Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 9476070" data-attributes="member: 19675">I can’t give you my sources- I got my info in an MBA class being taught by a retired Coca-Cola VP 20 or so years ago, and those notes are long gone- but John Demott’s Time magazine article, “All Afizz Over The New Coke” (June 24, 1985) stated those same figures.  John’s article also mentions people complaining about the taste, including Gay Mullins.  Mullins was the driving force behind the class-action lawsuit that fizzled when he literally couldn’t distinguish between New Coke and other drinks in a blind taste test for the court. I agree in part, and that’s part of the point I’m making: New Coke’s research team revealed it was a great product to beat competitors in the market, and thus supplement the original recipe in the company’s array of beverages.  But the research said nothing about replacing the original recipe.  They never even asked relevant questions about that possibility.  Coke saw the positive marketing data, but jumped to an incorrect conclusion on how to sell the product because they didn’t see the gaping hole in their methodology.Beyond that, New Coke outperformed every other soft drink it was blindly tested against (including the original recipe).  Its sales outpaced previous years’ for the same period, until it was revealed that it was fully replacing the original recipe.  That revelation started the backlash.They DID fall shortly after the release.  Even though New Coke was sold for 17 years- most of that time after it was renamed Coke II in 1990- its heyday was brief.  After only a few months, Classic Coke (as it was then called) returned to store shelves.It was more competitive.  Coke’s share of the market had dropped to just over a third of what it had been 40 years prior.  But Coke had its own big ad campaigns.  Bill Cosby- back then, America’s #1 Dad- what’s shilling for Coke, citing its flavor as being more suitable for refined tastes.And still, Coke was hemorrhaging market share.No, you’re misunderstanding what happened in the lawsuit.  This wasn’t about taste tests (possibly) favoring sweeter beverages.  The case was dismissed because they failed to prove the most basic elements of their allegations.  The plaintiffs claimed that New Coke had an inferior flavor to the classic recipe, and were trying to force Coke to re-release original Coca-Cola to the market.  But they couldn’t even pick out classic Coke out of an array of other sodas, including New Coke.  They failed to identify the beverages tested.  You can’t allege something “tastes worse” than something else, then fail to distinguish it from what you claim is worse, and expect to win.It wasn’t akin to “I like the flavor of beef more than that of chicken or salmon.”  It was like being unable to distinguish between them.I honestly don’t think there was any way the lawsuit could have prevailed, but they didn’t even give the Court enough to allow them to proceed.</blockquote>

Verification