A summer project on MARKETING of

Coca cola compamy india

Submitted by:GARVITA PANDEY BBA-III

A7006409071

Faculty Guide:Mr. Samarth Pande

Amity Business SchoolLucknow

(SUMMER PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TOWARDS THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF BACHELORS OF BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION)

AMITY BUSINESS SCHOOL ,LUCKNOW CAMPUS

STUDENTS CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Garvita Pandey has successfully completed her summer project on MARKETING OF COCA COLA COMPANY INDIA, under the able guidance of Mr.Samarth Pande for award of a degree of BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION from Amity University –Uttar Pradesh , Lucknow.

DATE:

Signature: Signature: Signature:

GARVITA Mr . SAMARTH PROF. R.P SINGH

PANDEY PANDE

Student Faculty Guide Director(ABS)

FACULTY GUIDE CERTIFICATE

Forwarded herewith a summer project report on ‘MARKETING OF COCA COLA COMPANY INDIA’ submitted by GARVITA PANDEY, A7006409071 student of BBA, semester III.

This project work has been done in partial fulfilment for degree of BACHELOR IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION from AMITY UNIVERSITY, UTTAR PRADESH

SIGNATURE:

Mr.Samarth Pande

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my sincere gratitude to my mentor Mr. Samarth

Pande , faculty guide BBA, Amity School of Business, for his

able guidance, continuous support and cooperation

throughout my project report, without which the present work

would not have been possible.

GARVITA

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the project report entitled:

“MARKETING OF COCA COLA COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED”

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the

degree of Bachelors of Business Administration to Amity

University, India, is my original work and not submitted for

the award of any other degree, diploma, fellowship, or any

other similar title or prizes.

Place: Lucknow

Date:

CONTENTS

** Objectives of study(on coco cola)

1. CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE SOFT DRINK INDUSTRY

Introduction

Definition

Production area

Promotional activites

Types

1. CHAPTER 2

PROFILE OF COCA COLA IN INDIA

History of coke

Indian history

Indian beverage market

Marketing cola in India

2001 marketing strategy

Brand localization :the two Indians

Rural success

2. CHAPTER 3

PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES AND ITS PORTFOLIO

PRODUCTION

FORMULA

USE OF STIMULANTS IN THE FORMULA

LOCAL COMPETITOR

BRAND PORTFOLIO

PRODUCT PORTFOLIO

3. CHAPTER 4

COMPTETIVE MARKET SHARE OF COCA COLA IN INDIA

SWOT

HOW COMPTETIVE FORCES SHAPE

STRATEGY

MARKETING MIX

STRATEGIC PLANNING

4. CHAPTER 5

CRITICISMS

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Objectives of study (on coco cola)

The main objectives of my study are as following :-

1.To know the standing of coco cola as compared to other soft drinks like pepsi , thumbs up , mountain dew , maaza , limca etc.

2. To know the market position of coco cola company.

3. To know the marketing strategies of the company like promotional strategies which include advertising etc.

4. To know the future prospects of the company.

5. To know about the changes brought by coco cola in its products.

6. To know the various innovations done by coco cola in recent years.

7. To know the customer preferences and product demands regarding coco cola.

COCA- COLA

Coca-Cola

Type Cola

Manufacturer The Coca-Cola Company

Country of origin United States

Introduced 1886

Color Caramel E-150d

Related products

Pepsi

Irn Bru

RC Cola

Cola Turka

Zam Zam Cola

Mecca Cola

Virgin Cola

Parsi Cola

Qibla Cola

Evoca Cola

Corsica Cola

Chapter 1

Introduction to the Soft Drink Industry

IntroductionThe soft drink industry has been a profitable one in spite of the “cola wars” between the two largest

players. Several factors contribute to this profitability, and these factors also help to show why the

profitability of the concentrate production side of the industry has been so much greater than the

bottling side. Over the years the concentrate producers have experimented with different levels of

vertical integration, and although it has not necessarily been clear which have been more successful

historically, some decision criteria can be developed to help determine if and when complete vertical

integration is necessary.

Profitability in the soft drink industry

As analysis using Porter’s five forces shows why the soft drink industry has been so profitable.

Suppliers and buyers have not had more power over the industry than it has had over them. Internal

rivalry, while seeming intense, has not eroded the profitability of the industry because of its

concentration and the fact that the two major players have primarily competed on the basis of

advertising and promotion and not price. Entry is difficult both for reasons of scale and the strong brand

identity of the current major players. Substitutes have not been close enough to take away significant

market share, although the emergence of new substitutes may pose the largest threat to the industry’s

profitability.

Suppliers and Buyers

Suppliers to the soft drink industry are, for the most part, providing commodity products and thus have

little power over the industry. Sugar, bottles and cans are homogeneous goods which can be obtained

from many sources, and the aluminum can industry has been plagued by excess supply. The one

necessary ingredient which is unique is the artificial sweetener; aspartame is clearly preferred by

consumers of diet beverages and for a time was under patent protection and therefore only available

from one supplier. However, the patent expired and another producer entered, reducing the market

power of NutraSweet. Buyers can be considered at the consumer or the retail level. For consumers,

taste will be an important part of the preference for a particular soft drink; thus although there is no

monetary switching

Definition of the Industry

The Soft Drink Industry (SIC 111) consists of establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing non-

alcoholic, carbonated beverages, mineral waters and concentrates and syrups for the manufacture of

carbonated beverages. Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing fruit juices and non-

carbonated fruit drinks are classified in Canned and Preserved Fruit and Vegetable Industry (SIC 1031).

Principal activities and products:

Carbonated beverages;

Aerated waters;

Soft drink preparation carbonating

Mineral and spring waters;

Soft drink concentrates

and syrup; and

SOFT DRINKS

Soft Drink Production area

The market preference is highly regional based. While cola drinks have main markets in metro cities

and northern states of UP, Punjab, Haryana etc. Orange flavored drinks are popular in southern states.

Sodas too are sold largely in southern states besides sale through bars. Western markets have

preference towards mango flavored drinks. Diet coke presently constitutes just 0.7% of the total

carbonated beverage market.

Growth promotional activities

The government has adopted liberalized policies for the soft drink trade to give the industry a boast and

promote the Indian brands internationally. Although the import and manufacture of international brands

like Pepsi and Coke is enhanced in India the local brands are being stabilized by advertisements, good

quality and low cost.

