1. Case solving: Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century Course 2304: Media Management Group 3a Andreas Kreidenweiss 40198@student.hhs.se Lina Höglund linahog@kth.se Ziyi Xiong ziyix@kth.se Josefine Bengtsson 21243@student.hhs.se Jessica Wennerstein 21321@student.hhs.se

2. Group 3a PORTER ANALYSIS: Concentrate Producers

4. Coke and Pepsi help their CP’s to negotiate advantantageous purchasing

5. Excess supply of raw material ingredients

6. Low switching cost

9. Few vendors compared to number of buyers

10. High switching costs due to extensive integration with vendor organization

12. Strong presence of EOS

13. Extensive mutual adaption

14. Long-term contract agreements with buyers and distribution channels

16. Actors are highly committed to become market leaders

17. Equal in market share

20. Sugar

22. Metalcansviewedas a commodity

23. Manysuppliers in themarket

25. Foodstores

26. Fountain Outlets

27. Vending Machines

28. Convenience Stores

30. However, intenseshelfspacepressure

31. Thread of private labels

33. Contracts

34. Territory policy

36. Long-term relationships with CP’s

37. Long-term contracts

38. Territory exclusivity

43. This is due to very different industry conditions and bargaining power

44. The fundamental difference is the added value which is much lower for Bottlers compared to CPs

45. No branded products or unique formulas

46. Bottlers‘ added valuestems from relationships with CPs and customers

47. Bottlers face price pressure from their buyers while CPs are able to even charge higher prices

48. Bottlers have no bargaining power with suppliers

50. Strong brand loyalty among consumers

54. Current markets are not likely to be their future areas of growth – instead they should try to acquire successful non-carbonated soft drink producers