Katie Brown

VS

PERMISSION TO USE

November 26th,

2013

THE COLA WARSThe Cola Wars refers to the business rivalry and competition between the beverage brands Coca Cola and PepsiCo that has been going on since the beginning of competitive market share between the two. Both companies are widely successful throughout today’s world consumer market. However, both struggle to compete for the number one place and to be known as the best in the business.

• THE MAJOR ISSUE THAT ARISES WITH THE COLA WARS IS THE MARKETING AND ADVERTISING TACTICS THAT THEY USE. THEIR ADS CAN BE IN YOUR FACE AND DON’T SEEM TO CARE IF A COMPETITOR IS HURT BY THEIR COMMERCIALS AND MESSAGES.

HISTORY OF CA SMALL AD LAUNCHED BY JOHN PEMBERTON STARTED WHAT WE NOW KNOW AS COCA COLA. PEMBERTON’S BOOKKEEPER, FRANK ROBINSON, WAS THE MAN WHO CAME UP WITH THE

NAME THAT WE’VE ALL COME TO KNOW. AT FIRST, LIKE WE’VE ALL HEARD BEFORE, COCA COLA WAS MADE WITH

WINE, CAFFEINE, AND COCAINE. YES, COCAINE WAS A MAIN INGREDIENT OF COCA COLA WHEN IT WAS FIRST CREATED.

BUT UNLIKE NOW, BACK THEN, COCA COLA WAS MADE MORE SO FOR MEDICINAL USES.

THROUGHOUT ITS START, COKE WAS KNOWN TO STOP HEADACHES AND CURE A FEW ILLNESSES.

AROUND THE 1920’S, COKE STARTED TO FOCUS MORE ON BEING A SOFT DRINK. BECAUSE OF PROHIBITION, SODA FOUNTAINS WERE HOPPING WITH BUSINESS. ASA CANDLER ENDED

UP BUYING COCA COLA AND BEGAN AGGRESSIVE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS WITH THE HELP OF FRANK ROBINSON. MAIL ADS WERE BEING DELIVERED THROUGHOUT THE

COUNTRY. ALSO AROUND THIS TIME, THE UNIVERSAL BOTTLE WAS DEBUTED. COCA COLA BECAME KNOWN THROUGHOUT THE WORLD DUE TO ITS TASTE, ADVERTISING AND

MARKETING VENTURES, AND DISTRIBUTION. COCA COLA ENDED UP BEING SOLD TO AN UNLIKEABLE MAN WOODRUFF, WITH HIS SON ROBERT WOODRUFF RUNNING THE COMPANY.

HISTORY OF PEPSI!PEPSI WAS FIRST DISCOVERED IN 1898 IN A SMALL TOWN IN NORTH CAROLINA BY PHARMACIST CALEB

BRADHAM. UNLIKE COCA COLA, PEPSI WAS MEANT TO BE A SOFT DRINK FROM THE START OF ITS CREATION. AT FIRST IT WAS BEING CALLED BRAD’S DRINK, BUT IN

1902, IT WAS NAMED PEPSI COLA. DURING WORLD WAR 1, SUGAR PRICES SHOT UP BECAUSE OF THE

RATIONING, AND BRADHAM DECIDED TO TAKE A RISK. HE HAD BOUGHT A LARGE AMOUNT OF SUGAR

THINKING THAT THE PRICE WOULD JUST AS SURELY GO UP AGAIN SOON. BUT VERY QUICKLY, SUGAR’S PRICE

DROPPED TREMENDOUSLY, LEAVING PEPSI BANKRUPT.

AT A POINT IN PEPSI’S RUN, COCA COLA ACTUALLY HAD THE CHANCE TO BUY THE COMPANY BUT FIGURED BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY GOING BANKRUPT A SECOND TIME,

THAT THERE WAS NO COMPETITION. OF COURSE, PEPSI BEGAN BOOMING WITH BUSINESS AGAIN WHEN THEY CAME OUT WITH A NEW MARKETING CAMPAIGN. INSTEAD OF THE

SMALL AMOUNT OF COLA YOU COULD USUALLY GET WITH A NICKEL, THEY DECIDED TO GIVE TWICE AS MUCH. SO 12 OUNCES OF PEPSI COST A NICKEL. “MORE BOUNCE TO THE OUNCE” WAS A POPULAR LINE FOR PEPSI, AND THEY QUICKLY WERE BACK IN BUSINESS.

STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COLA WARS

c PEPSICO & THE COCA COLA COMPANY

c CONSUMERS

c THE BEVERAGE INDUSTRY

c CHILDREN

c FUTURE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS

OPTIONS

c CONTINUE THE AGGRESSIVE ADVERTISING

c SETTLE DIFFERENCES AND PUT AN END TO THE COLA WARS

c MERGE BRANDSc CREATE NEW PRODUCTSc UP THE ANTE ON

ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS

ETHICAL THEORIESIN ORDER TO CLOSELY ANALYZE THE POSSIBLE OPTIONS AND

EFFECTS OF THESE OPTIONS, I’VE APPLIED TWO SEPARATE THEORIES. THE THEORIES INCLUDE THE CONSEQUENTIAL THEORY

OF RULE UTILITARIANISM AND THE NONCONSEQUENTIAL THEORY OF CONTRACTARIANISM.

RULE UTILITARIANISM

• Companies should not target children with unhealthy products. If everybody followed this rule, there wouldn’t be children drinking soda at a young age, there would be a drop in childhood obesity, and overall children would just be healthier in general. When a child sees a commercial that’s aimed at them, they want a taste of what is featured.

• Aggressive advertising should not be considered the main tactic for an advertising campaign. Following this rule would allow for less harsh commercials aimed at displeasing competition, and more commercials actually selling the benefits of a product.

• Consumers should have brand loyalty. If there was always a certain amount of people buying one brand, and the rest buying the other, it would seem a bit simpler.

• Advertising and marketing professionals should take past campaigns as future warnings. People in this career field should see the problems the campaigns are causing and fix them in future situations.

• A company should not attack another company through advertising. Companies would begin spewing more knowledge about a brand instead of bashing a competitor.

• Companies should be courteous and pleasant to one another. Respect seems almost hard to find nowadays between businesses. So being courteous would seemingly be quite a pleasant surprise to see.

• All authoritative figures, be it a parent or a company, should be good role models to children. If a company is courteous and shows respect in the working world, it will then be fit as a positive role model to children seeing the advertising campaigns and the pleasantry.

APPLICATION OF RULE UTILITARIANISM

AFTER APPLYING RULE UTILITARIANISM, I CAME TO A SEEMINGLY OBVIOUS MAIN RULE. THE RULE THAT HAD THE HIGHEST NET UTILITY IS:

COMPANIES SHOULD BE COURTEOUS AND PLEASANT TO ONE ANOTHER.

I CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION BECAUSE IF EVERYBODY DECIDED TO FOLLOW THIS RULE, MANY OTHER RULES WOULD BE AFFECTED IN A GOOD WAY AS WELL.

c THE RESPECT BETWEEN COMPANIES WOULD LESSEN AGGRESSIVE ADVERTISING.

c IT WOULD ALSO BE A GOOD ROLE MODEL WHEN SEEN BY CHILDREN.

c FUTURE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN PROFESSIONALS WOULD THEN SEE THIS RESPECT AND POLITENESS. THIS WOULD MAKE THEM FOLLOW IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF AN ALREADY GOOD SYSTEM OF COURTEOUSNESS.

c CONSUMERS COULD HAVE BRAND LOYALTY EASILY BECAUSE THE COMPANIES WOULD NOT BE TRYING TO SHOVE THEIR BELIEFS DOWN CONSUMER’S THROATS LIKE THEY’VE DONE THROUGHOUT HISTORY.

CONTRACTARIANISM

After taking into consideration the veil of ignorance and the primary goods, I’ve come up with the best solution.

• Placing myself behind a veil of ignorance seems easy in this situation. It is clear to see where all stakeholders are coming from. There needs to be a solution that will keep business booming for the soda companies and, for the most part, the beverage industry and advertising in general, while at the same time making sure consumers and children don’t have a bad taste in their mouth after seeing an advertisement that’s appears to be distasteful and aggressive.

• The primary goods that occur in this case of ethics are all four. These are powers and opportunities, income and wealth, self-respect, and rights and liberties. PepsiCo and Coca Cola, the beverage industry, and advertising are all about powers and opportunities, as well as income and wealth. They want what is going to give them more profit, along with more possibilities to grow into larger corporations and businesses. And this is necessarily a bad thing. Businesses need to make money and grow in order to continue future employment and to help the economy by creating new jobs. The primary goods for consumers and children are self-respect and rights and liberties. Consumers want to feel good about what they buy.

