Description
This ppt is about the cola wars of coke and pepsi.
Cola Wars Continue
Coke & Pepsi in 2006
Question 1
Why, historically, has the soft drinks industry been so profitable?
Salient points for analysis
• Industry Structure • Industry Profitability Analysis using Porters’ Five Force model
– Using years counting up to 2004 as the timeline to determine historical soft drinks Industry profitability
The Soft Drinks Industry?
• Concentrate Producers • Bottlers • Retail Channels:
– – – – – – Supermarkets Fountain outlets Vending machines Mass merchandisers Convenience stores Gas stations
• Suppliers:
– Packaging (cans, plastic bottles and glass bottles) – Sweeteners (high fructose syrup, artificial sweeteners) – Colouring agents, caffeine, natural flavors and other ingredients
Threat of Rivalry
• Major players – Coca Cola and PepsiCo • Near Duopolistic with respect to the 2 rivals
– From 1966 (53.8% market share) to 2004 (74.8%)
• Intense competition:
– Price wars – Consolidation of smaller players like Seven Up and Dr. Pepper – Advertisement / Marketing wars
• Example – ‘The Pepsi Challenge’
• Resulting Threat of Rivalry is High which reduces profitability
Threat of Substitute Products
• Alternatives like low carbohydrates or none, juices, sports drinks, energy drinks, tea based drinks and bottled water
– Shift of consumer demand for healthy alternatives – Law suits, legislations to prevent sale of soft drinks in school – In 2001, bottled water –> more than 100% of Coca Cola’s growth and 75% of PepsiCo’s growth in volumes
• Overall Threat of Substitutes is Low because of diversification into competing segments
– Increased Profitability
Power of Suppliers
• Substitutes in suppliers:
– corn syrup, sugar – Low bargaining power
• For bottlers:
– Can makers – Plastic makers – Coke and Pepsi dictated terms
• Overall Threat of Suppliers is Very Low
– negligible impact on profitability
Power of Buyers
• Supermarkets: (Low)
– Bottlers fighting for shelf space
• Mass merchandisers: (High)
– Example: Wal-mart incurred additional cost towards delivery
• Fountain outlets: (High)
– Low margins for the carbonate soft drinks companies – Companies fighting to enhance visibility through national fountain accounts – Pepsi entered fast-food business
Power of Buyers
• Vending machines (Very Low):
– Bottlers dictated terms through contracts – Commission based – Coke and Pepsi invested in developing vending technology
• Buyer power is limited:
– Power of Buyers is Moderate with impact on profitability only through fountain outlets.
Threat of New Entrants
• Concentrate Producers:
– Low capital intensity on the Concentrate Producer side – Huge brand equity of major players – Established collaboration with retail channels
• Bottlers:
– High capital intensity – Operating territories defined for bottlers – High inter-operability with Concentrate Producers
• Overall Threat of New Entrants is Very Low
– Negligible Impact on industry profitability
Government – An Afterthought
• Federal nutrition guidelines:
– Carbonated Soft drinks as largest source of obesity causes – Political issues both international & in the US with respect to concerns raised about health of children
• Threat of Government as a force is to be considered
– Contamination concerns – Pepsi and Coke have used marketing campaigns to assuage concerns
• Impact on profitability - Temporary
The 5 Forces
Very Low
Threat of New Entrants
Very Low
Threat of Suppliers
Threat of Rivals High
Threat of Buyers
Moderate
Threat of Substitutes
Threats - LOW
Low
Profitability - HIGH
Conclusion
Threats LOW ? Profitability of Industry HIGH
Question 2
Compare the economies of the concentrate business to that of bottling business: Why is the profitability so different?
Profitability
Concentrate Producers COGS Gross Profit Selling & Delivery Advertising & Marketing General Administration Pretax Profit 17% 83% 2% 43% Bottlers
60% 40% 25% 2%
8%
4%
30%
9%
Key Differences
• Raw Material Costs:
– significant part of the costs for Bottlers.
• Selling and Delivery:
– Bottlers ? ‘DSD’
• Hence, more expensive
Key Differences
• Advertising and Marketing:
– 43% of Concentrate Producers’ costs – Create Market Pull
• The overall costs are higher:
– The profitability of the bottler is much lower than for concentrate manufacturer.
Concentrate Producers
Blend raw material ingredients
Package mixtures in Plastic Containers
Ship them to Bottlers
• Required lesser capital investment.
• Major costs incurred:
– advertising, promotion, market research, bottler support
Concentrate Producers
• Negotiating
– Customer Development Agreements (CDAs). – With bottler’s suppliers.
• Provided support staff for bottlers • Fragmented ? Consolidated
Bottlers
Purchase Concentrate Add Sugar / Sweetner Bottle / Can Deliver to Customer
• Capital intensive • Major Cost Incurred:
– Cost of concentrate – Packaging
Why profitability so different?
• Value addition to chain greater by the Bottler vis-à-vis Concentrate Producers
– DSD – Securing shelf space – Stacking CSD products – Point of purchase & end-of-aisle displays
Conclusion
Profitability for Concentrated Producers > Profitability for Bottlers
Question 3
How has the competition between Pepsi & Coke affected the Industry Profits?
