Significance of Environmental Analysis Essay Example

Significance of Environmental Analysis Paper Environment refers to all factors, the forces of influence of which have a bearing on functioning of the business. These factors may be internal such as the personnel and internal mechanism of the organization; or external such as competition, government policies, customer preferences, etc. Internal factors are controllable in nature. They include human resources, financial strength, marketing resources, physical assets, technological competitiveness, management structure and nature, company image and brand equity, value system, etc. These factors highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the organization. Weaknesses must be minimized or they may prove fatal to its survival. External factors are beyond the control Of the organization. They refer to the external environment – Macro-environment (General environment) as well as Micro-environment (Operating environment). Micro-environmental factors tend to have a direct impact on the firm and are more intimately linked with the company than Macro-environmental factors. Micro- environmental factors include customers, competitors, channel intermediaries, suppliers, etc. Macro-environmental factors may be Demographic such as population size and density, literacy rate; Economic such as economic and fiscal policies of government, national and international trade situation, demand and supply factors; Physical environment and ecological factors such as availability Of natural resources, pollution situation; Technological factors such as availability of latest and competitive technology; or Political and Legal factors such as structure of legislature and stability of ruling political party. The success of every business firm or organization depends on adapting itself to the environment within which it operates. For example, when there is a change in the government policies, it has to make necessary changes to adapt it to new policies. Similarly, a change in technology may render existing reduces obsolete, as we have seen that the introduction of computer has replaced the typewriters. Again a change in the fashion or customers’ taste may shift th e demand in the market for a particular product, e. We will write a custom essay sample on Significance of Environmental Analysis specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Significance of Environmental Analysis specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Significance of Environmental Analysis specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer . , the demand for jeans reduced the sale of other traditional wear. Hence, it is very necessary to have a clear understanding of the concept of business environment and the nature of its various components. Strategic Management Every business must have a strategic management mechanism in order to ensure its survival in the present competitive world. Strategic management involves formulating, implementing and evaluating Ross functional decisions that will enable the organization to achieve its objectives. It is the process of specifying the organization’s objectives, developing policies and plans to achieve these objectives and allocating resources to implement the policies and plans to achieve the organization’s objectives. It, therefore, combines the activities of all the various functional areas. It ensures correct direction for the enterprise. Strategic management does not replace traditional management activities such as budgeting, planning, monitoring, marketing, reporting and controlling. Rather, it integrates them into a broader context, taking into count the external environment, internal organizational capabilities and organization’s overall purpose and direction. It is an ongoing process that assesses the business environment, sets goals and plans to meet the prevailing competitiveness, and evaluates the performance of the enterprise, thus creating a fit between the organization and its external environment and providing a process of coping with change and organizational renewal. STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PROCESS [pick] Environmental Analysis Organizations scan the environment in order to understand the external forces of change so that they may develop effective responses which secure r improve their position in the future. They scan in order to avoid surprises, identify threats and opportunities, gain competitive advantage, and improve long- and short-term planning. Organizations usually scan their environments randomly, regularly as well as continuously. To the extent that an organization’s ability to adapt to its outside environment is dependent on knowing and interpreting the external changes that are taking place, environmental scanning constitutes a primary mode of organizational learning. Environmental scanning includes both looking at information (viewing) and looking for information (searching). Environmental scanning is considered as one of the critical ingredients in the strategic formulation process. It can provide early warning signals to organizations from emerging environmental uncertainties, risks, threats and opportunities and hence reduce the chance of being blindly shielded. With effective environmental scanning, organizations would be able to obtain more accurate market and industry insights, and thereby be more likely to satisfy current customers and explore new market segments, successfully develop and market a new product or service based on trend analysis, or establish a utter brand image, all Of which would ultimately contribute to the financial performance. MEANING DEFINITION Environmental Scanning means an examination and study of the environment of a business unit in order to identify its survival and prosperity chances. It means observing the business environment both external and internal and understanding its implications for business opportunities. It also involves knowing beforehand the risks and uncertainties as well as threats to the business unit. Environmental Analysis is the monitoring, evaluating and disseminating of information from the external and the internal environment to key people thin the organization. It IS a process of gathering, analyzing and dispensing information for tactical or strategic purposes. The environmental scanning process entails obtaining both factual and subjective information on the business environments in which a company is operating or considering entering. Definitions â€Å"The process by which strategists monitor the economic, governmental/ legal, market/competitive, supplier/technological, geographic and social settings to determine opportunities and threats to their firms† â€Å"Environmental Analysis is the monitoring evaluating and disseminating f information from the external and the internal environment to key people within the corporation† Conceptual Map [pick HISTORY The idea of environmental scanning was developed by Jugular (1 967: Introduction). Jugulars definition was widely adopted in scanning literature (e. . , Albright in 2004; Coho in 1993. Later studies reinforced his definition without substantially altering this perspective, but more attention was given to searching than viewing, and environmental scanning was gradually extended to be a more complete and systematic information process. Daft and Wick (1984) looked at environmental scanning as an organization learning process, which could be divided into scanning (information seeking), interpretation (giving meaning to the collected data) and learning (taking action based on the data). Lester and Waters (1989) defined environmental scanning as a management process with three key components, I. E. Obtaining, analyzing and using information about the environment. Hough and White (2004) view environment scanning as a sequence of procedures of identifying, collecting, processing and translating information about external influences into useful decisions and plans. Albright (2004) defined environmental scanning as the internal immunization of external information about issues that may potentially influence an organization’s decision-making process. Albright suggests that a formal environmental scanning process has five integrally linked steps: identifying the organization’s scanning needs of the organization, gathering the information, analyzing the information, communicating the results, and making informed decisions. IMPORTANCE Environmental Scanning is essential because of following reasons: 1) Prime Influence Environment is a prime influence on the effectiveness of business strategies. If strategic planning is done without considering environment, it is keel to be defective. Besides, the success of the implementation of the strategy depends on the environmental factors. 2) A tool to anticipate Changes Environmental scanning is a very useful tool not only to understand business surroundings, but also as a good instrument to anticipate the changes and be prepared to face the challenges of such changes. 3) Time for adjustment A business unit cannot change the business activities overnight. It needs time to adjust with the changing environment. If it has to face the changed environment suddenly, it may be possible to make immediate hangers according to the demand of the changed environment.

Catalase lab report Essays

Catalase lab report Essays Catalase lab report Paper Catalase lab report Paper However, once this optimal temperature has been passed, the enzyme becomes less effective. A good comparison for the impact of temperature would be running. There is an optimal temperature at which every runner runs. If it is too hot or too cold, the runner may not run as fast as they could if it were, for example, 10 co. However, the reason temperature impacts enzymes in that matter is due to kinetic energy. As the temperature increases, the kinetic energy also increases. At the optimal temperature, the molecules are moving as fast as they can without breaking bonds. If the speed is surpassed, bonds begin to break and he enzyme becomes less effective. The purpose of this lab is to test the effects of different variables mixed with the reaction of hydrogen peroxide and yeast, yeast being the catalane. The variables that will be changed are temperature, pH, and concentration. Our class began a lab based around enzymes and how they react when different variables are changed, such as temperature, pH, and concentration of the yeast or hydrogen peroxide. The yeast acted as the enzyme, which produces catalane needed for our desired reaction with the hydrogen peroxide. What had to be wanted to measure was how well it reacted when the rabbles were changed. First off, the class needed to find a way to measure this. After you told us that the reaction would give off oxygen gas, it was realized that the oxygen being created in the reaction could displace water to measure how much oxygen gas is being given off. Next came setting up the lab. Each group received and set up with a small glass bottle (including a rubber cork with a long rubber tube), a tall graduate glass cylinder, an arm to hold said graduated cylinder, a few smaller graduated glass cylinders, a thermometer, and a rubber tub. Before the groups were remitted to delve into the experiment, a control for the rate of the chemical reaction needed to be established. Each group then filled their rubber tub almost to the top with water which was allowed to sit until the water was about room temperature (about 22 co). Once the water was about room temperature, everyone filled the large graduated glass cylinder completely with water and slid it upside-down into the arm to hold the lip just below the surface of the water. Sam then filled one small graduated cylinder with 5 ml of yeast and Bridget filled the other with 5 ml of hydrogen peroxide. The yeast was poured into the small glass bottle, and the hydrogen peroxide was added second. The cap with the rubber tube was placed on quickly, and it was placed underwater just as quickly. The rubber tube coming from the cork was then slid up into the tall graduated glass cylinder, and Bridget began timing. Every twenty seconds across 5 minutes, Sam would write down how much oxygen gas had displaced the water (see Control graph and for the results). Now that a control had been established, the next step was to test the effects of different pH in the solution. Our first pH that was tested was pH 4. Sam added 2 ml of this to the yeast, and began timing. After she finished recording the data, our group moved onto pH 8. Subsequent to pH 8 was pH 10 (see pH graph and for results). Another variable that was tested was the temperature of the water the reaction occurred in. The first temperature that was tested by the groups was 5 co. The bucket was filled with the water, 5 ml of yeast and of hydrogen peroxide were poured into the small glass bottle. After 5 minutes, the water was poured out and the experiment was performed with 37 co water. Finally, it was tried with boiling water. The results for boiling water will not be close to the normal, however, as one group was not able to get to this point, cutting the average in half (see Temperature graph and for results). The third variable that was tested was the concentration. In the control, there were 5 ml of yeast and 5 ml of hydrogen peroxide used for the reaction. However, in this test, the amount of yeast was lowered from 5 ml to 4, to 3, and then to 2 (see Concentration graph and for results). In the control, there is only 1 line as it was the average of all groups basic reaction. It is a rough arc, as over time, the reaction began to slow down. The reason for it being bumpy is merely that neither the groups nor the experiment is perfect. If that was the case, it would be a perfect arc. In the pH graph, the lines are more rigid than that of the control, suggesting that the amount of oxygen in the vile increased at a more steady rate than in the control. As you can see, the different levels of pH affected the strength of the reaction quite significantly, the strongest reaction being about ten ml of oxygen short of the amount of oxygen in the control, with the other two pH levels bringing down the reaction strength even further. My hypothesis was initially the more basic, the stronger, as a pH often was the strongest of the reactions. However, after looking at it a second time, I realized that pH four was stronger than pH eight. My new hypothesis was that the further from neutral, the more powerful the reaction. But, upon looking a third, time, a new flaw appeared in my hypothesis. There is a difference of three between seven and four as well as ten and four. So, my third and final hypothesis was that the pH further from neutral would be more significant, as well as bases being more powerful than acids. Unfortunately, as unable to test this theory of mine as I didnt have any other bases or acids with a known level handy at the moment. For temperature, the lines appear to have a much smoother curve, especially 37 co, as well as steeper. This implies that the reaction rate slowed at a much more incremental rate, instead of a steady or slower speed. Another thing this would imply is that the enzyme is more effective at the beginning, but less affective towards the end. It was obvious that boiling water was well past the optimal reaction temperature, and 5 co quite obviously fell short as well. Co was the closest to optimal, but one could infer that this was also past optimal temperature, as room temperature (about 22 co) had a much stronger reaction. Since 5 co is 17 co less than 22 co, and 37 co is only 15 co away, my guess would be that room temperature is also past the optimal temperature. What the optimal temperature is remains unclear to me at the moment, but if I had to guess I w ould say about 16 co would be optimal for this reaction. Again, I have insufficient supplies to test my theory, so am not sure. Lastly is the concentration. The curves appear to be more gradual Han temperature and control, but less steady than PH. The reaction rates for concentration are also some of the closer reaction rates to that of the control. Since there is a decrease in the strength with each lower dosage of yeast, one can assume that the concentration of yeast and hydrogen peroxide should be similar, or perhaps even a higher concentration of yeast than there is hydrogen peroxide. From this graph, information is much harder to infer, but my assumption is that there should be either a 6:5 or 7:5 ratio of yeast and hydrogen peroxide, respectively. But, once again, I am uncertain, as there is a lack of supplies in my home to perform science experiments. Of course, if you were to mix variables, the results from changing only one variable would be essentially useless other than the results for one to compare to, as the impact of changing two variables instead of one is similar to multiplying two numbers or three numbers. Some results may be similar, some may be drastically different. You would need to retest using each variable again as their effects on one another are unpredicted (unless you study this sort of thing for a living, which i do not).

