In the course of making a suitable strategy, we had to make a strategic analysis of both the companies. We chose a recurring theme that may seem that it concerns us directly, the cola market.It seemed interesting to take the two protagonists of the cola market, two companies with very different strategies for a notoriety almost identical.
"When one chooses the red, the other chooses blue. For a century, Coke and Pepsi have been engaged in a fight globally. [...] The two most iconic brands of capitalism and American taste compete for contracts, the best countertops, top corners, the best bottlers, the best sellers. A struggle every day, orchestrated by managers, much to the delight of their shareholders. For Wall Street, the battle of red and blue, it's gold."
We therefore decided to analyze the two companies' strategies. At first, we present the two companies and the market where they are located, including through an external analysis. In the second step, we analyze the strategy of each company and finally, we present a comparative analysis of these strategies.
In the first section, the objective is to analyze the external environment of the two study groups. Before presenting the history of both groups, a brief review of the cola market in general will be discussed.
After seeing these general aspects, the international market for cola will be addressed in this study. Then strategic analysis tools will be implemented in order to highlight the strengths and environmental influences in the cola market and the attractiveness of this competitive market.
To perform an external analysis of the market of soft drinks, it is important to be aware of elements attached to cola in the market.
The market for soft drinks (also known as SARB) has been having a very strong growth since the 1970s. However, this market is now in stagnation. Competition in this market is oligopolistic: a few large companies share most of the market shares: Coke, Pepsi and Cadbury Schweppes. In 2007 in the US, Pepsi and Coke alone represent 80% of the sales volume.
Internationalization and communication/advertising are key elements to consider in this market.
Pepsi and Coke are two leading companies in this industry; we will analyze each of them separately and then compare their strategies.
Pepsi Cola was created in New Bern (North Carolina), US. This drink was invented by Caleb D. Bradham, born in 1867, a pharmacist in New Bern in North Carolina , who in 1893 invented a potion made from kola nut. Mixed with seltzer water , ‘Brad's Drink' proved very refreshing. Many people came to taste it at the soda fountain of the drugstore.It became ‘Brad's Drink' to ‘c in 1898. And with this new name Caleb D. Bradham registered the trademark in 1902.
In 1923, the manufacturer of Pepsi went bankrupt because of high sugar prices due to World War I. The company was sold and Roy C. Megargel bought the trademark.But unfortunately this only works one time, Pepsi fell into bankruptcy in 1931 again. It was then bought by G. Guth, president of the sugar company Condo Industries.
Tags: external analysis of the market of soft drinks, Coke, Pepsi and Cadbury Schweppes
[...] Serial-Packaging Commitment to make no Packaging in limited advertising to children III] comparative analysis of strategies of both groups To complete our analysis on Pepsi and Coca Cola, we decided to make a comparison of strategies. Indeed it will consist of a mapping that will allow us to visualize the positioning of both brands, and also a SWOT analysis which establishes the strengths and weaknesses of these two, then finally we will examine some perspectives for the future to improve these two groups. [...]
[...] Here are some changes that could alter predictions of Coca Cola and Pepsi: - Changes in laws and regulations, including changes in accounting standards, taxation requirements and environmental laws in domestic or foreign jurisdictions, - changes in the business environment of soft drinks, - political changes, particularly in international markets, including civil unrests, changes in government restrictions on the ability to move capital across borders. Economic: Period of economic recession, thus lower consumption. Any time, according to the Standard & Poor's Industry Surveys in the United States, large soft drink companies, there was an economic improvement in many major international markets such as Japan, Brazil and Germany'. [...]
[...] The strengths and weaknesses of Coca Cola Forces Weaknesses Coca Cola has a strong competitive A slowdown in revenue growth since advantage due to its heavy 1997, investment in communication ( 29.1 Particularly in soft drinks. million in 2004). In the US, the group is even advertising in schools. Coca Cola has a very loyal Coca Cola no longer holds its clientele (many customers say that quasi-monopolistic position and its they only drink Coca Cola and not market shares in favor of Pepsico. [...]
[...] CSFs are identified: - Health Marketing - The ‘addiction' of the younger generation to cola and other carbonated beverages without alcohol II] The strategies of Pepsi & Coca Cola After studying the external diagnosis of Pepsi and Coca Cola to better understand the market in which they operate, it is important to diagnose each of these two groups internally. We will see how they react and differentiate through their strategies in the market of cola. Analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the two actors First, we created the product strengths and weaknesses economically, according to the production and the society. [...]
[...] Introduction of the two groups History and presentation of the group PEPSI: Pepsi Cola and the Pepsi soft drink was created in New Bern (North Carolina), US. This drink was invented by Caleb D. Bradham, born in 1867, a pharmacist in New Bern in North Carolina , who in 1893 invented a potion made from kola nut. Mixed with seltzer water , ‘Brad's Drink' proved very refreshing. Many people came to taste it at the soda fountain of the drugstore. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
