A Titan’s Pursuit to Maintain and ConquerMarket Share

Group Number 7 AGEC 4273

Dr. Roger Hinson April 1, 2011

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary…………………………………....………...……….…………….. 3

Introduction……….…………………………………………………………………….. 4

Goals…………………..………………………..………………………………………. 5

Constraints..…………………………………………………………………………….. 5

Competitive Analysis……………………………………………………………………. 5

o Barriers to entry..………….…………………………………………………….. 6

o Rivalry………………………………………………………………...………… 7

o Substitutes…………………..………………………………………………..…. 8

o Power of Buyers...………………………………………………………………. 9

o Power of Suppliers……………………………………………………………… 9

Central Issue..………………….…………………………………..………..…………. 10

Alternatives…………………………………………………………………………….. 10

Best Alternative……………………………………………………….......…………… 15

Implementation Strategy……………………………………………………………….. 16

2

Executive Summary

Primary and Secondary Issues

Coca-Cola’s primary problem is deciding how to raise the domestic demand of CSDs. Other

challenges include solutions in increasing market share in the non-CSD industry, capturing

untapped domestic market segments.

Alternatives

In responding to these concerns, several options can be implanted in solving the problem. New

product innovation would be accomplished by creating products geared more towards health-

conscious consumers. For product improvements, developments include creating a “green coke”

with all natural ingredients and revamping Coca-Cola’s PowerAde line through “PowerAde +”.

Creating new marketing strategies can be achieved through the implementation of the

biodegradable can, and through increased advertising spending in the PowerAde line to build

brand loyalty. Establishing new markets would be accomplished through evolving health

awareness with products geared towards sustainability and nutrition.

Solutions

After considering all of the alternatives, we have decided that product development and creating

new marketing strategies would be the best route to take. As far as creating new products, no

major changes to product lines should be implemented. For product development and new

3

marketing strategies, creating a “green coke” in a biodegradable, released on earth day, would

hopefully appeal to health-conscious consumers and ultimately create a new conceptualization of

carbonated soft drinks.

Introduction

Coca-Cola and Pepsi have been in intense competition since the 1970s; however, they

have thrived from this competition achieving “average annual revenue growth of around 10%”

from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s. This arrangement was beneficial until domestic demand

for carbonated soft drinks (CSDs) began to decline. The carbonated soft drink industry has

grown substantially over the years. In 1970, carbonated soft drinks (CSDs) consumed in the

United States were 22.7 gallons per capita. In 1998, CSD consumption was 54 gallons per capita.

CSD consumption has drastically increased over the last 40 years, but recently has demonstrated

level intake, starting in 2000. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are the two main competitors in the industry

and as of the end of 2004, control 74.8% of the U.S. soft drink market, with the remainder

belonging to Cadbury-Schweppes and other companies. Both Coca-Cola and Pepsi relied on one

another for the competition as well as being related to each other for establishing growing

revenues. Both companies have expanded their reach into emerging international markets, as

well as alternatives to meet the demand of its consumers.

In 2005, new federal guidelines were released that identified soft drinks as the main

source of obesity-causing sugars in the American diet. After this was realized, schools started

prohibiting the sales of CSDs on campus. A survey conducted by Morgan Stanley showed

Americans who believed soft drinks were “too fattening” rose from 48% to 59%. This forced

CSD manufacturers to direct their energy towards expanding lines of diet sodas and other

alternatives.

4

Both Coca-Cola and Pepsi benefited as sales increased and the total U.S. market share

grew from 24.6 percent in 1997 to 29.1 percent in 2004. Coca-Cola and Pepsi continue to

compete, but it seems that the competition has shifted from competition between each other to

competition for attention in a saturated market.

This case analysis will focus on the stabilization of growth in the CSD industry and the

company’s struggle to maintain market share in the non-carb sector. First, we will examine the

goals and constraints currently faced by Coca-Cola.