The soft drinks market till early 1990s was in hands of domestic players like campa, thumps up, Limca

etc but with opening up of economy and coming of MNC players Pepsi and Coke the market has come

totally under their control.

The distribution network of Coca cola had6.5 lakh outlets across the country in FY00, which the

company is planning to increase to 8 lakhs by FY01. On the other hand Pepsi Co's distribution network

had 6 lakh outlets across the country during FY00 which it is planning to increase to 7.5 Lakh by FY01.

Types

Soft drinks are available in glass bottles, aluminum cans and PET bottles for home consumption.

Fountains also dispense them in disposable containers Non-alcoholic soft drink beverage market can be

divided into fruit drinks and soft drinks. Soft drinks can be further divided into carbonated and non-

carbonated drinks. Cola, lemon and oranges are carbonated drinks while mango drinks come under non

carbonated category.

The market can also be segmented on the basis of types of products into cola products and non-cola

products. Cola products account for nearly 61-62% of the total soft drinks market. The brands that fall

in this category are Pepsi, Coca- Cola, Thumps Up, diet coke, Diet Pepsi etc. Non-cola segment which

constitutes 36% can be divided into 4 categories based on the types of flavors available, namely:

Orange, Cloudy Lime, Clear Lime and Mango.

Chapter 2

Profile of Coca-Cola India

History of CokeThe Early Days

Coca-Cola was created in 1886 by John Pemberton, a pharmacist in Atlanta, Georgia, who sold the

syrup mixed with fountain water as a potion for mental and physical disorders. The formula changed

hands three more times before Asa D. Candler added carbonation and by 2003, Coca-Cola was the

world’s largest manufacturer, marketer, and distributor of nonalcoholic beverage concentrates and

syrups, with more than 400 widely recognized beverage brands in its portfolio. With the bubbles

making the difference, Coca-Cola was registered as a trademark in 1887 and by 1895, was being sold in

every state and territory in the United States. In 1899, it franchised its bottling operations in the U.S.,

growing quickly to reach 370 franchisees by 1910.10 Headquartered in Atlanta with divisions and local

operations in over 200 countries worldwide, Coca-Cola generated more than 70% of its income outside

the United States by 2003

International expansion

Coke’s first international bottling plants opened in 1906 in Canada, Cuba, and Panama.11 By the end of

the 1920’s Coca-Cola was bottled in twenty-seven countries throughout the world and available in

fifty-one more. In spite of this reach, volume was low, quality inconsistent, and effective advertising a

challenge with language, culture, and government regulation all serving as barriers. Former CEO

Robert Woodruff’s insistence that Coca-Cola wouldn’t “suffer the stigma of being an intrusive

American product,” and instead would use local bottles, caps, machinery, trucks, and personnel

contributed to Coke’s challenges as well with a lack of standard processes and training degrading

quality.12 Coca-Cola continued working for over 80 years on Woodruff’s goal: to make Coke available

wherever and whenever consumers wanted it, “in arm’s reach of desire.”13 The Second

World War proved to be the stimulus Coca-Cola needed to build effective capabilities around the world

and achieve dominant global market share. Woodruff’s patriotic commitment “that every man in

uniform gets a bottle of Coca-Cola for five cents, wherever he is and at whatever cost to our

company”14 was more than just great public relations. As a result of Coke’s status as a military

supplier, Coca-Cola was exempt from sugar rationing and also received government subsidies to build

bottling plants around the world to serve

WWII troops.15

Turn of the Century Growth Imperative

The 1990’s brought a slowdown in sales growth for the Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) industry in the

United States, achieving only 0.2% growth by 2000 (just under 10 billion cases) in contrast to the 5-7%

annual growth experienced during the 1980’s. While per capita consumption throughout the world was

a fraction of the United States’, major beverage companies clearly had to look elsewhere for the growth

their shareholders demanded. The

Coca-Cola India no. 1-0085 looming opportunity for twenty-first century was in the world’s developing

markets with their rapidly growing middle class populations.

The World’s Most Powerful Brand

Interbrand’s Global Brand Scorecard for 2003 ranked Coca-Cola the #1 Brand in the World and

estimated its brand value at $70.45 billion .16 The ranking’s methodology determined a brand’s

valuation on the basis of how much it was likely to earn in the future, distilling the percentage of

revenues that could be credited to the brand, and assessing the brand’s strength to determine the risk of

future earnings forecasts. Considerations included market leadership, stability, and global reach,

incorporating its ability to cross both geographical and cultural borders.17

From the beginning, Coke understood the importance of branding and the creation of a distinct

personality.18 Its catchy, well-liked slogans19 (“It’s the real thing” (1942, 1969),

“Things go better with Coke” (1963), “Coke is it” (1982), “Can’t beat the Feeling” (1987), and a 1992

return to “Can’t beat the real thing”) 20 linked that personality to the core values of each generation and

established Coke as the authentic, relevant, and trusted refreshment of choice across the decades and

around the globe.

Indian History

India is home to one of the most ancient cultures in the world dating back over 5000 years.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, twenty-six different languages were spoken across India,

30% of the population knew English, and greater than 40% were illiterate. At this time, the nation was

in the midst of great transition and the dichotomy between the old India and the new was stark.

Remnants of the caste system existed alongside the world’s top engineering schools and growing

metropolises as the historically agricultural economy shifted into the services sector. In the process,

India had created the world’s largest middle class, second only to China.

A British colony since 1769 when the East India Company gained control of all European trade in the

nation, India gained its independence in 1947 under Mahatma Ghandi and his principles of non-

violence and self-reliance. In the decades that followed, self-reliance was taken to the extreme as many

Indians believed that economic independence was necessary to be truly independent. As a result, the

economy was increasingly regulated and many sectors were restricted to the public sector. This

movement reached its peak in 1977 when the Janta party government came to power and Coca-Cola

was thrown out of the country. In 1991, the first generation of economic reforms was introduced and

liberalization begun.

Coca-Cola was the leading soft drink brand in India until 1977 when it left rather than reveal its

formula to the government and reduce its equity stake as required under the Foreign

Coca-Cola India no. 1-0085

Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) which governed the operations of foreign companies in

India. After a 16-year absence, Coca-Cola returned to India in 1993, cementing its presence with a deal

that gave Coca-Cola ownership of the nation's top soft-drink brands and bottling network. Coke’s

acquisition of local popular Indian brands including Thums Up (the most trusted brand in India21),

Limca, Maaza, Citra and Gold Spot provided not only physical manufacturing, bottling, and

distribution assets but also strong consumer preference. This combination of local and global brands

enabled Coca-Cola to exploit the benefits of global branding and global trends in tastes while also

tapping into traditional domestic markets.

