Misplaced Pages

New Coke: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:06, 2 December 2006 edit65.107.19.17 (talk) New Coke in popular culture: - corrected Flight of the Navigator quote← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:14, 12 December 2024 edit undoOknazevad (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users106,501 edits 2019 reintroduction: better word for formal tone 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|1985 reformulation of Coca-Cola}}
{{Infobox Beverage
{{Use mdy dates|date=April 2018}}
|name=New Coke
{{Infobox brand
|image=]<br><small>] New Coke can</small>
| name = New Coke
|type=]
| image = New Coke can.jpg
|manufacturer=]
| caption = A can of New Coke
| origin={{USA}}
| introduced=] | producttype = ]
| currentowner = ]
| discontinued= ]
| producedby =
| related= ]
| country = ]
| variants= Coke II
| introduced = April 23, 1985
| discontinued = July 2002
| related =
| markets =
| previousowners =
| trademarkregistrations =
| ambassadors =
| tagline =
| website =
| module = <!-- or: misc -->
| module1 = <!-- or: misc1 -->
| footnotes =
}} }}
'''New Coke''' was the unofficial name of the sweeter drink introduced in ] by ] to replace its flagship soda, ''']''' or '''Coke'''. Properly speaking, it had no separate name of its own, but was simply the new version of Coke, until ] when it was renamed '''Coca-Cola II'''. '''New Coke''' was the unofficial name of a reformulation of the soft drink ], introduced by ] in April 1985. It was renamed '''Coke II''' in 1990,<ref name=srco2>{{cite news|url= https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=u2tXAAAAIBAJ&pg=5394%2C3867962 |work=Spokesman-Review |location=(Spokane, Washington)|last=Jamieson|first=Sean |title=Coke II makes its Spokane debut |date=April 5, 1990 |page=A8}}</ref> and discontinued in July 2002.


By 1985, Coca-Cola had been losing ] to ]s and non-cola beverages for several years. ]s suggested that consumers preferred the sweeter taste of the competing product ], and so the Coca-Cola recipe was reformulated. The American public reacted negatively, and New Coke was considered a major failure.
Public reaction to the change was devastating, and the new ] quickly entered the pantheon of major marketing ]. The subsequent reintroduction of ] led to a significant gain in sales. Although the company insisted, and the historical record suggests, it was an unplanned reaction to the perceived rejection of New Coke, many ]s and ] that continue to circulate claim it was planned all along and offer various reasons for it.


The company reintroduced ] within three months, rebranded "Coca-Cola Classic", resulting in a significant sales boost. This led to speculation that the New Coke formula had been a ploy to stimulate sales of the original Coca-Cola, which the company has vehemently denied.<ref name="Snopes" /> The story of New Coke remains influential as a ] against tampering with an established successful brand.
==History==
===Pepsi's market gains and Coke's responses===
The original drink's market share had been shrinking for decades, from 60% just after ] to under 24% in 1983, in the face of fierce competition from arch rival ]. When ] took over as ] in 1980, he pointedly told employees there would be no ]s in how the company did its business, including how it formulated its drinks.{{fact}} Not long afterwards, the company bought ], the company's first major ] away from the drinks industry.


==Background==
He also made his point when ] broke a longstanding company tradition that the brand would not be diluted and that no other product would also be called Coca-Cola. And instead of simply putting out Coke with an alternative sweetener (something the company only did with ] in 2005), Coca-Cola developed a new formula to go with the ]-sweetened drink. Diet Coke was a runaway success, quickly becoming the fourth most popular soft drink in America, and eventually displacing ] as the third.
After ], Coca-Cola held 60 percent of the ] for ]. By 1983, it had declined to under 24 percent, largely because of competition from ]. Pepsi had begun to outsell Coke in supermarkets; Coke maintained its lead only through venues such as ] machines and fast food restaurants,
especially ].<ref name=Snopes/>


Market analysts believed ]s were more likely to purchase ]s as they aged and became health- and weight-conscious. Growth in the full-calorie segment would come from younger drinkers, who at that time favored Pepsi by increasing margins.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Koten|first1=John|last2=Kilman|first2=Scott|title=Coca-Cola Faces Tough Marketing Task in Attempting to Sell Old and New Coke|work=The Wall Street Journal|date=July 12, 1985}}</ref> Meanwhile, the overall market for colas steadily declined in the early 1980s, as consumers increasingly purchased diet and non-cola soft drinks, many of which were sold by Coca-Cola. This further eroded Coca-Cola's market share.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Stevenson|first1=Richard W.|title=New Coke vs. Classic: The Verdict Is Still Out|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1985/08/20/business/new-coke-vs-classic-the-verdict-is-still-out.html|access-date=April 8, 2017|work=The New York Times|date=August 20, 1985}}</ref><ref name="cokelore" /> When ] became Coca-Cola CEO in 1980, he told employees there would be no "sacred cows" in how the company did business, including how it formulated its drinks.<ref name="demott">{{cite magazine|last1=Demott|first1=John S.|title=All Afizz Over the New Coke|url=http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959449,00.html|magazine=Time|access-date=April 8, 2017|date=June 24, 1985}}</ref>
However, this change in the industry ended up having an adverse effect on the Coca-Cola Company. Part of Diet Coke's success came at the expense of regular Coke as more consumers showed a preference for sweeter drinks, whether ]-sweetened or not. And foremost among them was Pepsi, which was trailing within a couple of percentage points of Coke. In the wake of its late 1970s "]" campaign, in which blind taste tests offered in public places had shown an overwhelming preference for Pepsi, it had begun to outsell Coke in ]. Coke maintained its edge only through fountain sales.


