Coke

Posted on 2003/05/22 14:30:00 (May 2003) by john.

The more I think about it, the more it worries me.

Anyone doing a marketing degree must surely have to study the cola phenomenon at some point. Even to the less marketing savvy like myself, it is a very interesting topic.

After lunch today, I found myself inexplicably craving a can of Coke. I talked to my friend and lunch companion Issam about it, and despite us both being from two very different countries (England and Lebanon), and especially despite one of them having a very strong national cuisine, we realised that for both of us Coke seemed to be almost inextricably ingrained in our lifestyles. Issam surprised me by saying their were certain Lebanese foods he couldn't imagine eating without Coke. Chie also is no stranger to Coke, and Coke vending machines seem to be all over the place in Japan, although strong national pride makes dubiously titled drinks like Qoo, Pocari Sweat and Calpis strong competitors. The French, for all their strong culture, still drink millions of gallons of the stuff, and in Brazil it was nominated for president once. (OK I made this last bit up, but it could be true).

I was reminded of a time I was listening to the radio once, and the UK marketing executive for Coca-Cola was (I think) trying to defend Coke's agressive marketing strategy and apparent world domination. He responded absolutely brilliantly, by saying "It's just a great drink", and then went on to say, every time he drinks Coke he is transported back to this childhood, sitting on benches outside pubs on sunny afternoons whilst his parents drank inside. This is an image most English people seem to be able to associate with, and this kind of heavily psychological (and locally focused) marketing seems to be very powerful. I couldn't help but applaud the chap, that even in trying to justify his marketing campaign, he continued to do marketing. The sitting-outside-the-pub image really stuck in my head, and now every time I drink Coke I think of that too. I have to take my hat off to the guy.

I'm also reminded of the story Tim told me about the time Steve Jobbs (of Apple fame) headhunted somebody or other from Pepsi, with the immortal line (which I don't remember exactly) "Do you want to spend the rest of your life making fizzy water, or do you want to come with me and change the world...?" This does drive the point home - it's just fizzy sugary water!

And yet Coke is apparently the second most commonly known word in the world. If I recally correctly, the first one may have been no, incidentally.

Is it really all down to very good marketing? Or have they made something that is just genuinely delicious and has a deservedly global appeal? Or is there some chemical in it (like it used to contain Cocaine) that a large part of the world's population is now addicted to...?

Whatever the case may be, it's quite incredible when you think about it, and at least a little bit scary.

What creeps me out no end is that if I sipped a mouthful of coke and held it in my mouth without swallowing for like what, 7 hours or so, I would have no teeth left. I guess I better remember to not be doing that too often then eh..

Posted by Omar at 2003/05/22 15:12:02.

If you look at what it costs to buy, and what it costs to make, they must be making a truly incredible amount of money. I mean, those 2-litre bottles at 1.50 (-ish) each can be made for ... let's say ... 5p. These guys don't know what to do with the money, I'm sure, and (in an attempt the keep the gravy train on track) they're spending it on all sorts of stuff, to keep their drink in the forefronts of our minds. Look at the sponsorship of sports and stuff like that. The marketing is very strong and aggressive, and they can afford to spend that much on it because of the profit they make. It's kinda self-fulfilling. As long as the marketing keeps up, they'll never run short of cash. So I guess the marketing will continue to be aggressive, and the vending machines will be ubiquitous for the forseeable future. Personally, I don't like the stuff. The problem, though, is that it has no real competitors, so on the (rare) occasions I fancy a cola drink, I inevitably end up with coke. Damn.

Posted by Jimmy at 2003/05/23 09:17:55.

There *was* actually a make-your-own cola (OpenCola) recipe floating around on the net at one point. I never tried it, but I was told it was quite nice.

Actually I like Virgin Cola myself - it's a lot smoother and less stingfizzy (technical term) than Coke, but I only know one place where you can get it and it's a long way out.

But I don't think there's necessarily a great conspiracy around Coke. I mean, almost every country in the world eats chips (or at least offers them) and that's not a marketing conspiracy. (And coincidentally Coke goes damn well with chips. Hmm..)

Posted by Mark at 2003/05/23 13:36:21.

If you think that's scarey, what about the world's dependency on technology?

Posted by Rob Lang at 2003/05/23 17:39:02.

Technology doesn't rot your teeth.

Posted by John at 2003/05/23 23:33:01.

Unless it's a car battery.

Posted by tom at 2003/05/28 08:57:15.

I have been browsing the net regarding the ingredients of Coke and stumbled on this article which i found on an interesting website called alternet.com, i just thought you might like to know what the big corporation of that famous fizzy drink does to our environment!

RODDICK: It's the Real Thing -- Thievery and Corruption

By Anita Roddick, AlterNet
November 25, 2002

No Shame: Defacing the Himalayas for a Buck

The Supreme Court of India has charged the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo, Inc. with crimes against nature. The offense: Painting huge, garish advertisements on the base of the Himalayas in an ecologically threatened region in violation of environmental and advertising laws.

The advertisements were discovered along a 56 kilometer stretch of road in the Himalayan state of Himachal Pradesh, painted on massive rock outcroppings to be visible to passing cars. It is against the law in India to advertise anywhere without a permit. The destruction caused grave concern among geologists and biologists who use the area to conduct studies of the fragile ecology of the mountain range. And that's on top of the offense to the good sensibilities of any sane person assaulted by commercial messages in and on the Himalayas!

Remediation of the offending advertisements remains to be determined; paint-thinners would create further pollution, but weather and erosion alone could take decades to eliminate the eyesores.

So far the court has asked both companies to pay a paltry $62,000 each in penalties and restitution.

The global politics of water, especially corporate-led privatization fueled by dire shortages in developing countries, is at the heart of everything wrong with globalization. Children in developing countries now drink more soft drinks than they do fresh water, often because a can of Coke is cheaper or more readily available than a clean-running tap. And nowhere is that more evident than in Kerala, India.

I spent a week in India with Vandana Shiva earlier this month, lecturing on corporate responsibility and learning loads about biodiversity and the struggle against multinational agribusiness. Still, it seems, we spend all of our time refuting the popular myth that corporate globalization alleviates poverty by bringing Western "advancement," "civilization" and "opportunity" to developing nations. One of the participants at Vandana's conference pulled me aside to tell me about the Coca-Cola company's criminal activities in Kerala.

Coca-Cola is anything but a savior to the indigenous people (Adivasis) and members of the oppressed castes (Dalits) around Kerala. To them, Coca-Cola Corp. is a thief operating with impunity, polluting their land, killing their crops, stealing their water and then selling it back to them as fizzy sugar drinks, and ironically, bottled water.

Coca-Cola opened a bottling plant in Plachimada in 1998, in the center of agricultural land where a bountiful variety of crops have grown for centuries, providing work and sustenance for the indigenous people. As soon as the first nail was hammered, the plant was in violation of India's Land Utilization Act, which forbids agricultural land from being converted for non-agricultural use. Where thousands of locals once worked the land for a living, just 100 local residents are employed at the plant, and another 150 as casual laborers who have no job security or appreciable benefits.

The plant drilled more than 60 deep wells on the land in two years, and extracts between 600,000 and 1.5 million liters of water each day, at absolutely no cost to Coca-Cola. The aquifer is so overtapped, the water table has dropped below a measurable level in many areas. The three agricultural reservoirs in the region have dried up completely. What remains of the groundwater is polluted by runoff and rampant dumping along the banks of canals on the plant property.

For every bottle of Coca-Cola produced by the plant, three bottles of water are lost to the production process. Chemical processes for cleaning bottles and mixing ingredients leave tons of effluent that the plant allows to run back onto the ground. In the first year of the plant's operation, Coke actually told local farmers that the slurry was good fertilizer; those who used it said the smell was revolting, and the crops treated with the gunk withered.

Water samples tested from the area's aquifer show the water is extremely hard, and thick with excess salt, calcium and magnesium, indicating that the limestone that lines the aquifers is being degraded by over-use.

