Drink Names

Diabetic Food Exchange Handbook 2nd Ed Brand

brand-name Diabetic Food Exchange Handbook 2nd Ed

For the millions of diabetics and other people who ought to stick to a technique of trade with foods. The revised American Diabetes Association exchange, the acclaimed book “opens supermarket shelves for any individual to comply with a diet plan exchange ….» – Journal of the American Dietetic Association

Price tag: $ 14.95 Cost : $ two.76

Soft Drinks

soft drinks Soft Drinks

* Dr.P.Shanmukha Rao * * Dr.NVSSuryanarayana

Presentation:

the soft drink market size for the financial year amounted to approximately 00 cases 270mn ( 6480mn bottles). The market experienced growth of 5-6% in the early’90s. Currently, the market growth to a growth rate of 7-8% per year, compared to the growth rate of 22% last year. The size of the market for 01 years should 7000mn bottles.

production area of ​​soft drinks

The advantage of the regional market is based. While the cola drinks, the main markets in metro cities and the northern states are UP, Punjab, Haryana etc. orange flavored beverage popular in Southern states. To non-alcoholic drinks are mainly in the southern states in addition to selling through the bars media. Western markets have a preference for the mango flavored drinks. Diet Coke is currently only 0.7% of the total market for soft drinks.

Advertising

Growth

The government has a policy to give the soft drink industry, liberalized trade and a praise to promote Indian brands abroad accepted. Although the import and manufacture of international brands like Pepsi and Coca-Cola is increasingly in India, are local brands, which are stabilized by the publicity, good quality and low cost.

The market for soft drinks until the early 1990s was in the hands of national actors as Campa, Thumps Up, Limca etc, but has a spirit of openness of the economy and the advent of MNC players Pepsi Coke and the market is completely come to their control.

The distribution of Coca-Cola had taken 6.5lakh across the country in 00 that the company plans to increase to 8 lakhs in FY01. On the other hand, the distribution of Pepsi Co lakh had six points throughout the country during the year 00, it plans to increase 7.5Lakh by FY01.

Types

soft drink

soft drinks are available in glass bottles, aluminum cans and PET bottles for home use. Supply wells in disposable containers can be divided from non-alcoholic beverage market for soft drinks on fruit and soft drinks. Alcoholic beverages may be non-carbonated soft drinks in and split. Cola, lemon and oranges are carbonated drinks, while mango drinks fall under the category of non-carbonated.

The market can be segmented based on product types of cola products and non-cola. Cola products for nearly 61-62% of the total market for soft drinks. Brands that fall into this category, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Thumps Up, Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, etc. No segment represented 36% in four categories depending on the type of flavors available, can be shared including: Orange, Cloudy clear lime and mango.

The soft drink industry is so profitable

An industry analysis through Porter’s five forces shows that the market forces conducive to profitability. Set focus theindustry two producers (PC) and bottlers are profitable. Thesetwo parts of the industry are very closely linked, sharing of costs in purchasing, production, marketing and sales. Many of their functions overlap: for example, have a bit of filling CP andbottlers lead many promotional activities. The industry is already vertically integrated to some degree. They have also collaborated with suppliers and customers as much. Include entry into the development of operations in one or two disciplines. Beverages substitutes threaten both the PC and the associated bottlers. Because of the overlap and similarities in their market environment, we can both PC and bottlers in our definition of the soft drink industry are. CP in 1993 won 29% of the profits before taxes on their sales, while bottlers have made profits of 9% on their sales, for the total industry profitability of 14% (Table 1). The industry as a whole generates positive economic profits

rivalry:

profits are highly concentrated in this sector, with Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and their associated bottlers and commanded 73% of the market in 1994. Adding to the next level of the soft drink company, in the first six controlled 89% of the market. In fact, one could characterize the soft drink market as an oligopoly or even a duopoly between Coke and Pepsi, what a positive economic profit. To be sure, there was fierce competition between Coke and Pepsi for market share, profitability, and this is sometimes obstructed.