Leading Indian brands joined the Company's international family of brands, including Coca-

Cola, diet Coke, Sprite and Fanta, plus the Schweppes product range. In 2000, the company launched

the Kinley water brand and in 2001, Shock energy drink and the powdered concentrate Sunfill hit the

market.

From 1993 to 2003, Coca-Cola invested more than US$1 billion in India, making it one of the

country’s top international investors.22 By 2003, Coca-Cola India had won the prestigious Woodruf

Cup from among 22 divisions of the Company based on three broad parameters of volume,

profitability, and quality. Coca-Cola India achieved 39% volume growth in 2002 while the industry

grew 23% nationally and the Company reached breakeven profitability in the region for the first

time.23 Encouraged by its 2002 performance,

Coca-Cola India announced plans to double its capacity at an investment of $125 million (Rs. 750

crore) between September 2002 and March 2003.

Coca-Cola India produced its beverages with 7,000 local employees at its twenty-seven wholly-owned

bottling operations supplemented by seventeen franchisee-owned bottling operations and a network of

twenty-nine contract-packers to manufacture a range of products for the company. The complete

manufacturing process had a documented quality control and assurance program including over 400

tests performed throughout the process.

The complexity of the consumer soft drink market demanded a distribution process to support 700,000

retail outlets serviced by a fleet that includes 10-ton trucks, open-bay three wheelers, and trademarked

tricycles and pushcarts that were used to navigate the narrow alleyways of the cities.25 In addition to its

own employees, Coke indirectly created employment for another 125,000 Indians through its

procurement, supply, and distribution networks. Sanjiv Gupta, President and CEO of Coca-Cola India,

joined Coke in 1997 as Vice President, Marketing and was instrumental to the company’s success in

developing a brand relevant to the Indian consumer and in tapping India’s vast rural market potential.

Following his marketing responsibilities, Gupta served as Head of Operations for Company-owned

bottling operations and then as Deputy President. Seen as the driving force behind recent successful

forays into packaged drinking water, powdered drinks, and ready-to-serve tea and coffee, Gupta and his

marketing prowess were critical to the continued growth of coca cola.

The Indian Beverage Market

India’s one billion people, growing middle class, and low per capita consumption of soft drinks made it

a highly contested prize in the global CSD market in the early twenty-first century. Ten percent of the

country’s population lived in urban areas or large cities and drank ten bottles of soda per year while the

vast remainder lived in rural areas, villages, and small towns where annual per capita consumption was

less than four bottles. Coke and Pepsi dominated the market and together had a consolidated market

share above 95%. While soft drinks were once considered products only for the affluent, by 2003 91%

of sales were made to the lower, middle and upper middle classes. Soft drink sales in India grew 76%

between 1998 and 2002, from 5,670 million bottles to over 10,000 million and were expected to grow

at least 10% per year through 2012.28 In spite of this growth, annual per capita consumption was only

6 bottles versus 17 in Pakistan, 73 in Thailand, 173 in the Philippines and 800 in the United States.

With its large population and low consumption, the rural market represented a significant opportunity

for penetration and a critical battleground for market dominance. In 2001, Coca-Cola recognized that to

compete with traditional refreshments including lemon water, green coconut water, fruit juices, tea, and

lassi, competitive pricing was essential. In response, Coke launched a smaller bottle priced at almost

50% of the traditional package.

Marketing cola in India

The post-liberalization period in India saw the comeback of cola but Pepsi had already beaten Coca-

Cola to the punch, creatively entering the market in the 1980’s in advance of liberalization by way of a

joint venture. As early as 1985, Pepsi tried to gain entry into India and finally succeeded with the Pepsi

Foods Limited Project in 1988, as a JV of PepsiCo, Punjab government-owned Punjab Agro Industrial

Corporation (PAIC), and Voltas India Limited. Pepsi was marketed and sold as Lehar Pepsi until 1991

when the use of foreign brands was allowed under the new economic policy and Pepsi ultimately

bought out its partners, becoming a fully-owned subsidiary and ending the JV relationship in 1994.30

While the joint venture was only marginally successful in its own right, it allowed Pepsi to gain

precious early experience with the Indian market and also served as an introduction of the Pepsi brand

to the Indian consumer such that it was well-poised to reap the benefits when liberalization came.

Though Coke benefited from Pepsi creating demand and developing the market, Pepsi’s head-start gave

Coke a disadvantage in the mind of the consumer. Pepsi’s appeal focused on youth and when Coke

entered India in 1993 and approached the market selling an American way of life, it failed to resonate

as expected.31

2001 Marketing Strategy

Coca-Cola CEO Douglas Daft set the direction for the next generation of success for his global brand

with a “Think local, act local” mantra. Recognizing that a single global strategy Coca-Cola India no. 1-

008 or single global campaign wouldn’t work, locally relevant executions became an increasingly

important element of supporting Coke’s global brand strategy.

In 2001, after almost a decade of lagging rival Pepsi in the region, Coke India re-examined its approach

in an attempt to gain leadership in the Indian market and capitalize on significant growth potential,

particularly in rural markets. The foundation of the new strategy grounded brand positioning and

marketing communications in consumer insights, acknowledging that urban versus rural India were two

distinct markets on a variety of important dimensions. The soft drink category’s role in people’s lives,

the degree of differentiation between consumer segments and their reasons for entering the category,

and the degree to which brands in the category projected different perceptions to consumers were

among the many important differences between how urban and rural consumers approached the market

for refreshment.32 In rural markets, where both the soft drink category and individual brands were

, the task was to broaden the brand positioning while in urban markets, with higher category and brand

development, the task was to narrow the brand positioning, focusing on differentiation through offering

unique and compelling value. This lens, informed by consumer insights, gave Coke direction on the

tradeoff between focus and breadth a brand needed in a given market and made clear that to succeed in

either segment, unique marketing strategies were required in urban versus rural India.

Brand Localization Strategy: The Two Indians

India A: “Life ho to aisi”

“India A,” the designation Coca-Cola gave to the market segment including metropolitan areas and

large towns, represented 4% of the country’s population.33 This segment sought social bonding as a

need and responded to a spirational messages, celebrating the benefits of their increasing social and

economic freedoms. “Life ho to aisi,” (life as it should be) was “the successful and relevant tagline

found in Coca-Cola’s advertising to this audience.

