Abstract
This paper discusses PepsiCo and its incisive marketing strategies that have led it to dominate its primary competitor, Coke, in total overall sales. PepsiCo has utilized a strategy of acquisition and smart product line extensions that have anticipated major cultural and social shifts in the beverage and snack industry. Led by its snack division, Frito-Lay, PepsiCo has forced Coke to be reactive and perpetually trying to catch up.

From the Paper
"PepsiCo, outside of the cola segment, has come to dominate is primary competitor, Coke, in a way that Coke never did during the height of its own dominance. Much of PepsiCo's success has been, as some analysts point out, due to a willingness to move out of its traditional market segments, either through organic growth or acquisition, and introduce new products that seem to capture the cultural zeitgeist of the moment: To capitalize on the growing market for New Age herbally enhanced beverages...the company acquired SoBe Beverages for $370 million in 2001...the company has extended the brand with such offerings as the energy drink SoBe No Fear, SoBe Synergy targeted at the school-aged market with 50% juice, and SoBe Fuerte, aimed at the Hispanic market.(Brady par.2) The brilliance of PepsiCo's marketing strategies is all the more..."

Tags:pepsico, coke, strategic

Abstract
The paper reveals that the Coke bottle is one of the most recognizable material artefacts in the world; its shape and distinctive label is recognized globally. The paper discusses how for some, it evokes warm, fuzzy feelings, and for others, it invokes a paroxysm of anti-capitalist or anti-American feelings. The paper further explains how it may evoke arguments about art vs. commodities, or about West vs. Islam.

From the Paper
"The Coke bottle is one of the most recognizable material artefacts in the world. Its shape and distinctive label is recognized globally. For some it evokes warm, fuzzy feelings, and for others it invokes a paroxysm of anti-capitalist or anti-American feelings. It may evoke arguments about art vs. commodities, or about West vs. Islam. In the USA, your attitude to the bottle may depend on which side of the colour divide you fall on. Love it or hate it, it is unquestionably an important aspect of contemporary material culture. This essay examines the not-so-humble Coke bottle, with specific reference to its status as a global meta-commodity or..."

Tags:sign, symbol, coke

Abstract
The paper discusses the marketing device that Coke and PepsiCo each use in their advertising strategies of specifically referring to the others' products. In some ways this is counter-productive since it indirectly elevates the market awareness of the competitor's products. Yet, since these two companies dominate the cola market it behooves them to ensure that the market perceives the benefits of their specific product in relation to the other. The paper also looks at how PepsiCo has finally managed to overtake Coke in overall market share and performance.

From the Paper
"PepsiCo is popularly associated with its flagship product Pepsi Cola. Since Pepsi Cola is a sizable portion of PepsiCo's revenue stream, PepsiCo has always struggled to confront Coke's market dominance through advertising which often portrays Pepsi Cola in head to head comparisons to Coca-Cola (Overview). The result is that both companies' products are often portrayed in each others' advertisements. PepsiCo's Pepsi Cola has long been second in market share to Coca-Cola and the competition between Pepsi and Coke has been the stuff of business school legend for many years. However, recently, thanks to a series of strategic acquisitions and marketing campaigns run internationally, PepsiCo has finally overtaken Coke in overall market share and performance: "PEPSICO...has raced ahead of...Coke.."

Tags:coca, cola, pepsico, marketing

Abstract
The paper examines the Coke bottle, with specific reference to its status as a global meta-commodity or meta-symbol. The paper explores how material artifacts provide valuable insights into what is important to a culture. The paper analyzes the film "The Gods Must be Crazy", which illustrates how even the most powerful meta-symbol is powerful only because of its connotations and associations. The paper concludes by emphasizing how material artifacts affect our lives.

From the Paper
"The Coke bottle is one of the most recognizable material artefacts in the world. Its shape and distinctive label is recognized globally. For some it evokes warm, fuzzy feelings, and for others it invokes a paroxysm of anti-capitalist or anti-American feelings. It may evoke arguments about art vs. commodities, or about West vs. Islam. In the USA, your attitude to the bottle may depend on which side of the colour divide you fall on. Love it or hate it, it is unquestionably an important aspect of contemporary material culture."

Tags:culture, status, meta-symbol, materialism, capitalism

Abstract
This paper looks at the differences in Coke's and Pepsi's financial performance in 2004 and expected earnings for 2005. The paper also explains how each company's ethical code of conduct and mission statement affects the success of the respective companies.

From the Paper
"PepsiCo is on an upswing, Coca-Cola is headed in the opposite direction. For 2004, Pepsis' net income rose to $457 million, or $1.73 a share, from the previous year's $416 million, $1.50 a share (Pepsi Bottling Group 4Q profit increases). For 2005, Pepsi expects earnings of $1.78 to $1.87 per share. Coca-Cola has not yet released full year 2004 results. However, for the first nine months of the year, its net income declined to $514 million, or $1.09 a share, from the prior year's $545 million, or $1.19 a share (Coca-Cola Enterprises' profit falls). For the full year 2004, Coca-Cola expects earning of $1.21 to $1.25 a share and has recently cut long-term growth targets for operating income to a range of six percent to eight percent from ten percent. Shares of PepsiCo have outperformed those of Coca-Cola for two decades (Twitchell, 2004). In the past five years, Pepsi's stock has returned sixty-nine percent, while Coke investors have lost more than twenty percent of their money."

