Market Share - Research Paper Example

Market Share According to the Company Report, the Coca Cola Company’s products (over 200 brands) are sold and distributed to over 200 countries. Forbes Magazine estimates that the world consumes close to 60 billion beverages on a daily basis with 27 % of this consumption being in the United States, another 31 % is consumed in Europe, China, Brazil and Australia and the rest of the world consumes the remaining percentage. The company is perhaps the leading soft drink seller in the world with Pepsi being the closest competitor, as the Forbes report indicates. In order to market competitively throughout the world, Coca Cola and Pepsi have entered into jurisdiction agreements where each company gets their designated geographical territory where they market their products without rival competition. In Africa for instance, Coca Cola Markets their products north of the Equator while Pepsi takes the south. They agree to share the South African market (Blanding 375). Marketing Strategy Advertising The key marketing strategy that the company deploys is advertising. According to JS Stuart, advertising is a marketing strategy through which a company seeks to familiarize the consumers with its products while at the same time retaining its customers. The goal of advertising is to compel the consumers to prefer company’s products to that offered by the rival competitors (Watters 276). A large portion of the Coca Cola budget money goes to facilitate advertising. In fact, the amount spent in advertising does not proportionately increase sales. When John Pemberton invented the company in 1886 for instance, he spent $ 77 to advertise the products while his profit was only $ 50. This led to a loss. In the dawn of the 20th century, Coca Cola advertised their products through billboards and newspaper. The newspaper ads had a coupon attached to them. The company had an offer with every coupon where customers were eligible to get a free drink at any distributing outlet in America, Britain and Latin America. Newspaper advertising promoted Coca cola sales in the 1900s. The company began investing in radio advertising in the early 1930s. Later in the mid 20th century, they sought TV advertising, which was by far the most effective marketing strategy (Peter and Donnelly 87). Following the advice from prominent economists, the company began targeting festive seasons. During the Easter holidays, Christmas and Thanksgiving as well as the Fourth of July, the rate of consumption of Coca Cola brands skyrocketed. The Christmas ads featured Santa Claus in a series of newspaper, billboard and TV commercials dubbed ‘happy days are coming.’ In the contemporary world, the mode of advertising for the company has dramatically evolved (Blanding 375). The e-commerce, especially the internet is literally crawling with Coca Cola ads in major websites. Likewise, the company has adopted digital advertising in major cities of the developed world and the developing nations of Africa, South East Asia and Latin America. Today the focus is on Hollywood celebrities who receive numerous Coca Cola endorsements in movies, theatre and popular culture. Coca Cola was for instance, among the major sponsors of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Due to the growing significance of Coca Cola in contemporary culture, popular musicians led by Shakira and K’naan received endorsements during the World Cup held in South Africa to market their music in Africa. Likewise, the company endorsed popular rock band LMFAO for the recording academy during the 52nd Annual Grammy Awards and MTV Video Music Awards in 2011. The decision to target celebrities came after Gallup International conducted a study that indicated that popular icons and Hollywood movie stars are the most influential people amongst the young generations. Since, the young generations is the target market for almost all Coca Cola products, the company resolved to endorse them with the aim of reaching out to this demographic. According to Thomas Lockwood, a market economist at Columbia University, the unprecedented evolution of popular culture has provided an avenue for Coca Cola to market their products in nearly all their target markets. Lockwood observes that the modern-day Cultural Revolution has introduced a new dimension for international marketing for soft drink companies. He argues that the emergence of a superficial ‘Hollywood culture’ in America makes the young people want to emulate the celebrity lifestyle as they see it on MTV. Coca Cola falls under the category of products considered to be for the elite. As such, if people see their dear celebrities consuming a particular product, they will have a growing desire to purchase it so that they can be like them. This, in turn, leads to an unparalleled increase in consumption of that product. Sources retrieved from the Economist indicate that Coca Cola sales have increased dramatically since the company resolved to feature celebrities in their billboards and TV ads (Peter and Donnelly 46). Another effective means of advertising is through movies and cinemas. This form of advertising systematically captures the audience’s attention. Coca Cola has sponsored numerous movie shoots to have their products feature when the movie airs. Little Miss Sunshine (2006), Drumline (2002), Casino Royale (2006), Elf (2003), Ocean's Twelve (2004) and Talledega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) are some of the movies that received endorsement from the Coca Cola company in recent years. Likewise, the company is known for notoriously placing their TV ads and infomercials during