Classic Chemical Volcano - Ammonium Dichromate

Classic Chemical Volcano - Ammonium Dichromate Vesuvius Fire Introduction The eruption of an ammonium dichromate [(NH4)2Cr2O7] volcano is a classic chemistry demonstration. The ammonium dichromate glows and emits sparks as it decomposes and produces copious amounts of green chromium (III) oxide ash. This demonstration is simple to prepare and perform. The decomposition of ammonium dichromate commences at 180Â °C, becoming self-sustaining at ~225Â °C. The oxidant (Cr6) and the reductant (N3-) are present in the same molecule. (NH4)2Cr2O7 → Cr2O3 4 H2O N2 The procedure works well in both a lighted or darkened room. Materials ~20 grams of ammonium dichromatesand tray or ceramic tile, for use in ventilation hood OR5-liter round bottom flask and porcelain filtering funnelgas burner (e.g., Bunsen) ORbutane lighter or match, for use with flammable liquid (e.g., ethanol, acetone) Procedure If you are using a hood: Make a pile (volcanic cone) or ammonium dichromate on a tile or tray of sand.Use a gas burner to heat the tip of the pile until the reaction begins or dampen the tip of the cone with a flammable liquid and light it with a lighter or match. If you are not using a ventilation hood: Pour the ammonium dichromate into a large flask.Cap the flask with a filtration funnel, which will prevent the majority of the chromium (III) oxide from escaping.Apply heat to the bottom of the flask until the reaction begins. Notes Chromium III and chromium VI, as well at its compounds, including ammonium dichromate, are known carcinogens. Chromium will irritate the mucous membranes. Therefore, take care to perform this demonstration in a well-ventilated area (preferably a ventilation hood) and avoid skin contact or inhalation of the materials. Wear gloves and safety goggles when handling ammonium dichromate. References B.Z. Shakhashiri, Chemical Demonstrations: A Handbook for Teachers of Chemistry, Vol. 1, University of Wisconsin Press, 1986, pp. 81-82. mistry.about.com/library/weekly/mpreviss.htmMore Chemistry Articles

Corporate Communication Strategy-Toyota case Essay

Corporate Communication Strategy-Toyota case - Essay Example The unintended acceleration was attributed to floor mat issues, brakes and sticky gas pedal. The company has since recalled nearly 8 million cars of different models that were deemed to have potential problems with gas pedal mechanism which could lead to unintended acceleration (McKenzie & Scott, 2010). 2. Environmental scanning of the company Toyota has enjoyed an unblemished reputation within the auto industry. In the fast transforming business dynamics, the various environmental factors become crucial paradigms to maintain competitive advantage within the industry. PESTLE and SWOT analysis become vital tools for firms to identify and evaluate elements that can help them compete and succeed in the highly competitive business environment (Burnes, 2009). They promote the wider understanding of socio-political environment within which the firms operate. They were conducted to understand Toyota’s market position prior to the crisis and how it was impacted in post crisis period. (Refer to Appendix A) 2a. PESTLE analysis for America In the current environment of rapid globalization, practice of international businesses is considerably impacted by the different political, economic and legal systems of nations (Hills, 2004). The businesses therefore need to become more flexible and adapt to the changing technologies and work environments. PESTLE analysis of Toyota has been conducted for America because the case focuses on the Toyota’s American market and the performance and quality of its various models in America. PESTLE has emerged as critical issues that need to be incorporated within the business strategy when firms expand across globe. 2a.1 Political environment America is one of the largest democratic states of the world. The public is hugely empowered with information and the socio-political environment promotes proactive participation of people in issues which affect them. Thus, businesses need to be more accountable in their actions and take in to account the expectations of the people at large. The sticky pedal case of Toyota had drawn more public attention towards the firm undermining it’s hitherto brand reputation of quality, dependability and value. 2a.2 Economic It is a very important factor because the market is driven by the demand and supply that is mainly dependent on the buying capacity of the consumers. It has big market in America. Despite the current environment of recession, the networking solutions have become the critical part of industrial success and therefore, an intrinsic part of business strategy. Toyota therefore has huge economic stake in the American market and needed to restore public trust by responding favourably to the crisis situation. 2a.3 Socio-cultural paradigm There is huge socio-cultural diversity amongst the masses. With multi-cultural society, the demographic factors are vital ingredients that have huge cascading effect on the market. The demographic changes vis-a-vis population s ize, age distribution, gender ratio, income group etc. have immense influence on the changing consumer preferences and consequently on the profitability of the firm. Kotler et al (2007) emphasize that in the fast changing global business, demographic compulsions have significant impact on market position and therefore, they need to become intrinsic part of the market strategy of the

Initial Public Offers for Global Firms Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Initial Public Offers for Global Firms - Essay Example Initial Public Offers for Global Firms: Risks and Laws for Mitigating the RisksRisks Associated with Global Firms’ IPOsGlobal firms face relatively more challenges when launching IPOs because of the diversity of environments they trade in. For instance, an IPO may face the risk of failure due to negative perceptions by investors of the firm’s country of inception. The legal requirement for full disclosure ensures investor confidence, thereby shielding against this type of risk. Equally, countries face political risk; a risk emanating from a change in host country’s policies towards the country of inception. The Byrd Amendment cautions firms against discriminate treatment on political grounds since such is also the violation of the rights of American investors in a foreign firm (Tolar et al, 2011).Foreign Exchange RisksWhen floating an IPO in a foreign country, there is the relative risk of losing out due to unstable currency exchange rates. To effectively elimina te the risk of losing investment money through currency fluctuations, the management of the global firm may decide to trade in a more stable currency. Alternatively, the firm’s management may decide to price their investments and commodities at prices that reflect the foreign exchange projections over a safe period of time. The firm could also arrange for a forward exchange contract. Â  

Implications of the Study Essay Example for Free

Implications of the Study Essay The study of Willard and Luker actually notes the factor that contributes to the capabilities of the health institutions and their staff in handling the preferences of their patients especially that of the issues regarding EOL or the End of Life situations. People are usually concerned on their preferences with which they are to entrust their health with either for medication or simply for therapy. The issues that were particularly dealt with in the journal presented by Willard and Luker were pointing to the capabilities of the nurses and other medical staff officers present in the hospitals to make their patients feel the assurance that they are to be given the best service and care that they are due as clients of the medical industries. From this particular article, it could be noted that the role of nurses as caregivers in the medical institutions play a great role in the process of keeping up with the reputation of the medical industries. Their skills and their natural want of serving the values of their patients the best way that they can involves not only their willingness of becoming the best in the filed but also the aim of becoming a great help to the society that they are particularly serving. Implications of the Study What the article points out as part of the study is that the nurses have a great part in understanding the needs of their patients. This particularly coincides with the ideal practices of nursing as per noted through the writings and philosophies of Faye Abdelah. â€Å"A nurse is a person who nourishes, fosters, and protects—a person who is prepared to care for the sick, injured, and aged. †(Nursing in Today’s World—Challenges, Issues, and Trends, 2) UNSELFISHNESS, though essential, is not enough to make a proficient nurse. Good nurses also need extensive training and a breadth of experience. One essential requirement is from one to four years or more of study and practical training. But what qualities make a good nurse? Faye Glenn Abdellah’s book on â€Å"Patient-Centered Approach to Nursing† (1960) answers those queries basing from real life experiences and practical application of the said nursing theory. As reported in a survey made by the Awake magazine regarding the real qualities making up a good nurse, many answered almost the same ideas about the issue. Carmen Gilmartin, of Spain puts it this way: â€Å"The doctor heals, but the nurse cares for the patient. This often requires building up patients that have been damaged both inside and outside when, for example, they are informed that they have a chronic disease or will face imminent death. You have to be a mother to the sick person. † It is really true that aside from Abdellah , many nurses around the world believes that being able to empathize with the patients that the nurses are caring for. How is this so? The theory’s or the idealism of Abdellah’s scope includes the nurses working with children and other older patients dealing with either patients’ slightly affected with illnesses or those who are already dealing with terminal cases. The whole idea of the theory lies on how nurse- patient relationship should always be given attention to. Not only because it’s a protocol by the hospital or whosoever but also because it should be an innate character of a nurse to feel what the patient feels. Its content includes the process and application of the nurses’ empathizing with their patients to be able to give them not only the kind of medication or cure they need as said by the doctor but also the kind of cure they want. Application of the Theory on the Article Reviewed: Significance: The said approach on patient-centered service in and out of the hospital services is much significant especially to those patients who are usually ill or to those who have terminal diseases who at times need to stay in the hospitals for long times. It is very true that the patient-nurse relationship must be mutual and peaceful to be able to gain best results for both parties. Internal Consistency: This approach has been amazingly working well for the hospitals and health organizations that apply it. Doctors and nurses who are able to coordinate well with each other and thus able to attend to their patient’s needs and wants are the ones who usually gets the best result. One encyclopedia defines nursing as â€Å"the process by which a patient is helped by a nurse to recover from an illness or injury, or to regain as much independence as possible. †(Encarta) Of course, much is involved in that process. It is more than just the performance of routine tests, such as checking the pulse and the blood pressure. The nurse plays an integral role in the patient’s recovery. According to The American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine, â€Å"the nurse is more concerned with the patient’s overall reaction to the disorder than with the disorder itself, and is devoted to the control of physical pain, the relief of mental suffering, and, when possible, the avoidance of complications. † In addition, the nurse offers â€Å"understanding care, which involves listening with patience to anxieties and fears, and providing emotional support and comfort. † And when a patient is dying, this source notes, the nurse’s role is â€Å"to help the patient meet death with as little distress and as much dignity as possible. †(145) Parsimony: This approach doesn’t require much of the funds. Instead, investing on the nurse’s desirable traits has been the key to reaching the goals of giving the patients an A+ service during their recovery. Testability: This approach has been widely tested by different hospitals and health organizations. Some had even made extra steps to achieve perfection in application. Some went to the homes of possible patients to take not of their medical preferences with regards to their religious and cultural beliefs. It also included health statistics of the patients in order to modify their medical records. These steps had been proven effective and stress reducing for the nurses when the time comes when they already need to attend to the said patients. Empirical Adequacy: Every organization and hospital who tries to apply this approach to patients would agree that everything is perfect with it. It relieves both the pain of the patient and gives the nurses a better work environment, as they are able to meet the expectations of both their patients and the doctors they assist. Pragmatic Adequacy: Record shows that actual results from the application of this approach are rather desirable and convincing to be successful. It made everything and everyone workable with and every patient satisfied with the medications they receive. As with other jobs, considerable education and training are required to be a good nurse. It also takes courage, and a real desire to help fellow humans. Keeping physically fit, too, is important, due to one’s being exposed to communicable diseases. But a good nurse will especially have sympathy for patients, and give of herself to furnish their needs. Abdellah’s book on Patient-Centered approach has been truly proven by herself by being a nurse and an aid to many that suffer from different illness. Making it more practical and approval worthy that this approach to patients is indeed effective. However it may be, nurses are always reminded to continue having a good heart for their patients as it always works. PART B: †¢ Problem Definition The study of Willard and Luker places a certain implication on the ways by which the nurses intend to perform their tasks as healthcare professionals. Their enthusiasm in making it possible for the clients[ the patients] to receive the best possible service that they deserve naturally, especially considering the fact that they are in need of care. IT is mostly undeniable that the nurses are expected to handle their profession in a more careful way considering their patients needs and demands all the time. As their clients, patients have the right to demands service from the nurses, this is especially when they are needing special care because of their exceptional health situation. People who are in their EOL stages are usually demanding, trying to get the attention of others for the sake of attending to their needs. Passion always pays in this particular situation. Most likely, the patients who are in need of special care when they are undergoing the EOL stage are also most appreciative of the people staying up with them. From the study that has been presented by Willard and Luker, it could be observed that attending to these particular needs actually increase the level of considerable reputation for the medical industries. †¢ Literature Review It could be observed that the literatures used by the researchers as basis of their primary claims about the issue were indeed authoritative, thus giving the research a stronger voice in being valid for actual application in the future. Most likely, the ability of the researchers to find the right research materials to cite within the paper made the research even more powerful in terms of being constantly aligned with what is theoretically right and what is actually practiced by the hospital staffs in real life. †¢ Research Design With the utilization of grounded theory, the researchers of this particular study were able to make a greater use for such controlled details that were given to them through observable informations in actual situations that are concerned with nursing and the issue that is being tackled within the said study. Applying it to actual nursing practice requires deeper comprehension of the issue. To develop the science of the nursing field and its general application in the health service of the society, further research and development are needed. In this aspect of nursing research, different new approaches and concepts are discover and can be incorporated in the general field of healthcare application thus, promoting the quality of the said service. Because of this, the said two concepts namely the aspect of research and its application are indeed important for the field of nursing service. †¢ Sampling Protocol The researchers particularly utilized the best sample population available to strengthen their study. The said samples include three nurse practitioners, two research nurses, eleven specific CNS’s, nine palliative care CNS’s, and four CNS with combined tumor-specific and palliative care roles. These samples helped the researchers in understanding the field of nursing in a much deeper sense of responsibility scale measurement. The samples and their experiential background on the issue actually helped the researchers see the situation in an certain actualized level of understanding. †¢ Data collection Strategies Aside from the literary based researches, the interview based observations made it easier for the researchers to create opinionated claims thereby making the research more acquainted with the literature review that the researchers themselves previously presented in their paper. The integration of the research together with the survey results made it possible for the researchers to measure both the possibilities and the limitations that their topic has upon application in the actual field of medical health assistance among hospitals. †¢ Data Analysis Strategies To analyze the data, a qualitative process of understanding the gathered informations could be noted to have a huge implication on the success of the research. With the measurement of validity and reality based understanding of the matter, the research of Luker and Willard made it easier for the readers to understand the yielded information from the literature as well as the survey based analysis. The analysis of the data that the researchers used actually helped the outside readers who have no idea of the topic to have a better understanding of the connection of the study with the actual application of nursing practices. Most likely, it is undeniable that the people involved in understanding the research naturally made a clear opinionated view with regards the presentations of the researchers with regards the actuality of the study and how far the efficiency of the research applies well in the efficiency of the healthcare institutions’ performance for their clients, the patients. †¢ Findings, Conclusion and Recommendation Maintaining and promoting the healthcare quality of the people is one of the most important concerns of the society. People indeed like to live healthy away from any ailment and disease and stay in this state for the longest possible lifestyle. Because of this, significant efforts and resources are invested in the healthcare nursing field to promote the stability of the said healthcare practice and its continuous development. One of this concept evidentiary manifestation is the field’s research aspect. The value of nursing is significant for the society as this greatly involve their health promotion and assistance to their medical needs thus, this field’s development through research must be established as one of the primary concern. Without this field, society’s healthcare needs will certainly not be addressed. However, without the continuous innovative development of this field, the aspect of healthcare nursing will also not be able to properly cater to the contemporary needs of the society alongside its newly discovered diseases and others. To cope up with these modern concerns, the nursing society together with the concerned citizens and the health practitioner field devote their time, efforts, knowledge and resources to further develop the nursing field through research to maintain the relevance of the value of nursing for the society themselves. As a vital part also of the general field of nursing healthcare, the research also demonstrate the importance of practitioners of the nursing field in an independent concern from the multidisciplinary team. Research through experimentation procedure will explore the significance of the nursing role in each medical procedures and in the healthcare service itself. In addition, most researches are also solely focused on developing the healthcare practice alone as this as this is viewed to be more related in the aspect of caring for the patients. †¢ Ethical Values and Concerns The ethical values in this case would naturally be involved in the process of gaining the results from the target samples. The results are to be derived not only upon observation but upon question and answer process of evaluation of the job that the staff are undergoing. It could not be denied that gaining these results meant that the sample population must be met in personal by the researchers. Through the considerable thought that the researchers placed upon the fact that the target sample are working and have responsibilities towards their patients, the said individuals were given their own choice on when or where they are to answer the survey. Through this, the researchers were the once who adjusted to the convenience of the sample population. It Is undeniable that through this process, the researchers were able to take control of the ethical measures that they are expected to carry on throughout the process. Part C: Conclusion Healthcare is concerned and mainly focused on the betterment and the preservation of the life of an individual who has a certain medical condition or ailment preventing him or her from being healthy. Because it is concern with humanity and life, most of the aspects in healthcare are greatly attributed to ethics and morality thus rendering this field to be very controversial and debatable. Many aspects of healthcare, especially its field of administration for people who have damaging illnesses, are greatly regarded as a question of morality. This idea is mainly because of certain cases where the healthcare decision regarding the condition of the patient becomes contradictory to the patient’s will and/or the medical decision of the physician involved. Thus, the medical procedures often become morally questionable because of the conflicting desires and the substantiality of the consent of the people concerned in the situation. This is primarily the reason why the study analyzed herein could be noted beneficial for the actual nursing practice application. The study of Willard and Luker clearly points out that nurse-patient relationship could be enhanced through the behavioral adjustments that are to be taken into consideration by the nurses themselves. It is undeniable that the nurse’s importance to the medical industry places a strong implication on the basic practices of ethical healthcare provisions. Patients in their EOL stages need to realize that they are being cared for. Not only that, it should also be noted that aside from EOL patients, nurses have to attend to a wide variety of patients who have different health issues that they need to deal with. Moat often than not, it is the realization of the nurses with regards their primary responsibility that holds the capability of the medical industries to cater to the needs of their clients, their patients. Reference: Carole Willard and Karen Luker. (2006). Challenge to End OF Life Care in the Acute Hospital Setting. University of Manchester.

