This is a series of ten discussions I'm going to do over the next two weeks....discussing favorite conspiracies. New Coke.
Basic facts which you can't dispute:
1. New Coke was this idea that you'd dump sugar-sweetened Coke to a lower-cost formula of high-fructose corn syrup. Thus saving money and charging you the same cost.
2. Taste? I would personally would suggest it was 90-percent of the original Coke. Some folks would disagree.
3. This was all done around the time that DEA was discussing the coco plant business. General gut feeling was that coca derivatives were going to be a long-term product. The company, based on commentary had legit worries about this pipeline disappearing.
This idea lasted in name until 1992, and shifted to Coke II (don't ask the logic).
2002, New Coke and Coke II production ended....sort of.
Last year, Coke talked up the idea of bringing back Coke II/New Coke. It wasn't going to be full production...just a short run to see if consumers went back to it.
Was there a conspiracy here? No. It was a gamble by the leadership of Coke and to get away from the coca derivatives. The taste....frankly, was never the same.
Coke's lead in sales? Since the 1970s...it's all based on fast-food sales and ball-parks. Pepsi took over the rest of the market.
It was all a gamble to get ahead and just failed....conspiracy-wise, it's a marginal '1' on the one to ten scale.
2 comments:
One interesting thing to know is that New Coke was based on Diet Coke’s formula, which in turn was based on Tab’s formula. The major change was that instead of being sugar-free like Diet Coke, the company used high-fructose corn syrup for the New Coke sweetener.
But is the 'lifting' or stealing of the formula....a conspiracy? Like you say...this is painfully obvious and even generally educated people recognize how it's not really a creation....just a duplication with a new name.
Post a Comment