Goals

To increase Coca-Cola’s overall market share in the overall beverage industry

o To boost flagging domestic demand for CSD products

o To increase Coca-Cola’s market share of non-carb products in the U.S.

o To capture untapped domestic market segments not catered to by CSD companies

Constraints

Obesity and health concerns deterring consumers from CSD and unhealthy non-carb

beverages

Pepsi leads Coca-Cola in market share of non-carbonated beverages, the fastest growing

segment of the beverage industry

Some domestic market segments won’t associate with large companies like Coca-Cola

due to negative political and environmental connotations (i.e. socially-conscious

consumers, eco-conscious consumers)

5

Competitive Analysis

Porters 5 Forces Model is a valuable tool in evaluating the state of the CSD and non-carb

industry that Coca-Cola and Pepsi actively dominate. While there is much competition between

the two companies, it is arguable that they fuel each other’s growth. This can’t necessarily be

said for smaller companies like Cadbury Schweppes who are in a constant state of falling behind

in market share. Porter created this strategy to give an in-depth view of the state of any given

industry and determine the feasibility of entering, but also to outline the level of competition

being dealt with by already established participants in said industry in order to reposition

themselves for further growth. Thus, Porter gives the 5 Basic Competitive Forces and suggests

analyzing each one in the scope of the industry—CSD and non-carb beverages.

1. Barriers to Entry

In the beverage industry, largely dominated by Coca-Cola and Pepsi, the barriers to entry

are high due to several key factors. First, a company trying to break into the CSD market

must compete with Coca-Cola and Pepsi’s combined market share of over 75%.

Economies of scale come into play because both companies have the capital and

production abilities to produce their flagship and additional products for much cheaper

than a start-up that is breaking into the business. A major factor in the CSD and non-carb

industry now is differentiation, with both companies attempting to find new ways to

appeal to customers without straying too far from their cornerstones of success (ex: New

Coca-Cola vs. Coca-Cola Classic). The recent growth of the non-carb beverage industry

is a good area of focus for a new company, but the product must be novel in order to

catch on and then have staying power. Another barrier to entry could potentially stem

from legislation to regulate health standards. Companies must develop ways to address

6

health concerns and invest in research and development to do so. Another issue is that

mainly Coca-Cola has put most small bottlers out of business and bought them out to add

to their top bottler, Coca-Cola Enterprises. This makes it more difficult for a new

concentrate producer to introduce a cola product, because the options for bottling and

distribution are limited. Ultimately Coca-Cola and Pepsi have formed an oligopoly in the

industry, making it difficult for new entrants to expect profitable gains upon entry.

However, between each other the companies must constantly innovate and invest in order

to keep up with each other.

2. Rivalry

As discussed in the previous section, the competition in the CSD and non-carb industries

is a stronghold between Pepsi and Coca-Cola with a few minor players holding a

miniscule amount of market share. When there are many competitors entry is easier, but

when economies of scale come into play smaller competitors can get crowded out or

bought out by a larger one. In this case, the top two companies in the industry create

almost all of the product being sold, creating a high stakes market where Coca-Cola

directly benefits from Pepsi losing market share. As a former CEO of Pepsi put it,

“Without Coca-Cola, Pepsi would have a hard time being an original and lively

competitor. The more successful they are, the more competitive we have to be.” The

competition between Coca-Cola and Pepsi is very reciprocal, with the companies

responding to each other’s strategy shifts, much like in chess. Coca-Cola began

developing its international market in the 1950s, when distributors were set-up in other

countries during WWII. Focusing on those markets, by the 90s Coca-Cola had a

bolstering international market while domestic sales were dropping. Pepsi responded to

7

this by trying to infiltrate the markets that Coca-Cola had already developed, but soon

realized that competing in those already established markets was costly and not the best

move, and then turned their attention to untapped markets. Coca-Cola is clearly the

leader in CSDs, which forces Pepsi to constantly reposition itself in terms of what Coca-

Cola is doing. The same goes for the non-carb market, which Pepsi has gained market

share of. Due in large part to health concerns and product innovation, consumers have

been looking for alternatives to carbonated beverages and Pepsi capitalized on this trend

at the right time. With Pepsi’s Gatorade leading Coca-Cola’s Powerade by almost 50%,

Pepsi has been more successful in that area of the market, something that Coca-Cola has

taken note of. It is a costly market to enter and once in it, a company needs to realize at

least their fixed costs before exiting, cementing Coca-Cola and Pepsi’s domination of the

market even more.

3. Substitutes

Entering a market with a generally undifferentiated product leaves one open to the threat

of substitution. Coca-Cola and Pepsi, for all intents and purposes, both have relatively

similar flagship colas, but have fought consumers from thinking that with intensive

advertising and marketing campaigns. Both companies have developed much customer

loyalty, especially with their flagship products, making them much less substitutable than

if those loyalties weren’t in place. Consumers tend to choose based on price if there are

no other reasons; therefore, the companies have had to develop these reasons in order to

retain share versus store and generic brands. In terms of the rest of the CSD and non-carb

brands produced by these companies, there is more interchangeability that can often

result in consumers just choosing the lower prices, which is why Coca-Cola and Pepsi

8

must remain in such close competition. If they can remain within the same price range of

products, it then forces consumers to choose based on preference.