India:”Thanda Matlab Coca-Cola”

Coca-Cola India believed that the first brand to offer communication targeted to the smaller towns

would own the rural market and went after that objective with a comprehensive strategy. “India B”

included small towns and rural areas, comprising the other 96% of the nation’s population. This

segment’s primary need was out-of-home thirst-quenching and the soft drink category was

undifferentiated in the minds of rural consumers. Additionally, with an average Coke costing Rs. 10

and an average day’s wages around Rs. 100, Coke was perceived as a luxury that few could afford. 34

In an effort to make the price point of Coke within reach of this high-potential market, Coca-

Cola launched the Accessibility Campaign, introducing a new 200ml bottle, smaller than the traditional

300ml bottle found in urban markets, and concurrently cutting the price in half, to Coca-Cola India no.

1-0085 Rs. 5. This pricing strategy closed the gap between Coke and basic refreshments like lemonade

and tea, making soft drinks truly accessible for the first time. At the same time, Coke invested in

distribution infrastructure to effectively serve a disbursed population and doubled the number of retail

outlets in rural areas from 80,000 in 2001 to 160,000 in 2003, increasing market penetration from 13 to

25%.35 Coke’s advertising and promotion strategy pulled the marketing plan together using local

language and idiomatic expressions. “Thanda,” meaning cool/cold is also generic for cold beverages

and gave “Thanda Matlab Coca-Cola” delicious multiple meanings. Literally translated to “Coke means

refreshment,” the phrase directly addressed both the primary need of this segment for cold refreshment

while at the same time positioning Coke as a “Thanda” or generic cold beverage just like tea, lassi, or

lemonade. As a result of the Thanda campaign, Coca-Cola won Advertiser of the Year and Campaign of

the Year in 2003.

RURAL SUCCESS

Comprising 74% of the country's population, 41% of its middle class, and 58% of its disposable

income, the rural market was an attractive target and it delivered results. Coke experienced 37% growth

in 2003 in this segment versus the 24% growth seen in urban areas.

Driven by the launch of the new Rs. 5 product, per capita consumption doubled between 2001-2003.

CHAPTER 3

PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES AND ITS

PORTFOLIO

PRODUCTION

Bottles of Coca-Cola Zero and Coca-Cola Light

Formula

The exact formula of Coca-Cola is a famous trade secret. The original copy of the formula is held in

SunTrust Bank's main vault in Atlanta. A popular myth states that only two executives have access to

the formula, with each executive having only half the formula. The truth is that while Coca-Cola does

have a rule restricting access to only two executives, each knows the entire formula and others, in

addition to the prescribed duo, have known the formulation process.

Franchised production model

The actual production and distribution of Coca-Cola follows a franchising model. The Coca-Cola

Company only produces a syrup concentrate, which it sells to bottlers throughout the world, who hold

Coca-Cola franchises for one or more geographical areas. The bottlers produce the final drink by

mixing the syrup with filtered water and sweeteners, and then carbonate it before putting it in cans and

bottles.

USE OF STIMULANTS IN FORMULA

When launched Coca-Cola's two key ingredients were cocaine (benzoylmethyl ecgonine) and caffeine.

The cocaine was derived from the coca leaf and the caffeine from kola nut, leading to the name Coca-

Cola (the "K" in Kola was replaced with a "C" for marketing purposes).[26][27]

Coca — Cocaine

Pemberton called for five ounces of coca leaf per gallon of syrup, a significant dose; in 1891, Candler

claimed his formula (altered extensively from Pemberton's original) contained only a tenth of this

amount. Coca-Cola did once contain an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass, but in 1903 it

was removed.[28] Coca-Cola still contains coca flavoring.

After 1904, instead of using fresh leaves, Coca-Cola started using "spent" leaves—the leftovers of the

cocaine-extraction process with cocaine trace levels left over at a molecular.

In the United States, Stepan Company is the only manufacturing plant authorized by the Federal

Government to import and process the coca plant, which it obtains mainly from Peru and, to a lesser

extent, Bolivia. Besides producing the coca flavoring agent for Coca-Cola, Stepan Company extracts

cocaine from the coca leaves, which it sells to Mallinckrodt, a St. Louis, Missouri pharmaceutical

manufacturer that is the only company in the United States licensed to purify cocaine for medicinal use.

Stepan Company buys about 100 metric tons of dried Peruvian coca leaves each year, according to

Marco Castillo, spokesman for Peru's state-owned National Coca Co

Kola nuts — Caffeine

Kola nuts act as a flavoring and the source of caffeine in Coca-Cola. In Britain, for example, the

ingredient label states "Flavourings (Including Caffeine)."[33] Kola nuts contain about 2 percent to 3.5

percent caffeine, are of bitter flavor and are commonly used in cola soft drinks. In 1911, the U.S.

government initiated United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, hoping to force

Coca-Cola to remove caffeine from its formula. The case was decided in favor of Coca-Cola.

Subsequently, in 1912 the U.S. Pure Food and Drug Act was amended, adding caffeine to the list of

"habit-forming" and "deleterious" substances which must be listed on a product's label.

Coca-Cola contains 34 mg of caffeine per 12 fluid ounces, while Diet Coke Caffeine-Free contains

0 mg. Caffeine is an ergogenic aid used to increase the capacity for mental or physical labor.

LOCAL COMPTETIORS

Pepsi is usually second to Coke in sales, but outsells Coca-Cola in some markets. Around the world,

some local brands compete with Coke.In India, Coca-Cola ranked third behind the leader, Pepsi-Cola,

and local drink Thums Up. The Coca-Cola Company purchased Thums Up in 1993. As of 2004, Coca-

Cola held a 60.9% market-share in India. Tropicola, a domestic drink, is served in Cuba instead of

Coca-Cola, due to a United States embargo. French brand Mecca Cola and British brand Qibla Cola,

popular in the Middle East, are competitors to Coca-Cola. In Turkey, Cola Turka is a major competitor

to Coca-Cola. In Iran and many countries of Middle East, Zam Zam Cola and Parsi Cola are major

competitors to Coca-Cola. In some parts of China Future cola is a competitor. In Slovenia, the locally-

produced Cockta is a major competitor to Coca-Cola, as is the inexpensive Mercator Cola, which is

sold only in the country's biggest supermarket chain, Mercator. In Israel, RC Cola is an inexpensive

competitor. Classiko Cola, made by Tiko Group, the largest manufacturing company in Madagascar , is

a serious competitor to Coca-Cola in many regions. Laranjada is the top-selling soft drink on the

Portuguese island of Madeira

BRAND PORTFOLIO

Name Launched Discontinued Notes Picture

Coca-Cola 1886 The original version of Coca-Cola.

