Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2
Methodological reflections.............................................................................................. 3
Theory of science ......................................................................................................................... 3
Empirical data ............................................................................................................................... 5
Theory.............................................................................................................................................. 6
Brand Equity ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Corporate Societal Marketing ........................................................................................................... 7
Rhetoric – Logos, Pathos and Ethos................................................................................................ 7
Coca-Cola as a brand .......................................................................................................... 8
Obesity and health concerns – the American society.......................................... 10
Theory ................................................................................................................................. 11
Brand Equity................................................................................................................................11
What is a brand? .................................................................................................................................. 11
Brand Equity ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Measurement of Brand Equity ....................................................................................................... 13
Building Brand Equity Through Corporate Societal Marketing ....................................... 13
Rhetoric - Ethos, logos and pathos ......................................................................................15
Case Description .............................................................................................................. 16
Coca-Cola – Coming Together Campaign ...........................................................................16
The campaign in general .................................................................................................................. 16
Coming Together (1:00) commercial .......................................................................................... 17
Troops for Fitness commercial...................................................................................................... 17
Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 18
Coming Together commercial ...............................................................................................18
Troops for Fitness commercial .............................................................................................20
The campaign ..............................................................................................................................21
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 29
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix 1 - Transcription ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 2 – infographics .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Introduction
Obesity is considered a public health problem in USA with rates having more
than doubled since the 1970’s, and today, more than two-thirds of the adults in
USA are either overweight or obese (FRAC, 2014). In 2000, no state in the United
States had an obesity prevalence of 30% or more, but in 2012, 12 states had an
obesity prevalence of 30% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014).
This is a dramatic change, and it shows that obesity is a growing problem in the
American society. But does this mean that Americans do not care about their
health? Different initiatives have been taken by the government and the public in
the United States to fight obesity and to implement health consciousness – this
shows that the society in general care and that they are not indifferent. The ‘Let’s
Move’ campaign developed by Michelle Obama, ‘Food Revolution’ by Jamie Oliver
and ‘The Real Bears’ campaign, which tells the unhappy truth about soda (The
Real Bears, ND), are three examples of the many initiatives taken by the
government and the society as an interest in fighting obesity and implementing a
healthy and active lifestyle in the Americans everyday life.
Even though, people care and are aware, the obesity problem is still increasing –
how come? That is a hard question to answer, but some blame the soda industry
to have a partial role in the complex of problems (The Real Bears).
Coca-Cola is known for its original red and white logo and the classic sugar-filled
‘coke’, but the company is much more than that. Today, Coca-Cola sells over 500
beverage brands in more than 200 countries (C.C. Beverages and Products). Even
though Coca-Cola is much more than “just” the classic ‘coke’, there is no denying
the fact that ‘coke’ is Coca-Cola’s characteristic feature. Coca-Cola is a 128-yearold company, so it is fair to say that the company has been on the market for a
very long time – and even though Coca-Cola is well on in years, the company is
still going strong, and it received a third place in the best global brand rating by
Interbrand in 2013 (Best Global Brands 2013).
Over the last decade, obesity, health concerns and health consciousness have
become three hot and much discussed topics, which touch upon the American
society. Even though people are aware of these problem areas, Coca-Cola still
2
manages to market and sell its product, and some people still choose to buy and
consume Coca-Cola’s products. This seems difficult to explain, and I would like to
know where Coca-Cola finds itself in this situation/context. Is the Coca-Cola
Company aware of this “problem”? And if yes, how does the company address
the “problem” and why? These are some of the questions that come to my mind.
Reflections of this kind, lead to my problem statement: “How does Coca-Cola
try to accommodate health concerns and brand equity when marketing an
unhealthy product?”
Methodological reflections
Theory of science
Social constructivism is the philosophical and scientific theoretical basic belief
that all human knowledge is socially constructed. This means that all kinds of
realisation
is
acquired
through
a
perspective
or
a
realm
of
understanding/context which is not inherited, but rather is a result from the
culture and the culture’s historical past one takes part in. This means that one’s
“world view” and “reality” are created on the basis of the society and the culture
one is born and raised in. Social constructivism claims that a given phenomenon
in question, in fact is man-made and is imprinted by its human origin: it is formed
and marked by human interests (Collin and Køppe 2012, pp. 248).
You could also say that society, the reality and our knowledge of this is not
inherent in nature, it is a result of human- , and thereby social and cultural,
intervention. The main focus of social constructivism is knowledge and reality
seen in the specific social context in which they occur (Kolstrup, 2010).
Throughout this project, I have chosen to analyse my empirical data (case
description) from a socio-constructive perspective. I have chosen this point of
view because brands and brand equity, in general, are socially constructed by
human beings using specific brands to represent themselves, and thereby create
3
their societal identity and personal identity. I believe one will always aim to
present oneself in accordance to what is culturally considered as accepted.
If a brand succeeds in achieving “believers” of the brand, a new value is added to
the brand and thereby, through recognition, a new “reality” is created around the
brand; and this new “reality” is real to those who believe in the value of the
brand. A brand becomes a “reality” from the point where people start to realise
and add value to it – it is only when people start to give the brand significance
that it is substantiated.
Considering a “world view” from a socio-constructive perspective is the essence
in dealing with brand equity, obesity and health concerns, otherwise these would
not exist as “real” things and to some as a “problem”. Fundamentally, brand
equity, obesity and health concerns are based on those “world views” that will
prevail. Regarding the paradox with Coca-Cola trying to accommodate health
concerns and brand equity when marketing an unhealthy product, I see two
conflicting “world views” – Coca-Cola: “We are allowed to produce and sell
sugary drinks (‘coke’)” and the health concerned consumers: “sugary drinks
should not be allowed in such large quantities, and the soda industry should take
responsibility”. If the majority of the Western part of the world ‘accepted’ obesity
as the ‘”reality”, the issue would be different, then it might not even be an “issue”
or a “problem”. A perspective within social constructivism is ‘the reality created
by the media’. Here the media reflects the society’s understanding of different
phenomena. Through a social constructivism’s perspective, the media is
regarded as a producer or creator of an assumed reality. This could be what has
happened in Coca-Cola’s situation – the media has maybe represented Coca-Cola
in a negatively light regarding obesity, and then it has become the “reality” for
some consumers.
Hermeneutics is an interpretation and the knowledge about interpretation. In
18th century, the hermeneutic cycle was “invented”. To understand a part of
something, it must be understood based on the whole, and the whole must be
understood based on the parts (Kolstrup, 2010).
4
(SFU, ND)
In this project, I cannot avoid having a pre-understanding regarding Coca-Cola as
a company and as a brand. I also have a pre-understanding about the American
culture and the way it might be used in commercials. Given that, I have a preunderstanding regarding the case and the project before I even start to work
with it. I have some expectations, some assumptions and maybe even some
prejudices about the campaign and what Coca-Cola’s goal for the campaign is.
Here the hermeneutic cycle plays a role; I “enter” the project with a preunderstanding, but through my analysis and interpretation, I acquire new
knowledge and thereby a new understanding – my knowledge is in constant
development.
