pepsi had achieved average annual growth of around 10%, as both U.

S. and worldwide CSD consumption consistently rose. However, starting In the late 1990s, US. CSD consumption started to decline and new non- parkling beverages become popular, threatening to alter the companies’ brand, bottling, and pricing strategies.

The case considers what has to be done for Coke and Pepsi to ensure sustainable growth and profitablllty. A rewritten version of an earlier case. http://image. slidesharecdn. om/caseanalysiscokepepsi-101020163411- Historically, why has the soft drink industry been so profitable? Historically, the soft carbonated soft drink (CSD) industry has been valued at $74 billion in the united States. In order to understand the reasons why the Industry has been hugely rofitable despite the ‘Cola Wars’, an examination of the CSD industry with Porter’s five forces analysis will be conducted.

As market leaders, the analysis will be centred on both Coke and Pepsi (hereafter “C&P”).

Threat of new competition: Barriers to entry in the CSD industry are extremely high and there are various factors to support this. Firstly, both C&P spend gargantuan amounts of funding of advertisement. According to Exhibit 8, in 2009 alone, both C&P spent $234 million and $145 million respectively In advertising expenditure. Therefore, while the actual Initial capital nvestment needed to start up a CSD company is relatively economic, the amount required by new entrants to continually push their brand and gain visibility Is extremely high.

Due to these extreme levels of expenditure on marketing and brand awareness, the two cola companies have accrued exceedingly high levels of brand equity and consumer loyalty worldwide. As such, even with sufficient funds for start- up and subsequent advertising, new entrants are unlikely to sway persisting consumer tastes. Because of the sheer scale of both CSD companies, both C&P have pre-existing contracts with their bottlers, thus limiting their bottlers’ ability to roduce similar products with rival brands.

Additionally, through the use of extensive consolidation through the use of acquisitions and re-franchislng of their bottlers, both C;P have made it essentially impossible for new entrants to find bottlers for the distribution of their drinks Examines the industry structure and competitive strategy of Coca-Cola and Pepsi over $74 billion CSD industry in the United States, where the average American consumes the mid-1990s, both Coke and Pepsi had achieved average annual growth of around starting in the late 1990s, U. S.

CSD consumption started to decline and new non-

Pepsi to ensure sustainable growth and profitability. A rewritten version of an earlier phpappol /95/slide-1-728. jpg? 1287610486 carbonated soft drink (CSD) industry has been valued at $74 billion in the United States. In order to understand the reasons why the industry has been hugely on both Coke and Pepsi (hereafter “C&P’). Threat of new competition: Barriers to respectively in advertising expenditure. Therefore, while the actual initial capital required by new entrants to continually push their brand and gain visibility is consolidation through the use of acquisitions and re-franchising of their bottlers,