Capital Punishment Essay: Death Penalty is Good for the Economy

The Death Penalty is Good for the Economy    Crimes are committed everyday. Many people are caught, while many are not. In the United States of America, when a person kills another person s/he is considered a murderer. The instant that murder takes place all rights should automatically be revoked. Murderers should not be allowed to walk the streets. Once a person has killed there is a good change that it could happen again. Convicted murderers should be given the death penalty and have it carried out at once. The death penalty is a controversial sentence. Not everyone feels the same way, but I believe that, in America, the death penalty for murderers is beneficial to the economy and it's a punishment that fits the crime. Anti-death penalty supporters argue the death penalty is unconstitutional -- "Capital punishment is a barbaric remnant of an uncivilized society. It is immoral in principle, and unfair and discriminatory in practice. It assures the execution of some innocent people. As a remedy for crime, it has no purpose and no effect (American Civil Liberties Union National Office 2-16-95)." In 1972, the Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia ruled that the death penalty for murder was unconstitutional. They also argue that the death penalty costs too much to carry out (Academic American Encyclopedia "Capital Punishment"). Yet, in 1976, the Supreme Court in Gregg V. Georgia declared the death penalty for murder is constitutional (AAE "Capital Punishment"). The death penalty is also fair and serves it justice -- surveyed police chiefs and sheriffs choose the death penalty as a primary method to combat violent crime (Montgomery 2-25-95). It cost less in the long run as well. How does the economy benefit from... ...ts, and the punishment fits the crime. Thus the death penalty is beneficial in that it saves money and lets us feel secure. Work Cited Academic American Encyclopedia. "Capital Punishment." Danbury: Grolier Electronic Publishing, 1995. Academic American Encyclopedia. "Prison." Danbury: Grolier Electronic Publishing, 1995. American Civil Liberties Union National Office. "New York Civil Liberties Union says No to death penalty." February 16, 1995. Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Capital Punishment 1992." December 1992. Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Prisoners in 1992." May 1993. Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch. "Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty." May 25, 1984. Montgomery, Lori. "Death penalty ineffective, police say." Austin American-Statesman, February 25, 1995: A20.

Family relationships Essay

Mary Shelley, the author of ‘Frankenstein’ portrays a resurrected creature as either a victim or a monster depending on the reader’s response. In the following essay I am going to explore whether Frankenstein’s creature is a victim or monster; how Mary Shelley put this across in the novel and how Mary has created complicated complex characters. A victim is considered to be someone or something that is: â€Å"harmed or killed by another†; â€Å"harmed by or made to suffer from an act or circumstance† or â€Å"A person who is tricked, swindled taken advantage of†. The word originates from Latin, ‘Victima’, which is defined as â€Å"a person or animal sacrificed to a god†. These definitions link to Frankenstein’s creature because he is sacrificed to knowledge and science; injured emotionally and because of Victor’s obsessions is made to suffer. Also William, Justine, Elizabeth, Victor and the other characters who are harmed, killed and made to suffer would be considered a victim. A monster as defined in the dictionary is: â€Å"legendary animal combining features of animal and human form†; â€Å"any creature so ugly as to frighten people†; â€Å"a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc†; â€Å"Any animal or thing huge in size†; â€Å"an animal or plant of abnormal form or the absence of certain parts or organs†. The Story of Frankenstein is extremely famous and Frankenstein’s creature has become a legendary ‘monster’ because of the popular novel: he could be described as legendary and combining animal and human forms due to his mannerisms. Mary Shelley describes the creature as monstrous because he frightens people with his ugliness; becomes cruel and perform horrendous acts. Dr Frankenstein would describe the creature as a cruel and wicked person for killing his family so is therefore monstrous. Theses monstrous actions are counteracted by Dr Frankenstein’s actions because he abandons his ‘son’. Mary Shelley makes links between her life and the novel. This could be to make the novel more original and personal to her and gives a more realistic setting and set of events to novel. Examples of this are: in August 1797 Mary was born and her parents had an ethical opposition to marriage but in March, 5 months earlier to her birth, they married to give their daughter ‘social respectability’. This relates to ‘Frankenstein’ because marriage is portrayed as negative when Elizabeth gets killed after her and Victor marries. On the 10th of September, 1797 Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary’s mother dies 10 days after her birth. This links with Victor’s life because his mother dies of Scarlet fever after nursing Justine, being close to his mother this makes him think about reviving people from the dead. Having an interesting but ‘unusual’ childhood in the novel she describes Victor’s childhood as perfect in contrast to her own. We know this in the following ways: Victor’s parents had a happy marriage. Evidence of this is ‘there was a considerable difference between the ages of my parents, but this circumstance seemed to unite them, only closer in bond of devoted affection. ‘ This shows us that Victor has a strong parent relationship as his parent’s age difference seemed to unite them we also know that Victor’s parents loved him because Mary Shelley wrote ‘my mother’s tender caresses and my father’s smile of benevolent pleasure while regarding me are my first recollections’. This emphasises the strong family bond the Frankenstein family have and shows his fist memories are positive and of his parents love for him. This links with Mary Shelley’s family relationships because in contrast to Victor’s parents, her mother and father were ’emotionally distant’ like Victor and the creature. The Greek myth of Prometheus is said to be linked in to Frankenstein because Shelley wrote a second title to the novel, ‘the Modern Prometheus’. This is because in the story of Prometheus in order to help people Prometheus stole Zeus’s fire from the sun so people would have an advantage over animals since they were given the ability to make weapons and tools. As punishment, Zeus chained Prometheus to a rock where eagles ate his liver when night fell. But when day broke the next day his liver grew back for the eagle to eat again. This torture was to last for an eternity. Eventually, Hercules slew the eagles and released Prometheus. This was to counterbalance the gift of fire the Zeus sent Pandora to earth with her box of evils. Dr Frankenstein wanted to help people by giving them an advantage over animals by resurrecting the dead and stealing people’s peaceful resting. As a punishment, his creation destroyed: his mental well being by obsession to make it; his family by killing them and his life. Overall the myth of Prometheus and the modern Prometheus are about good intentions leading to negative things and life changing experience. In 1817, Percy Shelley (Mary Shelley’s husband) and Byron discussed galvanism which is the idea of reanimating things using electricity. An Italian physicist, Lugi Galvani demonstrated what we now know to be the electrical basis of nerve impulses. Mary Shelley included these ideas in the novel and took scientific experiments to the extreme. Mary Shelley uses different narrators’ point of view in a ‘Russian doll’ narrative structure which changes the narrators as another character tells a different side of the story. She uses different people to help the reader feel like they are going deeper into the story. The different characters have their own different opinions of Frankenstein’s creature just like the reader so our opinions change as we read/hear the story through a different pair of eyes. The three different narrators are: Walton, a sea captain who writes to his sister who tells her about Victor. Victor is the second narrator who tells Walton about his life which comes to the meeting of his creature who then becomes the third narrator. The different perspectives and angles are each biased and as a result the reader sympathises with Victor when he’s telling the story and the ‘monster’ when he narrates. Mary Shelley originally wrote ‘Frankenstein’ beginning from the resurrecting the creature but later added Walton’s narrative. Captain Walton, a sea captain, venturing out to the Artic gives a similar plot to Victor Frankenstein’s. This added section seemed to be slightly random but links as the story unfolds when Victor is found. Walton gives the reader a first impression on Victor, whom he rescues from the harsh bitterly cold of the Artic. Walton description of Victor makes the reader sympathise with his appearance. Walton describes him as ‘his limbs were nearly frozen, and his body dreadfully emaciated by fatigue and suffering’ Mary Shelley includes this because it provides a comparison when Walton describes his admiration to Victor. We know he admires Victor because he writes to his sister ‘he is so gentle, yet so wise; his mind is so cultivated, and when he speaks although his words are culled with choicest art, yet they flow with rapidity and unparallel eloquence. ‘ Walton’s admiration to Victor makes the reader also admire him so therefore is more likely to believe the positive recollection of Victor’s story because two opinions support it. Lost, Victor confides in his saviour as he tells Walton the story of how obsession led to death and this also is a warning to Walton’s obsession for fame and glory. Frankenstein begins with his childhood where Mary Shelley describes this as perfect we know this when she writes; ‘My mother’s tender caresses and my father’s smile of benevolent pleasure while regarding me are my first recollections’. This shows Shelley has made a contrast with Victor’s childhood and later on in his life. This also emphasises his parent’s love, his perfect life and his fond memories of his childhood. This also provides dissimilarity with that of the creature. Frankenstein’s creature never has a perfect life, fatherly love and fond memories. At the beginning the reader does not sympathise with Victor’s privileged background until his mother dies of Scarlet fever: Shelley included this effect to get Victor thinking about life and death and gives an emotionally felt reason to unearth and discover the secret of immorality.