There are two types of approaches when writing a project; deductive method
and inductive method. I use the deductive method, which means that I have a
hypothesis as the starting point and then I deduce assumptions that then can be
verified empirically (Collin and Køppe 2012, pp. 372).
I argue that I use the quantitative approach even though I do not use information
and data that can be measured. But I consider my focus of investigation as an
object that can be examined and analysed on one or more variable factors. My
empirical data is also analysed on my “conditions” and it is a one-way
communication.
Empirical data
I have chosen to write about Coca-Cola and their campaign ‘Coming Together’ in
the United States. The focus in this project will be on the campaign as a whole,
but I will also be using and analysing two of the videos/commercials used in the
campaign. The campaign also exists of some written material (info graphics, see
appendix 2) published in connection with the campaign. These I only use as
background knowledge for the campaign.
5
The first commercial/video I have chosen is a one-minute long commercial called
‘Coming Together’. I have chosen this commercial due to the fact that I believe it
captures the whole essence of the ‘Coming Together’ campaign on a national
scale.
Besides the ‘Coming Together’ commercial, I have also included another
commercial ‘Troops for Fitness’ because I think it shows a different side of the
campaign, a more specific, regional and active side and part.
Both of the commercials are with Coca-Cola as the sender, which is important to
keep in mind when analysing. This is important because the sender might have a
hidden agenda. I have found both of the commercials on Coca-Cola’s official
YouTube channel (CocaColaCo, 2006) and I have transcribed both of them
(appendix 1). As background knowledge and contextual knowledge, I have
watched a documentary called “Coca-Cola The Real Story Behind the Real Thing”
by CNBC (CNBC, 2013). To gain a different perspective and to have an alternative
voice, I have chosen to bring in a campaign called “The Real Bears” (The Real
Bears).
Theory
Brand Equity
I have chosen to work with brand equity, but brand equity is a tall order, so I
have decided to look at it from one perspective only. There are two approaches
when talking about brand equity and measurement of this; the financialcompany level and the consumer level. Due to the fact that I want to analyse
elements from Coca-Cola’s campaign ‘Coming Together’, I have chosen to work
with the consumer-based level. I have made this choice given the size of the
project and the relevance for it in the project – to try to answer my problem
statement, the financial-company level is not relevant because I will be focusing
on and examining the intangible assets in regard to brand equity. The consumerbased approach seeks to identify the brand associations the consumer has
(Ruž evič iū te and Ruž evič ius 2010, pp. 719), which is relevant for this project. I
6
have chosen an article from the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing from 2002
called ”Building Brand Equity Through Corporate Societal Marketing”.
Corporate Societal Marketing
Since the theories about brand equity are very comprehensive and hard to
’tackle’, I have chosen to include an article called ”Building Brand Equity Through
Corporate Societal Marketing” by Steve Hoeffler and Kevin Lane Keller. The
article provides a more ’hands-on’, practical approach – providing a ‘model’ with
six means that can build brand equity;
-
Building Brand Awareness
-
Enhancing Brand Image
-
Establishing Brand Credibility
-
Evoking Brand Feelings
-
Creating a Sense of Brand Community
-
Eliciting Brand Engagement
Steve Hoeffler is an associate Professor of Marketing, and he is “… an expert in
consumer products marketing, brand management and consumer behavior.”
(Vanderbilt University, ND). Kevin L. Keller is also a professor of marketing – his
research is focused on improving marketing strategies through an understanding
of consumer behaviour (Tuck at Dartmouth, ND). The article was published in
2002 in the “Journal of Public Policy & Marketing”. I believe this article is valid
due to the fact that both of the authors are experts in the field and the journal
that has published the article is a recognised source (American Marketing
Association, 2014 and ResearchGate, 2014) – this is not to say that I will not be
critical. I will, of course, approach the article critically.
Rhetoric – Logos, Pathos and Ethos
The rhetorical appeals, logos, pathos and ethos, were first discovered by
Aristotle (384-322 BC), after Aristotle there have been many different
interpretations of the rhetorical appeals, but they all agree “… that language does
more than simply represent the social world. Language is seen as constitutive and
performative” (Higgins and Walker 2012, pp. 196).
7
Rhetoric and discourse can sometimes be seen as synonymous, but rhetoric is
concerned “ … with how language and other symbolic forms influence the way an
audience thinks, feels or acts” (Higgins and Walker 2012, pp. 197). Since
Aristotle’s theory about rhetorical appeals is from ancient Greek, I have chosen
to bring in a new perspective on rhetoric; the report from Colin Higgins and
Robyn
Walker
“Ethos,
logos,
pathos:
Strategies
of
persuasion
in
social/environmental reports” with Kenneth Burke as their main theoretical
perspective. The article is also based on the authors’ research on classical
rhetoric; the Aristotelian elements; ethos, logos and pathos.
I have chosen this article because I believe it provides a good combination
between ancient theory and more modern theory, and these two things
combined give a good view on the rhetoric used in this project.
Coca-Cola as a brand
Coca-Cola is a well-known and well-established brand that has existed since
1886. Until 1955, Coca-Cola was only selling the original coca-cola (referred to as
‘coke’ in this project), but after 1955, the company slowly expanded its product
range. Today, Coca-Cola sells over 500 beverage brands in more than 200
countries. The company is much more than a carbonated soft drink company –
its product portfolio now includes coffee, tea, water, energy drinks and even
soup (Coca-Cola Beverages and Products, ND).
Even though Coca-Cola is much more than the original ‘coke’, I would argue that
when thinking of ‘Coca-Cola’ as a company and a brand, ‘coke’ is for many the
first thing that comes to mind. The original ‘coke’ is also the product that I will
deal with in this project, but I will briefly account for Coca-Cola as a brand and
the way the company has marketed and markets itself.
Coca-Cola was a first-mover in the soft-drink field (Kapferer 2004, pp. 65), and
the original ‘coke’ was an invented product and therefore not a natural product –
this means, “… the brand became associated with the product, which can be
described by no other name” (Ibid, pp. 65). The first-mover advantage and the fact
8
that ‘coke’ is invented and therefore (back in 1886 and until the competitors
entered the market) could not be associated with any other brands/products,
gave Coca-Cola a unique chance to establish itself.
Coca-Cola’s domination rests on three facets; availability, accessibility and
attractiveness – it must be within reach everywhere, cheap and on one’s mind
(Kapferer 2004, pp. 66 and 192).
Coca-Cola is the leading brand within the soft drink business, and the company
has since 2000 been no. 1 at a “Best Global Brands” list created by Interbrand.
The list shows the 100 most valuable companies in the world, and Coca-Cola has
been in the top since 2000, receiving a first place every year, but in 2013 the
company received a third place with its’ first place overtaken by Apple (Best
Global Brand, 2013). Even though, Coca-Cola’s first place has been taken over,
the value of the brand still rose by 2%, making Coca-Cola worth of $79.2 billion
(NY Times, 2013 and DR1.dk, 2013). This shows that Coca-Cola is still a growing
company with a valuable brand and a big market share.
Coca-Cola finds itself in a big market with many competitors, with PepsiCo. being
the main competitor. It is no longer enough just to be a company with a broad
product range. The company has to differentiate itself, and Coca-Cola is very
good at this. A few examples of this is the “Open Happiness” campaign and the
“Share a Coke” campaign with the personalised bottles with names on them.
Coca-Cola has been in business for 128 years – this makes the company a part of
the American history and culture. Coca-Cola has always made something special
out of being available everywhere, e.g. during the apartheid in South Africa,
Coca-Cola did not pull its products back and during the Second World War, CocaCola also made great efforts to make Coca-Cola’s ‘coke’ available for the
American troops around the world (Coca-Cola, The Real Story Behind the Real
Thing, 2013).
Coca-Cola ads over the years (2012) and Art of the American Soldier Exhibit Features
Vintage Word War II Coca-Cola Ads, ND.
9
In the documentary “Coca-Cola The Real Story Behind the Real Thing” by CNBC,
they argue that perhaps, no product is more embedded in the history of the
American culture than Coca-Cola.
Coca-Cola has played, and still plays, a big part in the American culture – there is
a sort of feeling towards a ‘coke’ that is difficult to explain. If I were to describe
the feelings I associate with Coca-Cola and ‘coke’, it would be happiness, joy and
good times with family and friends – and I believe that I am not the only one with
these associations. I think Coca-Cola has created these associations and feelings
by their advertisement and their “engagement” in the world, but I will return to
this in the analysis.
Obesity and health concerns – the American society
Obesity has become a bigger problem in the USA, and over the last 20 years there
has been a dramatic increase in obesity (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2014). What could be the reason for that? That is a very hard
question to answer, but I would argue that the fast-food chains and other easy,
but maybe not so healthy options, play a role here. Due to the fact that everyday
life is becoming busier and the fact that work fills up much of the week, more
than 35% of Americans work in the weekend (The WorkBuzz, 2011), easier
options when it comes to food may be preferable. This combined with the many
fast-food chains, such as McDonald’s, Burger King and Pizza Hut (Forbes, 2012),
may contribute to the obesity problem in the United States.
As a response to this obesity problem, different initiatives have been taken. The
‘Let’s Move’ campaign developed by Michelle Obama, ‘Food Revolution’ by Jamie
Oliver and ‘The Real Bears’ campaign, are three good examples of initiatives that
want to fight obesity and to implement a healthy and active lifestyle. The ‘Let’s
Move’ campaign targets childhood obesity, and the program is primarily trying
to implement a more active everyday life, but also healthier eating habits (Let’s
Move, ND). ‘Food Revolution’ by Jamie Oliver also targets children, but this
campaign is primarily about standing up for real food and better food education
in the schools (Food Revolution, ND).
10
‘The Real Bears’ campaign is a little different – it is more specific in what it is
“fighting” against; sugary soft drinks. On the campaign’s website, the campaign
states;
“It wasn't so bad when soft drinks were the occasional treat.
But now sugary drinks are the number one source of calories in the
American diet. With one third of America overweight and another third
obese, it's a wonder anyone is still swallowing what the soda companies are
selling.” (The Real Bears, ND)
This quote shows that the campaign is “fighting” against the soft drink industry
and on the campaign’s webpage, it lists the truth (the truth according to the
campaign/the people behind the campaign) about soda called “Soda facts 101”.
The “Soda facts 101” consists of six quotes about soda, where four of the
statements are related to the Coca-Cola Company. This is a kind of “aggressive”
campaign – with this I mean that it is very clear to see who and what the
campaign is aiming at.
‘The Real Bears’ campaign is not the only one who is targeting the soda industry
and Coca-Cola in the fight against obesity. The mayor of New York, Bloomberg,
has tried to introduce a regulation to limit the size of sodas to no more than 16ounces at restaurants, cinemas and sports arenas. The proposal was refused, but
that did not stop the discussion of the soft drinks’ impact on obesity (Reuters,
2013). I have decided to look at it like two contrasts; the soda industry with
Coca-Cola in front and the health-conscious with ‘The Real Bears’ campaign in
the front.
Theory
Brand Equity
What is a brand?
First of all, what is a brand? That is a difficult question to answer, and the
answers are many. Kapferer (2004) tries to define what a brand is: a brand is a
part of a company’s capital and a brand is an intangible asset. A brand is a name
11
with power to influence buyers. Even though a brand is very important to create
for a company, a brand cannot exist without a support, either a product or a
service (Kapferer 2004, pp. 9-11). If a brand is an intangible asset, is it possible
to measure how strong the given brand is? According to Kapferer (2004), the
answer is yes, but it can be difficult. There are two approaches when measuring
how strong a brand is; customer-based, which is the relationship between a
customer and a brand and measuring the value in capital/money, also called the
financial-company level. “Brands have financial value because they have created
assets in the minds and hearts of customers, distributors, prescribers, opinion
leaders” (Ibid, pp. 10). I will give a short account for the measurement of brand
equity later in the project.
Brand Equity
Brand equity is defined in many ways and some of the definitions are;
”the value premium that a company realizes from a product with a
recognizable name as compared to its generic equivalent. Companies can
create brand equity for their products by making them memorable, easily
recognizable and superior in quality and reliability.” (Investopedia, ND).
The official Marketing Science definition of brand equity is
“the set of associations and behaviour on the part of a brand’s customers,
channel members and parents corporation that permits the brand to earn
greater volume or greater margins than it could without the brand name”
(Kapferer 2004, pp. 13).
Within the field of consumer level brand equity, there are also many approaches.
There are two “types” with different approaches; one that is developed by
theorists/researchers and one that is made by different marketing companies.
Within the models/theories by the theorists/researchers, David Aaker and K. L.
Keller are worth mentioning; David Aaker with his “conceptual consumer-based
brand equity model” and Keller with “Brand Resonance”.
There are many different kinds of models developed by marketing companies;
“BrandAsset®Valuator” by “Young & Rubicam”, Equity*Builder” by a market
research agency “Ipsos Group”, “Equity EngineSM” developed by Research
12
International and “BrandDynamicsTM” by Millward Brown are some of the most
recognised models within brand equity (Knowles, ND).
There are strengths and weaknesses with both approaches. The weaknesses of
the theories developed by Aaker and Keller lie in that they are “… difficult to
apply in practice due to the distinction of brand equity attributes and the lack of
their weights identification in the overall equity” (Ruž evič iū te and Ruž evič ius
2010, pp. 721). The weaknesses of the models’ developed by the marketing
companies are that they are “…not fully revealed in the literature due to copy right
restrictions” (Ibid,
pp. 721).
The weaknesses of both of the approaches give some limitations, but given the
scope of my project and the fact that I am not going to measure how much brand
equity Coca-Cola has, I have chosen to include theory of brand equity in general –
just to provide an understanding of what brand equity is. I will use one theory
from two theorists/researchers (Hoeffler and Keller), and try to apply it on CocaCola’s brand equity to the extent this can be done. The brand equity theory in
general will account for background knowledge about brand equity.
Measurement of Brand Equity
There are two ways of measuring brand equity, one part argues that it only can
be measured by its impact on consumer mental associations (Keller), where
others argue that it also can be measured in behaviour such as brand loyalty
(Aaker) (Kapferer, 2004). As mentioned earlier it can be very hard, timeconsuming and expensive to measure brand equity, and due to the scope of this
project, I will not go into greater detail with measurement of brand equity.