APPLICATION OF CONTRACTARIANISM

WHEN APPLYING CONTRACTARIANISM, THE ENDING RESULTS APPEARED TO ME AS THE BEST CHOICE. THE PREEMINENT OPTION THAT WOULD AFFECT THE MOST STAKEHOLDERS IN A POSITIVE WAY IS:

SETTLING DIFFERENCES TO PUT AN END TO THE COLA WARS

AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROS AND CONS OF EACH OPTION, THE ONE THAT POSITIVELY AFFECTED THE MOST STAKEHOLDERS IN THE BEST WAYS IS FOR THE COMPANIES TO SETTLE THEIR DIFFERENCES.

c BOTH PEPSICO AND COCA COLA COULD CREATE MORE TASTEFUL ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE FOR FUTURE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS.

c CONSUMERS WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEE THE FEUD OVER.

c CHILDREN WOULD SEE THE HARMONY RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE TWO AS A GOOD LESSON NOT TO HOLD GRUDGES AND FIGHT.

c THE ONLY STAKEHOLDER THAT WOULDN’T GAIN MUCH FROM THIS OPTION IS THE BEVERAGE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE, AND THAT’S NOT EVEN A CERTAINTY. THE BEVERAGE INDUSTRY COULD GO EITHER WAY FROM GAINING MORE SALES OR LOSING A SMALL AMOUNT.

After extensive research and application of theory to the Cola Wars, I’ve found that the overall best option is for the companies

to play nice and settle their disagreements and differences. This would bring no harm to any of the stakeholders for the most

part, and would keep their aggressive advertising tactics

towards one another to a subtle end.

RESOURCES

“STATEMENT OF ETHICS.” MARKETINGPOWER.COM. AMERICAN MARKETING ASSOCIATION. 2013. WEB. 19 SEPT. 2013.

HTTP://WWW.MARKETINGPOWER.COM/ABOUTAMA/PAGES/STATEMENT%20OF%20ETHICS.ASPX

“80 PERCENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE CONTRACTS WITH COKE OR PEPSI.” MOTHERJONES.COM. TOM PHILPOTT. 15 AUG. 2012. WEB. 19 SEPT. 2013.

HTTP://WWW.MOTHERJONES.COM/TOM-PHILPOTT/2012/08/SCHOOLS-LIMIT-CAMPUS-JUNK-FOOD-HAVE-LOWER-OBESITY-RATES

“COKE VS. PEPSI: THE COLA WARS.” CNNTEES.COM. SEANLIND. 27 OCT. 2011. WEB 18 SEPT. 2013.

HTTP://WWW.CNNTEES.COM/INFOGRAPHICS/COKE-VS-PEPSI/

"ADVERTISING." MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM. MERRIAM-WEBSTER, WEB. 19 SEPT. 2013.

HTTP://WWW.MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM/DICTIONARY/ADVERTISING?SHOW=0&T=1379568089

"INTERNET ADVERTISING." ISSUES & CONTROVERSIES ON FILE: ISSUES & CONTROVERSIES. FACTS ON FILE NEWS SERVICES, 26 MAR. 2007. WEB. 18 SEPT.

2013. HTTP://WWW.2FACTS.COM/ARTICLE/I0702510

MODERN MARVELS. “MODERN MARVELS THE COLA WARS.” ONLINE VIDEO CLIP. YOUTUBE. YOUTUBE, 11 FEB. 2013. WEB 19 SEPT. 2013

HTTP://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=V0FD3CTF5W8

T, JACK. “CLASSIC 1980S SODA WARS COMMERCIALS.” ONLINE VIDEO CLIP. YOUTUBE. YOUTUBE, 29 NOV. 2011. WEB. 19 SEPT. 2013.

HTTP://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=JGUX-UNLLBI

TOPVIDEOCOMEDY. “TOP 5 PEPSI VS COKE COMMERCIALS.” ONLINE VIDEO CLIP. YOUTUBE. YOUTUBE, 13 MAY. 2010. WEB. 19 SEPT. 2013.

HTTP://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=UR9HTCOFU1E

O'GUINN, THOMAS C., CHRIS T. ALLEN, AND RICHARD J. SEMENIK. ADVERTISING AND INTERGRATED BRAND PROMOTION. 6TH ED. CENGAGE LEARNING,

2011. PRINT.