The meager amounts of water that can still be extracted from the indigenous peoples' wells are unfit for irrigating their fields, let alone for bathing or drinking. Those who drink it or bathe in it have reported stomach illnesses and skin rashes. Their crops no longer grow; they have to travel dozens of kilometers before dawn to outlying villages to gather as much clean water as they can haul back home, before leaving for work, some of them at the Coca-Cola plant that has caused the local disaster. And to add insult to injury, sometimes they are forced to buy bottled water from Coca-Cola.

This is development? Where is Coca-Cola's conscience in all this?

When the local Adivasis, primarily from the Eravalar and Malasar tribes, pleaded with Coca-Cola, they were turned away and told that the corporation could mine water anywhere and however it liked on its own land.

When the villagers appealed to the government to propose some fair system of water conservation and distribution, they were met with deafening silence. That didn't surprise them; Coca-Cola has shared its wealth handsomely with local and national political officials, and has been exempted from any number of laws and restrictions, including the long-standing protectionist rule that demands all transnational corporate subsidiaries doing business in India be at least 60 percent owned by shareholders living in the country.

In April, more than 2,000 Adivasi picketed the plant, demanding its closure. At least 50 Adivasi and Dalits picket the plant peacefully every day in a symbol of the ongoing struggle. On June 9, 130 peaceful protestors, including 30 women and nine children, were arrested by police at the request of Coca-Cola.

In response to the protests, Coca-Cola briefly delivered free bottled water to surrounding villages, an act that amounts to an admission of guilt. But still, the Indian government refuses to hold Coca-Cola accountable.

But you can. How? Refuse to drink or buy Coca-Cola, and be sure to tell them why. Send an email to Coca-Cola's corporate offices here, or write to Coca-Cola via snail mail at: The Coca-Cola Company, P.O. Box 1734, Atlanta, GA, 30301.

Anita Roddick is the founder of The Body Shop and a lifelong activist. Email her at anita@anitaroddick.com

Posted by Rachael at 2003/06/15 20:06:20.

I was waiting for a good reason to boycott Coke, and now I have one. Right.

Posted by John at 2003/06/18 21:22:15.

coke is bad for u it rots your teethm, my dentist said that i should not drink coke

Posted by mat at 2004/02/06 08:32:41.

On the subject of "Boycott Coca Cola"

"The International Boycott of Coca Cola started on the 22 July 2003. It was called by SINALTRAINAL (Colombian Food and Drinks Workers’ Union). It is supported by the World Social Forum, and by the CUT and the CGTD (principle trade union federations in Colombia), and numerous social organisations around the world.

Coca Cola stand accused of complicity in the assassination of 8 Sinaltrainal trade union leaders in Colombia since 1990. Many other leaders have been imprisoned, tortured, forcibly displaced and exiled. Of course, Coca Cola deny any responsibility for the murders, pointing out that 100s of union leaders are killed every year in Colombia. However, many of Sinaltrainal’s victims were killed inside Coca Cola plants while negotiating collective agreements. Coca Cola management were reported in the national press as meeting and contracting members of the AUC death squads to “sort out their labour problems”.

So why the boycott? Sinaltrainal have exhausted all the legal avenues in Colombia, where their applications to the courts have been manipulated and rejected. However, in the USA, in a court case brought in solidarity with Sinaltrainal by the United Steel Workers Union, a judge has ruled that there is enough evidence for a case to continue against Coca Cola’s Colombian subsidiaries. However, the multinational refuses to cooperate with the union, and the violent repression continues. Coca Cola are also suing the union for libel. The boycott and international campaign are powerful but dangerous weapons, the workers in Colombia know that they will bear the brunt of the repression for highlighting these facts. They deserve your solidarity.

“We ask Coca Cola to stop killing, and you to stop drinking Coke”
Carlos Julia, Sinaltrainal"

-http://www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk/cocacolacampaign.html

Posted by Darya at 2004/05/06 20:54:32.

Post a comment