Building Brand Equity Through Corporate Societal Marketing
I have chosen to use the article ”Building Brand Equity Through Corporate
Societal Marketing” by Steve Hoeffler and Kevin Lane Keller (2002).
Corporate societal marketing is defined to
“encompass marketing initiatives that have at least one non-economic
objective related to social welfare and use the resources of the company
and/or one of its partners” (Hoeffler and Keller, 2002).
13
The reason why some companies use corporate societal marketing to build up
brand equity, is because they want to build up “… an emotional, even spiritual,
bond with consumers” (Hoeffler and Keller 2002, pp. 78). It is what is inside of the
consumers’ minds that are important and ultimately count for brand equity –
that is why it is so important to build up this emotionally bond with the
consumers. When you work with corporate societal marketing, there are three
ways to address the branding strategy;
-
Link the brand to an existing cause (cobranding)
-
Create a new program or cause (self branding)
-
Use a combination of the two above mentioned (joint branding)
(Ibid., pp. 78)
In the analysis, I will go further into details with which ‘category’ I believe CocaCola belongs to.
The article by Hoeffler and Keller provides a ‘model’ with six means by which
corporate societal marketing may help build brand equity;
-
Building Brand Awareness
-
Enhancing Brand Image
-
Establishing Brand Credibility
-
Evoking Brand Feelings
-
Creating a Sense of Brand Community
-
Eliciting Brand Engagement
I will give a short account of them in the analysis, and I will use them in greater
detail in the analysis of the ‘Coming Together’ campaign.
The theory also examines the choice of what cause to support, it could be
“… a cause that has much in common with the current image of the brand
versus a cause that could complement and augment what the brand already
stands for” (Hoeffler and Keller 2002, pp. 78),
I will not give an in-depth account of those two subjects, because it is not that
relevant in relation to my project, but I will briefly mention which categories I
believe Coca-Cola falls under in the analysis.
14
Rhetoric - Ethos, logos and pathos
According to Higgins and Walker (2012), Aristotle provided a foundation for
rhetorical analysis, but he did not provide a specific analysis model of persuasive
communication. The article provides a ‘model’ made from their own analysis
frame where they have “… incorporate aspects of persuasion from impression
management and strategic communication studies and also other recent rhetorical
analyses to elucidate Aristotle’s key rhetorical elements of ethos, logos, and pathos”
(Higgins and Walker 2012, pp. 197).
Higgins and Walker’s model:
Appeal
Examples of persuasive techniques
ETHOS: credibility
Similitude
Ingratiation
Deference
Expertise
Self-criticism
Inclination to succeed
Consistency
PATHOS: emotion
Metaphors
Identification,
especially
through
cultural references such as:
Sport
Under-privilege
Health, well-being
Hope, aspiration
Loyalty
Friendship
Sympathy
LOGOS: reason
Argumentation
15
Logic
Warrants/justifications
Claims
Data
Evidence/examples (e.g. historical)
(Higgins and Walker 2012, pp. 198)
As the model states ethos is credibility; the sender tries to present him/her/it
self as something good and reliable, which (hopefully) will obtain or maintain the
credibility of the sender.
Pathos; here the sender wants to generate feeling towards the receiver, so the
receiver is more willing to agree with the sender.
Logos; here the sender wants to appear as rational and the message is marked by
coherence and facts.
Case Description
Coca-Cola – Coming Together Campaign
The campaign in general
In 2013, Coca-Cola released a campaign called ‘Coming Together’. The campaign
addresses the social problem obesity, and it is composed of several commercials
spot, info graphics and a webpage (a part of Coca-Cola’s official webpage). The
first commercial, a two-minute video launched on CNN, was followed by the
launch on several national cable networks (USA TODAY, 2013). After the twominute commercial, a second one, “Be OK”, that shows how easily you can burn
140 calories (140 calories, is what is in a can of ‘coke’), was launched and the
two-minute commercial was replaced by an abridged version with the length of
one minute.
The campaign also consists of a commercial called “Troops for Fitness”, which is
a commercial about a program Coca-Cola has initiated in Chicago together with
Chicago Park District in 2012. In addition to that, Coca-Cola has released two
16
info graphics; one called ‘Coming Together’ and the other one called ‘What Is
Weighing Us Down?’ (Appendix 2).
The infographic called ‘Coming Together’ shows four commitments Coca-Cola
states it are committed to follow. Each commitment is followed by illustrations,
the four commitments being;
-
Offer low- or no- calorie beverage options in every market
-
Provide transparent nutrition information, featuring calories on the front
of all of our packages
-
Help get people moving by supporting physical activity programs in every
country where we do business
-
Market responsibly, including no advertising to children under 12
anywhere in the world
(Info graphic I, appendix 2)
‘What Is Weighing Us Down?’ is Coca-Cola’s suggestion for what is weighing us
down; more calories and less movement and at the end of the info graphic there
is a solution to the problem with the title “What We Can Do”, all of this is
followed by illustrations.
Coming Together (1:00) commercial
The ‘Coming Together’ commercial is composed of both still images and small
video clips. There is the same classic melody throughout the whole commercial,
and the voiceover is by an American-speaking woman with a neutral dialect. The
obvious purpose and goal for the commercial is bringing people together and to
fight obesity.
Troops for Fitness commercial
“Troops for Fitness” addresses the obesity problem targeting children and
families in Chicago. The commercial only consists of small video clips put
together with a happy and upbeat melody, and also with an American-speaking
female voiceover.
17
Analysis
Coming Together commercial
In this commercial, Coca-Cola makes use of all three rhetorical appeals; ethos.
logos and pathos.
First, Coca-Cola makes use of pathos;
0:00-0:10: For over 125 years, we have bringing people together. Today we
would like people to come together on something that concerns all of us,
obesity.
I believe this is a use of pathos because Coca-Cola creates a sense of community
and solidarity by using the sentences “bringing people together” and “all of us”.
Due to the fact that Coca-Cola “takes on” the responsibility of bringing people
together for over 125 years, it creates a sort of strong feeling that Coca-Cola
always has been there. Those two things combined, may create a feeling that you
can always count on Coca-Cola – the company will always be there and it takes
responsibility. It also creates a feeling of community, that ‘we’ are all in this
together, and Coca-Cola is still here for ‘us’.
Second, Coca-Cola makes use of ethos;
0:10-0:31: And as the nation’s leading beverage company, we can play an
important role. That includes continuously providing more options – giving
people easy ways to help make informed choices and offering portion
controlled versions of our most popular drinks. It also means working with
our industry to voluntarily change what is offered in schools.
Coca-Cola tries to establish credibility; first the company states that it is the
leading beverage company in the United States – I believe that this is to ensure
that people are aware of its’ position on the market, and thereby say “we know
what we are doing – we are the leading company”.
When using ethos, you try to establish credibility through similitude,
ingratiation, deference, expertise, self-criticism, inclination to succeed and
consistency. I would argue that Coca-Cola shows expertise because it states that
it is the leading beverage company, but it is a little misleading when, in the same
18
sentence, the company says “we can play an important role”, instead of taking
full responsibility and say “we play an important role”. I think this is reflected in
the lack of strong self-criticism from Coca-Cola’s side in this quote. When being
self-critical, I think it is important to ‘question one self’ and take full
responsibility. Coca-Cola does that partly by listing what the company wants to
do to take responsibility – when taking full responsibility, you also demonstrate
credibility. I would argue that if Coca-Cola wanted to show 100% credibility, it
should not use the word “can”, but just simply say, “we play an important role”.
Third, Coca-Cola makes use of logos;
0:32-0:48: But beating obesity will take continued action by all of us based
on one simple common sense fact; all calories count. And if you eat and
drink more calories than you burn off, you will gain weight – that goes for
Coca-Cola and everything else with calories.
When using logos, you reason – when doing that, you can use argumentation,
logic, warrants/justifications, claims, data and evidence/examples. Coca-Cola
argues that we all can fight obesity based on “one simple common sense fact, all
calories count” – this is both data (fact), but also a claim. Of course all calories
count, but I argue that some calories are “better” than others. But it is of course
logic, that if you, as Coca-Cola states, “eat and drink more calories than you burn
off, you will gain weight”. How valid the data/claim is, that can be argued. Some
would argue that all calories are not the same, that most sugary drinks are
lacking of nutrition, such as vitamins, minerals or protein, and that empty
calories are worse than calories from nutrient-dense food (Batra, ND and The
Real Bears ND). I feel like Coca-Cola is trying to justify its actions, instead of
owning full responsibility as being a part of the obesity problem – of course, the
company states that it is a part of it, but it also mentions that Coca-Cola is not the
only one to “blame” in the obesity problematic.
Lastly, Coca-Cola ends the commercial with the use of pathos;
0:49-01:00: finding a solution will take all of us, but at Coca-Cola we know
when people come together good things happen.
Here, Coca-Cola ends the commercial as the company started it, with emotions.
“Finding a solution will take all of us” – this indicates that you are a part of
something, which again creates the feeling of community.
19
The use of ‘we’ throughout the commercial also creates a feeling of “we are all in
this together” – we stand together in this cause. The ‘we’ gives a feeling of a
relationship between all of us that watch the commercial and Coca-Cola, even
though it is a big company, the distance between the viewer and the sender
becomes small due to the use of ‘we’. This relationship between the sender
(Coca-Cola) and the viewer (the consumer) may establish or retain brand loyalty
because the overall feeling may be ‘that is really nice of Coca-Cola – they want to
do something about obesity which concerns the whole society’ and ‘they are here
for us’.
Troops for Fitness commercial
In this commercial, Coca-Cola uses a mixture of all three rhetorical appeals.
In the first quote, I believe that Coca-Cola makes use of both ethos and logos;
0:02-0:19: in communities like Chicago we are coming together with the city
and military veterans for the Coca-Cola foundation’s “Troops for Fitness”.
An innovative program that’s inspiring hundreds of people with fun ways to
move a little more, stay active and to see how good a little balance can feel.
The credibility and expertise are shown when the commercial states that it is
the Coca-Cola foundation’s program, it is Coca-Cola that is in charge of the
program. This shows that Coca-Cola does something; the company is willing to
help in the fight against obesity, which again may result in the feeling that CocaCola is trustworthy (credibility). I believe that logos comes into play in the last
part of the quote. Here Coca-Cola argues and claims that it brings people
together with the “Troops for Fitness” program, where the program (hence CocaCola) inspires people to stay active.
In the last quote in the commercial, Coca-Cola makes use of pathos;
0:19-0:30: it’s a part of our commitment to inspire people everywhere, to
rediscover the joy of being active – see the difference all of us can make ...
together.
I would argue that Coca-Cola uses pathos here due to the fact that there are
certain words like ‘inspire’ and ‘joy’ and the sentence “see the difference all of us
can make … together” that evoke emotions and a sense of community. I believe
20
that Coca-Cola wants to use these emotions to create a ‘good feeling’ about the
brand. Coca-Cola takes responsibility, when saying that the company is
committed to inspire people everywhere and it may reflect that the company is
reliable, when it takes responsibility and helps to create, financially support and
maintain such programs. But again, there is probably a hidden agenda, and this
can question Coca-Cola’s credibility.
I think this commercial is a bit different from the ‘Coming Together’ commercial.
I argue that this commercial is more ‘specific’, it is like a response or an example
to what Coca-Cola does to help fight obesity.
The campaign
According to Hoeffler and Keller (2002), it is important, when building brand
equity through corporate societal marketing, to make use of a ‘model’ with six
points; building brand awareness, enhancing brand image, establishing brand
credibility, evoking brand feelings, creating a sense of brand community and
eliciting brand engagement. These six points can help establish or retain brand
equity in a company. I will use this ‘model’ on Coca-Cola’s ‘Coming Together’
campaign and try to analyse it on the basis of Hoeffler and Keller’s theory.
When choosing a cause, there are two different ways to go; commonality and
complementarity. If you choose a commonality cause, you select “a cause that
shares similar associations and responses with the brand” (Hoeffler and Keller
2002, pp. 83). This means that you want to strengthen existing associations a
consumer might already have about the brand.
If you choose a complementarity cause, you choose a cause that complements
what the brand already stands for. It is kind of difficult to place Coca-Cola and
the ‘Coming Together’ campaign under one of these two “approaches” or
categories. Coca-Cola has chosen obesity as a cause, and I would argue that you
cannot put Coca-Cola under either one of the categories, and yet I can see CocaCola under both of the categories. Obesity is a negative association, but I think
some people might associate Coca-Cola (as a brand) with obesity. That fits under
both categories, but Coca-Cola is trying to avoid being associated with obesity in
21
a negative way. The company does not want to strengthen this already existing
negative association, but instead it wants to change the negative perspective on
Coca-Cola and obesity, so the company takes the risky move to choose obesity as
a cause.
When talking about brand strategy, Coca-Cola can choose three different ways to
go; whether to link the brand to an existing cause, create a new cause or program
or use a combination of the two above. I believe that Coca-Cola makes use of the
last one; a combination between an existing cause and the creation of a new
cause or program also called joint branding. Coca-Cola has chosen obesity as a
cause, this is an already existing cause with many other initiatives, but Coca-Cola
also creates new programs, such as the ‘Troops for Fitness’ program.
Building brand awareness
When talking about brand awareness, it refers to consumers’ ability to recall and
recognise a brand, and it also “ … involves linking the brand … to certain
associations in memory” (Hoeffler and Keller 2002, pp. 79).
According to Hoeffler and Keller (2002), there are two key dimensions when
talking about brand awareness; depth and breadth.
Depth refers to how easily a consumer can remember or recognise the brand and
breadth refers to “… the range of purchase and consumption situations in which
the brand comes to mind” (Ibid, pp. 79). As a company, you want to have both
depth and breadth, as the two create increased sales. Hoeffler and Keller (2002)
also mention two other important aspects when talking about brand awareness,
recognition and recall;
“Brand recognition is the ability of the consumer to confirm prior exposure
to the brand, and brand recall is the unaided retrieval of the brand from
memory” (Ibid, pp. 79).
It is safe to say that Coca-Cola already has brand awareness given that the
company since 2000 has been in the top three of the most global known brands
in the world and according to a survey by Research Now,
“Coca-Cola scored over 90% in brand awareness among respondents from
the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany and Australia” (Best Global Brand,
2013 and Best Global Brand II, 2012).
22
But is brand awareness then still important for Coca-Cola? Yes, it is – I believe, it
is important for Coca-Cola to retain brand awareness because the company is
interested in selling its products, hence Coca-Cola needs to have depth, breadth,
recognition and recall of its brand and it is therefore brand awareness is still
important to remember, even though the company already has obtained
awareness of its brand.
Enhancing Brand Image
According to Hoeffler and Keller (2002), it is of course essential to have brand
awareness, without that, the consumers are not familiar with a company’s
products and brand, but it is also very important to have the ‘right’ image and to
enhance that. When a company wants to create brand equity, it is important to
have a brand with strong and unique brand associations, and that can be created
through brand image.
“Enhancing brand image involves creating brand meaning and what the
brand is characterized by and should stand for in the minds of customers”
(Hoeffler and Keller 2002, pp. 79)
Coca-Cola’s brand is associated with something ‘good’, but due to the fact that
obesity and health are becoming more and more relevant topics, more ‘heat’ is
put on the soda industry and hereby also Coca-Cola. I believe that some people
might associate soft drinks and especially ‘coke’ with something ‘bad’ due to
more focus on health and health concerns, and Coca-Cola might end up with an
overall bad brand image, which the company of course not is interested in. I
argue that Coca-Cola is interested in maintaining a ‘good’ brand image, and not to
be associated with something unhealthy and ‘bad’. According to Hoeffler and
Keller (2002), there are two types of associations when you want to enhance
brand image; user profiles and brand personality. User profiles cover the type of
person who uses the brand. Coca-Cola is interested in “catching” all the
consumers the company can “catch”, and it is therefore important to have user
profiles that address most people. With the ‘Coming Together’ campaign, I argue
that Coca-Cola is trying to capture the health conscious consumer by showing
that Coca-Cola is not that “dangerous” and unhealthy.
23
The other type is brand personality; “Brands may also take on personality traits
and values, similar to people” (Hoeffler and Keller 2002, pp. 79).
These
personality traits and values are use to enhance sincerity, which may lead to
consumers thinking that the people/company behind the brand/campaign are
caring and genuine. I believe this is what Coca-Cola is trying to do with the
campaign, to say ‘we are all in this together’, ‘we want to help and be a part of it’
which could give the association that Coca-Cola cares about ‘us’.
Establishing Brand Credibility
“Brand credibility refers to the extent to which the brand as a whole is
perceived as credible in terms of three dimensions …” (Ibid, pp. 80);
expertise, trustworthiness and likability. I believe that is very important to
establish these three dimensions in order in establish brand credibility.
According to Hoeffler and Keller (2002), it can give a company the image of being
caring and likable for being good and ‘doing the right things’.
“If the cause bears some relation to the line of business for the firm or the
nature of its products, the firm may seem more well-rounded and thus more
expert” (Ibid, pp. 80)
If a company chooses a cause that is closely linked to the brand, the company
may be perceived as having more expertise within the area, and therefore gain
more credibility. Coca-Cola has chosen obesity as a cause, and I argue that
obesity is closely linked to the brand, but not in a positive way. Many people see
Coca-Cola as being a part of the obesity problem. Could this have a negatively
effect on Coca-Cola’s credibility? Both yes and no. I believe that due to the fact
that some people see Coca-Cola as being a part of the reason why obesity is such
a big ‘problem’ or issue, some might think that Coca-Cola is not qualified to stand
up and fight against obesity, and that may put the company’s credibility in
danger. ‘The Real Bears’ campaign is Coca-Cola’s adversary, the people behind
the campaign do not hold back the fact that they think Coca-Cola’s statements
about its products/brand and obesity/health are lies (The Real Bears, ND). On
the other hand, Coca-Cola could also gain credibility by taken on the obesity
issue with its ‘Coming Together’ campaign. I believe that some people might
think that it is bold of Coca-Cola to choose a cause that is a contrast to its’ brand
24
and most of its’ products, and this courage might gain them credibility due to the
fact that some people might think that Coca-Cola is honest; the company dares to
take on an issue it has received a lot of critics about.
Evoking Brand Feelings
Hoeffler and Keller (2002) argue that there are two types of feelings when
talking about brand feeling in accordance to corporate societal marketing; social
approval and self-respect.
Social approval is “… when consumers believe others look favourably on their
appearance, behaviour …” (Hoeffler and Keller 2002, pp. 80) due to the fact that
the consumer consumes a certain brand. To gain this social approval, it may be
necessary to provide the consumer with external symbols the consumer can
“show off” to other consumers, and thereby gain social approval. This could e.g.
be a brooch or a pin, bumper stickers or a t-shirt (Ibid, 2002), some sort of
‘proof’ that a consumer supports the cause and thereby the brand. Coca-Cola
does not have general external symbols in its ‘Coming Together’ campaign, but if
we look at more specific causes, such as the ‘Troops for Fitness’ program, CocaCola has made t-shirts, bags and key chains for the participants in the program
with Coca-Cola’s name on it on the front, and on the back of the t-shirt, CocaCola’s ‘partner’ Chicago Park District’s logo is to be found. I believe that putting
the Chicago Park District’s logo on the t-shirt is a smart move by Coca-Cola. If
people from the ‘outside’ just saw a t-shirt with Coca-Cola’s logo on it, they might
associate it with something negative and unhealthy, but due to the fact that it
also says “troops for fitness” underneath the Coca-Cola logo and that Chicago
Park District’s logo is also placed on the t-shirt, might give people positively
associations.
(Troops for Fitness video, 2013)
25
This positive association might evoke some positive feelings towards Coca-Cola
as a brand, that Coca-Cola supports a good cause and that the cause is socially
approved. But Coca-Cola should not be underestimated; I argue that they do not
do it solely for the sake of our bright eyes. I believe that Coca-Cola always think
of branding when supporting a cause.
(Troops for Fitness video, 2013 and Chicago Park District, ND)
On the right side, you can see the ‘real’ logo of Chicago Park District and on the
left side, you can see the logo use in the ‘Troops for Fitness’ program. The logo is
no longer green and yellow, but red and white, just like Coca-Cola’s logo and
brand. I believe this is done purposely, so people associate Coca-Cola with
Chicago Park District.
The other type of feeling is self-respect;
“Self-respect occurs when the brand makes consumers feel better about
themselves, for example, when consumers feel a sense of pride,
accomplishment, or fulfillment” (Hoeffler and Keller 2002, pp. 81)
Here it is important for people to know that they are doing the right thing, and
therefore they feel good about themselves. This can be kind of tricky to do with
Coca-Cola’s brand and campaign, as it (‘coke’) is an unhealthy product, but I
think that Coca-Cola does a good job trying to evoke the ‘right’ brand feelings. In
the campaign in general, the company recommend to be healthy and to make the
right choices. Coca-Cola encourages people to think about their choices, be active
and to contribute to the fight against obesity. The campaign creates a feeling of
community and that you are a part of something, a ‘movement’ – this may evoke
26
the feeling of self-respect with some consumers, that they are doing the ‘right’
thing and they can feel good about themselves, even if they buy and drink CocaCola occasionally.