Concentration / Mfg
Bottlers
Milestones affecting Profits
• Near Duopoly market
– 43.1%(Coke) + 31.7%(Pepsi) = 74.8% Market Share
• Customer Development Agreements(CDA)
– Coke and Pepsi offered funds to retailers for marketing, promotion, etc.
• Franchise agreements:
• Bottlers to handle the non-cola brands of other concentrate producers
Contd..
• Mass merchandisers had their private labels / generic labels
– Example: President’s Cola
• Intense competition on National fountain accounts:
– low profitability (10 % lower than Can & Bottle sales)
• Tie up spree:
– Pepsi: Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC – Coke: Wendy, Burger King, McD
Contd..
• Various pricing strategies to counter sales rival company • Switch from using sugar to highfructose corn syrup-lower priced alternative • Increase in advertisement spend
Contd..
• Proliferation of CSD Brands
– Coke : 11 new products-caffeine free coke,cherry coke – Pepsi : 13 new products- lemon-Lime slice
• Consolidation of bottlers
– 2000 plants to 300 from 1970-2004 – Coke’s re franchising bottling operations – Buying Poor managed bottlers – Infusing with capital – Selling to large bottling plants
Conclusion
• Net profit margins shows a increase in the profitability
Question 4
Can Coke & Pepsi sustain their profits in the wake of flattening demand and the growing popularity in non-CSDs?
Current Scenario
• Mature Market: – US
– CSD sales growth in US market ? 1% or less in the years 1998-2004 – Series of strategic acquisitions and consolidation taking place – Shift towards alternate beverages such as Juices and juice drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, tea based drinks, etc.
• Emerging Market:
– Europe, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Africa Middle East and North America
Mature Industry Strategy
• Product Innovation:
– Development of new products such as energy drinks, juices, bottled water, etc. – These new products have high profitability as compared to CSD products.
• Process Innovation:
– Creating a pull based market to reduce the buying power of mega merchandisers such as Wal-Mart – Integrating with Bottlers
• This will ensure better profitability
Emerging Market Strategy
• First mover advantage:
– Pepsi moved away from brushing headto-head competition to focusing on emerging markets – International Division operating profit up by 25% – International beverage volume up by 12% overall
Conclusion
• Though the growth for CSD has been stagnant but the growth of Non-CSD has increased • Profitability of Non-CSD is higher than that of CSD • Thus:
– Coke and Pepsi can still sustain their profits
Thank You!
doc_132626730.ppt
This ppt is about the cola wars of coke and pepsi.
Cola Wars Continue
Coke & Pepsi in 2006
Question 1
Why, historically, has the soft drinks industry been so profitable?
Salient points for analysis
• Industry Structure • Industry Profitability Analysis using Porters’ Five Force model
– Using years counting up to 2004 as the timeline to determine historical soft drinks Industry profitability
The Soft Drinks Industry?
• Concentrate Producers • Bottlers • Retail Channels:
– – – – – – Supermarkets Fountain outlets Vending machines Mass merchandisers Convenience stores Gas stations
• Suppliers:
– Packaging (cans, plastic bottles and glass bottles) – Sweeteners (high fructose syrup, artificial sweeteners) – Colouring agents, caffeine, natural flavors and other ingredients
Threat of Rivalry
• Major players – Coca Cola and PepsiCo • Near Duopolistic with respect to the 2 rivals
– From 1966 (53.8% market share) to 2004 (74.8%)
• Intense competition:
– Price wars – Consolidation of smaller players like Seven Up and Dr. Pepper – Advertisement / Marketing wars
• Example – ‘The Pepsi Challenge’
• Resulting Threat of Rivalry is High which reduces profitability
Threat of Substitute Products
• Alternatives like low carbohydrates or none, juices, sports drinks, energy drinks, tea based drinks and bottled water
– Shift of consumer demand for healthy alternatives – Law suits, legislations to prevent sale of soft drinks in school – In 2001, bottled water –> more than 100% of Coca Cola’s growth and 75% of PepsiCo’s growth in volumes
• Overall Threat of Substitutes is Low because of diversification into competing segments
– Increased Profitability
Power of Suppliers
• Substitutes in suppliers:
– corn syrup, sugar – Low bargaining power
• For bottlers:
– Can makers – Plastic makers – Coke and Pepsi dictated terms
• Overall Threat of Suppliers is Very Low
– negligible impact on profitability
Power of Buyers
• Supermarkets: (Low)
– Bottlers fighting for shelf space
• Mass merchandisers: (High)
– Example: Wal-mart incurred additional cost towards delivery
• Fountain outlets: (High)
– Low margins for the carbonate soft drinks companies – Companies fighting to enhance visibility through national fountain accounts – Pepsi entered fast-food business
Power of Buyers
• Vending machines (Very Low):
– Bottlers dictated terms through contracts – Commission based – Coke and Pepsi invested in developing vending technology
• Buyer power is limited:
– Power of Buyers is Moderate with impact on profitability only through fountain outlets.
