The Carbonated Soft Drink Industry

In the book Speak, Melinda was very popular, and happy with her life, until Andy Evans raped her. This traumatic experience changed her forever, and she became mute. In the book speak it explains Melinda’s struggle with herself as she goes threw her years in high school. One example of this is on page 132, when Melinda has self talk with herself. “I think it’s some kind of psychiatric disorder when you have more than one personality in your head. That’s what it feels like when I walk home.” (132 Anderson) This quote shows Melinda’s struggle with herself, and how she never can make up her mind. One experience like rape in Melinda’s case can change you forever and make you suicidal.

Year after year, the United States’ beverage industry continues to see shifts in demand, demographics, and taste. Consumers are moving away from the standard high calorie soft drinks to healthier options, making it a perfect time to corner the healthy soft drink market. The following report provides a microeconomic analysis of the U.S. soft drink industry, and how a healthy soft drink start-up could take advantage of these market trends.

The existing concentrate business is largely controlled by Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) and PepsiCo (Pepsi), together claiming a combined 72% of the U.S. carbonated soft drink (CSD) market sales volume in 2009. Refer to Exhibit 1 for an illustration of the CSD industry value chain. For more than a century, Coca-Cola and Pepsi have maintained growth and large market shares through mastering five competitive forces, shown in Exhibit 2, that drive profitability and shape the industry structure.

The soft drink industry in the United States is a highly profitably, but competitive market. In 2000 alone, consumers on average drank 53 gallons of soft drinks per person a year. There are three major companies that hold the majority of sales in the carbonated soft drink industry in the United States. They are the Coca Cola Company with 44.1% market share, followed by The Pepsi-Cola Company with 31.4% market share, and Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. with 14.7% market share. Each company respectively has numerous brands that it sales. These top brands account for almost 73% of soft drink sales in the United States. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. owns two of the top ten

“Great Expectations”, “The Sign of the Four”, and “The Red Badge of Courage” are books written with literary elements as building block for storytelling. Each first chapter uses character development, setting description, and many types of conflict to interest the reader. Even though all of the stories contain these elements, some are used more than others. “Great Expectations” and “The Red Badge of Courage” focus on the setting and character description more than “The Sign of The Four” where the element on conflict is heavily used.

The soft drinks industry also exhibits heavy competition elevating the buying power of consumers. Although Coca-Cola and Pepsi Companies are the players with much dominance in the soft drinks industry, other players are also broadening their market share every day. Coca-Cola and Pepsi Companies exhibited a combined market share of approximately 90 percent in the 1990s (Yoffie, 2011). However, Coca-Cola and Pepsi Companies today exhibit a market share of 70 percent in combination, with the other companies in the soft drinks industry exhibiting a combined market share of 30 percent (Yoffie, 2011). This heavy competition can be linked to the high availability of substitutes in the soft drinks industry. Although Coca-Cola and Pepsi Companies grew in popularity because of producing Carbonated Soft Drinks (CSDs), CSDs have gradually lost their appeal among consumers since customers are increasingly becoming health conscious. This

In an industry dominated by two heavyweight contenders, Coke and Pepsi, in fact, between 1996 and 2004 per capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks (CSD) remained between 52 to 54 gallons per year. Consumption grew by an average of 3% per year over the next three decades. Fueling this growth were the increasing availability of CSD, the introduction of diet and flavored varieties, and brand extensions. There is couple of reasons why the industry is so profitable such as market share, availability and diversity and brand name and world class marketing.

During the growth stage of the product life cycle, the Company has a plan to diversify to the additional major markets in other geographic locations as well as to introduce additional products in the markets. Hence, the company will face additional competition from the major brands such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi Foods, Dr. Peppers etc. to gain the market share. While Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are the market leaders, however due to the increased concern over high calorie and carbonated soda based drinks, the market share of the existing leaders are in

| * Mature market - Decline in carbonated drinks * Intense competition * Own labels * Consumers are increasingly concerned about health and obesity * School ban on carbonates * Fear of benzene in diet drinks * Consolidation of retail * Acquisition activities of rival companies * Challenging cost environment

This paper is a strategic analysis of The Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola), a leader in the beverage industry. Coca-Cola, the world’s leading soft drink maker, operates in more than 200 countries and owns or licenses more than 500 brands of nonalcoholic beverages.

As society becomes more health conscious, domestic consumers are looking for healthier products. Increasing public concern of health issues, such as obesity, poses new challenges for the carbonated soft drink (CSD) industry, which has experienced declining growth in demand for recent years (Exhibit 1). As the United States has been Coca-Cola’s largest source of revenues by country and the company relies heavily on its domestic CSD market, this trend threatens the company’s future profitability. Coca Cola must dedicate more resources to the emerging markets of Asia in order to capture

The U.S. Beverage Industry is compromised of concentrates including CSD’s, beer, milk, bottled water, coffee, juices, tea, sports drinks, powdered drinks, wine and distilled spirits. The consumption trends of CSD’s more than doubled from 1970 to 1990 and continued to steadily rise well into 2000. Although very small, beginning in 2000 there was a slight drop in consumption followed by another minuscule drop in 2002-2004. Although the change is slight and is not cause for alarm at this point, it does fit in with the changing environment of the industry. More and more choices are being introduced into the marketplace as well as changes in consumer behavior (dieting, changing preferences, etc.). These changes give reason to the slight

The history of soft drinks in the United States illustrates important business innovations, such as product development, franchising, and mass marketing, also the evolution of consumer tastes and cultural trends. The CSD market is a highly competitive industry that includes two behemoths —The Coca-Cola and Pepsi.

There is another social impact that affects the entire carbonated beverage industry. This impact is the growing societal trend of opposing sugary beverages, more specifically soda. In the last 10 years, the average soft drink consumption has been steadily decreasing. This is in part the result of the emergence of many different “non-soda” beverages. These beverages include vitamin waters, zero calorie drinks, and the newest trend of water enhancers such as MiO. However, despite the emergence of new competition the real culprit is a societal push for healthy living. People have cast a dark shadow on carbonated beverages. Interestingly enough, it is not just sugary soda that has been given a bad rep. Diet drinks have also been chastised. There have been numerous studies, articles, and downright accusations about the adverse effects of drinking soda with artificial sweeteners. One article links the artificial

Why our school should have the right to ban cell phone use during the school day? Because it will good for our child study. Some people will think that it is unreasonable to prohibit students from using the phone on campus. Because Parents cannot quickly reach their children in an emergency, unable to exercise their autonomy, and reduce the way students gain more knowledge. As we know, the electronic products are becoming more and more developed for our lives have a huge impact in today. In today's fast-paced times, mobile phones are a handy tool to get this information. When your phone has downloaded some news app, these applications will continue to push the new news, some self-control students in the classroom will not be able to live to see the phone which led to the progress of learning. I will go through three different part to talking about the school should to ban the cell phone. Improve students' learning efficiency, effectively prevent students from relying on mobile phones, contribute to the physical and mental development of students. At the same time, I will agree with the views of the other side, and why do they think in the campus to prohibit the phone is reasonable.