Caffeine-Free

Coca-Cola1983

Coca-Cola

Cherry1985

Was available in Canada starting in 1996. Called

"Cherry Coca-Cola (Cherry Coke)" in North

America until 2006. Zero-calorie variant (Coca-

Cola Cherry Zero) also currently available.

New

Coke/"Coca-

Cola II"

1985 2002 Still available in Yap and American Samoa

Coca-Cola

with Lemon2001 2005

Still available in:

American Samoa, Austria, Belgium, Brazil,

China, Denmark, Federation of Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Finland, France, Germany, Hong

Kong, Iceland, Korea, Luxembourg, Macau,

Malaysia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway,

Réunion, Singapore, South Africa, Spain,

Switzerland, Taiwan, Tunisia, United Kingdom,

United States, and West Bank-Gaza

Coca-Cola

Vanilla

2002 2005

Still available in:

Austria, Australia, China, Germany, Hong Kong,

South Africa, New Zealand (600ml only)

Malaysia, Sweden (Imported) and Russia. Was

called "Vanilla Coca-Cola (Vanilla Coke)" during

initial U.S. availability.

2007It was reintroduced in June 2007 by popular

demand

Coca-Cola C2 2003 2007Was only available in Japan, Canada, and the

United States.

Coca-Cola

with Lime2005

Still available in Belgium, Netherlands,

Singapore, and Canada

Coca-Cola

RaspberryJune 2005 End of 2005 Was only available in New Zealand.

Coca-Cola

Zero2005

Coca-Cola M5 2005

Only available in Federation of Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Germany, Italy, Spain, Mexico and

Brazil

Coca-Cola

Black Cherry

Vanilla

2006Middle of

2007Was replaced by Vanilla Coke in June 2007

Coca-Cola

Blāk2006

Beginning of

2008

Only available in the United States, France,

Canada, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic,

Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria

and Lithuania

Coca-Cola

Citra2006

Only available in Federation of Bosnia and

Herzegovina, New Zealand and Japan.

Coca-Cola

Light Sango2006 Only available in France and Belgium.

Coca-Cola

Orange2007

Only available in the United Kingdom and

Gibraltar

Coca-Cola

Classic2008

Introduced in bottle form after Coke Classic in

cans was made. Available in Australia and

theUnited States

PRODUCT PORTFOLIO

We produce, market and sell to customers the most valuable brand in the world, Coca-Cola. In addition

we have a further 90 other non-alcoholic brands and over 700 flavour variants.

A balanced product offering

We are constantly expanding the range of brands and flavours offered to our customers and consumers

across growing non-alcoholic beverage categories, in response to new preferences and tastes.

In broadening our product portfolio of brands, we are offering our consumers more choices than ever.

At the end of 2007, our still and water beverages accounted for approximately 37 per cent of our total

volume.

Our range of ready-to-drink Nestea brands is gaining popularity amongst consumers, as we introduce

new flavours and ingredients offering functional benefits.

With more than 30 water brands in our portfolio, we focus on generating value through the ‘on-the-go’

or immediate consumption occasion.

Expanding consumer choice with innovation

It is important that we are present in every consumption occasion, with the right brand, in the most

appropriate package and across each sales channel. This commitment is being rewarded with a growing

demand for our brands across all beverage categories.

We pride ourselves on thinking ‘outside the bottle’ and consider new ways to broaden our beverage

brand portfolio through brand and packaging innovation.

Nutritional labelling information

In 2007 we began introducing new labels in our European Union (EU) member states to help

consumers understand the calorific content of beverages.

Guideline daily amount (GDA) labels provide at-a-glance information on the calories in a beverage,

along with the sugar, fat, saturated fat and salt content.

These are reported per serving and as a proportion of a healthy diet, the most important piece of

information needed to control weight. Additionally, no- and low-calorie beverages are clearly labelled

on front-of-pack, so that consumers can identify them more easily.

New packaging solutions

We introduced a range of new packaging solutions in 2007 to broaden our brands offering to consumers

and address the trend towards increased convenience.

We continue to steadily expand the availability of our ultra-light glass bottle for our sparkling products,

which ultimately results in a 33 per cent reduction in glass used in bottles.

An elegant 330ml sleek can has been introduced in Italy. This provided significant differentiation in our

largest can market and supported growth of the sparkling category. Burn packaging includes a new

500ml can and an aluminium bottle launched in a number of selected markets.

CHAPTER 4

COMPTETIVE MARKET SHARE OF COCA

COLA IN INDIA

SWOT

SWOT stands for Strengths Weakness Opportunities Threats

SWOT analysis is a technique much used in many general management as well as marketing

scenarios. SWOT consists of examining the current activities of the organisation- its Strengths

and Weakness- and then using this and external research data to set out the Opportunities and

Threats that exist.

SWOT Analysis for Coca-Cola

The following analysis deals only with strengths, opportunities, and threats.

Strengths:

Coca-Cola has been a complex part of American culture for over a century. The product's image

is loaded with over-romanticizing, and this is an image many people have taken deeply to heart.

The Coca-Cola image is displayed on T-shirts, hats, and collectible memorabilia. This

extremely recognizable branding is one of Coca-Cola's greatest strengths. "Enjoyed more than

685 million times a day around the world Coca-Cola stands as a simple, yet powerful symbol of

quality and enjoyment" (Allen, 1995).

Additionally, according to Bettman, et. al, (1998) Coca-Cola's bottling system is one of their

greatest strengths. It allows them to conduct business on a global scale while at the same time

maintain a local approach. The bottling companies are locally owned and operated by

independent business people who are authorized to sell products of the Coca-Cola Company.

Because Coke does not have outright ownership of its bottling network, its main source of

revenue is the sale of concentrate to its bottlers (Bettman, et. al, 1998).

