Discussion
At the centre of the strategic management debate lies the question of how a firm can attain competitive advantage - and therefore incur superior profits (rents). One perspective has gained strong support in academic circles has also been taken up by many consultants, and therefore has come to be widely practiced in organizations. This perspective involves the analysis of the organization’s industry. This approach is based on microeconomic theory and establishes a link between industry structure, firm behavior (e.g. price, capacity, advertising, R&D), and possibilities for profitability. This has been referred to as the ‘Structure-conduct-performance framework’.Based on this relationship between industry, firm behaviour and profit, this perspective suggests that you should attempt to analyse and contextualise the competitive conditions of industries by examining the underlying structure (the factors that determine market competitiveness) of an industry. Understanding the structure of the industry provides the strategist with the necessary information to determine conduct (the behaviour) and performance of firms.To prepare for this discussion, review the Cola Wars case, as well as the article “Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy”. Consider the role of the following key components of the soft drinks industry value chain: concentrate producers, bottlers and retailers.With these thoughts in mind, in a 750 – 1000 word response, post your answers to the following questions to the Discussion Boardby Saturday:
For the exclusive use of N. VO 9-706-447 REV: APRIL 16, 2009 DAVID B. YOFFIE Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in 2006 For more than a century, Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola vied for “throat share” of the world’s beverage market. The most intense battles in the so-called cola wars were fought over the $66 billion 1 carbonated soft drink (CSD) industry in the United States. In a “carefully waged competitive struggle” that lasted from 1975 through the mid-1990s, both Coke and Pepsi achieved average annual revenue growth of around 10%, as both U.S. and worldwide CSD consumption rose steadily year 2 after year. According to Roger Enrico, former CEO of Pepsi: The warfare must be perceived as a continuing battle without blood. Without Coke, Pepsi would have a tough time being an original and lively competitor. The more successful they are, the sharper we have to be. If the Coca-Cola company didn’t exist, we’d pray for someone to invent them. And on the other side of the fence, I’m sure the folks at Coke would say that nothing contributes as much to the present-day success of the Coca-Cola company than . . . 3 Pepsi. That cozy relationship began to fray in the late 1990s, however, as U.S. per-capita CSD consumption declined slightly before reaching what appeared to be a plateau. In 2004, the average American drank a little more than 52 gallons of CSDs per year. At the same time, the two companies experienced their own distinct ups and downs, as Coke suffered several operational setbacks and as Pepsi charted a new, aggressive course in alternative beverages. Although their paths diverged, however, both companies began to modify their bottling, pricing, and brand strategies. As the cola wars continued into the 21st century, Coke and Pepsi faced new challenges: Could they boost flagging domestic CSD sales? Would newly popular beverages provide them with new (and profitable) revenue streams? Was their era of sustained growth and profitability...
Already registered? Login
Not Account? Sign up
Enter your email address to reset your password
Back to Login? Click here