4. Power of Buyers

In the 90s when Coca-Cola and Pepsi attempted to raise their retail prices between 6 and

8 percent, consumers reacted by buying much less of the products and grocery sales for

the companies went down significantly. This forced both companies to re-evaluate their

pricing and lower the margin by which they raise prices, which had a positive effect on

retail consumption. This is an example where both Coca-Cola chose a higher pricing

strategy, Pepsi followed suit, and consumers reacted negatively. However, in its bottler

relationships Coca-Cola and Pepsi have a greater ability to impact pricing without

experiencing backlash; therefore, the buyer power of bottlers is low. First, most of Pepsi

and Coca-Cola’s bottlers are owned by them and are forced to take price increases set by

each company’s master bottling contract (which are supposed to fluctuate with CPI, but

don’t always do). Those bottlers that were independently owned couldn’t put up with the

price changes and eventually went out of business or were bought out by one of the two

companies.

5. Power of Suppliers

In this case, supplier power is very high. Bottlers are unable to negotiate with Coca-Cola

and Pepsi due to stringent franchise agreements, giving the companies power in pricing

and quantity. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are both powerful because they have integrated most

of their processes and can benefit directly from profits. With their acquisition of most of

9

their bottlers and door-to-store format, they are able to monitor their product from

beginning to end and give little opportunity for their bottlers or retailers to negotiate.

Central Issue

Given that the overarching goal of Coca-Cola is to capture as much market share of the

beverage industry as possible, we have identified Coca-Cola’s central problem as the waning

demand for CSDs in the domestic market; this has created a stagnant growth for the company

and a decline in market share of the beverage industry. It is important to identify this problem

over the other issues because up until recently Coca-Cola had a healthy hold on the overall

beverage market and is now seeing that lead decline to Pepsi, due in particular to Pepsi’s strength

in the growing non-carb market. Coca-Cola has often relied on its flagship CSDs to maintain

growth, but since demand is dwindling for carbonated beverages the company must decide on an

appropriate course of action in order to reach the ultimate goal of dominating the overall

domestic market. We believe that the future success of Coca-Cola hinges on how the company

chooses to react to this reduced demand for their mainstay products.

Alternatives

Coca-Cola could react to waning domestic demand for CSD products in many ways,

through new product innovation, product improvement, intensified marketing strategies, or

creating a new market altogether. We believe that choosing to focus on increasing demand in the

CSD market or increasing Coca-Cola’s presence in the non-carb sector are the two best options

as our alternatives represent. The company can either attempt to enter into a If Coca-Cola

chooses to impact CSD demand directly, alternatives could include developing new marketing

10

strategies to boost CSD demand, new carbonated product innovation to increase CSD demand, or

creating an approach that links new promotional approaches with product innovation. However,

Coca-Cola could also choose to move away from the CSD industry and focus on competing

more directly with Pepsi’s share of the non-carb market. In doing this, Coca-Cola is reacting

passively to the problem of stagnant domestic demand for CSDs, but could benefit by using more

resources to improve Coca-Cola’s existing non-carb beverages and to develop new non-carbs

that can compete more readily with Pepsi’s.

Our first alternative focuses on Coca-Cola increasing their marketing and promotional

strategies in untapped consumer segments. Coca-Cola is not typically associated with being a

socially conscious or sustainable company, especially in the United States. However, given the

various awards and recognitions listed on the company’s website, including ranking #10 in

Fortune Magazine’s 2010 list of the “World’s Most Admired Companies” due to environmental

initiatives and good business practices, Coca-Cola should capitalize on their image in the

business world and translate that to consumers.1 Advertising the positive initiatives of the Coca-

Cola Company could create an immediate draw from consumers who typically dismiss the

company as just another corporate giant. According to the Chicago Tribune, 2010’s food trends

included going green, buying local, a search for simplicity, and comfort foods.2 Coca-Cola could

very easily advertise about the green initiatives the company has undertaken, enticing eco-

conscious consumers who search for more than just the value of the product. Two other trends

beneficial to Coca-Cola are simplicity and comfort. In recovering from the recession, people are

looking for a return to normalcy and being able to enjoy the small things. Coca-Cola has long

been associated with the United States, a recognizable symbol of home. Reintroducing classic

marketing slogans like “Always Coca-Cola” could incite nostalgia and help reenergize people’s