Weaknesses:

Although domestic business as well as many international markets are thriving (volumes in

Latin America were up 12%), Coca-Cola has recently reported some "declines in unit case

volumes in Indonesia and Thailand due to reduced consumer purchasing power." According to

an article in Fortune magazine, "In Japan, unit case sales fell 3% in the second quarter [of

1998]...scary because while Japan generates around 5% of worldwide volume, it contributes

three times as much to profits. Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Japan account for about 35%

of Coke's volume and none of these markets are performing to expectation (Mclean, 1998).

Coca-Cola on the other side has effects on the teeth's which is an issue for health care. It also

has got sugar by which continuous drinking of Coca-Cola may cause health problems. Being

addicted to Coca-Cola also is a health problem, because drinking of Coca-Cola daily has an

effect on your body after few years.

Opportunities:

Brand recognition is the significant factor affecting Coke's competitive position. Coca-Cola's

brand name is known well throughout 94% of the world today. The primary concern over the

past few years has been to get this name brand to be even better known. Packaging changes

have also affected sales and industry positioning, but in general, the public has tended not to be

affected by new products (Allen, 1995).

Coca-Cola's bottling system also allows the company to take advantage of infinite growth

opportunities around the world. This strategy gives Coke the opportunity to service a large

geographic, diverse, area (Bettman, et. al, 1998).

Threats:

Currently, the threat of new viable competitors in the carbonated soft drink industry is not very

substantial. The threat of substitutes, however, is a very real threat. The soft drink industry is

very strong, but consumers are not necessarily married to it. Possible substitutes that

continuously put pressure on both Pepsi and Coke include tea, coffee, juices, milk, and hot

chocolate ("Cola Wars", 1991).

Even though Coca- Cola and Pepsi control nearly 40% of the entire beverage market, the

changing health-consciousness of the market could have a serious affect. Of course, both Coke

and Pepsi have already diversified into these markets, allowing them to have further significant

market shares and offset any losses incurred due to fluctuations in the market ("Cola Wars",

1991).

Consumer buying power also represents a key threat in the industry. The rivalry between Pepsi

and Coke has produce a very slow moving industry in which management must continuously

respond to the changing attitudes and demands of their consumers or face losing market share to

the competition. Furthermore, consumers can easily switch to other beverages with little cost or

consequence ("Cola Wars", 1991).

RANKINGS AS PER BRAND VALUES

HOW COMPTETIVE FORCES SHAPE

STRATEGY

To be successful in any industry, there are five important forces that every company should be aware of

according to Michael E. Porter on his article piece called, “How competitive forces shape strategy.”

These five forces determine the attractiveness of an industry. The five forces are Jockeying for position,

the threat of new entrants, threat of substitute products, the bargaining power of suppliers, and the

bargaining power of customers (Porter). We will look at how these five forces will come into play in

the Cola Industry.

The Cola industry according to the Cola Wars article states that this industry is very competitive

(Yoffie, 2004). The Cola industry is competitive for all companies involved, with the greatest

competition occurring from rival sellers within the industry. The Coca-Cola and the Pepsi-Cola

companies are two good examples for this case. All the Cola companies have to think about are the

pressures from the rival sellers within the industry of the new entrants, the substitute products, the

suppliers, and the buyers.

The competitive pressure from rival sellers is the best competition that Coca-Cola faces in the

Cola industry. From the Cola Wars article, Coke and Pepsi are the two largest competitors in this

industry with Cadbury Schweppes in distant third (Yoffie, 2004). All three of these companies have

expanded globally which leads to a great amount of competition. In the earlier years, the Coca-Cola

Company has been dominating the market in terms of sales but recently Pepsi has been dominant in

domestic sales. Coke still has the number of sales in the global market but Pepsi is not far behind. This

shows how Pepsi is the main competitor for Coke and how both of these companies have been going at

it for years, jockeying for position.

The threat of new entrants does not have a big impact on the Cola industry compared to the

other four competitive forces. The numbers clearly shows that Coke and Pepsi are dominating this

industry through their brand name and their great distribution channels (Yoffie, 2004). In addition, this

industry has almost reached its peak and growth is fairly small. This makes it difficult for new starting

company to start competing with Coke or Pepsi. We should also take into consideration that entering

this industry would probably come with high fixed costs for warehouse, labor, and economies of scale.

With Coke and Pepsi already setting standard prices, it would make it very difficult for new companies

to enter. Therefore, new companies or new entrants are not a strong competitive force in the Cola

industry.

The substitute products in the Cola industry many believe come from the other beverages

industry. The substitutes are bottled water, sports drinks, coffee, and tea (Yoffie, 2004). Sports and

water bottle drinks are becoming more popular with customers in that they are healthier than either

Coke or Pepsi. Coffee and tea on the other hand, are also considered substitutes in that they provide

caffeine. With health, price, and a kick of energy shows the threat of substitute products. Many people

would pick health reasons for picking a substitute. Some would pick a substitute that gives out the same

quality, caffeine in this case. And finally, it might be cheaper to go for the substitute for price sensitive

customers.

The bargaining power of suppliers of the Cola industry deals mostly with the bottling equipment

manufacturers and packaging. In the case of the Coca-Cola Company, the company owns the largest

Coke bottler in the world. Since they own the most of the bottlers, it would give the suppliers little or

no bargaining power. With the equipment manufacturers, they provide the same type products

throughout the Cola industry. This would make it easy for a company to switch to different suppliers.

And this takes away the suppliers’ bargaining power.

The bargaining powers of customers of the Cola industry are mostly grocery stores, discount

stores, and restaurants (Yoffie, 2004). From both articles, it clearly showed the bargaining power of the

customer where the grocery and discount stores would buy large volumes of either Coke or Pepsi

products at a lower price compared to the regular price. Restaurants on the other hand, does not have

that much power in that they purchased fountain drinks and can’t get it in large volumes.

So what did the five competitive forces do for the Cola industry? The five forces showed that

the rivalry within the Cola industry is the driving force of the industry. We see this through the battles

of Coke, Pepsi, and other soft drinks companies. It is also very difficult for new entrants to enter an

industry that has almost reached its peak where most of the things are already played out and comes

with high or fixed standards. The threats of substitute products are in all types of industries where

prices, quality, and performance play a role for each decision. The powers of buyers and sellers are also

important because they are the ones that keep the Cola market going.

MARKETING MIX

Price

For years, Pepsi and Coca-Cola have been engaged in an intense price and market share war. On

one hand, both companies may be using branding to establish brand loyalty among their respective

consumer bases to help increase market share. By creating brand loyalty both companies may be able to

charge a higher price compared to President’s Choice’s cola because each soft drink may have a

devoted following, as such, consumers are willing to pay the higher price for the product they desire.

