Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Peptide Pro
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsPeptide ProUGFREAK

Lil' Kim regrets nuclear test

Lao Tzu said:
Who gives a shit about a vegamite ban. Private companies make mistakes too. I seem to remember something called 'new coke'. Are you such a market fanatic that you can't even see that private industry screws up every now and again as well?

You need to do more marketing research.

The Real Story of New Coke
-------------------------------
To hear some tell it, April 23, 1985, was a day that will live in marketing infamy.

That's the day The Coca-Cola Company took arguably the biggest risk in consumer goods history, announcing that it was changing the formula for the world's most popular soft drink, and spawning consumer angst the likes of which no business has ever seen.

The Coca-Cola Company introduced reformulated Coca-Cola®, often referred to as "new Coke®," marking the first formula change in 99 years. The company didn't set out to create the firestorm of consumer protest that ensued; instead, The Coca-Cola Company intended to re-energize its Coca-Cola brand and the cola category in its largest market, the United States.

That firestorm ended with the return of the original formula, now called Coca-Cola classic®, a few months later. The return of original formula Coca-Cola on July 11, 1985, put the cap on 79 days that revolutionized the soft-drink industry, transformed The Coca-Cola Company and stands today as testimony to the power of taking intelligent risks, even when they don't quite work as intended.

"We set out to change the dynamics of sugar colas in the United States, and we did exactly that -- albeit not in the way we had planned," then chairman and chief executive officer Roberto Goizueta said in 1995 at a special employee event honoring the 10-year anniversary of "new Coke."

"But the most significant result of 'new Coke' -- by far," Mr. Goizueta said, "was that it sent an incredibly powerful signal ... a signal that we really were ready to do whatever was necessary to build value for the owners of our business."

The story of "new Coke" is widely recalled, but the context is often forgotten. In 1985, The Coca-Cola Company's share lead over its chief competitor, in its flagship market, with its flagship product, had been slowly slipping for 15 consecutive years. The cola category in general was lethargic. Consumer preference for Coca-Cola was dipping, as was consumer awareness. That changed, of course, in the summer of 1985 as the consumer outcry over "new Coke" was replaced by consumer affection for Coca-Cola classic.

The fabled secret formula for Coca-Cola was changed, adopting a formula preferred in taste tests of nearly 200,000 consumers. What these tests didn't show, of course, was the bond consumers felt with their Coca-Cola -- something they didn't want anyone, including The Coca-Cola Company, tampering with.

The events of the spring and summer of '85 -- pundits blasting the "marketing blunder of the century," consumers hoarding the "old" Coke, calls of protests by the thousands -- changed forever The Coca-Cola Company's thinking.

At the 10-year anniversary celebration, Mr. Goizueta characterized the "new Coke" decision as a prime example of "taking intelligent risks." He urged all employees to take intelligent risks in their jobs, saying it was critical to the company's success. Many of the employees there that day had worked for the company in 1985 and remembered the thousands of calls and consumer complaints.

Calls flooded in not just to the 800-GET-COKE phone line, but to Coca-Cola offices across the United States. By June 1985, The Coca-Cola Company was getting 1,500 calls a day on its consumer hotline, compared with 400 a day before the taste change. People seemed to hold any Coca-Cola employee -- from security officers at our headquarters building to their neighbors who worked for Coke -- personally responsible for the change.

Mr. Goizueta received a letter addressed to "Chief Dodo, The Coca-Cola Company." He often said he was more upset that it was actually delivered to him! Another person wrote to him asking for his autograph -- because, in years to come, the signature of "one of the dumbest executives in American business history" would be worth a fortune.

When the taste change was announced, some consumers panicked, filling their basements with cases of Coke®. A man in San Antonio, Texas, drove to a local bottler and bought $1,000 worth of Coca-Cola. Some people got depressed over the loss of their favorite soft drink. Suddenly everyone was talking about Coca-Cola, realizing what an important role it played in his or her life.

Protest groups -- such as the Society for the Preservation of the Real Thing and Old Cola Drinkers of America (which claimed to have recruited 100,000 in a drive to bring back "old" Coke) -- popped up around the country. Songs were written to honor the old taste. Protesters at a Coca-Cola event in downtown Atlanta in May carried signs with "We want the real thing" and "Our children will never know refreshment."

When the announcement of the return of "old" Coca-Cola was made in July 1985, those hoarding as many as 900 bottles in their basements could stop their self-imposed rationing and begin to drink the product as they always had -- as often as they'd like.

That July day, the story that the "old" Coca-Cola was returning to store shelves led two network newscasts and made the front page of virtually every major newspaper. Consumers applauded the decision. In just two days after the announcement of Coca-Cola classic, The Coca-Cola Company received 31,600 telephone calls on the hotline. Coca-Cola was obviously more than just a soft drink.

In 1985, Coca-Cola classic was introduced alongside Coca-Cola ("new Coke"), and the two brands had distinct advertising campaigns, with the youthful, leading edge "Catch the Wave" campaign for the new taste of Coke and the emotional "Red, White and You" for Coca-Cola classic.