Tags:soft, drink, market, saturated, international, growth, snack, business, reputation

Abstract
This paper examines the similarities and differences of the marketing environment and strategies of Coca Cola and Pepsi. The paper discusses these two corporation's ongoing battle for global soft drink domination. The paper describes how Coke and Pepsi share the same demographics, economic conditions, competition, social and cultural facets, technology, and political and legal problems inherent with each of their markets. The paper explains that the external macro environments are similar for each, but how they both use their marketing programs involve different tactics and strategies.

From the Paper
"One micro external environment advantage both Pepsi and Coke enjoy is their extensive distribution, or marketing intermediaries. These distributors increase their profits by producing and selling the products directly to customers at the local level. Pepsi and Coke use these firms and distributors to make their large profits in exchange for their knowledge and their soft drink bases and concentrates."

Tags:soft, drink, micro, macro, industry, corporation, global, cola, diet

From the Paper
"TABLE OF CONTENTS

Industry Overview 1

Coke and Pepsi as Industry Leaders 2

Future Prospects 5

Conclusion 9

Table 1: Top Ten Soft Drinks 12

Table 2: Domestic Soft Drink Market 13

Bibliography 14

The Beverage Industry: Coke vs. Pepsi

Industry Overview
Just before the turn of the century, prospective soft drinks were being formulated by southern pharmacists, with an eye towards relieving indigestion (Hoover's, 1995). From the first decade of the twentieth century until the 1960s, the competition in the beverage industry was primarily between equals; Coca Cola fought it out with Pepsi Cola for market share, and juice or coffee companies competed with each other.
In the 1960s, the competitive edge in the beverage industry went to Coca Cola, with its purchase of Minute Maid in 1960, the introduction of Sprite in 1961, and the introduction of Tab in 1963 (Hoover's, 1995)."

Abstract
This paper examines the PepsiCo company, a company that is popularly associated with its flagship product Pepsi Cola. The paper explains that, while Pepsi Cola is a sizable portion of PepsiCo's revenue stream, PepsiCo actually has significant revenue generated from a slew of other products and divisions such as PepsiCo Beverages North America, PepsiCo International, Frito-Lay and Quaker Foods North America. The paper also looks at how PepsiCo's Pepsi Cola has long been second in market share to Coca-Cola and how the competition between Pepsi and Coke has been the stuff of business school legend for many years. However, thanks to a series of strategic acquisitions and market entry moves internationally, PepsiCo as a company has finally overtaken Coke in overall market share and performance. It could be said that PepsiCo has lost the cola battle but won the overall war with its arch-rival Coca-Cola Company.

Tags:coke, pepsi, financial

Abstract
This paper reviews the shortcomings of the decision-making process that the Coca-cola experienced in their development, introduction and marketing of its "New Coke" as presented in this case study. Coca-cola should return to the basics, the author recommends, by reviewing its mission vision, evaluating its SWOT and properly assessing the status of its core business and its capacity to sustain its auxiliary endeavors. The paper concludes that this case demonstrates that even the biggest companies like Coca-Cola can fail and that one can never know its consumer too well.

Table of Contents:
Introduction
Enough is not Quite Enough
Coke New coke: The 'Real Thing', No More
Hit or (Mis)Management
Fizzy-Fuzzy Sighted
The Ultimate Frenemy: Loyalty
Coke is Sweeter the Second Time Around
Conclusion and Recommendations

From the Paper
"But, as with companies in their size and league, Coca-cola wanted to have their cake and eat it too! Thinking they could hit three birds (i.e. please their current market, reach out to a younger clique, and ultimately beat Pepsi) in one stone, they naively ventured into reformulation, giving more into the taste preferences of their target market, and alienating their older consumer base. Surely, this explains the mixed messages, where advertisements everywhere were proclaiming a less sweet New Coke, when their formula in truth was much sweeter."

Tags:sweeter, competitive edge, reformulation, decision-making mechanisms, core business

Abstract
This paper discusses and compares the soft drink companies that produce Coca Cola and Pepsi, giants within their respected industry. The paper contends that each company has its own unique way to reach the consumer, which is the ultimate company goal. The paper discusses how these two companies really match up against each other. Are they both giants of the same size, or does one have more net worth than the other? Is it Coke or Pepsi you'll be having today?

From the Paper
"Coca-Cola was created on May 8, 1886 by Dr. John Stith Pemberton, an Atlanta Pharmacist. Pemberton was curious about the caramel-colored liquid he created so he took the syrup a few doors down to Jacobs' Pharmacy. The syrup was mixed with carbonated water and the rest is effervescent history. During the first year Jacobs' pharmacy sold about nine glasses of Coca-Cola a day at five cents per glass. In the 119 years since then, Coca-Cola has produced 10 Billion gallons of syrup which are used to produce more than 400 different brands of beverages today. Dr. Pemberton was a great inventor to create the ingredients for the most popular soft drink in the world, but not the smartest businessman. In 1891 Dr. Pemberton sold the company to an Atlanta businessman, Asa Griggs Candler, for $2,300."

Tags:beverages, pemberton, carbonated