Latest news with #NewCoke
Mint
25-07-2025
- Business
- Mint
Coca-Cola: The surreal thing is actually its brand appeal
Mint Editorial Board Sweet success for The Coca-Cola Company needn't be about sugar sources, or even health addressal, so long as its popular fizzy-drink brand's marketers keep its target market well engaged. It's why Trump's cane nudge didn't make its stock budge. What keeps Coca-Cola cool under pressure is also the real secret of its success: brand power. Gift this article The Coca-Cola Company, based in the US, saw its stock shrug off the cost impact of a revised sweetener plan revealed this week. Earlier too, its share price had been flat after President Donald Trump posted that he'd been 'speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL cane sugar in Coke" in America; it had agreed, he said, and was thankful. As the company told investors a few days later, it plans to launch a cane variant of its fizzy drink this autumn as an extra choice. The Coca-Cola Company, based in the US, saw its stock shrug off the cost impact of a revised sweetener plan revealed this week. Earlier too, its share price had been flat after President Donald Trump posted that he'd been 'speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL cane sugar in Coke" in America; it had agreed, he said, and was thankful. As the company told investors a few days later, it plans to launch a cane variant of its fizzy drink this autumn as an extra choice. This leaves space for business as usual; specifically, for cheaper corn syrup to remain its US bulge-bracket sweetener. It also tips this legendary brand into a swirl of political intrigue. Just recently, Trump's health secretary talked about the risks of corn syrup, all but calling it toxic. Also Read: Bring back The Zing Thing, Coca-Cola In the land famed for its free market, we thus have the spectacle of a nudge that has stunned corn farmers, left folks puzzled over how cane sugar is any better, and prompted critics of the White House to link it with the alleged sway held by a rich sugarcane lobby, one that's happy with sugar prices kept high by an import-tariff shield, but may have spied a sweeter pile of profit in a public sales prod. America is no stranger to dirigiste detours, especially in its farm sector. This intervention, however, is directed at America Inc. Stakeholders include Warren Buffett and perhaps also his fan base of value investors. In symbolic terms, cola market distortion is a blow to the myth of US capitalism being too deeply dug in to display Soviet characteristics. Admittedly, it's not command-and-control. To Coca-Cola's credit, its words betray no hint of giving up its focus on sugar reduction across its beverage portfolio, as shelf offtake dictates and healthy intake demands. So its steady stock can be explained by an impact that's expected to be too soft to disturb a business boasting of a 3% dividend yield. Arguably, though, what keeps Coca-Cola cool under pressure is also the real secret of its success: brand power. That this cola's effect on taste buds was only a minor factor hit home in 1985, thanks to its New Coke fiasco. This was a sweeter version formulated to take on its zesty rival Pepsi, a move it had to reverse in response to a rebellion among Coke loyalists, as Mark Pendergrast tells the tale in For God, Country and Coca-Cola (1993). The company's taste research with blindfold tests was promptly binned for a return to its classic formula—marketed as 'The Real Thing." Also Read: Mint Explainer: Campa Cola and the power of nostalgia Many suspect Coca-Cola's flip-flop was a marketing stunt, which the business denies. If it was a lesson, it's a valuable one. Think of dreams. Even if they engage all five of our senses, we usually recall them as audio-visual. All dream-sellers know this, but Coca-Cola has a special edge in its mass outreach. As a brand, the aural and cursive appeal of its label has no parallel. It rolls easily off the tongue, thanks to four easy syllables—with the curvy letters of each appearing to blend into a flowing sea of red. So familiar is it, that it breezily passes the mirror test: One can 'read' its lateral inversion in a flash. Such brand appeal is an enviable asset, for it frees the cola formula for strategic tweaks in the larger quest to serve an evolving market. Sugar is all but irrelevant. So long as the brand's marketers can creatively keep its target audience engaged by putting a dream—rather than just a soda can—within an 'arm's reach of desire,' to echo an internal slogan, The Coca-Cola Company could surf the frothy waves of a sugar shake-up. It's a real asset. Topics You May Be Interested In
Miami Herald