For example, price wars resulted in low brand loyalty and the erosion of margins for both companies in the 1980s. The Pepsi Challenge, which in turn affects the profitability of market share without impeding the case, while Pepsi was able to compete with other attributes than price.

Replacement:

Thanks to the early 1960s were non-alcoholic beverage synonymous with “Cola” in the minds of consumers. Over time, however, other drinks, bottled water for tea, has become increasingly popular, especially in the years 1980 and 1990. Coke and Pepsi responded by expanding their offerings to capture through alliances (eg Coca-Cola and Nestea), acquisitions (such as Coca-Cola and Minute Maid), and internal product innovation (eg creation of Pepsi Orange Slice), the value of the increasingly popular Alternative intern

proliferation in the number of brands, which threatens the profitability of bottlers in 1986, because they frequently on-line set-ups, to increase investment in capital, and the development of management skills for special The more complex manufacturing and distribution operations. Bottler could overcome these operational challenges through consolidation to achieve economies of scale. Total diversify because of the efforts to complete the PC, but have replaced less-threatening.

Power

provider:

Entries for Coca-Cola and Pepsi were primarily sugar and packaging. Sugar could be bought from many sources on the open market, and if sugar became too expensive, companies could easily switch to corn syrup, as in the 1980s. And provider of sugars and sugar substitutes have no bargaining power against both Coca-Cola, Pepsi and its bottlers. NutraSweet had now come recently patent protection in 1992, and the soft drink industry won another supplier, Holland Sweetener, which reduces the bargaining power of Searle and the price of aspartame. Can win with a rich supply of cheap aluminum in the 1990s, many companies and contracts with bottlers, suppliers may have very little power provider. In addition, Coke and Pepsi have effectively reduced the party decision-makers can negotiate on behalf of their bottlers, so the number of major contracts for both. Vie

With more than two companies for these contracts were Coke and Pepsi in a position to negotiate very favorable. In the field of plastic bottle, once again there were many suppliers of large orders, whether direct negotiations with the PC again was effective in reducing the power of suppliers.

Power

Buyer:

The soft drink industry sells to consumers through five main channels, grocery stores, convenience and gas wells, distributors and supermarkets (primary part of the “Other” in “Cola … wars “case). Supermarkets are the biggest customers for the soft drink manufacturer to offer a very fragmented industry. The stores rely on non-alcoholic beverages for the consumer traffic to the drive, it took Coca-Cola and Pepsi. But (controls the biggest chain with 6% of retail food sales, and most major chains up to 25% of a region) because of their enormous degree of fragmentation, these transactions did not have the power of negotiation. Their only power is control over the premium shelf space, the Coca-Cola or Pepsi could be recirculated. This power gives them some control over the profitability of soft drinks. In addition, consumers should pay less through this channel, when prices were lower, resulting in slightly lower profitability. Large national chains like Wal-Mart buyers, on the other hand, had much more bargaining power. Although these stores do not carry both Coca-Cola and Pepsi products, they could negotiate more effectively, because of their scale and scope of their contracts. For this reason, the channel has large areas of relatively less profitable for the manufacturers of soft drinks.

least profitable channel for alcoholic drinks, however, was selling well. Profitability in these areas has been so disastrous for Coke and Pepsi, that they used this path as “paid sampling.” This is because buyers in the major fast food chains, which are necessary to store the products of a manufacturer, so they can negotiate optimal pricing. Coke and Pepsi found these important channels, but as an opportunity, brand awareness and customer loyalty building, they have invested in equipment that cuts and wells were used to serve their products to these outlets.

As a result, while Coca-Cola and Pepsi won only 5% margin fast-food chains had 75% gross margin drinking source. Vending was now among the most profitable channel for the soft drink industry. Essentially, there are no buyers to negotiate with these bodies, where to sell Coca-Cola and Pepsi bottlers could direct to the consumer through the machines owned bottlers. Property owners have a sales commission for selling Coca-Cola and Pepsi products in vending machines on their property paid, so their incentives are properly aligned with those of soft-drink manufacturers, and prices remained high. The client in this case was the consumer who is generally limited to a refreshing choice.

The channel

final consideration is convenience stores and gas stations. If mobile-and Seven-Eleven to negotiate on behalf of its stations, it would be in a position to substantial buying power in dealing with Coca-Cola and Pepsi exercise. Obviously it was not the kind of relationship between manufacturers of soft drinks and the channel where the advantages of the bottlers were relatively high at 0.40 cases in 1993. With this high profitability, it seems likely that Coca-Cola and Pepsi bottlers negotiated directly with the owners of the convenience store and gas station. Thus, the only buyers with a dominant power has been fast-food restaurants. While most of these branches of the profitability of soft drinks included in their chain, they represented less than 20% of total soft drink sales

barriers to entry.

It would be almost impossible for a new PC or a new bottler enter the industry. New CP would have the huge marketing force presence in the Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and others, the brands that had just founded a century to overcome. These companies through their practices DSD had intimate relationships with their distribution channels and would be able to defend their positions effectively through discounting or other tactics. So even though the PC industry is not very intensive capital, other obstacles to the entry. Input traffic jams, would now considerable investment that the market participants deterrent. requires

entry into this market was difficult with the existing bottlers exclusive territories, which can distribute their products. The approval of intra-brand exclusive territories, through the Inter Drink Competition Act slight signs of 1980, ratified this strategy so that it begin to impossible for new bottlers in an area where operated an existing bottler, which included all major markets in the United States . The result is an industry porter five forces analysis, which was the soft drink industry in 1994, favorable for the positive economic results, as evidenced by the financial performance of companies.

Compare the cost of the business to focus on the business of bottling

to concentrate in certain respects the economy of the company and bottlers must be inextricably linked. CP on behalf of its suppliers to negotiate, and they are ultimately dependent on the same customers. Even in the case of materials such as aspartame, which are directly contained in concentrates, negotiated CP pass along any savings directly to the bottlers. However, industries are very different in terms of profitability.

The fundamental difference between the PC and the filler is added value. The largest source of added value for the PC is their property, of branded products. Coke has protected his recipe for more than a hundred years as a trade secret, and has spared no effort to prevent others to get formula for Coke. The company even has a market of one billion people ( India ) leave to the input of these data. After a long history and successful advertising campaigns, Coke and Pepsi are respected name known so that their products an aura of value that can not be easily reproduced. How difficult to reproduce Coca-Cola and Pepsi are challenging the strategic management and operational practices, is another source of value creation.

bottlers have much less value. In contrast to their PC counterparts, they lack the brand or unique formulas. Their added value comes from its relationships with CP and with their customers. They have repeatedly negotiated contracts with their customers, they work with on a continuous basis, know their needs and idiosyncratic. Due to years of in-depth relationships with their customers, they are able to serve customers effectively. With DSD programs, they reduce the costs of their customers so that customers buy and sell more products. In this way, bottlers are capable of the pie ‘s sweet Drinks market to grow. The other source of the profitability of their contractual relationships with the PC, which grants them exclusive territories to share some costs and savings. Exclusive areas for intra-brand competition, the creation of oligopolies in bottler to reduce competition and thus a profit. further improve the “glass house” in order, as described by Nalebuff and input-fire (to prevent co-described petition, p. 88), for its bottlers to transfer some of their savings CP traded in their supply bottlers. Coca-Cola are two thirds through a contract negotiated savings aspartame its bottlers, Pepsi and doing it in practice. This practice prevents bottler quite comfortable, so that they can hardly challenge their contracts. The capacity of the major bottlers to use their capital efficiently. Suchoperational efficiency is not a driver of value creation, however, that operational efficiency is easy to reproduce.

Between 1986 and 1993 added, differences in value between the PC and the filler led to a significant change in profitability in the industry, “/ strong>. Figure 1 shows the dramatic changes. Although the profitability of the industry at 11 % increase, the profits of the CP by 130% to an increased case-based 0.10 to 0.23. In this time of the bottler profits actually declined on a case by 23%, from 0.35 to 0.27. One way is that the expansion of the range line of defense against new drinks age helped the PC, but bottlers injured. It would be expected if the cost of the bottler of cases increased due to operational challenges and the capital costs of production and distribution of the broadest product lines be. This is not n the case, the cost of sales per case for PC and bottler of 27% declined in this period, which develops mainly on economies of scale through consolidation. The real difference between the assets of CP and bottlers in this period , then at the head of sales. While the PC was able to pay more for their products, facial fillers of pricing pressure, resulting in lower revenues per case. These changes revenue per case during a period of slower growth in the industry occurred, as shown in Table 2. The growth of per capita consumption of soft Beverages slowed to an annual growth rate of 1.2% between 1989 and 1993, while the Growth in volume, tapered by 2.3%. In a battle for limited shelf space to more security products, forcing a slower overall growth, the bottlers probably more space for their products. PC, could now continue with the prices of concentrates consumption price index increase.

Coke

had this flexibility in negotiating his Master Contact Pepsi Bottling in 1986 had worked in price increases on the basis of the CPI in its bottling agreements. Thus, while bottlers face increased pressure on prices in a market downturn could CP continue to increase their prices. Despite improvements in cost per case, bottlers can not improve their profitability as a percentage of total revenue. Therefore, through the period 1986 to 1993, the bottlers are no efficiency gains from the PC

Contracts

between CPS and the filler is in the form they have enjoyed in the soft drink industry.

agreements between CPS and the bottlers are strategically built by the PC, although beneficial for the bottlers. The surface supports, the contracts of the CPS long-term strategies significantly. First territorial protection is beneficial to bottlers, as it prevents intra-brand competition, negotiating offers for buyers and creates barriers to entry. But it is also advantageous for the PC, not under the price war their own brand. The contracts also excluded, bottlers produce the flagship products of their competitors. This monopoly was created in the CPS in relation to the bottlers. Each bottler was only one supplier to negotiate for its premium product. A violation of this provision would result in the termination of the contract, so that the filler in a difficult position. Historically, contracts have been developed to meet the prices constant syrup to keep the long term, influenced only by higher sugar prices changed. This in 1978 and 1986, as contracts renegotiated, were included initially in an increase in the CPI, and give you all the flexibility of the PC (Coke) in terms of pricing. Coke would have to negotiate, the pricing flexibility because its bottlers were dependent on him for the economy. ensured addition that the bottlers would be the prisoners of its monopoly position will be through the purchase of large bottlers sell them in the holding CCE, which would produce only Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola would capture 49% of dividends from CEC, without the complications of vertical integration .

vertical integration should concentrate producers bottling Given the data in Table 1, indicating increased profitability of the activity of CP in the last seven years, during the bottling industry has struggled to maintain any profitability It would not be desirable to vertically integrate. Stuckey and White show that a company must integrate “these steps in the industry string, where the surplus is the most economical available, regardless of the proximity of the customer or the absolute amount of surplus value. “In the soft refrain beverage industry , CP is usually made on the profits from the sale of wells. Pepsi realized that the fast-food chains were recorded, most of the value of Sales of fountains in the world of buying fast food, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC. These mergers have the company to more value from their soft drink sales to grasp, but these mergers could also be problematic be. For example, not PepsiCo a core competency in distribution of food or a strong position in the industry . Because it might not be able to effectively transferred skills and share activities with fast food companies, mergers not successful in the long run. Stuckey and White also stressed that “the excess of high level, by definition, must be protected by barriers to entry.” Thus, it may difficult for Coca-Cola, which enter fast-food business. It could be prohibitively to buy McDonald’s or Burger King, and develop a chain of themselves would be against strong competition is very risky. And the integration into this phase of the supply chain would be difficult or impossible for Coca-Cola.

Stuckey and White said, not ” to integrate vertically when it is absolutely to make necessary or protect value. “We are each of these options individually refute address formally the plausibility of the vertical integration of CP in a traffic jam. (1)” The market is too risky and unreliable . ‘Instead, concentrate

market is very stable and is to come for a long time. “companies in adjacent stages of the feed-more market power than firms in the scene. “The opposite is true, PCs and more market power than the bottler, so they should not to vertically integrate.” The integration to create or exploit market power by erecting entry barriers, the possibility of price discrimination between customer segments. “In fact, PC’s power to impose effective market entry barriers and effectively price discrimination through various distribution channels. (4)” The market is young and needs to integrate the company forward to a market or the market is in decline and retreat regardless of . to develop land adjoining “The market is neither young nor sink It determined that the strategy of vertical integration of the four tests Stuckey and White, CP should not pursue vertical integration in bottling

New Delhi -.. A large voluntary organizations in India, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) said on Tuesday that soft drinks manufactured in India, including the implementation of Pepsi and brand name of Coca-Cola contain unacceptable pesticide residues.

CSE

analyzed samples from 12 major manufacturers of soft drinks that are sold in and around the capital, in their labs and found that each of them the remains of four extremely toxic pesticides and insecticides containing -. lindane, DDT, malathion and chlorpyrifos

”In all tested samples, the pesticide residues far exceeded the maximum permissible limits for pesticides in total 0.0005 mg per liter in the water for food, the use of the European Economic Commission (EEC),”said Sunita Narain, Director CSE . was at a press conference called to announce the results announced

The amount of chlorpyrifos 42 times higher than the EU standards, showed their study malathion residues were 87 times higher and lindane -. banned recently in the U.S. – 21 times higher, said scientists at the TSA. She added that each sample toxic enough was cause long term damage to cancer, nervous and reproductive systems, birth defects and serious disorders of the immune system.

Samples

leaders Coca-Cola and Pepsi had almost similar concentrations of pesticide residues in the results of CSE. pollutants in samples of Pepsi were 37 times higher than the EEC limit, while its rival Coca-Cola exceeds the standards of the 45-fold, showed the same results.

The leader of the Indian subsidiaries of Coca-Cola and Pepsi were quick to refute the allegations in the press conference. Sanjeev Gupta, president of Coca-Cola in India, as the revelations of CST”injuste”et made, said his company was the subject of a study of media””.

‘”All Coca-Cola products are repeatedly tested for safety. This is unacceptable,”he said by telephone. Gupta and the chief of India, Pepsi, Rajiv Baksh, an independent investigation by top scientists from India, called to resolve the problem.

Coca-Cola,”the most valuable monde”marque billion € is already defending charges by British Broadcasting Corp. Radio 4 has in the past month that the sludge is distributed to farmers from their Plachimada plant in the southern state of Kerala high concentrations of the toxic metal cadmium. In a joint press conference by Pepsi and Coke here Tuesday evening, Bakshi and Gupta said they were considering legal action against the CSE because the revelations had damaged the industry.

”We are a temporary setback for about a week or two and then expect we are sure that consumers have the same confidence in us, they have always been,”said Bakshi. But Narain said the TSA has in its results.

Six months ago, the TSA announced the results indicated that almost all of produced mineral water bottled in India, including brands of Pepsi and Coca-Cola was in possession of large quantities of pesticides. This led to a massive action by the government. At the time, Health Minister AK Walia confirmed the Delhi, a qualified doctor himself, the results of the CSE and the laboratory. They are”(CST) sensitive to the internationally accepted methods,”he said. CST scientific HB Mathur and Sapna Johnson, who attended the press conference, said that was their basic conclusion that, as with the mineral water, soft drink manufacturers were drawing their water from groundwater is heavily contaminated by years of indiscriminate use of pesticides.