A Titan’s Pursuit to Maintain and Conquer
Market 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 healthconscious 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 CocaCola 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 CocaCola 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 ecoconscious 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 noncarb 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 eyecatching 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-healthfood-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-bf4b00144feab49a.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-yourradar/Emerging-Markets/Global-upswing-for-probiotic-and-prebiotic-food-andbeverages.
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/june2009/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