commercial breaks especially when a popular TV show is on the air. This is a marketing strategy specially designed to capture as many viewers as possible. Sources retrieved from the annals indicate that Coca Cola also targets world sports events to advertise their products (Keller 112). Product Differentiation Since Coca Cola products spread throughout the world, the company has resolved to use product differentiation as one of its key marketing strategies. In his runaway success dubbed Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Edward Chamberlin coined the term differentiation to denote a marketing strategy that involves distinguishing a product from other identical products by making superficial modification in form of packaging of flavor so that the new product appeals to the consumers (Keller 112). Today, product differentiation target the ignorant consumer who is easily blinded by superficial alterations thinking the new product is much better. The Coca Cola Company capitalizes on product differentiation as part of its mainstream marketing strategy. The superficial value added by the new look product allows the company to charge a premium. According to the Coca Cola annual budget, the company reserves close to 20 % of their total advertising budget to facilitate their differentiation strategy. They use this strategy to isolate their major rivals, Pepsi by branding their products as the symbols of fun and enjoyment. Sales Promotion and Collaborative Marketing Another marketing strategy for Coca Cola Company is sales promotion through personal selling. The company conducts various seminars and workshops through which they get in touch with the customers and market their products one on one. This strategy involves conducting a study in bid to determine the products that are not doing well in any given market segment. Say for instance, the sales in the Brazilian market are slowing down. The first step is to identify the reason behind the diminishing sales volume. Once they conduct the survey, the findings projected by the research team are used as the guiding criteria upon which an effective market strategy is formulated. The company sends a sales team to promote the products that are not performing well in the designated region. They may decide to initiate free offers by issuing samples to consumers without payment or reduce the price of the product in question depending on their estimation (Keller 112). Promotional sales are often conducted in conjunction with other companies that offer complimentary goods. In New York for instance, Coca Cola conducts their promotion alongside McDonalds or any other fast food company. Once they collaborate with McDonalds, for instance, they are able to share expenses and promote both their brands since fast foods often go hand in hand with soft drinks. This way, Coca Cola is able to promote McDonalds and have their soft drinks displayed alongside the fast foods in major billboards, TV ads and infomercials. This strategy is called collaborative promotional marketing, which is the process of using complementary goods to promote company’s products. Elsewhere in New Jersey, Coca Cola offers free coupons with every purchase of a ‘six pack’ where a random customers gets a gift voucher for free chicken at nay McDonalds outlet throughout the country. Economists believe that major companies cannot survive on their own; they always need to collaborate with other companies even if such companies are rival competitors. This is what leads to the successful marketing (Peck et al 68). E-Marketing The dawn of the present day internet revolution has brought about significant changes that have altered the course of traditional marketing through the introduction of faster and more effective means of reaching out to new consumers. Companies have invested heavily in internet marketing in the contemporary era. This is especially with the emergence of digital media that has made it easy to initiate electronic contact with customers. In 2011, The Washington Post in conjunction with comScore published a seminal pamphlet in bid to quantify user and digital company data collected by large companies through their internet-based marketing strategies. They found out that online marketing is more effective today since consumers spend most of their time online. In view of this, Coca Cola has initiated a comprehensive internet marketing strategy that involves display advertising, social media marketing, referral marketing, search-engine marketing, affiliate marketing and inbound marketing among others (Peter and Donnelly 87). Through their comprehensive e-marketing plan, Coca Cola places web banners and ads on blogs or another websites to increase products awareness. Likewise, they seek to promote their official website by creating more awareness through SERPs i.e. search engine result pages through contextual advertising, paid placement or through search engine optimization techniques. This is an effective means of marketing since it improves the visibility of web pages creating more awareness. The company also creates product awareness through popular social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and MySpace. Similarly, they use email marketing through which they send electronic mail to a group of customers (Peck et al 65). CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY According to the Economist, corporate social responsibility is a form of corporate conscience and self-regulation. Corporations make a commitment to adhere to social ethics, spirit of the law, environmental sustainability and other considerations (Keller 112). This kind of corporate