A Hypothesis Is a Claim

A hypothesis is a claim Population mean The mean monthly cell phone bill in this city is ? = $42 Population proportion Example: The proportion of adults in this city with cell phones is ? = 0. 68 States the claim or assertion to be tested Is always about a population parameter, not about a sample statistic Is the opposite of the null hypothesis e. g. , The average diameter of a manufactured bolt is not equal to 30mm ( H1: ? ? 30 ) Challenges the status quo Alternative never contains the â€Å"=†sign May or may not be provenIs generally the hypothesis that the researcher is trying to prove Is the opposite of the null hypothesis e. g. , The average diameter of a manufactured bolt is not equal to 30mm ( H1: ? ? 30 ) Challenges the status quo Alternative never contains the â€Å"=†sign May or may not be proven Is generally the hypothesis that the researcher is trying to prove Is the opposite of the null hypothesis e. g. , The average diameter of a manufactured bolt is not e qual to 30mm ( H1: ? ? 30 ) Challenges the status quo Alternative never contains the â€Å"=†sign May or may not be provenIs generally the hypothesis that the researcher is trying to prove If the sample mean is close to the stated population mean, the null hypothesis is not rejected. If the sample mean is far from the stated population mean, the null hypothesis is rejected. How far is â€Å"far enough† to reject H0? The critical value of a test statistic creates a â€Å"line in the sand† for decision making — it answers the question of how far is far enough. Type I Error Reject a true null hypothesis Considered a serious type of error The probability of a Type I Error is ? Called level of significance of the testSet by researcher in advance Type II Error Failure to reject a false null hypothesis The probability of a Type II Error is ? Type I and Type II errors cannot happen at the same time A Type I error can only occur if H0 is true A Type II error can o nly occur if H0 is false Critical Value Approach to Testing For a two-tail test for the mean, ? known: Determine the critical Z values for a specified level of significance ? from a table or computer Decision Rule: If the test statistic falls in the rejection region, reject H0 ; otherwise do not reject H0State the null hypothesis, H0 and the alternative hypothesis, H1 Determine the appropriate test statistic and sampling distribution Determine the critical values that divide the rejection and nonrejection regions Collect data and compute the value of the test statistic Make the statistical decision and state the managerial conclusion. If the test statistic falls into the nonrejection region, do not reject the null hypothesis H0. If the test statistic falls into the rejection region, reject the null hypothesis. Express the managerial conclusion in the context of the problem p-Value Approach to Testing -value: Probability of obtaining a test statistic equal to or more extreme than the observed sample value given H0 is true The p-value is also called the observed level of significance H0 can be rejected if the p-value is less than ? Hypothesis Testing: ? Unknown If the population standard deviation is unknown, you instead use the sample standard deviation S. Because of this change, you use the t distribution instead of the Z distribution to test the null hypothesis about the mean. When using the t distribution you must assume the population you are sampling from follows a normal distribution.All other steps, concepts, and conclusions are the same. One-Tail Tests In many cases, the alternative hypothesis focuses on a particular direction H0: ? ? 3 H1: ? < 3 This is a lower-tail test since the alternative hypothesis is focused on the lower tail below the mean of 3 H0: ? ? 3 H1: ? > 3 This is an upper-tail test since the alternative hypothesis is focused on the upper tail above the mean of 3 Proportions Sample proportion in the category of interest is denoted by p W hen both X and n – X are at least 5, p can be approximated by a normal distribution with mean and standard deviationPotential Pitfalls and Ethical Considerations Use randomly collected data to reduce selection biases Do not use human subjects without informed consent Choose the level of significance, ? , and the type of test (one-tail or two-tail) before data collection Do not employ â€Å"data snooping† to choose between one-tail and two-tail test, or to determine the level of significance Do not practice â€Å"data cleansing† to hide observations that do not support a stated hypothesis Report all pertinent findings including both statistical significance and practical importance

Issac Singer essays

Issac Singer essays In 1851, Isaac Singer borrowed $40.00 to make a working sewing machine that would become the leader in the sewing machine industry and famous around the world. Isaac Merritt Singer was born on October 27, 1811 in Troy, New York to a large family of German immigrants. When he was twelve he left home and went to Rochester and worked all kinds of unskilled labor jobs until he was 19 years old. He found a job as an apprentice machinist in a machine shop. He didn't like this job, so after four months he left and for the next nine years moved from state to state and made a good living because of his natural mechanical ability. He got a lot of experience from doing this because he worked on anything that he could get paid for. In 1830 he quit working as a machinist and became an actor because he had a loud voice and thought he would be good at it. He really enjoyed doing this, but could not make enough money to keep him in the lifestyle that he enjoyed. He wasn't happy about giving up acting, but had to go back to the boring life of a machinist. Singer spent the rest of his life claiming great success as a stage actor. In 1931 he married Catharine Maria Haley. He was almost twenty years old and she was only fifteen. They lived with her family in New York. He wasn't happy with his home life and went around the countryside, working as a stage hand, advance man and as an actor. In 1836, he suddenly signed on as an advance man with another travelling group and left New York and went to Baltimore. While in Baltimore, he met eighteen year old Mary Ann Sponsler and fell in love with her. He asked her to marry him and they returned to New York in September of 1836. He knew he really couldn't marry her because he already had a wife, so he convinced her to wait to get married and to just live with him as Mrs. Isaac Singer. By the summer of 1837, Isaac Singer had a wife, a common-law wife, a son by Mary Ann and a son and daughte...

5 Coke vs Pepsi 21st Century Case Study

In a â€Å"carefully waged competitive struggle,† from 1975 to 1995 both Coke and Pepsi achieved average annual growth of around 10% as both U. S. nd worldwide CSD consumption consistently rose. According to Roger Enrico, former CEO of Pepsi-Cola: No The warfare must be perceived as a continuing battle without blood. Without Coke, Pepsi would have a tough time being an original and lively competitor. The more successful they are, the sharper we have to be. If the Coca-Cola company didn’t exist, we’d pray for someone to invent them. And on the other side of the fence, I’m sure the folks at Coke would say that nothing contributes as much to the present-day success of the Coca-Cola company than . . . Pepsi. 1 This cozy relationship was threatened in the late 1990s, however, when U. S. CSD consumption dropped for two consecutive years and worldwide shipments slowed for both Coke and Pepsi. In response, both firms began to modify their bottling, pricing, and brand strategies. They also looked to emerging international markets to fuel growth and broadened their brand portfolios to include non-carbonated beverages like tea, juice, sports drinks, and bottled water. Do As the cola wars continued into the twenty-first century, the cola giants faced new challenges: Could they boost flagging domestic cola sales? Where could they find new revenue streams? Was their era of sustained growth and profitability coming to a close, or was this apparent slowdown just another blip in the course of Coke’s and Pepsi’s enviable performance? 1Roger Enrico, The Other Guy Blinked and Other Dispatches from the Cola Wars (New York: Bantam Books, 1988). ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Research Associate Yusi Wang prepared this case from published sources under the supervision of Professor David B. Yoffie. Parts of this case borrow from previous cases prepared by Professors David Yoffie and Michael Porter. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management. Copyright  © 2002 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to http://www. hbsp. harvard. edu. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the permission of Harvard Business School. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century op y 702-442 Economics of the U. S. CSD Industry Americans consumed 23 gallons of CSD annually in 1970 and consumption grew by an average of 3% per year over the next 30 years (see Exhibit 1). This growth was fueled by increasing availability as well as by the introduction and popularity of diet and flavored CSDs. Through the mid-1990s, the real price of CSDs fell, and consumer demand appeared responsive to declining prices. 2 Many alternatives to CSDs existed, including beer, milk, coffee, bottled water, juices, tea, powdered drinks, wine, sports drinks, distilled spirits, and tap water. Yet Americans drank more soda than any other beverage. At 60%-70% market share, the cola segment of the CSD industry maintained its dominance throughout the 1990s, followed by lemon/lime, citrus, pepper, root beer, orange, and other flavors. C CSD consisted of a flavor base, a sweetener, and carbonated water. Four major participants were involved in the production and distribution of CSDs: 1) concentrate producers; 2) bottlers; 3) retail channels; and 4) suppliers. 3 Concentrate Producers The concentrate producer blended raw material ingredients (excluding sugar or high fructose corn syru p), packaged it in plastic canisters, and shipped the blended ingredients to the bottler. The concentrate producer added artificial sweetener to make diet soda concentrate, while bottlers added sugar or high fructose corn syrup themselves. The process involved little capital investment in machinery, overhead, or labor. A typical concentrate manufacturing plant cost approximately $25 million to $50 million to build, and one plant could serve the entire United States. No A concentrate producer’s most significant costs were for advertising, promotion, market research, and bottler relations. Marketing programs were jointly implemented and financed by concentrate producers and bottlers. Concentrate producers usually took the lead in developing the programs, particularly in product planning, market research, and advertising. They invested heavily in their trademarks over time, with innovative and sophisticated marketing campaigns (see Exhibit 2). Bottlers assumed a larger role in developing trade and consumer promotions, and paid an agreed percentage—typically 50% or more—of promotional and advertising costs. Concentrate producers employed extensive sales and marketing support staff to work with and help improve the performance of their bottlers, setting standards and suggesting operating procedures. Concentrate producers also negotiated directly with the bottlers’ major suppliers—particularly sweetener and packaging suppliers—to encourage reliable supply, faster delivery, and lower prices. Do Once a fragmented business with hundreds of local manufacturers, the landscape of the U. S. soft drink industry had changed dramatically over time. Among national concentrate producers, CocaCola and Pepsi-Cola, the soft drink unit of PepsiCo, claimed a combined 76% of the U. S. CSD market in sales volume in 2000, followed by Cadbury Schweppes and Cott Corporation (see Exhibit 3). There were also private label brand manufacturers and several dozen other national and regional producers. Exhibit 4 gives financial data for Coke and Pepsi and their top affiliated bottlers. 2 Robert Tollison et al. , Competition and Concentration (Lexington Books, 1991), p. 11. 3 The production and distribution of non-carbonated soft drinks and bottled water will be discussed in a later section. 2 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. 702-442 op y Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century Bottlers Bottlers purchased concentrate, added carbonated water and high fructose corn syrup, bottled or canned the CSD, and delivered it to customer accounts. Coke and Pepsi bottlers offered â€Å"direct store door† (DSD) delivery, which involved route delivery sales people physically placing and managing the CSD brand in the store. Smaller national brands, such as Shasta and Faygo, distributed through food store warehouses. DSD entailed managing the shelf space by stacking the product, positioning the trademarked label, cleaning the packages and shelves, and setting up point-of-purchase displays and end-of-aisle displays. The importance of the bottler’s relationship with the retail trade was crucial to continual brand availability and maintenance. Cooperative merchandising agreements between retailers and bottlers were used to promote soft drink sales. Retailers agreed to specified promotional activity and discount levels in exchange for a payment from the bottler. tC The bottling process was capital-intensive and involved specialized, high-speed lines. Lines were interchangeable only for packages of similar size and construction. Bottling and canning lines cost from $4 million to $10 million each, depending on volume and package type. The minimum cost to build a small bottling plant, with warehouse and office space, was $25million to $35 million. The cost of an efficient large plant, with four lines, automated warehousing, and a capacity of 40 million cases, was $75 million in 1998. 4 Roughly 80-85 plants were required for full distribution across the United States. Among top bottlers in 1998, packaging accounted for approximately half of bottlers’ cost of goods sold, concentrate for one-third, and nutritive sweeteners for one-tenth. Labor accounted for most of the remaining variable costs. Bottlers also invested capital in trucks and distribution networks. Bottlers’ gross profits often exceeded 40%, but operating margins were razor thin. See Exhibit 5 for the cost structures of a typical concentrate producer and bottler. Do No The number of U. S. soft drink bottlers had fallen, from over 2,000 in 1970 to less than 300 in 2000. 6 Historically, Coca-Cola was the first concentrate producer to build nation-wide franchised bottling networks, a move that Pepsi and Cadbury Schweppes followed. The typical franchised bottler owned a manufacturing and sales operation in an exclusive geographic territory, with rights granted in perpetuity by the franchiser. In the case of Coca-Cola, territorial rights did not extend to fountain accounts—Coke delivered to its fountain accounts directly, not through its bottlers. The rights granted to the bottlers were subject to termination only in the event of default by the bottler. The original Coca-Cola franchise contract, written in 1899, was a fixed-price contract that did not provide for contract renegotiation even if ingredient costs changed. With considerable effort, often involving bitter legal disputes, Coca-Cola amended the contract in 1921, 1978, and 1987 to adjust concentrate price. By 1999, over 81% of Coke’s U. S. volume was covered by the 1987 Master Bottler Contract, which granted Coke the right to determine concentrate price and other terms of sale. Under the terms of this contract, Coke was not obligated to share advertising and marketing expenditures with the bottlers; however, the company often did in order to ensure quality and proper distribution of marketing. In 2000, Coke contributed $766 million in marketing support and $223 million in infrastructure support to its top bottler alone. The 1987 contract did not give complete pricing control to Coke, but rather used a pricing formula that adjusted quarterly for changes in sweetener prices and stated a maximum price. This contract differed from Pepsi’s Master Bottling Agreement with its top bottler, which granted the bottler 4 â€Å"Louisiana Coca-Cola Reveals Crown Jewel,† Beverage Industry, January 1999. 5 Calculated from M. Dolan et al. , â€Å"Coca-Cola Beverages,† Merrill Lynch Capital Markets, July 6, 1998. Timothy Muris et al. , Strategy, Structure, and Antitrust in the Carbonated Soft-Drink Industry, (Quorum Books, 1993), p. 63; John C. Maxwell, ed. Beverage Digest Fact Book 2001. 3 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century op y 702-442 perpet ual rights to distribute Pepsi cola products while at the same time required it to purchase its raw materials from Pepsi at prices, and on terms and conditions, determined by Pepsi. Pepsi negotiated concentrate prices with its bottling association, and normally based price increases on the CPI. Coke and Pepsi both raised concentrate prices throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, even as the real (inflation-adjusted) retail prices for CSD were down (see Exhibit 6). tC Coca-Cola and Pepsi franchise agreements allowed bottlers to handle the non-cola brands of other concentrate producers. Franchise agreements also allowed bottlers to choose whether or not to market new beverages introduced by the concentrate producer. Some restrictions applied, however, as bottlers could not carry directly competitive brands. For example, a Coca-Cola bottler could not sell Royal Crown Cola, but it could distribute Seven-Up, if it decided not to carry Sprite. Franchised bottlers had the freedom to participate in or reject new package introductions, local advertising campaigns and promotions, and test marketing. The bottlers also had the final say in decisions concerning retail pricing, new packaging, selling, advertising, and promotions in its territory, though they could only use packages authorized by the franchiser. In 1971, the Federal Trade Commission initiated action against eight major CPs, charging that exclusive territories granted to franchised bottlers prevented intrabrand competition (two or more bottlers competing in the same area with the same beverage). The CPs argued that interbrand competition was sufficiently strong to warrant continuation of the existing territorial agreements. After nine years of litigation, Congress enacted the â€Å"Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act† in 1980, preserving the right of CPs to grant exclusive territories. Retail Channels No In 2000, the distribution of CSDs in the United States took place through food stores (35%), fountain outlets7 (23%), vending machines (14%), convenience stores (9%), and other outlets (20%). Mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs, and drug stores made up most of the last category. Bottlers’ profitability by type of retail outlet is shown in Exhibit 7. Costs were affected by delivery method and frequency, drop size, advertising, and marketing. The main distribution channel for soft drinks was the supermarket. CSDs were among the five largest selling product lines sold by supermarkets, raditionally yielding a 15%-20% gross margin (about average for food products) and accounting for 3%-4% of food store revenues. 8 CSDs represented a large percentage of a supermarket’s business, and were also a big traffic draw. Bottlers fought for retail shelf space to ensure visibility and accessibility for their products, and looked for new locations to increase impulse purchases, such as placing coolers at checkout counters. The proliferation of products and packaging types created intense shelf space pressures. Do Discount retailers, warehouse clubs, and drug stores accounted about 15% of CSD sales in the late 1990s. These firms often had their own private label CSD, or they sold a generic label such as President’s Choice. Private label CSDs were usually delivered to a retailer’s warehouse, while branded CSDs were delivered directly to the store. With the warehouse delivery method, the retailer was responsible for storage, transportation, merchandising, and stocking the shelves, thus incurring additional costs. The word â€Å"fountain outlets† traditionally referred to soda fountains, but was later used also for restaurants, cafeterias, and other establishments that served soft drinks by the glass using fountain dispensers. 8 Progressive Grocer 1998 Sales Manual Databook, July 1998, p. 68. 4 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. 702-442 op y Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century tC Hi storically, Pepsi had focused on sales through retail outlets, while Coke had dominated fountain sales. Coca-Cola had a 65% share of the fountain market in 2000, while Pepsi had 21%. Competition for fountain sales was intense. National fountain accounts were essentially â€Å"paid sampling,† with CSD companies earning pretax operating margins of around 2%. For restaurants, by contrast, fountain sales were extremely profitable—about 80 cents out of every dollar spent stayed with the restaurant retailers. In 1999, for example, Burger King franchisees were believed to pay about $6. 20 per gallon for Coke syrup, but they received a substantial rebate on each gallon in the form of a check; one large Midwestern Burger King franchisee said his annual rebate ran $1. 45 per gallon, or about 23%. Coke and Pepsi also invested in the development of fountain equipment, such as service dispensers, and provided their fountain customers with cups, point-of-sale material, advertising, and in-store promotions to increase brand presence. After Pepsi entered the fast-food restaurant business with the acquisitions of Pizza Hut (1978), Taco Bell (1986), and Kentucky Frie d Chicken (1986), Coca-Cola persuaded other chains such as Wendy’s and Burger King to switch to Coke. PepsiCo spun its restaurant business off to the public in 1997 under the name Tricon, while retaining the Frito-Lay snack food business. In 2000, fountain â€Å"pouring rights† remained split along pre-Tricon lines, as Pepsi supplied all of Taco Bell’s and KFC’s, and the overwhelming majority of Pizza Hut restaurants. Coke retained exclusivity deals with McDonald’s and Burger King. No Coke and Cadbury Schweppes handled fountain accounts from their national franchisor companies. Employees of the franchisee companies negotiated and signed pouring rights contracts which, in the case of big restaurant chains, could cover the entire United States or even the world. The accounts were actually serviced by employees of the franchisors’ fountain divisions, local bottlers, or both. Local bottlers, when they were used, were paid service fees for delivering syrup and fixing and placing machines. Historically, PepsiCo could only sell directly to end-user national accounts. By 1999, Pepsi had persuaded most of its bottlers to modify their franchise agreements to allow Pepsi to sell fountain syrup via restaurant commissary companies, which sell a range of supplies to restaurants. Concentrate producers offered bottlers rebates to encourage them to purchase and install vending machines. The owners of the property on which vending equipment was located usually received a sales commission. Coke and Pepsi were the largest suppliers of CSDs to the vending channel. Juice, tea, sports drinks, lemonade, and water were also available through vending machines. Suppliers to Concentrate Producers and Bottlers Do Concentrate producers required few inputs: the concentrate for most regular colas consisted of caramel coloring, phosphoric and/or citric acid, natural flavors, and caffeine. 10 Bottlers purchased two major inputs: packaging, which included $3. 4 billion in cans, $1. 3 billion in plastic bottles, and $0. 6 billion in glass; and sweeteners, which included $1. 1 billion in sugar and high fructose corn syrup, and $1. billion in artificial sweetener (predominantly aspartame). The majority of U. S. CSDs were packaged in metal cans (60%), then plastic bottles (38%), and glass bottles (2%). Cans were an attractive packaging material because they were easily handled, stocked, and displayed, weighed little, and were durable and recyclable. Plastic bottles, introduced in 1978, bo osted home consumption of CSDs because of their larger 1-liter, 2-liter, and 3-liter sizes. Single-serve 20-oz. PET bottles quickly gained popularity and represented 35% of vended drinks and 3% of grocery drinks in 2000. Nikhil Deogun and Richard Gibson, â€Å"Coke Beats Out Pepsi for Contracts With Burger King, Domino’s,† The Wall Street Journal, April 15, 1999. 10 Based on ingredients lists, Coke Classic and Pepsi-Cola, 2001. 5 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century op y 702-442 The concentrate producers’ strategy towards can manufacturers was typical of their supplier relationships. Coke and Pepsi negotiated on behalf of their bottling networks, and were among the metal can industry’s largest customers. Since the can constituted about 40% of the total cost of a packaged beverage, bottlers and concentrate producers often maintained relationships with more than one supplier. In the 1960s and 1970s, Coke and Pepsi backward integrated to make some of their own cans, but largely exited the business by 1990. In 1994, Coke and Pepsi instead sought to establish stable long-term relationships with their suppliers. Major can producers included American National Can, Crown Cork Seal, and Reynolds Metals. Metal cans were viewed as commodities, and there was chronic excess supply in the industry. Often two or three can manufacturers competed for a single contract. Early History11 tC The Evolution of the U. S. Soft Drink Industry Coca-Cola was formulated in 1886 by John Pemberton, a pharmacist in Atlanta, Georgia, who sold it at drug store soda fountains as a â€Å"potion for mental and physical disorders. † A few years later, Asa Candler acquired the formula, established a sales force, and began brand advertising of Coca-Cola. Tightly guarded in an Atlanta bank vault, the formula for Coca-Cola syrup, known as â€Å"Merchandise 7X,† remained a well-protected secret. Candler granted Coca-Cola’s first bottling franchise in 1899 for a nominal one dollar, believing that the future of the drink rested with soda fountains. The company’s bottling network grew quickly, however, reaching 370 franchisees by 1910. No In its early years, Coke was constantly plagued by imitations and counterfeits, which the company aggressively fought in court. In 1916 alone, courts barred 153 imitations of Coca-Cola, including the brands Coca-Kola, Koca-Nola, Cold-Cola, and the like. Coke introduced and patented a unique 6. 5ounce â€Å"skirt† bottle to be used by its franchisees that subsequently became an American icon. Robert Woodruff, who became CEO in 1923, began working with franchised bottlers to make Coke available wherever and whenever a consumer might want it. He pushed the bottlers to place the beverage â€Å"in arm’s reach of desire,† and argued that if Coke were not conveniently available when the consumer was thirsty, the sale would be lost forever. During the 1920s and 1930s, Coke pioneered open-top coolers to storekeepers, developed automatic fountain dispensers, and introduced vending machines. Woodruff also initiated â€Å"lifestyle† advertising for Coca-Cola, emphasizing the role of Coke in a consumer’s life. Do Woodruff also developed Coke’s international business. In the onset of World War II, at the request of General Eisenhower, he promised that â€Å"every man in uniform gets a bottle of Coca-Cola for five cents wherever he is and whatever it costs the company. † Beginning in 1942, Coke was exempted from wartime sugar rationing whenever the product was destined for the military or retailers serving soldiers. Coca-Cola bottling plants followed the movements of American troops; 64 bottling plants were set up during the war—largely at government expense. This contributed to Coke’s dominant market shares in most European and Asian countries. Pepsi-Cola was invented in 1893 in New Bern, North Carolina by pharmacist Caleb Bradham. Like Coke, Pepsi adopted a franchise bottling system, and by 1910 it had built a network of 270 11 See J. C. Louis and Harvey Yazijian, The Cola Wars (Everest House, 1980); Mark Pendergrast, For God, Country, and Coca-Cola (Charles Scribner’s, 1993); David Greising, I’d Like the World to Buy a Coke (John Wiley Sons, 1997). 6 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. du or 617-783-7860. 702-442 op y Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century franchised bottlers. Pepsi struggled, however, declaring bankruptcy in 1923 and again in 1932. Business began to pick up in the midst of the Great Depression, when Pepsi lowered the price for its 12-ounce bottle to a nickel, the same price Coke charged for its 6. 5-ounce bottle. When Pepsi tried to expand its bottling network in the late 1930s, its choices were small local bottlers striving to compete with wealthy Coke franchisees. 12 Pepsi nevertheless began to gain market share. In 1938, Coke filed suit against Pepsi, claiming that Pepsi-Cola was an infringement on the CocaCola trademark. The court ruled in favor of Pepsi in 1941, ending a series of suits and countersuits between the two companies. With its famous radio jingle, â€Å"Twice as Much, for Nickel Too,† Pepsi’s U. S. sales surpassed those of Royal Crown and Dr Pepper in the 1940s, trailing only Coca-Cola. In 1950, Coke’s share of the U. S. CSD market was 47% and Pepsi’s was 10%; hundreds of regional CSD companies continued to produce a wide assortment of flavors. tC The Cola Wars Begin In 1950, Alfred Steele, a former Coca-Cola marketing executive, became Pepsi’s CEO. Steele made â€Å"Beat Coke† his theme and encouraged bottlers to focus on take-home sales through supermarkets. The company introduced the first 26-ounce bottles to the market, targeting family consumption, while Coke stayed with its 6. 5-ounce bottle. Pepsi’s growth soon began tracking the growth of supermarkets and convenience stores in the United States: There were about 10,000 supermarkets in 1945, 15,000 in 1955, and 32,000 at the peak in 1962. No In 1963, under the leadership of new CEO Donald Kendall, Pepsi launched its â€Å"Pepsi Generation† campaign that targeted the young and â€Å"young at heart. † Pepsi’s ad agency created an intense commercial using sports cars, motorcycles, helicopters, and a catchy slogan. The campaign helped Pepsi narrow Coke’s lead to a 2-to-1 margin. At the same time, Pepsi worked with its bottlers to modernize plants and improve store delivery services. By 1970, Pepsi’s franchise bottlers were generally larger compared to Coke bottlers. Coke’s bottling network remained fragmented, with more than 800 independent franchised bottlers that focused mostly on U. S. cities of 50,000 or less. 13 Throughout this period, Pepsi sold concentrate to its bottlers at a price approximately 20% lower than Coke. In the early 1970s, Pepsi increased the concentrate price to equal that of Coke. To overcome bottlers’ opposition, Pepsi promised to use the extra margin to increase advertising and promotion. Do Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola began to experiment with new cola and non-cola flavors and a variety of packaging options in the 1960s. Before then, the two companies had adopted a single product strategy, selling only their flagship brand. Coke introduced Fanta (1960), Sprite (1961), and lowcalorie Tab (1963). Pepsi countered with Teem (1960), Mountain Dew (1964), and Diet Pepsi (1964). Each introduced non-returnable glass bottles and 12-ounce metal cans in various packages. Coke and Pepsi also diversified into non-soft-drink industries. Coke purchased Minute Maid (fruit juice), Duncan Foods (coffee, tea, hot chocolate), and Belmont Springs Water. Pepsi merged with snackfood giant Frito-Lay in 1965 to become PepsiCo, claiming synergies based on shared customer targets, store-door delivery systems, and marketing orientations. In the late 1950s, Coca-Cola, still under Robert Woodruff’s leadership, began using advertising that finally recognized the existence of competitors, such as â€Å"American’s Preferred Taste† (1955) and â€Å"No Wonder Coke Refreshes Best† (1960). In meetings with Coca-Cola bottlers, however, executives only discussed the growth of their own brand and never referred to its closest competitor by name. 2 Louis and Yazijian, p,. 23. 13 Pendergrast, p. 310. 7 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century op y 702-442 During the 1960s, Coke primarily focused on overseas markets, apparently believing that domestic soft drink consumption had neared saturation at 22. 7 ga llons per capita in 1970. 14 Pepsi meanwhile battled aggressively in the United States, doubling its share between 1950 and 1970. The Pepsi Challenge In 1974, Pepsi launched the â€Å"Pepsi Challenge† in Dallas, Texas. Coke was the dominant brand in the city and Pepsi ran a distant third behind Dr Pepper. In blind taste tests hosted by Pepsi’s small local bottler, the company tried to demonstrate that consumers in fact preferred Pepsi to Coke. After its sales shot up in Dallas, Pepsi started to roll out the campaign nationwide, although many of its franchise bottlers were initially reluctant to join. tC Coke countered with rebates, rival claims, retail price cuts, and a series of advertisements questioning the tests’ validity. In particular, Coke used retail price discounts selectively in markets where the Coke bottler was company owned and the Pepsi bottler was an independent franchisee. Nonetheless, the Pepsi Challenge successfully eroded Coke’s market share. In 1979, Pepsi passed Coke in food store sales for the first time with a 1. 4 share point lead. Breaking precedent, Brian Dyson, president of Coca-Cola, inadvertently uttered the name â€Å"Pepsi† in front of Coke’s bottlers at the 1979 bottlers conference. No During the same period, Coke was renegotiating its franchise bottling contract to obtain greater flexibility in pricing concentrate and syrups. Bottlers approved the new contract in 1978 only after Coke conceded to link concentrate price changes to the CPI, adjust the price to reflect any cost savings associated with a modification of ingredients, and supply unsweetened concentrate to bottlers who preferred to purchase their own sweetener on the open market. 15 This brought Coke’s policies in line with Pepsi, which traditionally sold its concentrate unsweetened to its bottlers. Immediately after securing bottler approval, Coke announced a significant concentrate price hike. Pepsi followed with a 15% price increase of its own. Cola Wars Heat Up In 1980, Cuban-born Roberto Goizueta was named CEO and Don Keough president of Coca-Cola. In the same year, Coke switched from sugar to the lower-priced high fructose corn syrup, a move Pepsi emulated three years later. Coke also intensified its marketing effort, increasing advertising spending from $74 million to $181 million between 1981 and 1984. Pepsi elevated its advertising expenditure from $66 million to $125 million over the same period. Goizueta sold off most of the non-CSD businesses he had inherited, including wine, coffee, tea, and industrial water treatment, while keeping Minute Maid. Do Diet Coke was introduced in 1982 as the first extension of the â€Å"Coke† brand name. Much of CocaCola management referred to its brand as â€Å"Mother Coke,† and considered it too sacred to be extended to other products. Despite internal opposition from company lawyers over copyright issues, Diet Coke was a phenomenal success. Praised as the â€Å"most successful consumer product launch of the Eighties,† it became within a few years not only the nation’s most popular diet soft drink, but also the third-largest selling soft drink in the United States. 14 Maxwell. 15 Pendergrast, p. 323. 8 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. 702-442 op y Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century In April 1985, Coke announced the change of its 99-year-old Coca-Cola formula. Explaining this radical break with tradition, Goizueta saw a sharp depreciation in the value of the Coca-Cola trademark as â€Å"the product had a declining share in a shrinking segment of the market. †16 On the day of Coke’s announcement, Pepsi declared a holiday for its employees, claiming that the new Coke tasted more like Pepsi. The reformulation prompted an outcry from Coke’s most loyal customers. Bottlers joined the clamor. Three months later, the company brought back the original formula under the name Coca-Cola Classic, while retaining the new formula as the flagship brand under the name New Coke. Six months later, Coke announced that Coca-Cola Classic (the original formula) would henceforth be considered its flagship brand. tC New CSD brands proliferated in the 1980s. Coke introduced 11 new products, including Cherry Coke, Caffeine-Free Coke, and Minute-Maid Orange. Pepsi introduced 13 products, including Caffeine-Free Pepsi-Cola, Lemon-Lime Slice, and Cherry Pepsi. The number of packaging types and sizes also increased dramatically, and the battle for shelf space in supermarkets and other food stores grew fierce. By the late 1980s, both Coke and Pepsi offered more than ten major brands, using at least seventeen containers and numerous packaging options. 17 The struggle for market share intensified and the level of retail price discounting increased sharply. Consumers were constantly exposed to cents-off promotions and a host of other supermarket discounts. No Throughout the 1980s, the smaller concentrate producers were increasingly squeezed by Coke and Pepsi. As their shelf-space declined, small brands were shuffled from one owner to another. Over five years, Dr Pepper was sold (all and in part) several times, Canada Dry twice, Sunkist once, Shasta once, and AW Brands once. Some of the deals were made by food companies, but several were leveraged buyouts by investment firms. Philip Morris acquired Seven-Up in 1978 for a big premium, but despite superior brand rankings and established distribution channels, racked up huge losses in the early 1980s and exited in 1985. (Exhibit 8a shows the brand performance of top companies, as ranked by retailers. ) In the 1990s, through a series of strategic acquisitions, Cadbury Schweppes emerged as the clear (albeit distant) third-largest concentrate producer, snapping up the Dr Pepper/Seven-Up Companies (1995) and Snapple Beverage Group (2000). (Appendix A describes Cadbury Schweppes’ operations and financial performance. ) Bottler Consolidation and Spin-Off Do Relations between Coke and its franchised bottlers had been strained since the contract renegotiation of 1978. Coke struggled to persuade bottlers to cooperate in marketing and promotion programs, upgrade plant and equipment, and support new product launches. 8 The cola wars had particularly weakened small independent franchised bottlers. High advertising spending, product and packaging proliferation, and widespread retail price discounting raised capital requirements for bottlers, while lowering their margins. Many bottlers that had been owned by one family for several generations no longer had the resources or the commitment to be competitive. At a July 1980 dinner with Coke’s fifteen largest domestic bottlers, Goizueta announced a plan to refranchise bottling operations. Coke began buying up poorly managed bottlers, infusing capital, 6 The Wall Street Journal, April 24, 1986. 17 Timothy Muris, David Scheffman, and Pablo Spiller, Strategy, Structure, and Antitrust in the Carbonated Soft Drink Industry. (Quorum Books, 1993), p. 73. 18 Greising, p. 88. 9 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century op y 702-442 and quickly reselling them to better-performing bottlers. Refranchising allowed Coke’s larger bottlers to expand outside their traditionally exclusive geographic territories. When two of its largest bottling companies came up for sale in 1985, Coke moved swiftly to buy them for $2. 4 billion, preempting outside financial bidders. Together with other bottlers that Coke had recently bought, these acquisitions placed one-third of Coca-Cola’s volume in company-owned bottlers. In 1986, Coke began to replace its 1978 franchise agreement with the Master Bottler Contract that afforded Coke much greater freedom to change concentrate price. tC Coke’s bottler acquisitions had increased its long-term debt to approximately $1 billion. In 1986, on the initiative of Doug Ivester, who later became CEO, the company created an independent bottling subsidiary, Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE), and sold 51% of its shares to the public, while retaining the rest. The minority equity position enabled Coke to separate its financial statements from CCE. As Coke’s first so-called â€Å"anchor bottler,† CCE consolidated small territories into larger regions, renegotiated with suppliers and retailers, merged redundant distribution and material purchasing, and cut its work force by 20%. CCE moved towards mega-facilities, investing in 50 million-case production lines with high levels of automation. Coke continued to acquire independent franchised bottlers and sell them to CCE. 19 â€Å"We became an investment banking firm specializing in bottler deals,† reflected Don Keough. In 1997 alone, Coke put together more than $7 billion in deals involving bottlers. 20 By 2000, CCE was Coke’s largest bottler with annual sales of more than $14. 7 billion, handling 70% of Coke’s North American volume. Some industry observers questioned Coke’s accounting practice, as Coke retained substantial managerial influence in its arguably independent anchor bottler. 21 No In the late 1980s, Pepsi also acquired MEI Bottling for $591 million, Grand Metropolitan’s bottling operations for $705 million, and General Cinema’s bottling operations for $1. 8 billion. The number of Pepsi bottlers decreased from more than 400 in the mid-1980s to less than 200 in the mid-1990s. Pepsi owned about half of these bottling operations outright and held equity positions in most of the rest. Experience in the snack food and restaurant businesses boosted Pepsi’s confidence in its ability to manage the bottling business. In the late 1990s, Pepsi changed course and also adopted the anchor bottler model. In April 1999, the Pepsi Bottling Group (PBG) went public, with Pepsi retaining a 35% equity stake. By 2000, PBG produced 55% of PepsiCo beverages in North America and 32% worldwide. As Craig Weatherup, PBG’s chairman/CEO, explained, â€Å"Our success is interdependent, with PepsiCo the keeper of the brands and PBG the keeper of the marketplace. In that regard, we’re joined at the hip. †22 Do The bottler consolidation of the 1990s made smaller concentrate producers increasingly dependent on the Pepsi and Coke bottling network to distribute their products. In response, Cadbury Schweppes in 1998 bought and merged two large U. S. bottlers to form its own bottler. In 2000, Coke’s bottling system was the most consolidated, with its top 10 bottlers producing 94% of domestic volume. Pepsi’s and Cadbury Schweppes’ top 10 bottlers produced 85% and 71% of the domestic volume of their respective franchisors. 19 Greising, p. 292. 20 Beverage Industry, January 1999, p. 17. 21 Albert Meyer and Dwight Owsen, â€Å"Coca-Cola’s Accounting,† Accounting Today, September 28, 1998 22 Kent Steinriede, â€Å"PBG Charts Its Own Course,† Beverage Industry, May 1, 1999. 10 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Adapting to the Times 702-442 op y Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century In the late 1990s, a variety of problems began to emerge for the soft drink industry as a whole. Although Americans still drank more CSDs than any other beverage, U. S. sales volume registered only a 0. 2% increase in 2000, to just under 10 billion cases (a case was equivalent to 24 eight-ounce containers, or 192 ounces). This slow growth was in contrast to the 5%-7% annual growth in the United States during the 1980s. Concurrently, financial crisis in various parts of the world left Coke and Pepsi bottlers over-invested and under-utilized. tC Coca-Cola was also impacted by difficulties in leadership transition. After the death of the popular CEO Roberto Goizueta in 1997, his successor Douglas Ivestor had two rocky years at the helm, during which Coke faced a high-profile race discrimination suit and a European public relations scandal after hundreds of people became ill from contaminated soft drinks. Douglas Daft assumed leadership in April 2000; one of his first moves was to lay off 5,200 employees, or 20% of worldwide staff. While expressing â€Å"enthusiastic support for the current strategic course of the Company under Doug Daft’s leadership,† Coke’s Board voted against Daft’s eleventh-hour negotiations to acquire Quaker Oats in November 2000. As they had numerous times over the last century, analysts predicted the end of Coke and Pepsi’s stellar growth and profitability. Meanwhile, Coke and Pepsi turned their attention to bolstering domestic markets, diversifying into non-carbonated beverages (non-carbs), and cultivating international markets. Balancing Market Growth, Market Share, and Profitability in the United States No During the early 1990s, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo bottlers employed a low-price strategy in the supermarket channel in order to compete more effectively with high-quality, low-price store brands. As the threat of the low-priced brands lessened, CCE responded in March 1999 with its first major price increase at the retail level after 20 years of flat take-home pricing. Its strategy was to reposition Coke Classic as a premium brand. PBG followed that price increase shortly after. Price wars had driven soda prices down to the point where bottlers couldn’t get a decent return on supermarket sales,† explained a Pepsi executive. 23 Observed one industry analyst, â€Å"Coke’s growth is coming internationally, and Pepsi’s is coming from Frito-Lay. It is in the companies’ mutual best interest not to destroy the domestic market and eat up each other’s share. † 24 Consume rs’ initial reaction to price increases was a reduction in supermarket purchases. When CCE raised prices in supermarkets by 6. 0%-8. 0% in both 1999 and 2000, comparable volumes in North America declined each year (1. % in 1999 and 0. 8% in 2000). In 2001, however, the bottling companies effected more moderate price increases and consumer demand appeared to be on the upswing. Do Both Coke and Pepsi also set about to boost the flagging cola market in other ways, including exclusive marketing agreements with Britney Spears (Pepsi) and Harry Potter (Coke). Pepsi reintroduced the highly effective â€Å"Pepsi Challenge,† which was designed to boost overall cola sales and draw consumers away from private labels as much as it was to plug Pepsi over Coke. In contrast to the supermarket channel, Coke and Pepsi’s rivalry in the fountain channel intensified in the late 1990s. To penetrate Coke’s stronghold, Pepsi aggressively pursued national 23 Lauren R. Rublin, â€Å"Chipping Away: Coca-Cola Could Learn a Thing or Two from the Renaissance at PepsiCo,† Barron’s, June 12, 2000. 24 Rublin. 11 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century op y 702-442 accounts, forcing Coke to make costly concessions to retain its biggest customers. Pepsi broke Coke’s stronghold at Disney with a 1998 contract to supply soft drinks at the new DisneyQuest, Club Disney and ESPN Zone chains. After a heated bidding war in 1999 over the 10,000-store chain of Burger King Corporation, Coke again won the fountain contract involving $220 million per year for 40 million gallons of syrup soda, but only after agreeing to double its $25 million in rebates to the food chain. Pepsi also sued Coke over access to the fountain market, charging Coke with â€Å"attempting to monopolize the market for fountain-dispensed soft drinks through independent foodservice distributors throughout the United States. Coke persuaded a Federal court to dismiss the suit in 2000. Despite Pepsi’s efforts, at the end of 2000, Coke still dominated the fountain market with 65% share of national â€Å"pouring rights† to Pepsi’s 21% and Dr Pepper/Seven Up’s 14%. tC The Rise of Non-Cola Beverages As consumer trends shifted from diet soda , to lemon-lime, to tea-based drinks, to other popular non-carbs, Coke and Pepsi vigorously expanded their brand portfolios. Each new product was accompanied by debate on how much each company should stray from its core product: regular cola. On one hand, cola sales consistently dwarfed alternative beverages sales, and cola-defenders expressed concern that over-enthusiastic expansion would distract the company from its flagship product. Also, history had shown that explosions in demand for alternative drinks were regularly followed by slow or negative growth. On the other hand, as domestic cola demand appeared to plateau, alternative beverages could provide a growth engine for the firms. No By the late 1990s, the soft drink industry had seen various alternative beverage categories come and go. From double-digit expansion in the late 1980s, diet CSDs peaked in 1991 at 29. 8% of the CSD segment and then declined to their 1988-level share of 24. 4% in 1999. PepsiCo’s introduction of Pepsi One in late 1998 was partially responsible for the minor recovery of the diet drink segment. Flavored soft drinks such as citrus, lemon-lime, pepper, and root beer were also popular. In 1999, Mountain Dew grew faster than any other CSD brand for the third year in a row, posting 6. 0% volume growth, but in 2000, its growth slowed to 1. 5% due to competing â€Å"new-age† non-carbs. Do At the turn of this century, CSDs accounted for 41. 3% of total non-alcoholic beverage consumption, bottled water accounted for 10. 3%, and other non-carbs accounted for the remainder. 25 When measured in gallons, sales of non-carbs rose by 18% in 1995 and 5% in 2000, compared to 3% and 0. 2% respectively for CSDs. The drinks with high growth and high hype were non-carbs such as juices/juice drinks, sports drinks, tea-based drinks, dairy-based drinks—and especially bottled water. In the 1990s, the bottled water industry grew on average 8. 3% per year, and volume reached more than 5 billion gallons in 2000. Revenue growth outpaced volume growth, with a 9. 3% increase to approximately $5. 6 billion, and per capita consumption gained 5. 1 gallons to 13. 2 gallons per person. Pepsi’s Aquafina went national in 1998. Coke followed in 1999 with Dasani. Though Pepsi and Coke sold reverse-osmosis purified water instead of spring water, they had a distribution advantage over competing water brands. 26 Coke and Pepsi launched other new drinks throughout the 1990s. They also aggressively acquired brands that rounded out their portfolios, including Tropicana (Pepsi, 1998), Gatorade (Pepsi, 5 Maxwell. Does not include â€Å"tap water / hybrids / all others† category. 26 Reverse osmosis is a method of producing pure water by forcing saline or impure water through a semi-permeable membrane across which salts or impurities cannot pass. 12 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. 