Profitability For Soft Drinks - Michael Porter's Five Force Model - Top Grade Papers - Academic Assignment

GET YOUR WORK DONE BY www.TopGradePapers.
com
UNIVERSITY NAME
To p
GET YOUR WORK DONE BY www.TopGradePapers.com
Gr a
de P
[Profitability for Soft Drinks]

Five forces model Analysis
ap
er s
Table of Contents
Profitability of the Soft Drink Industry .......................................................................................................... 3 Economics of the Concentrate Business VS Bottling Business ..................................................................... 4 Impact of Coke & Pepsi on Industry Profits .................................................................................................. 5 Profit Sustainability ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 References .................................................................................................................................................... 8 Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix 2 (Exhibit 4; Case) ....................................................................................................................... 10
To p
Gr a
de P
ap
Distinctive Competence ................................................................................................................................ 6
er s
Profitability of the Soft Drink Industry

Michael Porters Five Forces Model (Appendix 1) defines and analyzes an industry in terms of five main factors. These, according to him determine the attractiveness of an industry for an outsider.
In the soft drinks industry, the competitive rivalry between the firms is extremely fierce. The most explicit evidence to this fact has been witness by the industry when both Pepsi and Coca Cola launched aggressive responses to each others marketing and sales efforts not letting smaller brands survive either. However, because the ultimate leading powers were Pepsi and Coke only, the profits in the industry became and still are highly concentrated making the industry a perfect example of a duopoly. Due to the same reason, while there arent any barriers to entry as such, the dominance of these two brands through their high brand equity makes it an extremely risky industry to enter unless the entrant can offer and prove to be the provider of an innovative, better product that can sustain profits in their presence. As a result, not many initiators can stand the competition they may anticipate and the threat of new entrants is therefore very low. The attractiveness, however, is still questionable for any entrant considering
To p
Gr a
collaboration with these two giants.
this factor additionally because the most major bottling and distribution networks operate in
The threat of substitutes essentially does exist in the soft drinks industry primarily due to the increasing introduction of juices, energy drinks, tea and coffee drinks. This is in addition to the rising inclination of the consumer towards safe drinks in response to concern for increasing obesity amongst the consumers. However, the introduction of such products by both Pepsi and Coke reduced this threat for them but majorly posed it against the profits of the bottlers which had to increase capital investment for their production. The issue however, was overcome by way of consolidation of the independent bottlers resulting in economies of scale advantage. Both Coke & Pepsi have been a source of drawing clientele for the retail outlets. Consequently, even in the wake of competition for shelf space, the brands are an essential for the retailers. This only reduces the bargaining power of the customers before the CPs. The bargaining power of the
suppliers in this industry is low too mainly because for the CPs the major source of cost is sugar and packaging the former of which may be replaced with high quality corn syrup. The
3
de P
ap
er s
availability of the latter through various suppliers trying to get the contract reduces the supplier power even further.
Globally, in the beverage industry, both the concentrate producers (CPs) and the bottlers have been linked together; most importantly because the bottlers are the major source of producing and distributing the end product of the CP. Apart from this, because the bottling business is largely dependent on the CP for the major ingredient of the product, its profitability dependent on the products sales has a reciprocal impact on the profitability of the concentrate business. Alternatively, it must be noted that because of being a more capital intensive a business, bottlers are likely to be negatively impacted by the slightest change in the concentrate prices.
To p
(Appendix 2).
Gr a
While the CPs have to incur a lower direct material cost and an even lesser relative plant costs, the bottling business is more capital intensive, requires investment in the maintenance of the installed machinery and more direct raw material cost. Besides this, the major sources of cost for the CPs are in terms of the advertising expense, promotions, market research for the brand and on gaining bottler support. Comparatively, the bottlers additional expense on selling and delivery of the final product adds to its cost. So essentially, the cost was 60% of the net sales for the bottlers, comparative to mere 17% for the CPs as shown in the (Exhibit 4) of the case study
However, the employment of larger work force that assists the bottlers in selling products and negotiating with the key suppliers places a greater pressure on the bottom line of the CPs. Yet, at the end of the day, the pre-tax profit of the CPs outruns that for the bottlers. Thus, it would not be incorrect to contend that profitability of both the businesses varies primarily due to the extent of cost that both have to incur. Otherwise, due to interdependence, both the CPs and bottlers are likely to experience reciprocal gains or losses. Additionally, because the CPs, at least the leading
4
de P
ap
Economics of the Concentrate Business VS Bottling Business
er s
ones, are more of diversified businesses, they are much able to cover their costs from other unrelated or semi-related products. Besides, the CPs have high value brands such as Coca Cola and Pepsi virtually irreplaceable as a household consumer beverage brand. Resultantly, when the bottlers are unable to leverage any such value addition which the CPs effectively do, the relative profitability tends to differ to a large degree.
Impact of Coke & Pepsi on Industry Profits
Coca Cola and Pepsi are the two leading brands especially in the cola soft drink industry. Even when it comes to beverages as a whole (apart from Nestles mineral water brand), both the brands dominate the industry. On an overall basis, the profits of the entire industry are largely
Coke and Pepsi are positive contributors to the industry wide profitability. However, the incident oligopolistic or rather the duopolistic nature of the industry may suggest otherwise if the profitability is to be considered in terms of the industrys attractiveness. Furthermore, because both the brands have years of brand equity to back their ongoing sales and
To p
Gr a
earnings with reference to the CSDs. on the industry at large.
profits, it is rather difficult to break the aura that surrounds the soft drink maestros. Over time however, the industry has had to witness lowest possible profits especially during the price wars of 1980s early 1990s in response to the efforts of both brands to capture greater market share.
However, because by 2005, the carbonated soft drinks (CSD) made 80% of Cokes and two thirds of Pepsis global beverage business, the industry wide profitability as sapped down by the pressures brought on by the increasing health concerns and litigations against the leading brands especially in countries such as India. As a result, the beverage industry faced fairly static
Later, after strategic alliances with various fast food chains such as Subway, Mcdonalds, KFC etc has enabled both the brands and thus the industry to experience significant improvements. Yet, CSD growth of less than 1% and inclination towards non-carbs balances out the net effect
de P
concentrated with both these brands only. Thus on an overall basis, one may propound that both
ap
er s
5
Profit Sustainability
Over years, the profitability of the beverage industry has deteriorated especially with regards to the CSDs. Yet, Coke and Pepsi can sustain their long term profitability even in the times of flattened demand. Firstly, both the brands have developed a strong association with its consumers and the resultant brand equity may not be giving it growing profits currently but would be extremely fruitful in the long run success of the two companies. Furthermore, even with the growing preference for non-CSDs, the profits might become static for some time, but
product categories and accompanying marketing efforts would reap benefits in the long term. The major hampering factor may be certain law suits and issues such as those related to
initiatives and build on their existent brand equity, the problem may be alleviated. Additionally, both the industry leaders may improve upon their CSD sales by promoting colas as a product useable as more than just a refresher. For instance, if coke is associated with everyday food, it would become a brand usable by everyone in the family thereby increasing the per capita
To p
Gr a
Distinctive Competence
Schweppes and the like.
consumption. However, Pepsi must indulge in market development since its strongest rival Coke has better operations going on globally. In any case, with strong relations with bottlers and well established brand equity, the sapped down profits may be a temporary set-back which may improve with improved efforts in terms of CSR, trade promotions, and market development.
The main factor that has contributed to the financial success of Coca Cola and Pepsi is their dominant position in the industry with respect to the CP-Bottler relationship, distribution network and marketing efforts especially comparative to brands such as RC cola, Cadbury However, what determines their dominant position is their long
standing position and the resultant brand loyalty worldwide. Thereby, even when the sales for colas go down, the existing ones largely are concentrated with both these leading brands.
de P
products contamination. However, if both the companies are able to effectively invest in CSR
ap
their expansion into more markets, introduction of more brands in both related and semi-related
er s
In addition, these brands have held the place for pioneers especially when it comes to colas. Pepsi Generation promotion and the brands consequent association with the youth and being young at heart makes it an evergreen brand. Similarly, Coca Colas distinctive taste and its years old secret patented recipe give it an edge over the other brands along with its association with a certain lifestyle that the brand took off to associate it with.
It is important to note however, that for both these companies, the major cause for such success is also the duopolistic nature of the industry that obviously has come into being as a result of
consequently adds to the advantage of these brands of many others. To sum up, the brand name and equity are the sole distinctive competence factors for both Coke and Pepsi followed by their sophisticated integration of the bottling operations with the company through consolidation of the independent bottlers.
Conclusion
The soft industry is highly attractive when understood from the point of view some of the forces
To p
Gr a
brands being the ultimate refreshers.
of Porters model. However, the fierce completion that exists in the industry is a threat for any new entrant considering entrance into this industry unless it has something different, innovative and better to offer. Still, it would be difficult to match the equity that Pepsi and Coca Cola have developed over time. Both these however have come to the current stage of success through their continuous marketing and sales efforts even in the wake of flattening demand which is likely to be recovered after some time because of the long standing association of the consumer with these
de P
ap
aggressive competition over many years. The threat that this poses to any possible new entrant,
er s
References
Campbell, D., Stonehouse, G., Housten, B., Business Strategy-An Introduction, 2002
[Available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3718141/, Accessed 7th Feb,2010]
KithungA, N., Brand Associations & Consumer Perceptions of Value of Product
Strickland, A. , Strategy; Winning the Marketplace: Core Concepts, Analytical Tools, Cases, 2004
To p
Gr a
de P
8
ap
Keller, K. Strategic Brand Management, Pearson Education Inc, 2008
er s
Costello, T., Arch Rivals Coca Cola VS Pepsi, CNBC on MSN, 2003
Appendix 1
Porters Five Forces Model
To p
Gr a
Source: http://www.themanager.org/pdf/p5f.pdf
de P
9
ap
er s
Appendix 2 (Exhibit 4; Case)
To p
Gr a
de P
10
ap
er s