11

interest in Coca-Cola’s flagship CSDs like Coca-Cola Classic and Diet Coke. Some drawbacks

to this strategy are that the magnitude of political controversy that has surrounded Coca-Cola

may not be undone by promoting Coca-Cola’s good deeds, people who are against the company

may not be able to get turned back on. Also, while people are seeking a return to simplicity, the

fact of obesity and health concerns remain, which these marketing strategies do nothing to

address.

Another alternative to boost CSD demand domestically is to innovate its existing CSDs

to create new demand in the existing market. Coca-Cola has always used a traditional marketing

angle focusing heavily on its flagship CSD products, thus the focus on staying within the CSD

market—it’s what they’re the best at. Differentiating too much, to the point of abandoning the

CSD sector of the beverage industry, could give the impression that Coca-Cola is abandoning its

roots. Some options for innovating existing products include additives with health benefits

(antioxidants, tea extracts, vitamins, etc.) and using alternative sweeteners (cane sugar, stevia,

etc.). These innovations have the potential to directly address health issues and those consumers

with “green” preferences. A fear that comes with innovating Coca-Cola’s CSDs, especially its

flagships, is the backlash these products could face. “New Coke” was a huge disappointment

and an example of just that, Coca-Cola differentiated to the point of abandoning the original and

consumers reacted negatively. However, our recommendation is not to replace the flagships, just

offer differentiated versions that could appeal to an untapped market for CSD consumption.

Combining the previous two alternatives presents the final alternative that focuses on

directly addressing the decreased demand for CSD products in the U.S. Using an integrated

marketing and product innovation approach, Coca-Cola could develop modified versions of its

flagship products— Coca-Cola and Diet Coke—and present them through a multi-faceted

12

marketing strategy. The product innovation could include ingredient alteration, like the

sweetener recommendation, new packaging, and present these changes to the public. According

to the Wall Street Journal, Coca-Cola recently released new packaging dubbed the “plantbottle.”

Derived from a process involving sugar cane, this is an example of a green initiative Coca-Cola

has successfully undertaken.3 This new, green packaging is being used currently for the flagship

CSDs and water, but a powerful strategy would be to combine the package with a healthy

product. Since we’re attempting to overcome the public’s increasing fear of obesity and further

health issues (for example, growing concern over the use of high fructose corn syrup) a factor

contributing to CSD decline in the U.S., the innovation in the product should take that into

account. In addition, there are the previously discussed trends of eco-friendliness and simplicity.

We see this alternative coming together in the form of developing and marketing a more natural

version of Coca-Cola’s flagships, conscientious of both consumer health and the environment.

The challenges that this alternative presents are that both health conscious and green consumers

deem CSDs might never consider Coca-Cola’s items beneficial because of pre-existing notions

about the company. Also, the actual effectiveness of green packaging, marketing, and a healthier

alternative might be negligible compared with costs and consumer reaction. If Coca-Cola claims

to provide a healthier product and the benefits are proven otherwise, the company could come

under fire for misleading advertising.

While the previous set of alternatives has focused on boosting domestic demand for

carbonated beverages, another strategic approach Coca-Cola can take is strengthening its

participation in the non-carb market. A recent article in Financial Times discusses the strategy

selected by current PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi, saying that when faced with the declining CSD

market she chose to steer the company in a direction where they could definitely be on top.4

13

Moving towards the non-carb market, Pepsi has captured that sector of the beverage industry and

now Coca-Cola is struggling to recapture some of the market share that Pepsi has gained.

The first alternative dealing with non-carbs could be to reformulate some of its products,

such as Minute Maid or Nestea, to better compete with Pepsi’s successful health and functional

drinks. Our recommendation is to focus on a pre-existing Coca-Cola product with potential for

demographic marketing and the ability to be improved given consumer health and wellness

standards; specifically PowerAde. Coca-Cola’s PowerAde sports drink line should capitalize on

health trends and market more specifically in college and professional sports leagues.