Threat of New Entrants
• Concentrate Producers:
– Low capital intensity on the Concentrate Producer side – Huge brand equity of major players – Established collaboration with retail channels
• Bottlers:
– High capital intensity – Operating territories defined for bottlers – High inter-operability with Concentrate Producers
• Overall Threat of New Entrants is Very Low
– Negligible Impact on industry profitability
Government – An Afterthought
• Federal nutrition guidelines:
– Carbonated Soft drinks as largest source of obesity causes – Political issues both international & in the US with respect to concerns raised about health of children
• Threat of Government as a force is to be considered
– Contamination concerns – Pepsi and Coke have used marketing campaigns to assuage concerns
• Impact on profitability - Temporary
The 5 Forces
Very Low
Threat of New Entrants
Very Low
Threat of Suppliers
Threat of Rivals High
Threat of Buyers
Moderate
Threat of Substitutes
Threats - LOW
Low
Profitability - HIGH
Conclusion
Threats LOW ? Profitability of Industry HIGH
Question 2
Compare the economies of the concentrate business to that of bottling business: Why is the profitability so different?
Profitability
Concentrate Producers COGS Gross Profit Selling & Delivery Advertising & Marketing General Administration Pretax Profit 17% 83% 2% 43% Bottlers
60% 40% 25% 2%
8%
4%
30%
9%
Key Differences
• Raw Material Costs:
– significant part of the costs for Bottlers.
• Selling and Delivery:
– Bottlers ? ‘DSD’
• Hence, more expensive
Key Differences
• Advertising and Marketing:
– 43% of Concentrate Producers’ costs – Create Market Pull
• The overall costs are higher:
– The profitability of the bottler is much lower than for concentrate manufacturer.
Concentrate Producers
Blend raw material ingredients
Package mixtures in Plastic Containers
Ship them to Bottlers
• Required lesser capital investment.
• Major costs incurred:
– advertising, promotion, market research, bottler support
Concentrate Producers
• Negotiating
– Customer Development Agreements (CDAs). – With bottler’s suppliers.
• Provided support staff for bottlers • Fragmented ? Consolidated
Bottlers
Purchase Concentrate Add Sugar / Sweetner Bottle / Can Deliver to Customer
• Capital intensive • Major Cost Incurred:
– Cost of concentrate – Packaging
Why profitability so different?
• Value addition to chain greater by the Bottler vis-à-vis Concentrate Producers
– DSD – Securing shelf space – Stacking CSD products – Point of purchase & end-of-aisle displays
Conclusion
Profitability for Concentrated Producers > Profitability for Bottlers
Question 3
How has the competition between Pepsi & Coke affected the Industry Profits?
Concentration / Mfg
Bottlers
Milestones affecting Profits
• Near Duopoly market
– 43.1%(Coke) + 31.7%(Pepsi) = 74.8% Market Share
• Customer Development Agreements(CDA)
– Coke and Pepsi offered funds to retailers for marketing, promotion, etc.
• Franchise agreements:
• Bottlers to handle the non-cola brands of other concentrate producers
Contd..
• Mass merchandisers had their private labels / generic labels
– Example: President’s Cola
• Intense competition on National fountain accounts:
– low profitability (10 % lower than Can & Bottle sales)
• Tie up spree:
– Pepsi: Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC – Coke: Wendy, Burger King, McD
Contd..
• Various pricing strategies to counter sales rival company • Switch from using sugar to highfructose corn syrup-lower priced alternative • Increase in advertisement spend
Contd..
• Proliferation of CSD Brands
– Coke : 11 new products-caffeine free coke,cherry coke – Pepsi : 13 new products- lemon-Lime slice
• Consolidation of bottlers
– 2000 plants to 300 from 1970-2004 – Coke’s re franchising bottling operations – Buying Poor managed bottlers – Infusing with capital – Selling to large bottling plants
Conclusion
• Net profit margins shows a increase in the profitability
Question 4
Can Coke & Pepsi sustain their profits in the wake of flattening demand and the growing popularity in non-CSDs?
Current Scenario
• Mature Market: – US
– CSD sales growth in US market ? 1% or less in the years 1998-2004 – Series of strategic acquisitions and consolidation taking place – Shift towards alternate beverages such as Juices and juice drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, tea based drinks, etc.
• Emerging Market:
– Europe, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Africa Middle East and North America
Mature Industry Strategy
• Product Innovation:
– Development of new products such as energy drinks, juices, bottled water, etc. – These new products have high profitability as compared to CSD products.
• Process Innovation:
– Creating a pull based market to reduce the buying power of mega merchandisers such as Wal-Mart – Integrating with Bottlers
• This will ensure better profitability
Emerging Market Strategy
• First mover advantage:
– Pepsi moved away from brushing headto-head competition to focusing on emerging markets – International Division operating profit up by 25% – International beverage volume up by 12% overall
Conclusion
• Though the growth for CSD has been stagnant but the growth of Non-CSD has increased • Profitability of Non-CSD is higher than that of CSD • Thus:
– Coke and Pepsi can still sustain their profits
Thank You!
doc_132626730.ppt