self-regulation is a self-imposed parameter of ensuring that companies refrain from doing evil and, in turn, dedicate their resources towards the betterment of the society. According to the company’s sustainability review, Coca Cola expresses their commitment to empower the people living within the territories of their operations and beyond. They have made a commitment to remain resolutely committed to the improvement of the environment through proper corporate governance, accountability and transparency. “We aim to build a healthy, sustainable organization through the value chain that makes a positive contribution to our diverse stakeholders in all our territories while affirming our unwavering commitment to pursuing the sustainable development of our company, and of the communities we serve” (Peck et al 65). While undertaking the corporate responsibilities, the company reassures that it has embedded CSR programs and policies into virtually all aspects of their operations. The company also indicates that it welcomes willful partners in an effort to intensify their contributions towards empowering the society. In the Coca-Cola Hellenic 2010 Social Responsibility Report, the company seeks to demonstrate that it had made significant progress in the market place as well as in empowering the community and preserving the environment through a sound corporate social responsibility regime. The 2010 report underwent scrutiny under G3 guidelines as stipulated under the Global Reporting Initiative in an attempt to validate the contents in line with AA1000 standards. The company received an A+ certification by the Global reporting Initiative. The report indicates that Coca Cola has undertaken a variety of initiatives through rainwater harvesting to restore depleted groundwater resources in the drought-stricken areas where they have established manufacturing plants (Peter and Donnelly 87). The company also expressed their undying commitment to the going green campaign to curb environmental degradation that results from their operations. The Coca Cola going green campaign has had significant progress in Kansas, Florida, Wyoming and South Carolina as well as the Latin America and Europe. The 2010 Hellenic report underscores the role of the company in community empowerment, which targets mostly the marginalized sections of the society. Coca Cola Hellenic enhances the quality of life by pushing for radical reforms through their influence with the authorities (Peck et al 65). They have undertaken a wide range of local initiatives that are geared towards improving the quality of life for residents who are less privileged. The company for instance, has liaised with the government of Kenya to provide and facilitate the provision of humanitarian assistance in Somalia and South Sudan under the umbrella initiative dubbed the Coca Cola Kenya Foundation. Thousands of starving families in the remote region of Somalia have been transferred into refugee camps where the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations can provide food and health facilities at ease. The impact of Coca Cola’s corporate social responsibility efforts in the third world is nothing short of unprecedented. The key target of their humanitarian initiatives is disaster-prone regions such as Haiti. During the catastrophic earthquake that swept Haiti in 2010 claiming thousands of human life while destroying property worth millions of dollars, Coca Cola partnered with the United States Agencies for International Development, Amnesty International and the United Nations and coordinated efforts and resources to help the victims of the deadly earthquake. The company sponsored a clique of popular musicians to raise money for Haitians in an internationally acclaimed initiative dubbed ‘we are the world for Haiti.’ Coca Cola Hellenic has initiated a number of disaster relief programs through their ongoing commitment to support communities that have suffered a great deal of property loss because of environmental disasters and humanitarian crises. As part of the corporate social responsibility efforts, Hellenic offers funds to help rebuild the devastated homes and social amenities such as schools, hospitals and public entertainment galleries through their emergency relief plans. The youth empowerment programs aims at mitigating the adverse effects of the rising rate of unemployment. The program partners with other international agencies, nongovernmental organizations and community based institutions to educate the youth and equip them with entrepreneurial skills to enable them to open up small businesses to supplement their income. In Japan, South Korea and Australia, the company for instance, encourages the participation of the youth in competitive sporting activities. This, in turn, enables them to develop and nurture their talents, develop leadership skills and become self-reliant individuals (Peter and Donnelly 87). Another primary target of Coca Cola’s social responsibility initiatives is people with disability and those living with HIV and AIDS. Hellenic establishes community outreach programs to support the physically and mentally disabled persons in the society. These programs focus on offering alternative sources of income to support those whose productivity appears to be limited by disability. Operating under the mantra ‘disability is not inability’, Hellenic has empowered many people living with disabilities all over the world including the areas where they do not operate. According to Samantha Watson, a programs coordinator for Hellenic in Haiti, Coca Cola is an ambassador for humanity. They empower the marginalized