Livestrong, a popular sporting website, conducted a comparison of Gatorade and

PowerAde, down to the ingredients.5 While Gatorade used to be produced with a mixture of

sugar, glucose, and fructose, the formula has more recently been produced with high-fructose

corn syrup. PowerAde is also sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup and additionally has

more carbohydrates, but additional vitamins. Choosing to reformulate original PowerAde to use

an alternative sweetener could give them an edge in the competition. Completing the new

formula would entail improving old and creating new flavors to market as PowerAde +. To

create a more fresh conception of the PowerAde brand, two or three flavors could be created

with seasonality in mind—for example, releasing limited edition flavors specifically for the

Olympics or World Cup.

If Coca-Cola chooses not to reformulate its sports drink product, another option would be

advertising more heavily in the college and professional sports markets. For sports markets,

increased advertising at the collegiate and professional levels would primarily be geared to

develop trust in the PowerAde brand and ultimately correlate Coca-Cola more closely with

athletes and fans. In 2004, PowerAde held 0.9% share in advertisement spending compared to

14

Gatorade, who held a 3.9% share. Increasing spending in PowerAde’s advertisement could be

directed towards university conference and NCAA partnerships, as well as creating endorsement

deals with top tier athletes. Offering universities the option to adopt PowerAde as their “official”

drink through special price deals would increase brand distribution not only through increased

product visibility, but also through apparel, banners, and promotions. Coca-Cola could also offer

incentives at the professional level, negotiating to become the official sports drink of the

National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the

National Hockey League, etc. This effort is ultimately meant to gain brand loyalty for

PowerAde on college campuses and in the professional sporting arena, which should spur more

consumer demand.

The final alternative Coca-Cola could pursue to compete more aggressively in the non-

carb market is to develop an entirely new product, consistent with emerging trends in the

beverage industry. In a recent article from Beverage Daily, they note that global sales of

probiotic and prebiotic drinks were up to $15 billion dollars in 2008. This is a product market

that neither Pepsi nor Coca-Cola have gotten very involved with, but could potentially succeed

in.6 This is only one example of how Coca-Cola could use emerging health and wellness trends

in the beverage industry to their advantage. As the leader in overall beverages, becoming a mass

producer of a product with increasing demand could put them in the lead in the non-carb market.

However, while this a feasible option, it may not be the best solution to increasing market share.

Coca-Cola does not yet have the credentials to tout healthier products, because the image is still

rooted in carbonated “junk food” beverages. Also, while this trend is on the rise, it may be a

passing fad that could end up costing the company revenue.

Best Alternative

15

The best new market strategy we chose to implement, is a shift towards a more health

and Eco-conscious demographic. A new “green” or all natural formula along with a new

biodegradable can planned to be released in a celebratory fashion on earth day, to attract our

target demographic as well as spark a surge of “green-friendly” consumers that will associate the

Coca-Cola name with their new life-style. This name association would help Coca-Cola sales

increase with the new wave “green” consumers. We also decided that we would forgo a

completely new brand or formula of the Coca-Cola product due to past experience had by the

Coca-Cola Company. Although the new Coca-Cola formula is modified in the new natural

version, the actual recipe stays the same just with more organic ingredients. The goal is to make

the same great tasting Coca-Cola Classic only with less unnatural flavorings. With only minor

changes on some of the ingredients cost should be kept minimal, and keep the return on the

investment high.

Along with this new market strategy’s potential up sides, there are potential down sides.

The major down sides will result from unseen costs or shifts in the consumers new purchasing

patterns. However potential gain in market share significantly out-weigh the small threat that it

imposes on the use of Coca-Cola’s resources. These steps are a small investment in not only

Coca-Cola’s market share but in the betterment the world we live in.

Implementation Strategy

Ultimately we feel that our third alternative focusing on sustainability in the Coca-Cola

brand is more advantageous in our increasingly eco-conscious and health focused society. The

new product line of “green” Coca-Cola would initially be introduced, marketed, and distributed

to a domestic audience. Calling it “green” suggests the development of an all-natural product, the

use biodegradable bottling, and an eco-driven marketing approach. If domestic consumer

16

reception of Coca-Cola’s eco-friend CSD is positive, the company should plan to expand

distribution worldwide within six months.

Coca-Cola’s first step is to invest in the innovation of their “green” CSD line.

Developing a natural formula consists of finding alternative to the ingredients in their flagship

products. The initial concern is with the types of sweeteners used in Coca-Cola and Diet Coke.