Profitability For Soft Drinks - Michael Porter's Five Force Model - Top Grade Papers - Academic Assignment

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Profitability For Soft Drinks - Michael Porter's Five Force Model - Top Grade Papers - Academic Assignment

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GET YOUR WORK DONE BY www.TopGradePapers.

[Profitability for Soft Drinks]

GET YOUR WORK DONE BY www.TopGradePapers.com

Distinctive Competence ................................................................................................................................ 6

GET YOUR WORK DONE BY www.TopGradePapers.com

Profitability of the Soft Drink Industry

GET YOUR WORK DONE BY www.TopGradePapers.com

Economics of the Concentrate Business VS Bottling Business

GET YOUR WORK DONE BY www.TopGradePapers.com

Impact of Coke & Pepsi on Industry Profits

GET YOUR WORK DONE BY www.TopGradePapers.com

GET YOUR WORK DONE BY www.TopGradePapers.com

GET YOUR WORK DONE BY www.TopGradePapers.com

[Available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3718141/, Accessed 7th Feb,2010]

KithungA, N., Brand Associations & Consumer Perceptions of Value of Product

Keller, K. Strategic Brand Management, Pearson Education Inc, 2008

GET YOUR WORK DONE BY www.TopGradePapers.com

GET YOUR WORK DONE BY www.TopGradePapers.com

Appendix 2 (Exhibit 4; Case)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen