5 force SM
-
Upload
ijan-pradhan -
Category
Documents
-
view
62 -
download
3
Transcript of 5 force SM
![Page 1: 5 force SM](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081908/55376fff4a795919158b4d3a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
strategic management
Title – Cola Wars Continue : Coke & Pepsi in
the 21 st Century
Sumit Thakur
![Page 2: 5 force SM](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081908/55376fff4a795919158b4d3a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
A bstract :
This report is based upon the information provided from the Harvard business school
case - “Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century”. Both
Coca Cola Company and Pepsi Co. are the largest players in the Carbonated Soft
Drinks (CSD) industry. Cola war is the term used to describe the campaign of mutually
targeted television advertisement & marketing campaigns between Coke & Pepsi.
Both Coke & Pepsi have segmented the soft drink industry into two divisions, via –
1. Production of soft drink syrup.
2. Manufacturing & distribution of soft drinks at retail level.
Coke & Pepsi have chosen to operate primarily on the production of soft drinks syrup,
while leaving independent bottlers with more competitive segment of the industry.
The purpose of this report is to gain insight into the possible strategies that can be
applied, in order to expand the overall throat share in the future. History revealed that a
highly competitive strategy that was utilized in the past by both companies resulted in
cannibalization. Because of this, the report is described from the perspective of both
Coca-Cola and Pepsi. This report focuses on increasing the overall share and finding
new opportunities in the unrevealed markets.
Structure of soft drink industry :
Concentrate Producers Soft drink Company Bottlers
![Page 3: 5 force SM](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081908/55376fff4a795919158b4d3a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Overview of the case :
➢ Major players of the soft drink industry were –
1. Concentrate producers2. Bottlers3. Retail channels4. Suppliers
The value chain –
Concentrate producers
Main activities Developing the Program
Main activities Focus
• Blending new material ingredients
• Packing in plastic containers
• Shipment to
• Product Planning
• Marketing research
• advertising
• Combine carbonated water and syrup
• Bottling/ canning
• Delivery to customer
• Product management
• Product positioning
• Continual brand availability
• maintenance
![Page 4: 5 force SM](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081908/55376fff4a795919158b4d3a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Suppliers Retailers
Bottlers
1. Concentrate producers – • Blended raw material ingredients, packed the mixture and shipped these
containers to bottlers.• Key investment in machinery, overhead or labor.
• Significant costs were for advertising, promotion and marketing research.
• Coca cola & Pepsi Co. claimed a combined 76%of the U.S. CSD market, in sales.
2. Bottlers – • Purchasing concentrate.
• Adding carbonated water & high fructose corn syrup.
• Bottled or canned the product.
• Delivery to customer.
• Capital intensive process.
• Direct store door delivery.
• Cooperative merchandizing agreements, key factor of soft drink sales.
![Page 5: 5 force SM](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081908/55376fff4a795919158b4d3a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
3. Retail channels – • Super markets
• Vending machines
• Convenience stores
• Gas stations.
4. Suppliers – • Coca cola & Pepsi were among the metal can industry largest
customers.• Major can producers were American National Can, Crown Cork & Seal
and Reynolds Metals.
•➢ The Cola war begins - (Market Campaigns)
Pepsi Coca Cola
“Beat Coke” “Americans preferred taste”
“Pepsi generation” “No wonder Coke refreshes best”
“Young at heart”
Concentrate price 20% lower
Large bottlers (1970)
➢ Product Portfolio diversification –
Pepsi Coca Cola
Teem (1960) Fanta (1960)
Mountain dew (1964) Sprite (1961)
Diet Pepsi (1964) Low calorie Tab (1963)
Non CSD (Merger) Non CSD (Purchased)
![Page 6: 5 force SM](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081908/55376fff4a795919158b4d3a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Frito Lay Minute Maid
Duncan Foods
Belmont Springs Water
➢ Pepsi Co. challenge –
Pepsi Co. Coca Cola
Blind taste test Rebates
Eroded Coke’s market share Retail price cuts
Advertisement questioning test validity
Re- negotiation of contract with franchisee bottlers.
About 70% of Coke’s sales & about 80% of its profit came from outside the U.S.; only about 1/3rd of Pepsi leverage sales took place overseas.
➢ Product launch –
Pepsi Coca Cola
Teem (1960) Fanta (1960)
Mountain Dew (1964) Sprite (1961)
Diet Pepsi (1964) Low calorie cola tab (1963)
Lemon Lime Slice (1984) Diet Coke (1982)
Caffeine free Cola (1987) Caffeine free Coke (1983)
Sierra Mist (2000) Coca Cola Classic (1985)
![Page 7: 5 force SM](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081908/55376fff4a795919158b4d3a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Mountain Dew Code Red (2001) New Coke (1985)
Pepsi One (2005) Cherry Coke (1985)
➢ Expansions –
Pepsi Coca Cola
Acquired Pizza Hut (1978), Taco Bell (1986) Exclusive deal with Burger King, Mc Donald.
Merged with Frito Lay to form Pepsi Co. Purchased Minute Maid, Duncan foods, Belmont Spring Water
Purchased Quaker Oats Acquired planet Java coffee drink brand
Acquired Mad River juices & Tea
➢ Challenges to soft drink industry –
1. Flat demand during 1998 – 2004.2. Contaminations scare at India.3. Obesity issues.4. Challenges of internationalization.
•➢ Challenges to Coca Cola –
1. Performance and execution –– On providing alternative beverages.– On adjusting key strategic relationships.– On cultivating international market.
2. Currency crisis in Asia & Russia.3. Series of legal problems.
➢ Reversal of Fortune – (1996 - 2004)
Pepsi CokePepsi flourished Coke struggled
![Page 8: 5 force SM](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081908/55376fff4a795919158b4d3a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Acquisition of Quakers oat Flat growthNet income rose by 17.6% per year
Annual growth in net income falls to 4.2% from 18% (1990 - 1996)
ROI 29.3% from 9.5% (1996) Share holder’s return 26%
➢ Market Share –
Product 2000 (yr), % 2004 (yr), %
CSD 80 73
Diet Soda 24.6 in (1997) 29
Bottled Water 6.6 13
Non CSD 12.6 13.7
➢ Evolving structure and strategies –
– System profitability– Low cost strategy by bottlers– Incidence pricing– Retailer’s series price increase.– Coke’s dysfunctional relation with bottlers.
➢ Internationalization –
– Mexico, Brazil, China n Asia & Eastern Europe are the next big markets.– Coke is dominant in Western Europe and much of Latin America whereas
Pepsi is dominant in Middle East & Southern Asia.– Coca Cola became synonym with American culture.
Profitability - Concentrate producers earn more profit than bottlers, also cost of sale is more in bottlers.
➢ SWOT Analysis – of (Pepsi Co.)
![Page 9: 5 force SM](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081908/55376fff4a795919158b4d3a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Strengths Weaknesses
• High profile global presence• World’s 2nd best selling soft drink
brand• Constant product innovation
• Aggressive marketing strategy using celebrities
• Broad product portfolio
• Carbonated soft drink market is declining
• Only target young people.
Opportunities Threats
• Increased customer concern regarding drinking water
• Growth in healthier beverages
• Growth in Asian beverages
• Growth in functional drink industry
• Obesity & health concern
• Coca Cola increases spending on marketing and innovation
• Relying only on North America is bad
➢ SWOT Analysis – of (Coca Cola)
Strengths Weaknesses
![Page 10: 5 force SM](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081908/55376fff4a795919158b4d3a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
• High profile global presence
• 4 0f top 5 leading brands
• Broad based bottling strategy
• 47% of global volume sales in carbonates
• Carbonated soft drink market is declining
• Over complexity of relationships with bottlers in North America
• Execution ability
Opportunities Threats
• Soft drink volume in the Asia Pacific region forecast to increase by over 45%
• Wise & Health concerned positioning of brands like Minute Maid & Minute Light.
• Use distribution strengths in Eastern Europe & Latin America.
• Obesity & health concern
• Tropicana & Aquafina from Pepsi
• Protest in India
• Negative publicity by Pepsi.
➢ Porter’s Five Forces Analysis –
Barriers to entry• Exclusive territories• Substantial investment
• Current market performance
![Page 11: 5 force SM](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081908/55376fff4a795919158b4d3a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
• Fear of retaliation
Power of buyers
•
Power of Suppliers
• Sugar
• Packaging
• Weak as only basic commodity ingredients are required
• o
•••
Rivalry• Coca Cola
• Pepsi
• Cadbury
•
• Super markets
• Mass merchandiser
• Fountain
![Page 12: 5 force SM](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081908/55376fff4a795919158b4d3a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
•
Substitutes
➢ Liquids Gallon/Capita in 2004 -
• Alliances
• Acquisitions
• Product
![Page 13: 5 force SM](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081908/55376fff4a795919158b4d3a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
➢ U.S. Liquid consumption trends -
➢ Issues in the Case & R ecommendation s –
1. Who has been loosing?Smaller brands are loosing because of entry barriers and duopoly.
2. Who is winning the war?Year Coke (%) Pepsi (%)1950 47 101970 35 291990 41 322000 44 31.42006 43.1 31.7
3. Could they boost flagging domestic CSD sales?
![Page 14: 5 force SM](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081908/55376fff4a795919158b4d3a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
– Through product innovation– Aggressive marketing and promotion– Packaging innovation–
4. Would newly popular beverages provide them with new and profitable revenue streams?
– Yes– Non carbonated & bottled water contributed to total volume growth,
approximately 100% for coke & 75% for Pepsi.– Contamination issue & obesity issue.
5. Can Coke & Pepsi sustain their profit in wake of flattening demand & the growing popularity of Non CSD’s?
– Coke and Pepsi didn’t just inherit this business; they created it.– By Diversification– Innovation eg. Diet Coke.