==Development==
While Coke's executives publicly disputed the results of the Pepsi Challenge, their own internal surveys found the same preference among cola drinkers. Other data worried them, too. In 1972, six times as many drinkers bought Coke exclusively as opposed to Pepsi. A decade later Coke had only a slight edge, despite much greater market penetration.
Coca-Cola's senior executives commissioned a secret project headed by marketing vice president ] and Coca-Cola USA president ] to create a new flavor for Coke. This project was named "Project Kansas", from a photo of Kansas journalist ] drinking a Coke; the image had been used extensively in Coca-Cola advertising and hung on several executives' walls.<ref name="hays">{{cite book|last1=Hays|first1=Constance L.|title=The Real Thing: Truth and Power at the Coca-Cola Company|date=2005|publisher=Random House|location=New York|isbn=978-0-8129-7364-8|edition=Random House Trade pbk.|url=https://books.google.com/books?isbn=081297364X}}</ref>{{rp|114}}


The sweeter cola overwhelmingly beat both regular Coke and Pepsi in ], ]s, and ]s. The ], one of Coca-Cola's strongest and most reliable markets, narrowly preferred the new flavor; this preference widened once the testers revealed the new taste was also a Coca-Cola product. One ] threatened to sue the company if it did not put the drink on the market.<ref name="Mother Jones story">{{cite magazine|last=Murphy|first=Tim|title=New Coke Didn't Fail. It Was Murdered.|url=https://www.motherjones.com/food/2019/07/what-if-weve-all-been-wrong-about-what-killed-new-coke/|magazine=]|date=July 9, 2019|access-date=February 23, 2021}}</ref>
The trend was not going to reverse itself. ]s were likely to purchase more diet drinks as they aged and remained health- and weight-conscious, marketers believed. Therefore any future growth in the full-calorie segment had to come from younger drinkers, who at that time favored Pepsi and its sweetness by even more overwhelming margins than the market as a whole<ref name="Newsweek">''Newsweek, July 22, 1985, 40</ref>.


Asked if they would buy and drink the product if it were Coca-Cola, most testers said they would, although said it would take some getting used to. About 10–12 percent of testers felt angry and alienated at the thought, and said they might stop drinking Coke. Their presence in focus groups tended to negatively skew results as they exerted indirect ] on other participants.<ref name="pender">{{cite book|last1=Pendergrast|first1=Mark|title=For God, Country and Coca-Cola : The Definitive History of the Great American Soft Drink and the Company that Makes It|date=2004|publisher=Basic Books|location=New York|isbn=978-0-465-05468-8|edition=2. ed., rev. and expanded, }}</ref>{{rp|355}}
===The market research===
Coca-Cola's most senior executives commissioned the top-secret "Project Kansas", headed by marketing vice president ] and Brian Dyson, president of Coca-Cola USA, to test and perfect the new flavor for Coke itself. It took its name from a famous photo of that state's legendary ] ] drinking a Coke that had been used extensively in its advertising and hung on several executive's walls.<ref name="Hays114">Hays, Constance; ''The Real Thing:Truth and Power at the Coca-Cola Company'', ], 2004, ISBN 0-8129-7364-X, 114</ref> The company's marketing department again went out into the field, this time armed with samples of the possible new drink for taste tests and ]s and ]s.


The surveys, which were given more significance by standard marketing procedures of the era, were less negative than the taste tests and were key in convincing management to change the formula in 1985, to coincide with the drink's ]. However, the groups had provided a clue as to how the change would play out in the public, a finding the company downplayed.<ref name="Schindler">{{cite journal |last=Schindler |first=Robert M. |title=The Real Lesson of New Coke: The Value of Focus Groups for Predicting the Effects of Social Influence |journal=Marketing Research |year=1992 |url=https://archive.ama.org/archive/ResourceLibrary/MarketingResearch/Pages/1992/4/4/9602193014.aspx |volume=4 |issue=4 |pages=22 |issn=1040-8460 |access-date=April 8, 2017 |archive-date=July 2, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180702095850/https://archive.ama.org/archive/ResourceLibrary/MarketingResearch/Pages/1992/4/4/9602193014.aspx |url-status=dead }}</ref>
The results of that were strong — the ] mixture overwhelmingly beat both regular Coke and Pepsi. Then tasters were asked if they would buy and drink it if it ''were'' Coca-Cola. Most said yes, they would, although it would take some getting used to. A small minority, about 10-12%, felt angry and alienated at the very thought, saying that they might stop drinking Coke altogether. Their presence in focus groups tended to skew results in a more negative direction as they exerted indirect ] on other participants.<ref name="Prendergast355">Prendergast, Mark; ''For God, Country and Coca-Cola: The Definitive History of the Great American Soft Drink and the Company that Makes It'', Basic Books, 1994, ISBN 0-465-05468-4, 355</ref>


Management rejected an idea to make and sell the new flavor as a separate variety of Coca-Cola. The company's bottlers were already complaining about absorbing other recent additions into the product line since 1982, after the introduction of ]; ] was launched nationally nearly concurrently with New Coke during 1985. Many bottling companies had sued over the company's ] pricing policies. A new variety of Coke in competition with the main variety could also have ] Coke's sales and increased the proportion of Pepsi drinkers relative to Coke drinkers.{{Citation needed|date=May 2021}}
The surveys, which were given more significance by standard marketing procedures of the era, were less negative and were key in convincing management to move forward with a change in the formula for 1985, to coincide with the drink's ]. But the focus groups had provided a clue as to how the change would play out in a public context, a data point that the company downplayed but was to prove important later<ref name="Schindler">Schindler, Robert M. "The Real Lesson of New Coke: The Value of Focus Groups for Predicting the Effects of Social Influence," ''Marketing Research'', December 1992:27</ref>.


Early in his career with Coca-Cola, Goizueta had been in charge of the Bahamas subsidiary. He had improved sales by tweaking the drink's flavor slightly, and so was receptive to the idea that changing the flavor of Coke could boost profits. He believed it would be "New Coke or no Coke",<ref name="hays" />{{rp|106}} and that the change must take place openly. He insisted that the containers carry the "New!" label, which gave the drink its popular name.<ref name="pender" />{{rp|358}}
Management also considered, but quickly rejected, an idea to simply make and sell the new flavor as yet another Coke variety. The company's bottlers were already complaining about absorbing other recent additions to the product line in the wake of Diet Coke. Many of them had filed suit over the company's ] pricing policies. A new variety of Coke in competition with the main variety could, if successful, also dilute Coke’s existing sales and increase the proportion of Pepsi drinkers relative to Coke drinkers.