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
White House lies about fries (and Coke)
I'm planning a trip to Las Vegas next month and the first and last thing I always try to do whenever I go there is hit the In-N-Out Burger next to the airport. As regular readers might remember, I developed a taste for In-N-Out's simple, but delicious, burgers and fries in the 20 years I lived in southern California. But for my last 27 years in Wichita, the nearest has been Dallas/Fort Worth and Denver. So imagine my chagrin, bordering on horror, when I got a press release from the White House early this week titled 'President Trump Delivers on MAHA Push,' saying that In-N-Out has 'transitioned to 100% beef tallow' for frying fries. If Trump's doing deliveries, I'll take a double-double, extra pickles. And I thought he'd banned the use of the word 'transitioned' in one of his executive orders or another. 'Tallow' is a fancy-sounding euphemism for 'rendered beef fat.' In colonial times, it was used to make smoky, smelly candles. But it's all the rage in the food chain these days in MAHA land, because Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation's foremost amateur nutritionist and bear-cub-carcass abuser, thinks it's somehow better for you than plant-based oils. MAHA is a subset of Trump's MAGA movement, and it stands for 'Make America Healthy Again' (if they really cared, we'd have universal health coverage). So let's start from the premise that deep-fried anything isn't going to be particularly good for you. But when I was a kid, the nation switched to plant oils because all that tallow was turning America's arteries into glue sticks. So when I read from the White House that my favorite burger joint had switched to tallow, I thought, 'Say it ain't so.' I sent the company an email and they sent back a quote from Denny Warnick, chief operating officer, saying it ain't so: 'Information was recently published in error stating that In-N-Out Burger has transitioned to beef tallow for cooking French fries. We continue to work on an upgrade to our current sunflower oil, however we have not yet made a change.' Being from the Sunflower State and all, that smarts. But thanks Denny. See you in Vegas in August. The White House source for the In-N-Out tallow fiction was a link to post on X, which originated as an April Fools Day joke on a fan page. This is how pathetic we've become as a nation. We're now being run by a government that can't tell fact from falsehood as it turns your choice of cooking oil into a political litmus test. And let's not forget these are the exact same people who were calling Michelle Obama a communist, and worse, when she tried to get a few more fruits and vegetables into school lunches. Remember 'New Coke?' Not content with lobbying for big beef fat, Trump has now turned his attention to soda pop, via this post on social media: 'I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so. I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them – You'll see. It's just better!' Coke has since responded with two extremely carefully worded statements, neither of which commits to switching to cane sugar, while studiously avoiding saying the president is talking out of his southern orifice. This has the potential to go as well for Coca-Cola as the 'New Coke' scare of 1985. For those too young to remember (and I wish I was), Coke was reformulated to try to make it younger and hipper, to recapture business lost to 'The Pepsi Generation.' New Coke was so lame that it sparked nationwide protests and boycotts. Even the Coca-Cola Co. now acknowledges on its own website that it may be 'The Most Memorable Marketing Blunder Ever.' It's highly questionable whether Coke could keep Trump's cane-sugar promise, even if it wanted to, without bankrupting itself. In Mexico, Coke is made with cane sugar because the stuff is about as cheap as dirt there. North of the border, soda makers primarily use corn sweetener, due to decades of price supports and import tariffs that keep cane sugar prices high, mostly to protect America's sugar beet growers and corn farmers. That's why only a few producers of pretentious premium sodas use cane sugar — and a 12 ounce bottle of Mexican Coke costs nearly as much as a two-liter bottle of the domestic product. So if Coke does switch to cane sugar to placate MAHA, it's going to make their product way more expensive than rival brands that stick with corn sweetener. Not that one is any healthier than the other, a point Coke went out of its way to stress in a statement Thursday. If I were a Pepsi executive today, I'd be rubbing my hands with glee, watching my biggest competitor caught between Donald Trump's big mouth and economic reality.
Axios
17-07-2025
- Business
- Axios
The last time Coke changed its recipe ended in disaster
President Trump, a documented Coca-Cola fan, this week announced — and took credit for — a potential big change to the brand's signature formula. It could be a massive unforced error, if history's any guide. Why it matters: 40 years ago this year, the Coca-Cola Co. changed its flagship recipe, swapping in its tried-and-true drink for New Coke, and consumers rebelled. Driving the news: Trump said Wednesday that Coca-Cola agreed to use "REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States." The company later issued a statement that did not confirm it was switching its entire Coke product line to cane sugar, saying only it would have "more details on new innovative offerings" soon. The intrigue: A cane sugar swap would create a Coca-Cola approximate to Mexican Coke — which has its own positive reputation among foodies — but might rub purists the wrong way. Here's a look back at rise and fall of New Coke: Why Coca-Cola changed the formula State of play: In the 1980s, Coca-Cola's comfortable market lead over Pepsi was growing slimmer, and New Coke was the brand's attempt at regaining ground. "In 1985, The Coca‑Cola Company's share lead over its chief competitor, in its flagship market, with its flagship product, had been slowly slipping for 15 consecutive years. The cola category in general was lethargic. Consumer preference for Coca‑Cola was dipping, as was consumer awareness," the company says on its website. Pepsi's 1983 $5 million partnership with Michael Jackson, then the biggest pop-star in the world, didn't hurt brand recognition either. New Coke was Coca-Cola's first change in 99 years. "We set out to change the dynamics of sugar colas in the United States, and we did exactly that — albeit not in the way we had planned," then-CEO Roberto Goizueta said in 1995. The new formula was tasty, Coca-Cola's market research concluded – but it wasn't the original. Nearly 200,000 customers preferred the new taste in rounds of testing, the company reported. "What these tests didn't show, of course, was the bond consumers felt with their Coca‑Cola — something they didn't want anyone, including The Coca‑Cola Company, tampering with," the company says. The backlash to New Coke The big picture: Changing its formula was such a disaster that Coca-Cola even owns up to it as "the most memorable marketing blunder ever" on its website. Calls flooded in not just to the 800-GET-COKE phone line, but to Coca‑Cola offices across the United States, the company says. Pepsi gave its employees a day off and declared victory in full-page newspaper advertisements that bragged, ''After 87 years of going at it eyeball to eyeball, the other guy just blinked." On July 11, 1985 — 79 days after the initial announcement — Coca-Cola announced that the old formula would be returning to shelves.
Yahoo
17-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump brokers deal for Coca-Cola to use ‘REAL Cane Sugar' in U.S. Coke products
Coca-Cola will soon return to using real cane sugar in its U.S. products after decades of relying on high fructose corn syrup, according to none other than President Donald Trump, who claimed personal credit for brokering the shift. In a social media post, the president called the move 'just better' for American consumers, and also predicted 'this will be a very good move by them,' referring to the Atlanta-based beverage revealed on social media that Coca-Cola has 'agreed to use REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States' after discussions between himself and company leadership. In a statement, a Coca-Cola company spokesperson said: 'We appreciate President Trump's enthusiasm for our iconic Coca‑Cola brand. More details on new innovative offerings within our Coca‑Cola product range will be shared soon.' The change is significant—since the mid-1980s, virtually all Coca-Cola sold in the U.S. has been sweetened not with sugar, but with high fructose corn syrup, a less expensive alternative, but a very politically potent one. The commercial production of high fructose corn syrup takes place in Iowa, the top corn-producing state in the U.S. It's been a major product for agribusiness since the 1970s, with companies such as Archer Daniels Midland having key plants in Iowa. They are a big player in Washington, D.C., as is the 'farm lobby,' which refers to a number of institutions that lobby on behalf of farmers' interests. U.S. farm policy—shaped by the farm lobby—subsidizes corn heavily and imposes tariffs and quotas on imported sugar, making high fructose corn syrup the default sweetener for many U.S. food producers. All of these dynamics are reinforced by Iowa's role in presidential politics, with the state being the first presidential caucus in the electoral calendar. When did Coke switch to corn syrup? Coca-Cola's original formula, dating back to its 19th-century origins, used cane sugar as the sweetener of choice. That changed during a period of economic and regulatory upheaval in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Faced with rising sugar prices, prompted in part by U.S. government quotas and tariffs on imported sugar alongside growing subsidies for domestic corn, Coca-Cola began blending corn syrup with sugar in its beverages. The transition was complete by 1984. Even after the 'New Coke' formula controversy and the return of 'Coca-Cola Classic,' the drink retained high fructose corn syrup as its sweetener, not sugar. The cult of 'Mexican Coke' Coca-Cola in other countries—most famously in Mexico and across Europe—has continued to use cane sugar, spawning a cult following for 'Mexican Coke' among U.S. consumers who preferred the original taste. American soda fans have long claimed to notice a difference in beverages sweetened with cane sugar. Imports of 'Mexican Coke,' made with real sugar, became a popular niche item, prompting limited edition 'throwback' sodas using cane sugar to appear periodically. It remains unclear how quickly Coca-Cola will phase in cane sugar nationwide, and it likewise remains unclear how this move fits within Trump's broader use of tariffs, including the tariffs predating his tenure that make sugar imports more expensive than subsidized corn. But it's a major change beyond just a beverage giant's soda recipe. Coca-Cola did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Fortune has also sent requests for comment to the American Farm Bureau Federation and the Iowa Corn Promotion Board. For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. This story was originally featured on