section of the society by offering them opportunities to improve their lives. Ms Watson says that “Our involvement in, and support for, communities is as varied and diverse as the cultures and traditions of the inhabitants across the globe. Beyond our key areas of focus, contributions are made that reflect the needs and concerns of specific societies as well as some that are universal, and cover virtually every aspect of life.” (Peck et al 65) Other programs include cancer awareness campaigns. The company has dedicated a huge sum of their proceeds to empower women living with cancer by providing treatment and establishing breast check-up centers in major towns in areas where they operate. Likewise, they enlighten the youth on the dangers of excessive consumption of alcohol and drug abuse. They have established parallel programs through which they offer treatment for compulsive drug users (Peter and Donnelly 46). QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES Lobbying and Corporate Sabotage Coca Cola Company has had its fair share of criticism with rivals accusing the company of using corporate sabotage to dominate the market especially in foreign countries. Economic experts fault the company for interfering with the domestic policy of host nations in bid to lobby for market monopolization at the expense of domestic companies. Coca Cola notoriously hires professional lobbyists in their bid to influence the legislation of laws to allow them tax breaks, unfair market practices and lax environmental regulations (Peter and Donnelly 46). Lawmakers are offered holiday getaways and retreats to fancy lodges and lavish apartments where they meet behind closed doors to ‘deliberate on the future of the company’s affairs.’ Similarly, a report undertaken by Amnesty International indicates that the company is involved in unfair trade practices designed to intimidate rival companies. In Kenya for instance, the company commissioned their franchised firms to sabotage Softa, a domestic soft drink company for fear that its (Softa) product were becoming increasingly popular amongst consumers since they were relatively cheaper. Likewise, Softa was a domestic company hence the government had eased tax regulations to empower the growth of Kenyan industries. The Amnesty report alleges that Coca Cola purchased the huge volumes of Softa and destroyed the crates and empty bottles at a dumpsite just outside Mt. Kenya (Peter and Donnelly 87). The goal was to compromise the capacity of the emerging soft drink company to manufacture more drinks by destroying their facilities. The Kenyan government could not react to this since Coca Cola spends millions of shillings in campaign contributions to slush funds of major politicians and lawmakers. Domestic Interference According to a UN human rights watchdog, major corporations are to blame for the instabilities of developing nations (Peck et al 65). The watchdog indicates that the Coca Cola Company has had its fair share of atrocities in their host nations owing to their compulsive quest to dominate the world market. Echoing the same, a report conducted by Amnesty International projected findings that showed the extent Coca Cola’s heinous acts to support insurgent regimes in North Africa, South East Asia and Latin America in bid to preserve their interest (Watters 276). In 1973 for instance, there was a looming communist revolution in Chile. The revolution was successful and the Chilean government pledged to nationalize all corporations. The CEO of Coca Cola wrote to the White House urging the office of the President to make Chile, in effect, favorable for American interests. Subsequently, the US airlifted troops causing major fallout in the impoverished nation, which saw the overthrow of the democratically elected government and subsequent replacement with Augusto Pinochet, a foreign puppet. The lengths to which the company goes to retain their market domination has been subject of moral and ethical debate amongst scholars who reckon that it is important to redefine the ethical cornerstone of Coca Cola’s marketing strategy (Blanding 375). Toxic Cola: The Case Study of India According to a report undertaken in New Delhi by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in 2003, the Coca Cola Company was involved in a series of questionable practices in India. The nongovernmental organization leveled accusations that Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola were involved in ethical misconduct in their bottling operations in India through relationship marketing. The report highlighted that the manufactured soft drinks contained toxic chemicals such as DDT, lindiane, chlorpyrifos and malathion all of which were pesticides. In light of scientific research, these toxic chemicals are attributable to cancer and heart disease all of which can cause a breakdown in the human immunity system. CSE conducted experiments through which they tested the following soft drinks: Fanta, Coke, Thuma Up, 7 Up, Mirinda, Sprite and Limca. The aforementioned soft drinks were all produced by Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola. The projected findings from the research conducted under the auspices of the Indian Regulatory Board indicated that Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola products contained harmful toxins that exceeded the level of pesticide residues permitted by the European Union safety regulations. Coca Cola exceeded the permitted pesticide residue by 30 times (Centre for Science and Environment 7). The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) also noted that the products manufactured in the United States of