Goizueta also made a visit to his mentor and predecessor as the company's chief executive, the ailing ], who had built Coca-Cola into an international brand following World War II. Goizueta claimed he had secured Woodruff's blessing for the reformulation, but many of Goizueta's closest friends within the company doubted that Woodruff understood Goizueta's intentions. Woodruff died in March 1985, a month before New Coke was launched.<ref name="pender" />{{rp|356}}<ref name="hays" />{{rp|115}}
Early in his career with Coca-Cola, Goizueta had been in charge of the company's ] ]. In that capacity, he had improved sales by tweaking the drink's flavor slightly, so he was receptive to the idea that changes to the taste of Coke could lead to increased profits. He believed it would be "New Coke or no Coke",<ref name="Hays106">Hays, ''op. cit.'', 106</ref> and the change must take place openly.<ref name="Prendergast355"/> He insisted that the containers carry the "NEW!" label, which gave the drink its popular name.<ref name="Prendergast358">Prendergast, ''op. cit.'', 358</ref>


==Launch==
Goizueta also made a visit to his ] and predecessor as the company's chief executive, the ailing ], who had built Coke into an international brand following ]. He claimed he had secured Woodruff's blessing for the reformulation, but even many of Goizueta's closest friends within the company doubt that Woodruff truly understood what Goizueta intended.<ref name="Prendergast356">Prendergast, ''op. cit.'', 356</ref><ref name="Hays115">Hays, ''op. cit.'', 115.</ref> To his own dying day, however, Goizueta insisted he had.
New Coke was introduced on April 23, 1985. Production of the original formulation ended later that week. In many areas, New Coke was initially sold in original Coke packaging; bottlers used up remaining cans, cartons and labels before new packaging became widely available. Old cans containing New Coke were identified by their gold colored tops, while glass and plastic bottles had red caps instead of silver or white, respectively. Bright yellow stickers indicating the change were placed on the cartons of multi-packs.{{Citation needed|date=August 2022}}


The press conference at New York City's ] to introduce the new formula did not go well. Reporters had already been fed questions by Pepsi,<ref name="oliver" /> which was worried that New Coke would erase its gains. Goizueta, Coca-Cola's CEO, described the new flavor as "bolder", "rounder", and "more harmonious",<ref name="pender" />{{rp|352}} and defended the change by saying that the drink's secret formula was not sacrosanct and inviolable. As far back as 1935, Coca-Cola sought ] from Atlanta rabbi ], and made two changes to the formula so the drink could be considered kosher (as well as ] and vegetarian).<ref>Horowitz, Roger (January 8, 2013) , Science History Institute. Retrieved July 4, 2019</ref> Goizueta also refused to admit that taste tests had led the change, calling it "one of the easiest decisions we've ever made".<ref name="hays" />{{rp|117}} When a reporter asked whether Diet Coke would also be reformulated "assuming is a success," Goizueta curtly replied, "No. And I didn't assume that this is a success. This ''is'' a success."<ref name="pender" />{{rp|352}}
===Rollout===
]
Many of New Coke's problems developed during the rollout. Archrival Pepsi was able to undermine the ] push, and Coke's own executives, particularly Goizueta, did not impress the media.


The emphasis on the new formula's sweeter taste also ran contrary to previous Coke advertising, in which spokesman ] had touted the original Coke's less-sweet taste as a reason to prefer it over the sweeter taste of Pepsi.<ref name="oliver" />{{rp|136}} The Coca-Cola company's stock went up after the announcement, and market research showed 80 percent of the American public was aware of the reformulation within days of the change.<ref name="hays" />{{rp|119}}<ref name="Soda Pop Dreams">{{cite web|last=Matthews|first=Blair|date=Spring 2005|url=http://www.sodapopdreamsmagazine.com/36_newcoke.htm|title=Coca Cola's Big Mistake: New Coke 20 Years Later ...|publisher=Soda Pop Dreams|access-date=June 16, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080705232713/http://www.sodaspectrum.com/36_newcoke.htm|archive-date=2008-07-05|url-status=dead}} {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180402231007/http://newyork10.cityspur.com/2009/12/coca-colas-big-mistake-new-coke-20-years-later |date=April 2, 2018 }}</ref>
====Strategic maneuvers by Pepsi====


===Initial success===
Coke let the media know on April 19 that a major announcement was planned for the following Tuesday, April 23, concerning a change in the product. While its ] did not explicitly say so, many recipients correctly guessed it meant a change in the flagship brand's formulation. So, too, did officials at PepsiCo, who had expected a major move but not something as drastic as this.
Coca-Cola introduced the new formula with marketing pushes in New York City, where workers renovating the ] for its centenary in 1986 were given free cans,<ref name="Soda Pop Dreams" /> and Washington, D.C., where thousands of cans were given away in ]. As soon as New Coke was introduced, the new formula was available at ] and other drink fountains in the United States.<ref name="demott" /> Sales figures from those cities, and other areas where it had been introduced such as Miami and Detroit,<ref name="Mother Jones story" /> showed a reaction that went as the market research had predicted. In fact, Coke's sales were up 8 percent over the same period as the year before.<ref name="demott" />


Most Coke drinkers resumed buying the new Coke at much the same level as they had the old one. Surveys indicated that the majority of regular Coke drinkers liked the new flavoring.<ref name="oliver" />{{rp|153}} Three quarters of the respondents said they would buy New Coke again.<ref name="demott" /> The big test, however, remained in the South, where Coca-Cola had been created and bottled.{{Citation needed|date=August 2022}}
Despite a negative reaction by top Pepsi executives to a smuggled preview six-pack of the new flavor, they nevertheless concluded it was a serious threat. Roger Enrico, then director of ] operations, wasted no time taunting Pepsi's older rival. He declared a companywide holiday and took out a full-page ad in '']'' proclaiming that Pepsi had won the long-running "]".<ref name="Hays117">Hays, ''op. cit.'', 117</ref><ref name="Prendergast359">Prendergast, ''op. cit.'', 359</ref> Since Coke officials were preoccupied over the weekend with preparations for the big day, their Pepsi counterparts had time to cultivate skepticism among reporters, sounding themes that would later come into play in the public discourse over the changed drink.<ref name="Oliver125">Oliver, Thomas; ''The Real Coke, The Real Story'', Penguin, 1986; ISBN 0-14-010408-9; 125</ref>


====Official launch==== ===Backlash===
{{quote box|To hear some tell it, April 23, 1985, was a day that will live in marketing infamy ... spawning consumer angst the likes of which no business has ever seen.|— The Coca-Cola Company, on the New Coke announcement{{r|cokelore}}
| width = 25%
}}
Though New Coke had been accepted by many loyal Coca-Cola drinkers, many more resented the change, as had happened in the focus groups. Many critics were from the ], some of whom considered Coca-Cola part of their regional identity. Some viewed the change through the prism of the ] as a surrender to the "]"<ref name=oliver />{{rp|149–151}} as ], the manufacturer of Pepsi, is based in ].<ref name="Mother Jones story" />


In a '']'' story about reaction in the South, a professor at the ] observed that "changing Coca-Cola is an intrusion on tradition" and thus would not be well received in that region. An ] resident wondered why the company had introduced the new flavor in New York; elsewhere in the state an '']'' columnist, noting Goizueta's Cuban origins, insinuated that the flavor change was a Communist plot. The '']'' found a majority of patrons at ], a popular local restaurant in that city, favored the old formula. "Why didn't they test anybody here?" the co-owner asked.<ref name="Mother Jones story" />
New Coke was introduced on April 23, 1985. Production of the original formulation ended that same week.


The company received over 40,000 calls and letters expressing anger or disappointment,<ref name=hays />{{rp|119}} including one letter, delivered to Goizueta, addressed to "Chief Dodo, the Coca-Cola Company". Another letter asked for his autograph, as the signature of "one of the dumbest executives in American business history" would likely become valuable in the future. The company hotline, 1-800-GET-COKE, received over 1,500 calls a day compared to around 400 before the change.<ref name="cokelore">{{cite web |url=http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/coke-lore-new-coke |title=The Real Story of New Coke |publisher=The Coca-Cola Company |work=Coke Lore |access-date=October 10, 2011 |archive-date=December 11, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191211062459/http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/coke-lore-new-coke |url-status=dead }}</ref> A ] whom Coke had hired to listen in on calls told executives that many people sounded as if they were discussing the death of a family member.<ref name=oliver />{{rp|163}}
The ] at ]'s ] to introduce the new formula did not go over very well. Reporters present had already been fed questions by Pepsi<ref name="Oliver125">Oliver, ''op. cit.'', 125</ref> which was very worried that New Coke would erase all its gains, and did not give Goizueta, a man ill-suited to events such as these, an easy time as he changed a century of tradition. His stumbling description of the new taste, given his background as one of the company's ] chemists, was widely ridiculed:
{{cquote| smoother, uh, uh, yet, uh, rounder yet, uh, bolder ... it has a more harmonious flavor.<ref name="Goizueta quote on video">">.A portion of Goizueta's response can be found in an old ] story by searching YouTube on the string "New Coke" and "CBC". Due to ] and the U.S. ], it can no longer be linked to directly</ref>}} Goizueta defended the change by pointing out that the drink's secret formula was not sacrosanct and inviolable, as ] had obediently taken the ] out of the drink after it had been made a ].<ref name="kosher">At the request of an Atlanta ], Woodruff had also changed the formula so that the ] in it came not from hog fat but vegetable sources, so the drink could be certified ] (and, incidentally, ]).</ref>
] toasting New Coke.]] But he also purposely declined to admit that taste tests had in any way led the company to make the change (which he called "one of the easiest decisions we have ever made"<ref name="Hays115"/>) to avoid giving Pepsi any credit<ref name="CokeHistory">To this day the company's refuses to name Pepsi, referring instead to its "chief competitor".</ref>, yet gave no other real reason for the change, further alienating reporters who had already heard from Pepsi representatives in advance on this very issue.<ref name="Oliver125" /> Many were taken aback by Goizueta's apparent arrogance when, following a reporter's question about whether Diet Coke would be reformulated "if this is a success," he curtly replied, "This ''is'' a success."


There were critics of New Coke from outside the region. ''Chicago Tribune'' columnist ] wrote some widely reprinted pieces ridiculing the new flavor and expressing anger at Coke's executives for having changed it. Comedians and talk show hosts, including ] and ], made regular jokes mocking the switch. Ads for New Coke were booed heavily when they appeared on the ] at the ].<ref name="Soda Pop Dreams" /> Even ], a longtime Coca-Cola drinker, contributed to the backlash, calling New Coke a sign of American capitalist decadence.<ref name=pender />{{rp|362}} Goizueta's father expressed similar misgivings to his son, who later recalled that it was the only time his father had agreed with Castro, whose regime he had fled Cuba to avoid.<ref name=hays />{{rp|118}}
The emphasis on the sweeter taste of the new flavor also ran contrary to a recent Coke advertising, in which spokesman ] had touted its less-sweet taste as a reason to prefer Coke over Pepsi.<ref name="Oliver136">Oliver, ''op. cit.'', 136</ref>


Gay Mullins, a ] ] looking to start a ] firm with $120,000 of borrowed money, formed the Old Cola Drinkers of America on May 28 to lobby Coca-Cola to either reintroduce the old formula or sell it to someone else. His organization eventually received over 60,000 phone calls. He also filed a ] against the company (which was quickly dismissed by a judge who said he preferred the taste of Pepsi),<ref name="suit dismissal">{{cite news|date=June 21, 1985|url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E2D81039F932A15755C0A963948260 |title=Coke Flavor-Suit Rejected|work= ]}}</ref> while nevertheless expressing interest in securing the Coca-Cola Company as a client of his new firm should it reintroduce the old formula.<ref name=oliver />{{rp|160}} In two informal blind taste tests, Mullins either failed to distinguish New Coke from old or expressed a preference for New Coke.<ref name=oliver />{{rp|162}}
Nevertheless, the company's stock went up on the announcement,<ref name="Hays119">Hays, ''op. cit.'', 119</ref> and market research showed that 80% of the American public was aware of the change within 48 hours<ref name="Soda Pop Dreams">Matthews, Blair; Spring 2005; ''Soda Pop Dreams'', retrieved June 16, 2006</ref>.


Despite ongoing resistance in the South, New Coke continued to do well in the rest of the country.<ref name=oliver />{{rp|149–151}} However, the executives were uncertain of how international markets would react. They met with international Coke bottlers in Monaco; to their surprise, the bottlers were not interested in selling New Coke.<ref name="ThePeoplevsCoke" /> Zyman also heard doubts and skepticism from his relatives in Mexico, where New Coke was scheduled to be introduced later that summer, when he went there on vacation.
===Early acceptance===


Goizueta stated that Coca-Cola employees who liked New Coke felt unable to speak up due to peer pressure, as had happened in the focus groups. ], the Coca-Cola president and chief operating officer at the time, reported overhearing someone say at his ] that they liked New Coke, but they would be "damned if I'll let Coca-Cola know that".<ref name=oliver />{{rp|154}}
While it is widely believed today that the new drink failed almost instantly, at the time that was not the case. The company, as it had planned, introduced the new formula with big marketing pushes in New York (workers renovating the ] were symbolically the first Americans given cans to take home<ref name="Soda Pop Dreams"/>) and Washington, D.C. (where thousands of free cans were given away in ]). Sales figures from those cities, and other regions where it had been introduced, showed a reaction that went as the market research had predicted. In fact, Coke's sales were up 8% over the same period the year before.<ref name="Time">Demott, John; June 24, 1985; ; '']''.</ref>


===Response by PepsiCo===
Most Coke drinkers resumed buying the new drink at much the same level as they had the old one. Surveys indicated, in fact, that a majority liked the new flavoring.<ref name="Oliver153">Oliver, ''op. cit.'', 153</ref> Three-quarters of the respondents said they would buy New Coke again.<ref name="Time"/> The big test, however, remained in the ], where Coke was first bottled and tasted and has always been such a market leader and cultural institution that "coke" is a colloquial term for all colas, or even all soft drinks, regardless of brand.
PepsiCo took advantage of the situation, running ads in which a first-time Pepsi drinker exclaimed, "Now I know why Coke did it!"<ref name=oliver/>{{rp|148–9}} Even amidst consumer anger and several Pepsi ads mocking Coca-Cola's debacle, Pepsi actually gained very few long-term converts over Coke's switch, despite a 14 percent sales increase over the same month the previous year, the largest sales growth in the company's history.<ref name=demott/> Coca-Cola's director of corporate communications, Carlton Curtis, realized over time that consumers were more upset about the withdrawal of the old formula than the taste of the new one.<ref name=oliver/>{{rp|175}}


Immediately following the announcement of Coca-Cola's change, ], then director of PepsiCo's North American operations, took out a full page ad in '']'' proclaiming PepsiCo the winner of the long-running "]" and declared a company-wide holiday on April 26, saying "By today's action, Coke had admitted that it's ''not'' the real thing."<ref name="hays" />{{rp|115}}<ref name="pender" />{{rp|359}} Since Coke officials were preoccupied over the weekend with preparations for the announcement, their PepsiCo counterparts had time to cultivate skepticism among reporters, sounding themes that would later come into play in the public discourse over the changed drink.<ref name="oliver">{{cite book|last=Oliver|first=Thomas|title=The Real Coke, The Real Story|date=1987|publisher=Penguin Books|location=New York|isbn=978-0140104080|edition=Repr|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yZTZAAAAQBAJ}}</ref>{{rp|125}}
===Backlash===


===Company dissatisfaction===
Despite its acceptance with a large number of Coca-Cola drinkers, a vocal minority resented the change in formula and was not shy about making that opinion known — again just as had happened in the focus groups. Many of these drinkers were indeed Southerners, some of whom considered the drink a fundamental part of regional identity, and viewed the company's decision to make it sweeter through the prism of the ], as another surrender to the "]"<ref name="Oliver149-51">Oliver, ''op.cit.'', 149-51</ref> (although Pepsi was invented in ], PepsiCo has located its headquarters in New York State since its 1965 establishment.<ref name="PepsiCo HQ">, PepsiCo.com, retrieved October 7, 2006. See under 1970</ref>)
Behind the scenes, some Coca-Cola executives had quietly been arguing for a reintroduction of the old formula as early as May.<ref name=oliver/>{{rp|157}} By mid-June, when soft drink sales usually start to rise, the numbers showed that new Coke was leveling among consumers. Executives feared social peer pressure was now affecting their bottom line. Many consumers even began trying to obtain original Coca-Cola from overseas, where New Coke had not yet been introduced, as domestic stocks of the old drink were exhausted.<ref name=oliver/>{{rp|158}} Due to some complaints about New Coke's taste, company chemists quietly reduced the ] level of the new formula, allowing its sweetness to be better perceived (advertisements pointing to this change were prepared, but never used).<ref name=pender/>{{rp|364}}


In addition to the noisier public protests, ]s, and bottles of New Coke being emptied into the streets of several cities, the company had more serious reasons to be concerned. Coca-Cola bottlers, and not just the ones still suing the company over syrup pricing policies, were expressing concern. While they had given Goizueta a standing ovation when he announced the change at an April 22 bottlers' meeting at Atlanta's ], glad the company had finally taken some initiative in the face of PepsiCo's advances,<ref name="Soda Pop Dreams"/> they were less enthusiastic about the taste of New Coke.<ref name=pender/>{{rp|364}}<ref name=hays/>{{rp|106,116}} Most of them saw great difficulty in having to promote and sell a drink that had long been marketed as "The Real Thing", constant and unchanging, now that it had actually been changed.
They were, nonetheless, joined by some voices from outside the region. '']'' ] ] wrote some widely reprinted pieces ridiculing the new flavor and damning Coke's executives for having changed it. ] hosts and ]s made light of the switch. Ads for New Coke were booed heavily when they appeared on the ] at the ].<ref name="Soda Pop Dreams"/> Even ], a longtime Coke drinker, contributed to the backlash, calling New Coke a sign of American capitalist decadence.<ref name="Prendergast362">Prendergast, ''op. cit.'', 362</ref> Goizueta's own father expressed similar misgivings to his son, the only time he ever agreed with the man whose ] had driven him and his son, nearly penniless, to America a quarter-century before.<ref name=Hays118">Hays, ''op. cit.'', 118</ref>


The 20 bottlers still suing the Coca-Cola company made much of the formula change in their legal arguments. In its defense, the company had argued when the suit was originally filed that the new formula was unique and different from Diet Coke, which justified different pricing policies from the latter; however, if the new formula was merely a ]-sweetened version of Diet Coke, the company could not argue the formula for New Coke was unique. Bottlers, particularly in the South, were also tired of facing personal attacks over the change; many reported that some acquaintances and even friends and relatives had actually ostracized them or had expressed their displeasure over New Coke in other emotionally hurtful ways. On June 23, several of the bottlers voiced these complaints in a private meeting with Coca-Cola executives at the company's headquarters in Atlanta.<ref name=hays/> With the Coca-Cola company now fearing boycotts not only from consumers but its bottlers, talks about reintroducing the old formula moved from "if" to when.
Company headquarters in ] started receiving angry letters expressing deep disappointment and anger at executives. A ] Coke hired to listen in on phone calls to the company hotline, 1-800-GET-COKE, told executives some people sounded as if they were discussing the death of a family member.<ref name="Oliver163">Oliver, ''op. cit.'', 163.</ref>


Finally, the Coca-Cola board decided that enough was enough and in early July, plans were set in motion to resume production of original Coca-Cola. Company president ] revealed years later, in the documentary ''The People vs. Coke'' (2002), that they realized this was the only right thing to do when they visited a small restaurant in Monaco and the owner proudly said they served "the real thing, it's a real Coke", offering them a chilled {{frac|6|1|2}} oz. glass bottle of original Coca-Cola.<ref name=ThePeoplevsCoke>{{cite episode |last1=Barry |first1=Daniel |network=] |title=The People v. Coke |series=]|date=2003 }}</ref>
Pepsi took advantage of the situation, running ads in which a first-time Pepsi drinker exclaimed "Now I know why Coke did it!"<ref name="Oliver148">Oliver,''op. cit.'', 148-49.</ref> However, Pepsi actually gained very few converts over Coke's switch, despite claiming a 14% sales increase over the same month the previous year, the largest sales growth in the company's history.<ref name="Time"/> The most alienated customers simply refused to buy New Coke rather than switch to Pepsi.<ref name="worse than">In a frequently retold story (see Matthews), an elderly woman at a ] supermarket confronts the Coca-Cola deliveryman as he restocks the shelves. As he attempts to put New Coke bottles on it, she hits him with her ], yelling "It tastes like shit!" A nearby counterpart from Pepsi begins to snicker, only to be told in turn, "You stay out of it! This is family business! Your stuff tastes worse than shit!"</ref> The company's director of corporate communications, Carlton Curtis, realized over time that they were more upset about the withdrawal of the old formula than the taste of the new one.<ref name="Oliver175">Oliver, ''op.cit.'', 175</ref>


===Reversal and return===
Gay Mullins, a ] ] looking to start a ] firm with $120,000 of borrowed money, formed the organization Old Cola Drinkers of America on May 28 to lobby Coca-Cola to either reintroduce the old formula or sell it to someone else. His organization eventually received over 60,000 phone calls. He also filed a ] ] against the company (which was quickly dismissed by a ] who said he preferred the taste of Pepsi<ref name="suit dismissal">June 21, 1985; ; ].</ref>), while nevertheless expressing interest in landing it as a client of his new firm should it reintroduce the old formula.<ref name="Oliver160">Oliver, ''op. cit.'', 160.</ref> He had also twice in informal blind taste tests conducted by the '']'' either failed to distinguish New Coke from old or expressed a preference for New Coke.<ref name="Oliver162">Oliver, ''op. cit.'', 162</ref>
On the afternoon of July 11, 1985, Coca-Cola executives held a press conference and announced the return of the original Coca-Cola formula, 79 days after New Coke's introduction. ] of ] interrupted '']'' with a special bulletin to share the news with viewers.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913612_1913610_1913608,00.html| title=Top Ten Bad Beverage Ideas|access-date=October 23, 2020|magazine=Time}}</ref> On the floor of the ], ] called the reintroduction "a meaningful moment in ]".<ref name=pender/> The company hotline received 31,600 calls in the two days after the announcement.{{r|cokelore}}


The new product continued to be marketed and sold as Coke (until 1990, when it was renamed '''Coke II''') while the original formula was named Coca-Cola Classic, and for a short time it was referred to by the public as Old Coke. Some who tasted the reintroduced formula were not convinced that the first batches really were the same formula that had supposedly been retired that spring. This was true for a few regions, because Coca-Cola Classic differed from the original formula in that all bottlers who had not already done so were using ] (HFCS) instead of ] to sweeten the drink, though most had by this time.<ref name=oliver/>{{rp|183}}
Still, despite ongoing resistance in the South, New Coke continued to do well in the rest of the country.<ref name="Oliver149-51" />. But executives were uncertain of how overseas markets would react. ], the company's ], heard doubts and skepticism from his relatives in ], where New Coke was slated to be introduced later that summer, when he went there on vacation.