Dominion Post
09-07-2025
- Sport
- Dominion Post
COLUMN: Expanding the NCAA basketball tournaments is an awful idea, but the NCAA just may be a genius for doing it
MORGANTOWN — We are on the doorstep of what may possibly be the dumbest decision since Coca-Cola came out with New Coke in 1985, which just happens to be the year the NCAA basketball tournament was first expanded to 64 teams. What was such a great move then by the NCAA — it officially created bracketmania and March Madness — is now about to be thumped over the head by sheer ignorance. The Division I men's basketball committee is currently meeting in Savannah, Ga. to discuss a number of topics, none more pressing than the expansion of the men's and women's NCAA tournaments to an expected 76 teams. That's from the current 68-team field. We could go for days as to why this move is unnecessary, beginning with the overall dilution of the tournaments that would now include Power Five Conference teams — if expanded to 76 — that are barely above .500 and may not have been good enough to qualify for their own conference tournaments. You might say the expansion would allow more Cinderella teams into the tournament and isn't the tournament supposed to be about the little guys? Just stop that right now. Adding eight more teams is nothing more than a power move by the power leagues for more money. The guess here is, on average, at least six of those eight schools every year would be from the Big 12, SEC, ACC, Big Ten and Big East. True, WVU would not have been snubbed last season if 76 teams were invited to play. Here's who else from the men's side wouldn't have been snubbed: Ohio State, which finished 17-15. Indiana, which fired its head coach midway through the season. Nebraska, which went 7-13 in Big Ten play. Pitt, which finished 13th in the ACC. Yeah, those additions would have made March Madness 'really' special. As to why the NCAA, university presidents and the Division I men's basketball committee is even considering expansion can be answered with one word: money. By adding more games, the NCAA can drive up the asking price to CBS and Turner Networks for the broadcasting rights. That's all this expansion talk is about. Here's the part I could never understand: Why would CBS and Turner ever agree to pay more if all it meant was televising games that featured bad teams? That answer came to me today, and the NCAA just may be a genius. The original thought is there was no way TV ratings would improve for the NCAA tournament by adding more subpar teams to the field, at least not to the point to justify asking for a few million more dollars. But, here's the thing about college basketball, and this is what maybe the NCAA understands that the rest of us don't, the sport is strictly regionally interesting with those regions spreading across the entire country. Meaning you have 50 states that make up roughly 70 — give or take — regional pockets of interest only in specific teams. Are there absolute college basketball die-hards? Yes, but not enough to drive up TV ratings. Example: With WVU getting snubbed from the tournament last season, doesn't it make sense that TV ratings for the NCAA tournament were down in the state of West Virginia? Now, I don't have those exact numbers, but I would bet every penny I own that the NCAA has its eyes on expansion based on that exact theory. If Pitt and Villanova don't make the tournament, you lose the TV viewers from Pennsylvania. If Oklahoma and Oklahoma State don't make it, you lose the Sooner State's viewership. If Ohio State doesn't make it, you lose the bulk of Ohio viewers and so on. That's millions of people every year who only care about their team, and if their team isn't in, the hell with watching the NCAA tournament. How do you fix it? By making sure those teams make it in by expanding the tournament. By allowing eight more teams in, that's eight more regional pockets of population that now have a rooting interest in the tournament. That's more viewers. That equals higher TV ratings, even if those eight teams have no business being in the tournament to begin with. This isn't about adding eight more deserving teams into the field. It is strictly about adding eight more brands into the field. Does that make it the right thing to do? Of course not, but when has the NCAA ever really sat down and thought about doing the right thing? In fact, the NCAA has a track record recently of spending millions in legal fees fighting the right thing to do when it came to revenue sharing with the student-athletes and eligibility issues. The odds that the men's and women's NCAA tournaments expand, honestly, it's likely 50-50 right now. A final decision for the 2026 tournaments is expected, possibly, before the end of July. From a competitive standpoint, the NCAA tournaments would become a major joke if they were expanded. The NCAA, and in turn its member schools, just may take that joke and laugh all the way to the bank, because this may just be a genius move.