America and Europe contained no such pesticide residues. Coca Cola and Pepsi denied the accusation leveled against them saying that their companies had a sound ethical cornerstone and that such allegations were made up by domestic companies as a means of eliminating the competition since they were jealous of the success of foreign companies. Coca Cola maintained that they were fully compliant with the regulations of the European Union (Centre for Science and Environment 7). Coca Cola’s Hong Kong based chief executive officer; David Cox accused Sunita Narain, the director of the Centre for Science and Regulation for damaging the two prominent companies in an attempt to further their campaign against pesticides. The CEO said that the CSE report was well-crafted and unscrupulous brand-jacking campaign. However, CSE defended their research findings saying that they were in line with previous studies conducted by independent nongovernmental organizations whose reports were suppressed by the soft drink multinational giants. Meanwhile, an Indian parliamentary-select committed independent studies in bid to establish the authenticity of the CSE report. In the fall of 2004, the parliamentary committee backed up the findings by the CSE. The Indian government established a committee whose primary task was to establish the acceptable pesticide residue percentage in soft drinks under the auspices of international toxic regulation standards. Fearing that such findings would compromise their marketing strategy in India, Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola moved to strike the move arguing that such laboratory tests were not reliable enough to present authentic results that would trace the percentage of harmful toxins in complex drinks such as those produced by Pepsi and Coca Cola. Coca Cola held that they had a comprehensive plant filter that removed any potential contaminants such as the alleged pesticide residues. They claimed that they had an independent oversight body that ensured their products met the minimum health regulation standards prior to distribution (Centre for Science and Environment 11). In the year 2005, Coca Cola registered a significant drop in sales volume as the Indian market grew suspect of the company’s operations. The following year, Kerala, an Indian state, moved to ban the sale and distribution of Coca Cola along with Pepsi Cola and other ‘questionable’ soft drink products amid growing concerns about the health of consumers in India. The Coca Cola Company did not take this move kindly. They responded by deploying a team of legal experts to ‘contain the situation (Peter and Donnelly 87). The team of legal experts deployed by Coca Cola moved to court in bid to lift the ban imposed by the Indian state of Kerala by provoking the writ of caveat emptor. The writ of caveat emptor is a legal defense in common law that protects the seller from what is considered ‘buyer exploitation’ (Peck et al 65). Under common law, the writ of caveat emptor, which simply means ‘let the buyer beware’ denotes that a buyer is not eligible to recover from the seller, in form of damages or compensation, in light of the buyer’s knowledge of certain defects. Coca Cola provoked the writ of caveat emptor as their legal defense to have the ban imposed by the Indian state of Kerala null and void under the auspice of common law. However, the legal representative for Kerala argued that in light of material misrepresentation, the writ of caveat emptor could not be used as a legal defense. Kerala argued that Coca Cola knowingly and deceitfully concealed the fact that their products contained harmful toxins the percentage of which exceeded the health regulations highlighted by the European Union. As such, the company was not eligible to claim that the buyer ought to have been wary of such a misrepresentation. Kerala held that common law is unequivocal about material misrepresentation such that Coca Cola were not eligible for that defense. However, Coca Cola used their immense resources to manipulate the course of events. In a dramatic twist, the High Court of Kerala lifted the ban on Coca Cola and Pepsi products claiming that the mandate to ban the sale and distribution of soft drinks lay firmly in the jurisdiction of the federal government. This way, Coca Cola resumed business and usual leaving the Indian population susceptible to cancer and heart attack if they continued consuming the products. Concerns about Environmental Degradation Reports conducted by Amnesty International and the United Nations indicate that the operations of vast multinational companies pose a direct harm to the environment (Peck et al 65). Citing toxic waste disposal and depletion of natural resources, environmental activists criticize the activities of foreign companies in the underdeveloped world. Likewise, the United Nations Environmental Program has expressed concerns that the governments in the Third World have lax environmental regulations, which, in turn, paves way of environmental damage in light of multinational manufacturing operations. The Coca Cola Company has come to the limelight owing to their questionable acts regarding environmental preservation. In India, the company was accused of depleting water resources forcing farmers to relocate. A UNEP report indicates that the amount of water required by soft drink companies is so huge that aquifers are drying up. Depletion of aquifers drives farmers off since the productivity of the neighboring land goes down. Coca Cola operations pose a serious threat to the depletion of the water tables due to over utilization of natural water resources. In view of this reason, the Indian state of Kerala ordered a $ 16 million Coca Cola bottling plant to shut down and subsequently halt all their operations in the region. They blamed the Coca Cola plant for depleting the waterbed causing serious environmental degradation that had forced farmers to relocate. However, the company moved to court in bid to circumvent this move and, as usual, the highest court overturned the decision by the Kerala state. The court held that while the activities of the Coca Cola plant had a significant influence on environmental degradation, the real reason for the depletion was attributable to unstable weather patterns. The company sponsored scientific research that indicated that the environmental predicament was attributable to ‘aggravated water scarcity’. Critics maintained that the company ought to ease their compulsive quest for market domination and look at the greater picture of preserving the environment. Authoritative studies had indicated that the company had perpetuated severe water shortages since most of their plants were located in drought-stricken areas (Blanding 375). Likewise, their operations pollute ground water and soil making agricultural activities unfeasible in such areas. The report by UNEP indicate that in a drought-stricken village in India, a Coca Cola plant consumed 900,000 liters of water drawn from wells and aquifers that the plant shares with native Indian farmers. Similarly, Coca Cola came under sharp criticism for teaming up with Royal Dutch Shell to lobby the Nigerian government to ease environmental regulations on the activities of both companies at the Niger Delta. According to a human rights watchdog report, Coca Cola and Shell infiltrated the regime of former Nigerian insurgent, Sani Abacha in an attempt to silence environmental activists from the ethnic Ogoni community living along the Niger Delta. The report accuses both companies of complicity in the execution of Ken Saro Wiwa along with eight other environmental activists (Blanding 375). Conclusion The first Coca-Cola bottling plant was established in Chattanooga, and within 20 years, their number has grown to a thousand. By 1909, 375 bottling plants had been established across America. Moreover, there were carriages that carried bottles of Coca-Cola to distant places. According to the 2011 Company Report, the Coca Cola Company’s products (over 200 brands) are sold and distributed to over 200 countries. Forbes Magazine estimates that the world consumes close to 60 billion beverages on a daily basis with 27 % of this consumption being in the United States, another 31 % is consumed in Europe, China, Brazil and Australia and the rest of the world consumes the remaining percentage. The key marketing strategy that the company deploys is advertising. The goal of advertising is to compel the consumer to prefer company’s products to that offered by the rival competitors. A large portion of the Coca Cola budget money goes to facilitate advertising. In fact, the amount spent in advertising does not proportionately increase sales. In the contemporary world, the mode of advertising for the company has dramatically evolved. The e-commerce especially the internet is literally crawling with Coca Cola ads in major websites. Likewise, the company has adopted digital advertising in major cities of the developed world and the developing nations of Africa, South East Asia and Latin America. Since Coca Cola products spread throughout the world, the company has resolved to use product differentiation as one of its key marketing strategies. The company capitalizes on product differentiation as part of its mainstream marketing strategy. Another marketing strategy for Coca Cola is sales promotion through personal selling. The company conducts various seminars and workshops through which they get in touch with the customers and market their products one on one. According to the company’s sustainability review, Coca Cola expresses their commitment to empower the people living within the territories of their operations and beyond. They have made a commitment to remain resolutely committed to the improvement of the environment through proper corporate governance, accountability and transparency. Coca Cola Company has had its fair share of criticism with rivals accusing the company of using corporate sabotage to dominate the market especially in foreign countries. According to a UN human rights watchdog, major corporations are to blame for the instabilities of developing nations. The watchdog indicates that the Coca Cola Company has had its fair share of atrocities in their host nations owing to their compulsive quest to dominate the world market. Reports conducted by Amnesty International and the United Nations indicate that the operations of vast multinational companies pose a direct harm to the environment. Citing toxic waste disposal and depletion of natural resources, environmental activists criticize the activities of foreign companies in the underdeveloped world. Works Cited Blanding, Michael. The Coke Machine: The Dirty Truth behind the World's Favorite Soft Drink. Penguin, 2010 p 375 Centre for Science and Environment (CSE): Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Soft Drinks, August 5, 2003 Keller, Kevin Lane Strategic Brand Management. New York: Prentice Hall, 1998. Peck, H., Payne, A., Christopher, M., & Clark, M. Relationship marketing: Strategy and Implementation Boston: Butterworth Heinemann (1999) p 46 Peter, J., & Donnelly, J. A preface to Marketing Management New York: McGraw-Hill/?Irwin (2006) Watters, Pat. Coca-Cola: An Illustrated History Doubleday, 1978 p 276 Read More