Later, the name of the new taste of Coca-Cola was changed to Coke II; the product is no longer available in the United States.

The events of 1985 changed forever the dynamics of the soft-drink industry and the success of The Coca-Cola Company, as the Coca-Cola brand soared to new heights and consumers continued to remember the love they have for Coca-Cola.
 
mrplunkey said:
Much better -- I was afraid you were "slipping".

And now we could prove the legitimacy of the ban if the government would just waste $150M in a 5-year study. By they time they get through cooking the numbers, it will generate a net theoretical savings in overall healthcare. Hell, I bet you could even count the supposed benefits toward forcing everyone into government-controlled healthcare :)

WHile I'm on it we should mandate marriage for all men, since marriage extends lifespan by about 5 years. Think of all the money we'll save in medicare. Then we can mandate exercise, we can have giant courtyards of people doing exercise at 8am everyday. That'll make our nation fit. Why stop there though, I think we need to buy everyone a car, and if you make more than 500k a year you should be forced to apologize on TV for being so wasteful when others have so little.

I have seen documentaries on TV, some of which discussed new coke. New coke was not intented to have that effect, it was totally unexpected. Even the ex heads get people asking them if they made new coke on purpose just so it would flop and they generally laugh and say no.
 
Lao Tzu said:
WHile I'm on it we should mandate marriage for all men, since marriage extends lifespan by about 5 years. Think of all the money we'll save in medicare. Then we can mandate exercise, we can have giant courtyards of people doing exercise at 8am everyday. That'll make our nation fit. Why stop there though, I think we need to buy everyone a car, and if you make more than 500k a year you should be forced to apologize on TV for being so wasteful when others have so little.
Your comments about healthy living mandates, while sarcastic, make an excellent point. Americans are going to do whatever the hell they want. We're the thinnest and the fattest. The most moral and most immoral. Our healthiest eat as healthy as anyone in the world and our fattest eat worse than the worst in the world.

Which is one of the many reasons I oppose having taxpayers pay for it.

I would (and I'm very serious here) love to see a 5%-8% incremental income tax on anyone 10%-25% above their ideal body weight (when adjusted for muscle mass). Then another 5%-8% incremental cost that kicks in for the 25%-50% range and then something even higher for the 50% range. That would make a dent in covering skyrocketing healthcare costs.
 
Lao Tzu said:
I have seen documentaries on TV, some of which discussed new coke. New coke was not intented to have that effect, it was totally unexpected. Even the ex heads get people asking them if they made new coke on purpose just so it would flop and they generally laugh and say no.

Well, I don't know if I can compete with your insight gained through television... but let me give it a try:

1) Coca cola had been losing market share for 15 years in a row.

2) The carbonated soft drink market had been flat or slowly shrinking as well.

3) A slow but steady leak in the boat is the worst thing that can happen to a market leader. When bad things happen fast, it usually shocks companies and they respond. Slower trends are actually harder to turn-around. Most MBA's would use the "boiled frog" analogy, but that's too cliche for me :)

4) Coke execs did exactly what they should have done in this situation -- shake things up. It's also cliche to say that's a textbook move, but it *was* a textbook move.

5) People didn't like the change, nor did they like the new product.

6) Changing coke did, however, galvinize the customer base and recaptured interest in the entire segment.

7) Therefore the executives made a textbook move, but the change and product flopped, but they got exactly what they wanted anyway.

It's like making the right play call, botching the play, and scoring a touchdown anyway.
 
Gambino said:
interesting read plunkey, the coke article
It really is good stuff. The executives really did exactly what they should have done in trying to shake up the product and the segment in general.
 
mrplunkey said:
Well, I don't know if I can compete with your insight gained through television... but let me give it a try:
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

Although the company insisted, and the historical record suggests, it was an unplanned reaction to the perceived rejection of New Coke, many urban legends and conspiracy theories that continue to circulate claim it was planned all along and offer various reasons for it.


Do you post anything that isn't wishful thinking?
 
mrplunkey said:
It really is good stuff. The executives really did exactly what they should have done in trying to shake up the product and the segment in general.
lol at dumbasses freaking out and stockpiling coke
 
Lao Tzu said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

Although the company insisted, and the historical record suggests, it was an unplanned reaction to the perceived rejection of New Coke, many urban legends and conspiracy theories that continue to circulate claim it was planned all along and offer various reasons for it.


Do you post anything that isn't wishful thinking?
The result was what they wanted. The mechanism through which they recieved that result was what was totally unanticipated. They even packaged-up this as a 4-hour mini case for use in business schools. Like I said earlier... they called the right play, then executed it poorly, but scored a touchdown anyway on a broken play.

And how would I know? Well... when you do an MBA at the Goizueta Business School (Emory... Atlanta... Coca-Cola university) they parade Coke business cases and coke execs in and out all the time as speakers. My only disappointment was our class missed-out on Goiz himself -- he blew us off.

Does the concept of a company that's losing share in a shrinking market being desperate and wanting to do something radical seem that strange to you?
 
Top Bottom