The market for soft drinks and Cola is seen to be engaged in almost a century of real war, particularly between two leaders in this sector: Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola. These two companies of American origin represent the epitome of the evolution of the firm.
How then do we not use the competition between these two companies to try to interpret their respective developments, particularly in the area of distribution, which has seen the arrival in recent years by many competitors in the market for soft drinks?
[...] The activities of bottling, distribution and marketing are handled by many bottling companies. These chemicals act locally to meet local markets. The decentralization strategy is designed to facilitate the expansion of the company worldwide. With the scope of responsibility and attention given to the largest local players, this strategy has resulted in increased flexibility and a better understanding of the requirements locally even if it is not to obscure the major disadvantage which consists of a certain loss of control by the parent. [...]
[...] It is also noted that competition forces the distribution of soft drinks in these outlets and excludes the historic competitor and all its products. We can conclude that in our case, the market is a form of organization whose existence can limit opportunism by agents who are tempted to favor the turnover at the expense of profitability. We have seen the relationship between managers and shareholders, but the agency theory in particular, allows better understanding policy changes which have occurred recently in the policies of the two giants of cola drinks. [...]
[...] Coca Cola was the leading provider of concentrated syrup used to produce carbonated soft drinks. It was present in 200 countries and owned four of the five best-selling beverages in the world. Then the company changed its strategy. Advertisements were designed locally, four research and developments were created and more brands were developed locally. In response to the seizure of power distribution due to supermarkets and creation of a central repository of all U.S. franchises was eliminated in favor of branches. [...]
[...] "This development was therefore called into question by the system independent of distribution and bottling and therefore by the same firms to focus on the market to reduce transaction costs. The two companies had to review their distribution strategy. Indeed, the externality of the activity of bottling and distribution was adopted by Pepsi Cola and it was quite unique. In the 70s, the trend was towards internalization. The two companies had reviewed their distribution strategy to respond to the new market. [...]
[...] II Analysis of the changing distribution of soft drink cola from the theory of business. We are now in the presence of a real change in the parallel theories of these two firms who have put forward with each other for nearly a century. They are representatives of growth for large companies. Their first products have toured the world and are now known to all. How has this been possible? Is working hard increasing its distribution as much as possible? [...]
APA Style referenceFor your bibliography
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee