Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Faculty of Business
Strategic Management
Coca-Cola Company
Case Study
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Prepared By
Fathi Salem Mohammed Abdullah
2009
History analysis
(proposed)
At Coca Cola we believe our main responsibility is providing customers (1) with
refreshing beverages including soft drinks, water, energy drinks, juices, and tea (2) to fit
any occasion in their day to day lives (6). Our signature product, Coke (7), is a favorite
around the world and a wide variety of our products are sold in over 200 nations (3). We
use the only the most sophisticated equipment (4) to process and make our products to
ensure each glass of Coke product is as good as the last (5). Our employees (9) are fairly
compensated and we practice fair trade in all markets we compete. We value our
responsibility to all communities we serve and support many educational and leadership
programs (8).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Customer
Products or services
Markets
Technology
Concern for survival, profitability, growth
Philosophy
Self-concept
Concern for public image
Concern for employees
Bottling Network: Both Coke and PepsiCo have franchisee agreements with their existing
bottlers who have rights in a certain geographic area in perpetuity. These agreements
prohibit bottlers from taking on new competing brands for similar products. Also with
the recent consolidation among the bottlers and the backward integration with both Coke
and Pepsi buying significant percent of bottling companies, it is very difficult for a firm
entering to find bottlers willing to distribute their product.
The other approach to try and build their bottling plants would be very capital-intensive effort
with new efficient plant capital requirements in 1998 being $75 million.
Advertising Spend: The advertising and marketing spend (Case Exhibit 5 & 6) in the
industry is in 2000 was around $ 2.6 billion (0.40 per case * 6.6 billion cases) mainly by
Coke, Pepsi and their bottlers. The average advertisement spending per point of market
share in 2000 was 8.3 million (Exhibit 2). This makes it extremely difficult for an entrant
to compete with the incumbents and gain any visibility.
Brand Image / Loyalty: Coke and Pepsi have a long history of heavy advertising and this
has earned them huge amount of brand equity and loyal customers all over the world.
This makes it virtually impossible for a new entrant to match this scale in this market
place.
Retailer Shelf Space (Retail Distribution): Retailers enjoy significant margins of 15-20%
on these soft drinks for the shelf space they offer. These margins are quite significant for
their bottom-line. This makes it tough for the new entrants to convince retailers to
carry/substitute their new products for Coke and Pepsi.
Fear of Retaliation: To enter into a market with entrenched rival behemoths like Pepsi
and Coke is not easy as it could lead to price wars which affect the new comer.
Suppliers:
Commodity Ingredients: Most of the raw materials needed to produce concentrate are
basic commodities like Color, flavor, caffeine or additives, sugar, packaging. Essentially
these are basic commodities. The producers of these products have no power over the
pricing hence the suppliers in this industry are weak.
Buyers:
The major channels for the Soft Drink industry (Exhibit 6) are food stores, Fast food fountain,
vending, convenience stores and others in the order of market share. The profitability in each of
these segments clearly illustrate the buyer power and how different buyers pay different prices
based on their power to negotiate.
Food Stores: These buyers in this segment are some what consolidated with several chain
stores and few local supermarkets, since they offer premium shelf space they command
lower prices, the net operating profit before tax (NOPBT) for concentrate producers in
this segment is $0.23/case
Convenience Stores: This segment of buyers is extremely fragmented and hence have to
pay higher prices, NOPBT here is $0.69 /case.
Fountain: This segment of buyers are the least profitable because of their large amount
of purchases hey make, It allows them to have freedom to negotiate. Coke and Pepsi
primarily consider this segment Paid Sampling with low margins. NOPBT in this
segment is $0.09 /case.
Vending: This channel serves the customers directly with absolutely no power with the
buyer, hence NOPBT of $0.97/case.
Substitutes: Large numbers of substitutes like water, beer, coffee, juices etc are available to the
end consumers but this countered by concentrate providers by huge advertising, brand equity,
and making their product easily available for consumers, which most substitutes cannot match.
Also soft drink companies diversify business by offering substitutes themselves to shield
themselves from competition. Rivalry:
The Concentrate Producer industry can be classified as a Duopoly with Pepsi and Coke as the
firms competing. The market share of the rest of the competition is too small to cause any
upheaval of pricing or industry structure. Pepsi and Coke mainly over the years competed on
differentiation and advertising rather than on pricing except for a period in the 1990s. This
prevented a huge dent in profits. Pricing wars are however a feature in their international
expansion strategies.
PEST Analysis
The PEST Analysis is an analysis to examine the macro-environment of CocaColas operations (Johnson, Scholes and Whittington, 2008).
Political
Like most companies, Coca-Cola is monitoring the policies and regulations set by
the government. There are no political issues in this instance.
Economic
There is low growth in the market for carbonated drinks, especially in Coca-Colas
main market, North America. The market growth recorded at only 1% for North
America in 2004.
Social
There are changes in consumers lifestyles. Consumers are more health conscious.
This affects the Coca-Colas sales of the carbonated drinks as consumers prefer
non-carbonated drinks such as tea, juices and bottled drinks. Demand for
carbonated drinks decreases and this leads to a decrease in Coca-Colas revenues.
Technological
As the technology advances, new products are introduced into the market. The
advance in technology has led to the creation of cherry coke in 1985 but consumers
still prefers the traditional taste of the original coke.
External Audit
Opportunities
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Threats
1. Consumption of American
beverages is denounced by
foreign officials in areas where
conflicting interest exist.
2. Multiple lawsuits against the
new Enviga beverage for
calorie burning claims in
advertising
3. Smaller, lesser known brands
are turning to major beer
distributors for bottling.
4. Overall carbonated drink sales
have been flat due to links of
sugar to obesity and high
fructose corn syrup to heart
disease.
5. Pepsi is more diversified
offering beverage and food
products.
6. High cost of commodities such
as sugar, and metals used in
production of cans.
7. Many smaller companies are
fierce competitors around the
world in their local markets.
Weight
0.15
0.10
0.12
0.15
Coca-Cola
Rating
Weighted
Score
4
0.60
3
0.30
4
0.48
3
0.45
Rating
3
3
4
3
Pepsi
Weighted
Score
0.45
0.30
0.48
0.45
Cadbury Schweppes
Rating
Weighted
Score
2
0.30
3
0.30
3
0.36
3
0.45
Product Lines
Customer Loyalty
Employees
Marketing
Total
0.15
0.15
0.11
0.07
1.00
4
4
3
3
0.60
0.60
0.33
0.21
3.71
4
4
3
3
0.60
0.60
0.33
0.21
3.56
3
3
3
3
0.45
0.45
0.33
0.21
2.85
Weight
Rating
Weighted Score
0.06
0.24
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.18
0.05
0.07
3
3
0.15
0.21
0.07
0.28
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.08
0.06
0.12
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.60
0.10
0.30
0.08
0.24
1.00
2.84
Internal Audit
Strength
Weakness
Coca Cola
19.20
8.30
13.30
6.54
Industry
22.20
25.70
30.00
8.45
SP-500
11.60
17.10
9.30
13.09
Date
12/06
12/05
12/04
12/03
12/02
Avg. P/E
20.30
21.00
23.30
25.00
31.10
5.01
11.49
9.38
12.61
19.82
10.00
25.4
NA
NA
5.00
6.97
21.10
26.2
49.9
20.7
3.96
5.71
19.60
20.3
26.8
6.8
2.37
3.45
10.70
64.2
26.0
19.8
64.4
27.9
21.1
52.7
17.5
14.2
59.1
20.1
14.9
34.5
17.8
12.6
34.3
16.4
11.4
0.49
0.8
0.6
55.1
2.1
8.52
0.69
1.0
0.7
41.0
2.5
10.25
1.06
1.1
0.9
31.8
3.7
18.53
28.9
14.9
22.6
32.0
16.7
24.6
22.0
11.2
16.9
25.4
12.6
18.2
24.9
7.6
10.2
18.5
6.4
8.6
76,690
386,732
9.8
5.4
0.8
56,327
360,922
10.1
6.8
0.8
92,892
806,706
14.3
7.8
0.8
Price/Sales
4.71
4.18
4.65
5.99
5.56
Price/Book
6.61
5.84
6.29
8.79
9.18
Date
Book Value/ Share
Debt/Equity
12/06
$7.30
0.27
12/05
$6.90
0.35
12/04
$6.61
0.45
12/03
$5.77
0.38
12/02
$4.78
0.45
Adapted from www.moneycentral.msn.com
ROE (%)
30.0
29.8
30.4
30.9
33.7
ROA (%)
17.0
16.6
15.4
15.9
16.3
Interest Coverage
28.7
25.4
29.1
29.3
27.4
$ 18,400
$ 25,000
$ 123,931
$ 92,800
$65,032
Weight
Rating
Weighted
Score
0.09
0.10
0.06
4
4
4
0.36
0.40
0.24
4.
0.05
0.20
0.12
0.48
0.04
0.12
0.04
0.16
0.06
0.24
0.10
0.40
0.09
0.10
1
1
0.09
0.10
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
1.00
3.09
SWOT Strategies
Opportunities (O)
Strengths (S)
Weaknesses (W)
SO Strategies
WO Strategies
1. Improve environmental
awareness with
1. Market
international
2.
Threats (T)
community
involvement (S2, S4,
O2, O3).
Market new diet drinks
that have healthier
sugar substitutes (S5,
O7).
ST Strategies
1. Acquire Krispy
Kreme (KKD) to
help diversify the
product line (S5,
T5).
2. Acquire Golden
Enterprises
(GLDC) to help
diversify the
product line (S5,
T5).
SPACE Matrix
Coordinate: (3.6, 2.2)
beverages to
American
consumers (W4,
O2, O6, O7).
2. Increase marketing
efforts for bottled
water (W5, W6,
O1).
WT Strategies
1.
A
cquire Krispy Kreme
(KKD) to help diversify
the product line (W1, T5).
2.
A
cquire Golden Enterprises
(GLDC) to help diversify
the product line (W1, T5).
FS
Aggressive
Conservative
CA
IS
Defensive
Competitive
ES
Quadrant I
Weak
Competitive
Position
Strong
Competitive
Position
Quadrant III
Quadrant IV
Industry
Sales
Growth
Rate
Coke
Stars
Question Marks
Cash Cows
Dogs
High
3.0 to 3.99
Medium
The EFE Total 2.0 to 2.99
Weighted Score
Strong
3.0 to 4.0
Average
2.0 to 2.99
Weak
1.0 to 1.99
II
III
IV
VI
VIII
IX
Coca Cola
Low
1.0 to 1.99
VII
QSPM
Strategic Alternatives
Weight
0.09
0.10
AS
2
---
TAS
0.18
---
0.06
0.05
2
---
0.12
---
4
---
0.24
---
0.12
0.48
0.36
0.04
0.16
0.12
0.04
---
---
---
---
0.06
---
---
---
---
0.10
---
---
---
---
0.09
0.10
4
---
0.36
---
1
---
0.09
---
0.03
---
---
---
---
0.02
---
---
---
---
0.05
---
---
---
---
0.05
0.20
0.05
1.00
Weight
1.50
1.22
Opportunities
1. Bottled water consumption has increased 11 percent.
2. According to the S&P Industry Survey, consumers
are drawn to new smaller beverage brands that are
not sold on a mass scale.
3. Word Economic Forums annual Davos, Switzerland
gathering grants international voice.
4. Less developed countries are in desperate need to
improve community water supplies.
5. Energy drink sales are expected to increase 7 to 8
percent in 2007.
6. Disposable income has increased 6.2 percent.
7. Consumers are striving to drink and eat their way to
better health than pervious generations.
8. EPS is expected to rise 7 to 8 percent in 2007.
Threats
1. Consumption of American beverages is denounced
by foreign officials in areas where conflicting interest
exist.
2. Multiple lawsuits against the new Enviga beverage
for calorie burning claims in advertising
3. Smaller, lesser known brands are turning to major
beer distributors for bottling.
4. Overall carbonated drink sales have been flat due to
links of sugar to obesity and high fructose corn syrup
to heart disease.
5. Pepsi is more diversified offering beverage and food
products.
6. High cost of commodities such as sugar, and metals
used in production of cans.
7. Many smaller companies are fierce competitors
around the world in their local markets.
SUB TOTAL
SUM TOTAL ATTRACTIVENESS SCORE
Recommendations
substitutes
AS
TAS
-----
0.06
AS
---
TAS
---
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.02
---
---
---
---
0.02
---
---
---
---
0.06
---
---
---
---
0.05
0.07
--2
--0.14
--4
--0.28
0.07
0.28
0.21
0.02
---
---
---
---
0.04
---
---
---
---
0.06
---
---
---
---
0.10
0.20
0.40
0.20
0.80
0.40
0.10
---
---
---
---
0.08
---
---
---
---
1.47
2.97
1.44
2.66
The QSPM strategies assessed whether acquiring KKD and GLDC (a potato chip and
snack food company) was a better option than producing a new diet soda line made form
more healthy sugar alternatives. Both scores on the QSPM are relatively close and given
the financial condition of KKD and GLDC, it is recommended Coca Cola undertake both
strategic alternatives. The Net Worth of both companies is provided below. It is
estimated it would cost $200 million to research, produce and market the new diet drinks.
Krispy Kreme (KKD) Net Worth January 2008 (in millions).
1. Stockholders Equity + Goodwill = 79 + 28
2. Net income x 5 = $-42 x 5=
3. Share price = $2.73/EPS -0.94 = NAx Net Income $-42=
4. Number of Shares Outstanding x Share Price = 65 x $2.73 =
Method Average
$ 107
$ NA
$ NA
$ 177
$142
EPS/EBIT Analysis
$ Amount Needed: 360M
Stock Price: $58
$ 19.4
$ 6.0
$ 18.6
$ 33.0
$19.3
References
1. www.moneycentral.msn.com
2. www.coca-cola.com