On the other hand, since cola fits into convenience products under the staples category, customers have

a relatively low reference price. This preference for a low price is an important consideration for both

Pepsi’s and Coca-Cola’s decisions regarding pricing. While maintaining the branding strategy, both

Pepsi and Coca-Cola need to be consciously aware of what competitors are charging, so that these

companies do not make a business-ending mistake of over charging and losing a huge part of their

market share.

An additional pricing factor to be considered by both Pepsi and Coca-Cola is determining the

extent to which mixes of cost-based and value-based pricing strategies are used. The cost-based

strategy may be used to charge a price that is still able to make both companies a profit so that may

maintain a cash-inflow to cover production costs. Additionally, value-based pricing is used by Pepsi

and Coca-Cola, because both companies are selling an image along with their products. Therefore,

consumers expect to pay more as compared to President’s Choice.

Value-based pricing may also be seen in the price variations used by both companies with respect

to where consumers purchase these products. For example, grocery and convenience stores may charge

a lower price as compared to vending machines. This is because vending machines tend to capitalize on

impulse purchasing, whereby consumers may be willing to pay the higher price just for the convenience

of obtaining the product (e.g. Simon Fraser University). However, there are many instances where this

concept does not hold. Observation analysis has concluded that in the locations where President’s

Choice uses vending machines – primarily just outside the grocery stores that sell President’s Choice

products – there is a very minimal difference, if any at all, between the price of their cola inside the

store and that from the vending machine.

President’s Choice in contrast appears to be primarily using cost-based pricing. This company’s

objective may be to target the family oriented, budget conscious consumer, thereby aiming for the

lowest price possible through minimized production costs. However there are many instances where

this concept does not hold. Observation analysis has concluded that in the locations where President’s

Choice uses vending machines – primarily just outside the grocery stores that sell President’s Choice

products – there is a very minimal difference, if any at all, in price of their cola.

Promotion

Pepsi and Coca Cola, the two major players in the cola industry, appear to be spending millions of

dollars annually competing against each other through the use of a mass selling approach via

advertising (Shapiro, et al., 2002). Examples of this approach to advertising include promoting the use

of well-known celebrities and models, such as Michael Jackson, and Cindy Crawford to promote Pepsi.

Currently, Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera have been used to promote Pepsi and Coca-Cola,

respectively. The major difference between these two competitors is the extent to which both use this

type of promotional gimmick. Pepsi has used more celebrities in their commercials than Coca-Cola has.

This strategy of Pepsi to use better-known individuals is an attempt to create a distinguished brand

image. Whereas, Coca-Cola may be appealing to the basic desire of the consumer for a cola-type

product by displaying regular people in everyday life, computer generated polar bears, and other

computer generated visuals to help promote and sell its products.

An additional concept that can be explored between Pepsi and Coca-Cola is the amount of

comparative advertising that Pepsi uses in relation to Coca-Cola. With comparative advertising, one

brand makes a direct comparison to another brand, using specific product names, often making specific

superiority claims (Shapiro, et al., 2002). An example of this is the Pepsi “Taste Test Challenge.” This

promotion consists of Pepsi representatives going to locations where young people can be found, such

as concert venues and malls, and setting up booths to conduct taste-tests with samples of Pepsi and

Coca-Cola. The benefit of this type of promotion is that Pepsi may be able to quickly attract consumers,

because there are usually prizes to be won.

The final concept is reminder advertising, which serves to remind the public of a company’s

product. Pepsi and Coca Cola use reminder advertising by placing their brand names at key locations at

sporting and music events and also by sponsoring these sporting events and movies. For example,

Coca-Cola is one of the official sponsors of the FIFA World Cup competition and is also supporting the

upcoming Warner Bros release of the 2002 movie “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” (Coca-

Cola, 2002, Press Centre).

Promotions may be one of the most dynamic areas of competition for these two competitors,

with each competitor constantly trying to outdo the other. Pepsi is currently working on a promotional

gimmick that may increase overall sales of Pepsi products by a huge margin. They are trying to

negotiate an agreement with the Russian space program whereby a Pepsi consumer could win a ride on

the Russian Soyuz space shuttle. Coca-Cola as of yet has not come up with such a large-scale

promotional gimmick.

President’s Choice’s marketing and promotional tactics do not even come close to the financial power,

and ability to reach a large consumer base that both Pepsi and Coca-Cola have. However, this company

may be seen as differentiating itself from the major players by targeting the family oriented, budget

conscious consumer. President’s Choice’s use very low-key forms of advertising to promote its

products, which include a quarterly produced newsletter, and in-store fliers and promotions (President’s

Choice, 2002, Insider Report). The implications of this low-key approach to advertising is that

President’s Choices advertisements only reach a small portion of the total consumer base – specifically

those consumers who actually go into the Loblaw affiliated grocery stores to shop and also those

consumers who visit the President’s Choice website.

Product

Products may be seen as more than just tangible items, they are also “the need-satisfying offering of a

firm” (Shapiro et al., 2002, pg. 255). Pepsi, Coca Cola, and President’s Choice to a very minor degree,

offer more than just a drink. They try to meet diverse consumer needs by developing different cola-

flavoured products for the market. For example, for the health conscious consumers, all three

competitors supply healthier variations of their cola products such as a diet cola. The following table

illustrates just a few of the other cola products that each firm produces for the Canadian market.

Coca Cola Company PepsiCo President’s Choice

Classic Coke Pepsi Cola Regular Cola

Diet Coke Diet Pepsi Diet Cola

Diet Coke with lemon Pepsi Twist

Vanilla Coke Pepsi Blue

*Information from Coca Cola Company website, PepsiCo website

For some time now, Pepsi and Coca-Cola have been regarded as close substitutes because of the

similar products both companies offer. For example, each brand offers a product that has a lemon

flavour. However, each competitor may also be further focused on gaining a competitive edge in the

soft drink market by concentrating on product differentiation. Two ways Pepsi and Coca-Cola have

accomplished this is by relaunching old products that have been modified or launching brand new

products. This past year may be seen as a testament to this as Coca-Cola relaunched one of its time-

honoured classics – Vanilla-Coke – and Pepsi offered the market a very different soft drink – Pepsi

Blue.