Creating a Sense of Brand Community
When creating brand community, the idea is to make customers “feel a kinship or
affiliation with other people who are associated with the brand” (Hoeffler and
Keller 2002, pp. 81), and a brand community is marked by a shared
consciousness, rituals and traditions and a sense of moral responsibility (Ibid,
pp. 81). Coca-Cola wants to evoke these ‘feelings’ and I believe that is one of the
reasons why the company has made the ‘Coming Together’ campaign. Coca-Cola
is interested in creating a community around the brand, and to make people feel
they have a shared consciousness and moral responsibility, Coca-Cola has to take
part and responsibility in the fight against obesity. “As a result of these
community-building initiative, the brand may be perceived in a more positive light”
(Ibid, pp. 81), and I think that Coca-Cola wants this.
Eliciting Brand Engagement
“Perhaps the strongest affirmation of brand loyalty is when customers are
willing to invest time, energy, money, or other resources into the brand
beyond those expended during purchase or consumption of the brand”
(Hoeffler and Keller 2002, pp. 81)
Of course the top goal is to elicit brand engagement with the consumers. Brand
engagement within the consumers can create a very strong sense of brand
loyalty, which can influence other users and potential consumers. Coca-Cola tries
to do this by creating ‘small’ programs around the world in local communities.
When focusing on the smaller communities, and not making all of the programs
national, people may feel that they really can make a difference and therefore
they might be more willing to involve themselves in the given program and
thereby create brand engagement.
All of the above mentioned points; building brand awareness, enhancing brand
image, establishing brand credibility, evoking brand feelings, creating a sense of
27
brand community and eliciting brand engagement, are very important when a
company wants to build brand equity. But if Coca-Cola already has brand equity,
how important is this ‘model’ then for the company? I argue that it is still
relevant for Coca-Cola to have this in mind when making a new campaign with a
corporate societal marketing cause. Even though, the brand is very well known
and the company has brand equity, it is important to maintain this relationship
and brand equity with its consumers.
Of course it has not been a bed of roses for Coca-Cola – the company has also met
resistance as more competitors entered the market and as Coca-Cola became a
global brand. Coca-Cola has adapted to the market by increasing its product
portfolio and Coca-Cola also “ ... adapts advertising and marketing to suit local
markets” (Morrison 2006, pp. 45) – this is a sign of Coca-Cola trying to survive in
a global market.
If we look at Coca-Cola’s ‘coke’ as for what it really is then it consists of water,
flavourings, a sweetening agent and carbonate (Kapferer 2004, pp. 64), so why
and how can the company still be in business after so many years and still
compete with all its competitors? That is a hard question, but I believe that is due
to the fact that Coca-Cola plays on feelings and traditions.
‘Coke’ means something to most people in the world – it can be positively,
negatively or a neutral feeling toward the product and the brand.
The documentary “Coca-Cola The Real Story Behind the Real Thing” by CNBC has
some comments regarding what Coca-Cola is as a brand; “Coke is one of those
brands that inspires emotion” and the documentary also states that Coca-Cola is
trying to build up a ‘memory-bank’ in their consumers’ mind filled with positive
associations. The documentary goes on and states that people want to have a
little movement of joy, and that Coca-Cola as a company are not trying to solve
world peace, but just trying to give people a little movement of joy in an overall
difficult day. I believe, this captures the essence of Coca-Cola as a company very
well – the company has always tried to create a certain atmosphere around
‘coke’ with slogans as “Where There's Coke There's Hospitality” (1948), “When
Coca-Cola is a Part of Your Life, You Can't Beat the Feeling” (1987) and “Open
Happiness” (2009) (A history of Coca-Cola Advertising Slogans, 2012). All these
28
slogans contain words you can associate with something positive and something
that will bring you joy – ergo ‘coke’ will bring you joy. It is no wonder that a
company wants to be associated with a good and positive atmosphere, but for
me it is a bit of a wonder, maybe more an admiration, how Coca-Cola has
achieved such a success with creating its brand.
My guess would be that Coca-Cola’s success is achieved by its unique way of
marketing it-self as a brand, and since the company was the first on the market,
many may look at the company as the “real” and original brand – the brand you
have always known. It may create a sort of credibility that the company has been
in business for so many years, then you trust the brand and you feel like it is
‘your’ brand. This can create brand loyalty, which again can create brand equity –
when people love a brand, they may be willing to pay more for the product with
the brand name even though they can buy a similar product without the brand
name for less money.
“Being big automatically provides trust. This trust, combined with harmony and
conformance needs of collectivistic cultures, leads to high brand loyalty.
Consequently, it will be difficult for new entrants in these markets to gain market
share” (De Mooij 2005, pp. 129). Coca-Cola is a very large company, and as the
quote states this can also help establish and maintain brand loyalty and thereby
brand equity.
Conclusion
Coca-Cola is a well-known and established company that has been in business for
128 years. Being a recognised brand with knowledge, experience and expertise,
can create credibility, which could lead to brand loyalty, which again could lead
to brand equity, all by the fact that the brand is well known and “approved”. But
brand equity is not something that just happens, it takes a lot of work, time and
money to create and retain. Even though, Coca-Cola is such a huge company, it
still has to think about its brand, including building brand awareness, enhancing
brand image, establishing brand credibility, evoking brand feelings, creating a
sense of brand community and eliciting brand engagement. All of these six
29
factors are important to remember if you want to build brand equity, and I argue
that they are still as important to remember when retaining brand equity.
The American society has experienced an increase in obesity over the last 20
years, and it has become a national problem. As a contrast, a more healthconcerned group of consumers have appeared, but how does Coca-Cola try to
accommodate both health concerns and brand equity when marketing an
unhealthy product? Due to the context with more and more consumers being
health-consciousness, Coca-Cola needs to adapt to the society to retain its brand
equity and thereby to maintain its sales. But how does Coca-Cola adapt and fit its
unhealthy product in a health-conscious context? I believe that the ‘Coming
Together’ campaign is Coca-Cola’s attempt at adapting and maintaining its
consumer and maybe even gain new consumers. Coca-Cola wants to appear as
positively as possible, and I believe that is why the company invests time and
money on such a campaign.
Coca-Cola chooses a cause that people feel strongly about, and also a cause that
some people link Coca-Cola to, and not in the positive way. But the company
wants to change people’s minds. With the campaign, Coca-Cola tries to appear as
positive as possible, by focusing on how you can avoid gaining weight, and not be
focusing on the consequences by being obese. I think this maybe be due to the
fact that some people might look at Coca-Cola as being a part of the obesity
problem. Maybe this is why the company chooses to focus with a view to the
future, instead of looking back and then risks losing positive associations.
Coca-Cola wants to move the focus from its products towards what it does for
obesity, how involved and committed the company is against the fight of obesity.