702-442 op y Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in t he Twenty-First Century 2000), and SoBe (Pepsi, 2000). Both companies predicted that future increases in market share would come from beverages other than CSDs. Pepsi pronounced itself a â€Å"total beverage company,† and Coca-Cola appeared to be moving in the same direction, recasting its performance metric from share of the soda market to â€Å"share of stomach. † â€Å"If Americans want to drink tap water, we want it to be Pepsi tap water,† said Pepsi’s vice-president for new business, describing the philosophy behind the new strategy. 27 Coke’s Goizueta had echoed the same view: â€Å"Sometimes I think we even compete with soup. †28 Though cola remained the clear leader in terms of both companies’ volume sales, both Coke and Pepsi relied heavily on non-carbs to stimulate their overall growth in the late 1990s. In 1999, non-carbs accounted for 80% of Pepsi’s and more than 100% of Coke’s growth. 29 tC At the turn of the century, Pepsi had the lion’s share of non-CSD sales. Pepsi led Coke by a wide margin in 2000 volume sales in three key segments: Gatorade (76%) led PowerAde (15%) in the $2. 6billion sports drinks segment, Lipton (38%) led Nestea (27%) in the $3. 5-billion tea-based drinks segment, and Aquafina (13%) led Dasani (8%) in the $6. 0-billion bottled water segment. 30 Including multi-serve juices, Tropicana held an approximate 44% share of the $3-billion chilled orange juice market, more than twice that of Minute Maid. 1 With the acquisition of Quaker and South Beach Beverages, Pepsi raised its non-carb market share to 31%, to Coke’s 19% (see Exhibit 8b). No Non-CSD beverages complicated Coke’s and Pepsi’s traditional production and distribution processes. While bottlers could easily manage some types of alternative beverages (e. g. , cold -filled Lipton Brisk), other types required costly new equipment and changes in production, warehousing, and distribution practices (e. g. , hot-filled Lipton Iced Tea). In many cases, Coke and Pepsi paid more than half the cost of these investments. The few bottlers that invested in these capabilities either purchased concentrate or other additives from Coke and Pepsi (e. g. , Dasani’s mineral packet) or compensated the franchiser through per-unit royalty fees (e. g. , Aquafina). Most bottlers, however, did not invest in hot-fill (for some iced tea), reverse-osmosis (for some bottled water), or other specialized equipment, and instead bought their finished product from a central regional plant or one owned directly by Coca-Cola or PepsiCo. They would then distribute these alongside their own bottled products at a percentage mark-up. More split pallets32 led to slightly higher labor costs, but otherwise did not significantly affect distribution practices. Despite these complicated and evolving arrangements, higher retail prices for alternative beverages meant that margins for the franchiser, bottler, and distributor were consistently higher than on CSDs. Internationalizing the Cola Wars Do As domestic demand appeared to plateau, Coke and Pepsi increasingly looked overseas for new growth. Throughout the 1990s, new access to markets in China, India, and Eastern Europe stimulated some of the most intense battles of the cola wars. In many international markets, per capita consumption levels remained a fraction of those in the United States. For example, while the 27 Marcy Magiera, â€Å"Pepsi Moving Fast To Get Beyond Colas,† Advertising Age, July 5, 1993. 28 Greising, p. 233. 29 Bonnie Herzog, â€Å"PepsiCo, Inc. : The Joy of Growth,† Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, September 8, 2000. 30 Maxwell, p. 152-3. 31 Betsy McKay, â€Å"Juiced Up: Pepsi Edges Past Coke, and It has Nothing to Do With Cola,† The Wall Street Journal, November 6, 2000. 32 Pallets are hard beds, usually of wood, used to organize, store, and transport products. A split pallet carries more than one product type. 13 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century op y 702-442 average American drank 874 eight-ounce cans of CSDs in 1999, the average Chinese drank 22. In 1999, Coke held a world market share of 53%, compared to Pepsi’s 21% and Cadbury Schweppes’ 6%. Among major overseas markets, Coke dominated in Western Europe and much of Latin America, while Pepsi had marked presence in the Middle East and Southeast Asia (see Exhibit 9). C By the end of World War II, Coca-Cola was the largest international producer of soft drinks. Coke steadily expanded its overseas operations in the 1950s, and the name Coca-Cola soon became a synonym for American culture. Coke built brand presence in developing markets where soft drink consumption was low but potential was large, such as Indonesia: With 200 million inhabitants, a med ian age of 18, and per capita consumption of 9 eight-ounce cans of soda a year, one Coke executive noted that â€Å"they sit squarely on the equator and everybody’s young. It’s soft drink heaven. 33 By the early 1990s, Coke’s CEO Roberto Goizueta said, â€Å"Coca-Cola used to be an American company with a large international business. Now we are a large international company with a sizable American business. †34 No Following Coke, Pepsi entered Europe soon after World War II, and—benefiting from Arab and Soviet exclusion of Coke—into the Middle East and Soviet bloc in the early 1970s. However, Pepsi put less emphasis on its international operations during the subsequent decade. In 1980, international sales accounted for 62% of Coke’s soft drink volume, versus 20% for Pepsi. Pepsi rejoined the international battles in the late 1980s, realizing that many of its foreign bottling operations were inefficiently run and â€Å"woefully uncompetitive. †35 In the early 1990s, Pepsi utilized a niche strategy which targeted geographic areas where per capitas were relatively established and the markets presented high volume and profit opportunities. These were often â€Å"Coke fortresses,† and Pepsi put its guerilla tactics to work, noting that â€Å"as big as Coca-Cola is, you certainly don’t want a shootout at high noon,† said Wayne Calloway, then CEO of PepsiCo. 6 Coke struck back; in one high-profile coup in 1996, Pepsi’s longtime bottler in Venezuela defected to Coke, temporarily reducing Pepsi’s 80% share of the cola market to nearly nothing overnight. In the late 1990s, Pepsi moved even further away from head-to-head competition and instead concentrated on emerging markets that were still up for grabs. â€Å"We kept beating our heads in markets that Coke won 20 years ago,† explained Calloway’s successor, Roger Enrico. â€Å"That is a very difficult proposition. 37 In 1999, PepsiCo’s bottler sales were up 5% internationally and its operating profit from overseas was up 37%. Market share gains were reported in most of Pepsi-Cola International’s top 25 markets, including increases of 10% in India, 16% in China, and more than 100% in Russia. By 2000, international sales accounted for 62% of Coke’s and 9% of Pepsi’s revenues. Do Concentrate producers encountered various obstacles in international operations, including cultural differences, political instability, regulations, price controls, advertising restrictions, foreign exchange controls, and lack of infrastructure. When Coke attempted to acquire Cadbury Schweppes’ international practice, for example, it ran into regulatory roadblocks in Europe and in Mexico and Australia, where Coke’s market shares exceed 50%. On the other hand, Japanese domestic-protection price controls in the 1950s greased the skids for Coke’s high concentrate prices and high profitability, and in India, mandatory certification for bottled drinking water caused several local brands to fold. 33 John Huey, â€Å"The World’s Best Brand,† Fortune, May 31, 1993. 34John Huey, â€Å"The World’s Best Brand,† Fortune, May 31, 1993. 5 Larry Jabbonsky, â€Å"Room to Run,† Beverage World, August 1993. 36The Wall Street Journal, June 13, 1991. 37 John Byrne, â€Å"PepsiCo’s New Formula: How Roger Enrico is Remaking the Company†¦ and Himself,† BusinessWeek, April 10, 2000. 14 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617- 783-7860. 702-442 op y Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century To cope with immature distribution networks, Coke and Pepsi created their own ground-up, and often novel, systems. Coke introduced vending machines to Japan, a channel that eventually accounted for more than half of Coke’s Japanese sales. 38 In India, Pepsi found the most prominent businessman in town and gave him exclusive distribution rights, tapping his connections to drive growth. Significantly, both Coke and Pepsi recognized local-market demands for non-cola products. In 2000, Coke carried more than 200 brands in Japan alone, most of which were teas, coffees, juices, and flavored water. In Brazil, Coke offered two brands of guarana, a popular caffeinated carbonated berry drink accounting for one-quarter of that country’s CSD sales, despite rivals’ TV ads ridiculing â€Å"gringo guarana. † tC When the economy foundered in certain parts of the world during the late 1990s, annual consumption declined in many regions. Major financial quakes in East Asia in 1997, Russia in 1998 and Brazil in 1999 shook the cola giants, who had invested heavily in bottler infrastructure. From 1995 to 2000, Coke’s top line slowed to an average annual growth of less than 3%. Profits actually fell from $3. 0 billion in 1995 to $2. 2 billion in 2000. In Russia, where Coke invested more than $700 million from 1991 to 1999, the collapse of the economy caused sales to drop by as much as 60% and left Coke’s seven bottling plants operating at 50% capacity. In Brazil, its third-largest market, Coke lost more than 10% of its 54% market share to low-cost local drinks produced by family-owned bottlers exempt from that country’s punitive soft-drink taxes. In 1998, Coke estimated that a strong dollar cut into net sales by 9%. Pepsi, with its relatively lower overseas presence, was less affected by the crises. Nonetheless, Pepsi also subsidized its bottlers while experiencing a drop in sales. No Despite these financial setbacks, both Coke and Pepsi expressed confidence in the future growth of international consumption and used the downturn as an opportunity to snatch up bottlers, distribution, and even rival brands. To increase sales, they tried to make their products more affordable through measures such as refundable glass packaging (instead of plastic) and cheaper 6. ounce bottles. The End of an Era? At the turn of the century, growth of cola sales in the United States appeared to have plateaued. Coke and Pepsi were investing hundreds of millions of dollars to shore up international bottlers operating at low capacity. The companies’ overall growth in soft drink sales were falling short of precedent and of investors’ expectations. Was the fundamental nature of the cola wars changing? Would the parameters of this new rivalry include reduced profitability and stagnant growth— inconceivable under the old form of rivalry? Do Or, were the troubles of the late 1990s just another step in the evolution of two of America’s most successful companies? In 2001, non-cola, non-carbs, and even convenience foods offered diversification and growth potential. Low international per capita soft drink consumption figures hinted at tremendous opportunity in the competition for worldwide â€Å"throat share. † Noted a Coke executive in 2000, â€Å"the cola wars are going to be played now across a lot of different battlefields. †39 38 June Preston, â€Å"Things May Go Better for Coke amid Asia Crisis, Singapore Bottler Says,† Journal of Commerce, June 29, 1998, . A3. 39 Betsy McKay, â€Å"Juiced Up: Pepsi Edges Past Coke, and It has Nothing to Do With Cola,† The Wall Street Journal, November 6, 2000. 15 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Do Exhibit 1 702-442 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. No U. S. Industry Consumption Statistics 1970 1975 1981 1985 1990 1992 1994 1995 1996 1998 1999 2000 Historical Carbonated Soft Drink Consumption Cases (millions) Gallons/capita As a % of total beverage consumption 3,090 22. 7 2. 4 3,780 26. 3 14. 4 5,180 34. 2 18. 7 6,500 40. 3 22. 4 7,914 46. 9 26. 1 8,160 47. 2 26. 3 8,608 50. 0 27. 2 8,952 50. 9 28. 1 9,489 52. 0 28. 8 9,880 54. 0 30. 0 9,930 53. 6 29. 4 9,950 53. 0 29. 0 22. 7 22. 8 18. 5 35. 7 6. 5 5. 2 1. 3 1. 8 26. 3 21. 8 21. 6 33 1. 2 6. 8 7. 3 4. 8 1. 7 2 34. 2 20. 6 24. 3 27. 2 2. 7 6. 9 7. 3 6 2. 1 2 40. 3 24. 0 25. 0 26. 9 4. 5 7. 8 7. 3 6. 2 2. 4 1. 8 46. 9 24. 3 24. 2 26. 2 8. 1 8. 8 7. 0 5. 4 2. 0 1. 5 47. 2 23. 3 23. 8 26. 5 8. 2 9. 1 6. 8 5. 4 2. 0 0. 6 1. 4 50. 0 22. 8 23. 2 23. 3 9. 6 9. 4 7. 1 4. 8 1. 7 0. 9 1. 3 50. 9 22. 3 22. 8 1. 3 10. 1 9. 5 6. 8 4. 9 1. 8 1. 1 1. 2 52. 0 22. 3 22. 7 20. 2 11. 0 9. 7 6. 9 4. 8 1. 8 1. 1 1. 2 54. 0 22. 1 22. 0 18. 0 11. 8 10. 0 6. 9 4. 7 2. 0 1. 3 1. 3 53. 6 22. 2 21. 9 17. 2 12. 6 10. 2 7. 0 4. 6 2. 0 1. 4 1. 3 53. 0 22. 2 21. 7 16. 8 13. 2 10. 4 7. 0 4. 6 2. 0 1. 5 1. 2 114. 5 126. 5 133. 3 146. 2 154. 4 154. 3 154. 0 152. 6 153. 6 154. 1 153. 8 153. 6 68 56 49. 2 36. 3 28. 1 28. 2 28. 5 29. 9 28. 9 28. 4 28. 7 28. 9 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 U. S. Liquid Consumption Trends (gallons/capita) Carbonated soft drinks Beer Milk Coffeea Bottled Waterb Juices Teaa Powdered drinks Wine Sports Drinksc Distilled spirits Subtotal Tap water/hybrids/all others Totald tC opy Source: John C. Maxwell, Beverage Digest Fact Book 2001, and The Maxwell Consumer Report, Feb. 3, 1994; Adams Liquor Handbook, casewriter estimates. aFrom 1985, coffee and tea data are based on a three-year moving average to counter-balance inventory swings, thereby portraying consumption more realistically. bBottled water includes all packages, single-serve, and bulk. cSports drinks included in â€Å"Tap water/hybids/all others† pre-1992. This analysis assumes that each person consumes on average one-half gallon of liquid per day. -16- Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century Advertisement Spending for the Top 10 CSD Brands ($ millions) op y Exhibit 2 Share of market 2000 Total market 20. 4 13. 6 8. 7 7. 2 6. 6 6. 3 5. 3 2. 0 1. 7 1. 1 1999 20. 3 13. 8 8. 5 7. 1 6. 8 3. 6 5. 1 2. 1 1. 8 1. 1 Advertisement Spendinga per 2000 2000 1999 share point 207. 3 130. 0 1. 2 50. 5 84. 0 83. 6 0. 5 44. 5 NA 2. 7 148. 9 91. 1 25. 5 37. 1 68. 4 71. 3 0. 8 39. 2 NA 2. 9 tC Coke Classic Pepsi-Cola Diet Coke Mountain Dew Sprite Dr Pepper Diet Pepsi 7UP Caffeine Free Diet Coke Barq’s root beer Total top 10 702-442 72. 9 72. 9 10. 2 9. 6 0. 1 7. 0 12. 7 13. 3 0. 1 22. 3 NA 2. 4 604. 2 485. 2 8. 3 707. 6 650. 0 NA Source: â€Å"Top 10 Soft-Drink Brands,† Advertising Age, September 24, 2001; casewriter estimates. aAdvertisement spending measured in 11 media channels from CMR. Brands and total market in 192-oz cases from Do No Beverage Digest/Maxwell. Case volume from all channels. 17 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp. arvard. edu or 617-783-7860. 702-442 Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century U. S. Soft Drink Market Share by Case Volume (percent) 1966 op y Exhibit 3 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998 2000E 27. 7 1. 5 1. 4 2. 8 33. 4 28. 4 1. 8 1. 3 3. 2 34. 7 26. 2 2. 6 2. 6 3. 9 35. 3 2