While abroad, in countries like Mexico, Coca-Cola is made with real sugar, but due to cost

reductions the bulk of Coke products in the U.S. are made with high-fructose corn syrup.7

Similarly, Diet Coke is typically produced with aspartame and recently a sucralose (Splenda)

formula was released. A more natural alternative to that is the use of stevia, a naturally derived

sweetener recently approved by the FDA.8 Among the benefits listed by Mayo Clinic are the fact

that the sugar substitute helps with weight control. Another consideration for both products is

reducing the amount of artificial dyes used in their production as well as considering the addition

of nutritional extracts.

In terms of bottling, Coca-Cola has already invested in a biodegradable packaging

through their PlantBottle which is composed of 30% plant material and 70% traditional

petroleum products. The company originally began using the bottles to package their Dasani

Water product, but eventually plans to be integrated as part of regular packaging for all products.

Ultimately, Coca-Cola envisions a 100% renewable bottle and with much research and

development, they should be able to move out of the development phase rapidly. Package design

should be altered to reflect the product’s goals, which are to appeal to a more eco-conscious

consumer, express Coca-Cola’s commitment to environmental responsibility, and educate the

general population. Placing the universal symbol for recyclable on the packaging in an eye-

catching way, rather than on the bottom in an inconspicuous place could help achieve this goal.

17

Recycling should also become increasing important to help lower bottle manufacturing costs and

continue the social image of sustainable Coca-Cola products. Coca-Cola could consider

investing in recycling plants or providing more recycling receptacles to the retailers it distributes

to. Creating an incentive program would be the best way to increase demand for this new

product, offering deposits on bottles paid through the company. In this way, Coca-Cola could

also track the number of consumers of their new product.

The following is a chronology of the marketing proposal:

June 2011 – Create partnership with recycling networks, work on incentivized recycling

program

November 2011 – Begin advertising through television, radio, print, and on the internet.

Create a presence at Earth Day events, eco-rallies, etc.

January 2012 – Release “green” Coca-Cola Product in U.S. (domestic bottling and

distributers)

February-March 2012 – Evaluate domestic consumer response to new product through

consumer surveys, bottle returns, and sales

Early May 2012 – Begin worldwide marketing beginning with test markets (i.e. select

countries in Europe), move to larger markets

April 22nd, 2012 (Earth Day) – Create anticipated promotional event, release product

worldwide

Ultimately, if Coca-Cola’s green formulation is successful, then combined with the proper

marketing the company could help boost the demand in the CSD market domestically and

improve their standing, making Pepsi’s dominance in non-carbs a non-issue.

18

References

Yoffie, David. "Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century ." Harvard Business Review 1 (2006): 1-28 . Print.

1. "World's Most Admired Companies 2010 - from FORTUNE." Business, financial, personal finance news - CNNMoney.com. Web. 1 Apr. 2011. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2010/index.html.

2. Quinn , Barbara . "2010 food and nutrition trends - chicagotribune.com." Chicago Tribune 7 Jan. 2010. Web. 1 Apr. 2011. http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/family/sns-health-food-trends,0,5657190.story.

3. Herring, Chris. "Coke's New Bottle Is Part Plant - WSJ.com." Business News & Financial News - The Wall Street Journal - Wsj.com. 24 Jan. 2010. Web. 1 Apr. 2011. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703672104574.

4. Farrell , Greg . "PepsiCo shifts focus to non-carbonated drinks." FT.com.13 Nov. 2010. Web. 1 Apr. 2011. <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d8c08404-f0de-11df-bf4b-00144feab49a.html#axzz1I3la3.>

5. "Gatorade Versus Powerade." LIVESTRONG.COM . N.p., 19 Jan. 2010. Web. 1 Apr. 2011. http://www.livestrong.com/article/74488-gatorade-versus-powerade.

6. Stones , Mike. "Global upswing for probiotic and prebiotic food and beverages." Beverage Daily 29 Mar. 2010. Web. 1 Apr. 2011. www.beveragedaily.com/On-your-radar/Emerging-Markets/Global-upswing-for-probiotic-and-prebiotic-food-and-beverages.

7. "Coke vs. Coke, high-fructose corn syrup vs. sugar." Consumer Reports.1 June 2009. Web. 1 Apr. 2011. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/june-2009/food/coke-vs-coke/overview/coke-vs-coke-ov.htm.

8. Zeratsky , Katherine . "Stevia: Can it help with weight control? ." Mayo Clinic. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Apr. 2011. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/stevia/AN01733.

19