In analyzing President’s Choice products, we can conclude that this company differs from Pepsi

and Coca-Cola in that it delivers the most basic cola products only. As the objective of President’s

Choice is to supply lower-priced quality products, its consumer base may be willing to sacrifice the

famous brands by paying less for relatively equivalent products. In essence, President’s Choice

products try to target those consumers who consider price to be their primary issue, while brand image

and quality may be a secondary issue.

When products are introduced to the market, heavy emphasis must not only be placed on

designing a product that will sell, but also on the packaging of the product. As noted by Farlander

(2000) “the package is the product.” A few qualities that may make a good package are the ease of

purchase and ease of use by the consumer, convenience of storage, and ability to be recyclable. All

three of the competitors have addressed these issues by packaging the products in: easy to carry

cardboard boxes; plastic bottles that allow for effortless dispensing of the product; cylinder shaped cans

that are easy to stack; and recyclable containers. The various package sizes offered in the marketplace

may aid in meeting the diverse needs of consumers.

One main drawback to standardized sizes of these products is that it makes substitution fairly easy.

Thus, to be distinguishable in the market, value-added packaging—creation of the product’s entire

package including container shapes and product colors—is essential (Farlander, 2000). For instance,

Coca-Cola’s original contour bottle has always been the signature shape for its brand (Coca-Cola, 2002,

Our Company – History Bottling). Although Pepsi presented a similar bottle design with “swirls” in

1958, it has not been as successful as Coca-Cola (Pepsiworld, 2002, Current – Company Info – Index).

President’s Choice cola products have an even simpler design. This company’s cola bottles have no

special design, nor do they encompass many graphics or colors on the package. This again is due to the

company’s efforts to provide a low-cost product.

Place

These days, soft drinks can be effortlessly sought out in the marketplace, as they have become a part of

consumer’s daily lives. This degree of product availability is usually determined by local bottlers

(Coca-Cola, 2002, Our Company – Bottling Today). Depending on the local consumer demands and

other market factors, local bottlers decide what to produce and where to sell. Therefore, not all retailers

will sell the same mix of cola products. Additionally, increasing shelf visibility at all possible retail

locations for soft drinks becomes an important issue for attracting more sales volumes. Observation

analysis has concluded that at locations where just Pepsi and Coca-Cola compete, both products occupy

a great deal of shelf space that is relatively at eye level. Some grocery stores display these products at a

large distance from one other. Other grocery stores such as Superstore, where President’s Choice

products are sold, display all three cola brands side by side at eye level. By having these products at eye

level the competitors make it quite simple for the consumer to find and purchase their products.

For the most part, the three brands can be found in a variety of places throughout Canada. Both Pepsi

and Coca-Cola distribute their products to supermarkets, franchise stores, convenience stores,

petroleum dealers, vending machines, and cold vaults (Cherkassky, 2000). However, President’s

Choice colas are only sold in Canadian grocery stores that have an affiliation with Loblaw Ltd., such as

the Real Canadian Superstore, Extra Foods, Atlantic Superstore, and Loblaw’s (President’s Choice,

2002).

STRATEGIC PLANNING

If there is one common theme among the current and future strategic plans, it is each company’s focus

on better serving its customer base and an effort placed on growth. However, there are various nuances

among each of the strategic plans. For example Pepsi’s growth outlook is focused on being the “world's

premiere consumer products company,” (PepsiCo, 2002, Corporate Information) whereas Coca-Cola’s

focus is on “system profitability and capability,” (Coca-Cola, 2002, Corporate Information – 2001

Annual Report). Finally, the outlook for President’s Choice is on expanding its operations through the

acquisition of locations in various provinces to establish “enlarged stores of sufficient size to

accommodate an expanded array of non-food products,” (Loblaw, 2002, 2001 Annual Report). From

this, we can conclude that Pepsi centers its future position on satisfying the customer, Coca-cola centers

its attention on profits, and the outlook for President’s Choice is expansion and enlargement.

Strategic planning would be a fairly simple task of setting goals, expectations, policies, and

guidelines, if each competitor had no external factors affecting their decisions. However, by existing in

an open system, businesses must pay attention to macro-environment factors in order to survive.

CRITICISMS

The Coca-Cola Company has been criticized for its business practices, such as high levels of pesticides in the developing world and alleged use of paramilitary squads in South America; critics also claim its flagship product has adverse health effects and is aggressively marketed .

CONCLUSIONThe Coca-Cola Company exists to benefit and refresh everyone it touches. Our Company being the world's leading manufacturer, marketer, and distributor of non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups, used to produce nearly 400 beverage brands.With our experience, position and great ideas Coca-Cola Company continues to be the most leading company in the world. From the small beginning till our day’s customers are the reason the company exists for. So it‘s up to you weather you choose Coca Cola or not.

The paper presents the case of Coca-Cola India, the company which was on the heels of promising future growth and was very well utilizing its global brand name to gain market share in Indian emerging market. Its long term strategy was very much aligned with promising future growth of Indian economy and soft drink industry. But with the growth of economy and industry, the paper emphasizes certain other factors that need to be considered. Among these factors are political uncertainties, bureaucratic hurdles, various NGOs and effect on local stakeholders.   One institutional void was the difference between European standards and Indian standards (finalized but yet to be implemented) which played an important role to restrict the growth of Coca-Cola in spite of its promising future projections. The paper discusses various controversies including pesticide issue that NGO raised in 2003 and with the immediate effect; several states banned the sale of Coca-Cola due to strong hold of regional parties and anti globalization NGOs, even though central government did not issue any immediate enquiry. Coca-Cola’s image was severely damaged and sales volume was badly affected. Even after 2007, consumption of carbonates still considered to be an issue of debate. The paper presents the business dilemma that Coca-Cola India faced to regain its image and trust in Indian market. Although Coca Cola was able to boost its sale by 13% in the first quarter of 2008 yet these statistics are much lower than actual sales projections. There are certain practices and strategies which could help companies to avoid this type of situation and multinationals can continue to have long term promising future growth even after the presence of NGOs and other types of business risks in an environment of political uncertainty. In the last section, paper describes the course of action that can help other companies to avoid the type of dilemma, Coca Cola India faced.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEBSITES:

www.cocacola.com www.zeenews.com www.businessdictionary.com www.encyclopedia.com www.google.com

BOOKS AND JOURNALS

Marketing management ,13th edition , philip kotler. Business today on coca cola.