Coca-Cola wants to appear as a company that takes social responsibility
(corporate societal marketing).
What effect did the campaign have? It is difficult to give a conclusive answer due
to the fact that I do not have the ability, time and money to either get my hands
on Coca-Cola’s brand equity numbers or marketing strategy or conduct a survey
about brand equity regarding Coca-Cola myself. But I think, it would have been a
very interesting perspective to bring to the project, to examine the consumers’
30
view on the ‘Coming Together’ campaign, if it had an effect or not, and if yes,
which effect. But it is safe to say that the campaign did not go unnoticed; if the
associations consist of a majority of positively or negatively associations, is not
safe to say.
31
Bibliography
A history of Coca-Cola Advertising Slogans, 2012. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/coke-lore-slogans
Adweek, 2013. Last modified May 23, 2014
http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/coca-cola-makes-globalpledge-not-target-kids-under-12-149298
American Marketing Association, 2014. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://www.amaorders.com/productdetail.aspx?id=jppinstusp
Appeal forms, ND. Last modified May 23, 2014
http://jkristjansen.com/writing-a-message-in-3-different-appeal-forms/
Art of the American Soldier Exhibit Features Vintage Word War II Coca-Cola Ads,
ND. Last modified May 23, 2014.
, http://www.uwishunu.com/2010/11/art-of-the-american-soldier-exhibitfeatures-vintage-world-war-ii-coca-cola-ads/
Batra, Sukhsatej, ND. “Empty-Calorie Foods Vs. Nutrient-Dense Foods”, Demand
Media. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/emptycalorie-foods-vs-nutrientdense-foods1350.html
Best Global Brands, 2013. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://www.interbrand.com/it/best-global-brands/2013/Coca-Cola
Best Global Brands II, 2012. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/2012/Coca-Cola
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
Chicago Park District, ND. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com
CNN, 2013. Last modified May 23, 2014
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/14/health/coke-obesity/
Coca-Cola I, Last modified May 23, 2014. http://www.cocacolacompany.com/press-center/press-releases/coca-cola-wants-america-to-befit
Coca-Cola II, Last modified May 23, 2014. http://www.cocacolacompany.com/press-center/press-releases/the-coca-cola-companyreinforces-its-commitment-to-help-america-in-the-fight-against-obesity
32
Coca-Cola ads over the years, 2012. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://duyanh94.blogspot.dk
Coca-Cola Beverages and Products, ND. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://www.worldofcoca-cola.com/coca-cola-facts/coca-cola-beverages-andproducts/
CocaColaCo, 2006. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5JBB_E5mzPEbDupD-6fA4A
Coca-Cola – Coming Together (1:00), 2013. Last modified 23 May 2014.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV2D0Zq124g
Coca Cola The Real Story Behind The Real Thing, 2013. Last modified May 23,
2014. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPjg5lBOcu8
Collin, Finn and Simo Køppe, Humanistisk Videnskabsteori, DR Multimedie, 2012
De Mooij, Marieke “Global Marketing and Advertising, Understanding Cultural
Paradoxes”. Sage Publications, 2005
Dev, Chekitah S., “Hospitality Branding”, Cornell University Press, 2012
DR1.dk, 2013 “Coca-Colas dominans på brandhimlen skudt i sænk” Last modified
May 23, 2014. http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2013/09/30/093158.htm
Food Revolution, ND. Last modified May 23, 2014
http://www.jamieoliver.com/us/foundation/jamies-food-revolution/home
Forbes, 2012. Last modified May 23, 2014
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlf45khke/1-mcdonalds/
Forbes, 2013. Last modified May 23, 2014
http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2013/02/22/does-cocacolas-coming-together-ad-invite-a-social-media-backlash/
FRAC, 2014. “Food Research and Action Center”. Last modified May 23, 2014
http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/obesity-in-the-us/
Higgins, C. and R. Walker, “Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in
social/environmental reports”, Accounting Forum; Elsevier, 2012
Hoeffler, Steve and Kevin L. Keller, “Building Brand Equity Through Corporate
Societal Marketing”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 2002.
Info graphic I, Last modified May 23, 2014. http://www.cocacolacompany.com/coming-together/infographic-illustrating-coca-colas-globalcommitments-to-help-fight-obesity
33
Info graphic II, Last modified May 23, 2014. http://www.cocacolacompany.com/stories/what-is-weighing-us-down-new-infographic-showshow-calorie-imbalance-impacts-us-all
Investopedia, ND. “Brand Equity”, Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brandequity.asp
J., Tatiana Soto, “Methods for Assessing Brand Value: A comparison between the
Interbrand Model and the BBDO’s Brand Equity Evaluator model”, Diplomica
Verlag, 2008
Jensen, Leif Becker “Indføring i tekstanalyse”. Samfundslitteratur, 2011
Kapferer, Jean-Noël, “The New Strategic Brand Management – Creating and
Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term”, Kogan Page Limited, 2004
Knowles, Jonathan, ND. “In Search of a Reliable Measure of Brand Equity” Last
modified May 23, 2014. http://www.zibs.com/knowles.shtml
Kolstrup, S., G. Agger, P. Jauert,, and K. Shrøder. Medie- og
kommunikationsleksikon, 2. Udgave, Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur, 2010
Let’s Move, ND. Last modified May 23, 2014. http://www.letsmove.gov
Mohsin, Muhammad, “Encyclopaedia of Brand Equity Management, volume II”,
Global Media, 2009
Morrison, Janet “The International Business Environment, Global and Local
Marketplaces in a Changing World”. Palgrave Macmillan, 2006
NY Times, 2013. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/business/media/apple-passes-cocacola-as-most-valuable-brand.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=3&
ResearchGate, 2014. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://www.researchgate.net/journal/07439156_Journal_of_Public_Policy_Marketing,
Reuters, 2013. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/us-sodaban-lawsuitidUSBRE96T0UT20130730
Ruž evič iū te and Ruž evič ius, 2010 “Brand Equity Integrated Evaluation Model:
Consumer-based Approach”, Last modified May 23, 2014
http://internet.ktu.lt/lt/mokslas/zurnalai/ekovad/15/1822-6515-2010719.pdf
SFU, ND. Last modified May 23, 2014. http://www.sfu.ca/medialab/cycle/presentation/design.html
34
Studieportalen, “De tre appelformer: logos, pathos og ethos” Last modified May
23, 2014. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhd0_Ke-UQY
The Real Bears, ND. Last modified May 23, 2014. http://www.therealbears.org
The WorkBuzz, 2011. ”A day in the life of the average American”. Last modified
May 23, 2014. http://www.theworkbuzz.com/on-the-job/worklife/a-day-in-thelife-of-the-average-american/
Troops for Fitness, 2013. Last modified May 23, 2014
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60JOqhyh8HU
Tuck at Dartmouth, ND. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://faculty.tuck.dartmouth.edu/kevin-lane-keller/
USA TODAY, 2013. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/01/14/coca-colaobesity/1832555/
Vanderbilt University, ND. Last modified May 23, 2014.
http://www.owen.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-and-research/facultydirectory/faculty-profile.cfm?id=190
35