"There is a twist to this story which will please every humanist and will probably keep Harvard professors puzzled for years," said Keough at a press conference. "The simple fact is that all the time and money and skill poured into consumer research on the new Coca-Cola could not measure or reveal the deep and abiding emotional attachment to original Coca-Cola felt by so many people."{{Citation needed|date=August 2022}}
Goizueta publicly voiced a complaint many company executives had been making in private as they shared letters the company had received thanking them for the change in formula, that bashing it had become "chic" and that, as had happened in the focus groups, peer pressure was keeping those who liked it from speaking up in its favor as vociferously as its critics were against it. ], the company's president and ], reported overhearing this exchange at his ] outside Atlanta:
<blockquote>
"Have you tried it?"<br>"Yes."<br>"Did you like it?"<br>"Yes, but I'll be damned if I'll let Coca-Cola know that."<ref name="Oliver154">Oliver, ''op. cit.'', 154</ref>
</blockquote>


Gay Mullins, founder of the organization ''Old Cola Drinkers of America'' (which had lobbied Coca-Cola to either reintroduce the old formula or sell it to someone else), was given the first case of Coca-Cola Classic.<ref name="Soda Pop Dreams"/> Later he complained that the drink now made him sick, which he blamed on the drink's use of HFCS; he also claimed that HFCS had dulled his taste buds, accounting for his preference for New Coke in taste tests.<ref name="Mother Jones story" />
===Revolt behind the scenes===


==Aftermath and legacy==
Some Coke executives had quietly been arguing for a reintroduction of the old formula as early as May.<ref name="Oliver157">Oliver, ''op. cit.'', 157.</ref> By June, when soft drink sales start to rise, the numbers showed the new formula was leveling among consumers. Executives feared social peer pressure was now affecting their bottom line. Some consumers began trying to obtain old Coke from overseas, where the new formula had not yet been introduced, as domestic stocks of the old drink were finally liquidated.<ref name="Oliver158">Oliver, ''op. cit.'', 158</ref> Over the course of the month, Coke's chemists also quietly reduced the ] level of the new drink in hopes that would assuage complaints about the flavor and allow its sweetness to be better perceived (ads pointing to this change were prepared, but never used).<ref name="Prendergast364">Prendergast, ''op. cit.'', 364</ref>
Six months after New Coke's introduction, sales of Coke had increased at twice the rate of rival Pepsi. By the end of 1985, Coca-Cola Classic was substantially outselling both New Coke and Pepsi. <ref name="summer sales">{{cite news|work=The New York Times|date=October 23, 1985|url= https://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/23/opinion/topics-cars-and-colas-coke-jokes.html |title=Topics; Cars and Cola Jokes|access-date=2019-07-17}}</ref>


New Coke's sales dwindled to a three percent share of the market, although it was selling quite well in Los Angeles and some other key markets.<ref name="summer sales"/> Later research, however, suggested that it was not the return of Coca-Cola Classic, but instead the largely unnoticed introduction of ], which appeared almost simultaneously with New Coke, that can be credited with the company's success in 1985.<ref name=oliver/>{{rp|187}}
In addition to the noisier public protests, ]s and bottles being emptied into the streets of southern cities, the company had more serious reasons for concerns. Its bottlers, and not just the ones still suing the company over syrup pricing policies, were expressing concern. While they had given Goizueta a ] when he announced the change at an April 22 bottlers' meeting at Atlanta's ], glad the company had finally taken some initiative in the face of Pepsi's advances<ref name="Soda Pop Dreams"/>, they were less enthusiastic about the taste.<ref name="Hays106, 116">Hays, ''op. cit.'', 106, 116</ref><ref name="Prendergast360">Prendergast, ''op. cit.'', 360</ref> Most of them saw great difficulty having to promote and sell a drink that had long been marketed as "The Real Thing", constant and unchanging, now that it had been changed.


The Coca-Cola Company spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out where it had made a mistake, ultimately concluding that it had underestimated the public reaction of the portion of the customer base that would be alienated by the switch. This would not emerge for several years afterward, however, and in the meantime the public simply concluded that the company had, as Keough suggested, failed to consider the public's attachment to the idea of what Coke's old formula represented. While that has become conventional wisdom in the ensuing years, some analyses have suggested otherwise.{{Citation needed|date=August 2022}}
The 20 bottlers still suing Coke had even more sport with the change in their legal arguments. Coke had argued in its defense when the suit was originally filed that the formula's uniqueness and difference from Diet Coke justified different pricing policies from the latter. But if the new formula was simply an HFCS-sweetened Diet Coke, how could that argument hold water, they asked? Bottlers, particularly in the South, were also tired of facing personal opprobrium over the change. Many reported that some acquaintances had stopped speaking to them, or had expressed displeasure in other emotionally hurtful ways. Some deliverymen were even assaulted.<ref name="Soda Pop Dreams"/> On June 23, several of the bottlers took these complaints to Coke's executives in a private meeting<ref name="Hays119"/>. With the company now fearing boycotts not only from its consumers but its bottlers, talks about reintroducing the old formula moved from if to when.


This ] version of the story served Coke's interests, however, as the episode did more to position and define Coca-Cola as a brand embodying values distinct from Pepsi. Allowing itself to be portrayed as a somewhat clueless large corporation forced to withdraw from a big change by overwhelming public pressure flattered customers, as Keough put it, "We love any retreat which has us rushing toward our best customers with the product they love the most."<ref name=pender/>{{rp|360}} Bottles and cans continued to bear the "Coca-Cola Classic" title until January 2009, when the company announced it would stop printing the word "Classic" on the labels of {{convert|16|USfloz|ml|adj=on}} bottles sold in parts of the southeastern United States.<ref name="wsj">{{cite news |title=Coke to Omit 'Classic' |first=Betsy |last=McKay |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=January 30, 2009 |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123332768434033495 }}</ref> The change was part of a larger strategy to rejuvenate the product's image.<ref name=wsj />
===Reversal===
Humbled, Coca-Cola executives announced the return of the original formula on July 10, less than three months after the new Coke's introduction. So important was the development that ]'s ] interrupted regular programming to share it with viewers. On the floor of the ], ] called it "a meaningful moment in ]".<ref name="Prendergast364"/>


] ended his long-time advertising for Coca-Cola, claiming that his commercials praising the superiority of the new formula had hurt his credibility. No one at Coca-Cola was fired for the change. When Goizueta died in 1997, the company's ] price was well above what it was when he had taken over 16 years earlier and its position as market leader even more firmly established. At the time, ], then head of PepsiCo's American operations, likened New Coke to the ].<ref name="Enrico1">'']''; July 22, 1985; 48</ref><ref>"Roger Enrico, the president of Pepsi-Cola U.S.A., was quick to proclaim the 10-week-old new Coke "the Edsel of the 80's" {{cite news |newspaper=The New York Times |title=IDEAS & TRENDS - Coca-Cola Swallows Its Words|url= https://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/14/weekinreview/ideas-trends-coca-cola-swallows-its-words.html |date=July 14, 1985}}</ref> Later, when he became PepsiCo's CEO, he modified his assessment of the situation, saying that had people been fired or demoted over New Coke, it would have sent a message that risk-taking was strongly discouraged at the company.<ref name="Enrico2">En{{cite book |author=Erico, Roger |author2=Kornbluth, Jesse|title=The Other Guy Blinked: How Pepsi Won the Cola Wars|publisher= ]|location= New York, NY|page= 240|isbn= 978-0-553-26632-0|year=1988}}</ref>
The new product continued to be sold and retained the name Coca-Cola, so the old product was named '''Coca-Cola Classic''', more commonly '''Coke Classic''' and later just '''Classic Coke'''. Many who tasted the hastily reintroduced formula were not convinced that the first batches really were the same formula that had supposedly been retired that spring. This is, in fact, partially true because Coca-Cola Classic differed from the original formula as all bottlers who hadn't already done so were using ] instead of ] to sweeten the drink.<ref name="Oliver183">Oliver, ''op.cit.'' 183</ref>


In the late 1990s, Zyman summed up the New Coke experience thus:
"There is a twist to this story which will please every humanist and will probably keep Harvard professors puzzled for years," said Keough at a press conference. "The simple fact is that all the time and money and skill poured into consumer research on the new Coca-Cola could not measure or reveal the deep and abiding emotional attachment to original Coca-Cola felt by so many people." The company made peace with Mullins and those he represented by giving him the first case of Coke Classic.<ref name="Soda Pop Dreams"/>
{{blockquote|Yes, it infuriated the public, cost us a ton of money and lasted for only 77 days before we reintroduced Coca-Cola Classic. Still, New Coke was a success because it revitalized the brand and reattached the public to Coke.<ref name="ZymanSki">{{cite news|author=Bigford, Andrew|magazine=SKI Magazine|url=http://www.skimag.com/skimag/fall_line/article/0,12795,327802,00.html|title=Last Run: Sergio Zyman|access-date=June 14, 2006|archive-date=May 4, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060504224211/http://www.skimag.com/skimag/fall_line/article/0,12795,327802,00.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>}}


New Coke continued to do what it had originally been designed to do: win taste tests. In 1987, '']'' surveyed 100 randomly selected cola drinkers, the majority of whom indicated a preference for Pepsi, with Classic Coke accounting for the remainder save two New Coke loyalists. When this group was given a chance to try all three in a blind test, New Coke slightly edged out Pepsi, but many drinkers reacted angrily to finding they had chosen a brand other than their favorite.<ref name="WSJ survey">{{cite book |author= Smith, Gary |title= Introduction to Statistical Reasoning |publisher= ] |orig-year= 1998 |pages= 186–87 |url= http://www.lhs.logan.k12.ut.us/~jsmart/cokedoc.htm |date= October 15, 2006 |access-date= October 16, 2006 |archive-date= September 2, 2006 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060902193633/http://www.lhs.logan.k12.ut.us/~jsmart/cokedoc.htm |url-status= dead }}</ref>
===Aftermath===
At first it looked as if Coke's worst fears had come to pass as Pepsi pulled into the lead, running yet another ad teasing Coke by suggesting that the whole thing was very confusing and consumers should just stick with Pepsi. But by the end of the year, Coke Classic was substantially outselling both New Coke and Pepsi, putting the company back into the number-one position it has enjoyed ever since. Six months after the rollout, Coke's sales had increased at more than twice the rate of Pepsi's.<ref name="summer sales">''The New York Times''; October 23, 1985; ; retrieved November 19, 2006.</ref> New Coke's sales, however, had dwindled to a mere three percent share of the market, although it was doing quite well in ] and some other key markets.<ref name="summer sales" /> In fact, it generated more sales in its first year on the market than the entire ] product line would in its first five years.<ref name="Bhidé">Bhidé, Amar; ''The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses'', ], 2000, 136.</ref> Later research, however, suggested that it was not the reintroduction of Classic Coke, but instead the less-heralded rollout of ], that can be credited with the company's success that year.<ref name="Oliver186-87">Oliver, ''op. cit.'', 187.</ref>


Goizueta claimed that he never once regretted the decision to change Coca-Cola. He even threw a tenth anniversary party for New Coke in 1995 and continued to drink it until his death in 1997.<ref name="Soda Pop Dreams"/>
Coke spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out where it had made a mistake, ultimately concluding that it had underestimated the public impact of the portion of the customer base that would be alienated by the switch. This narrative would not emerge for several years afterward, however, and in the meantime the public simply concluded that the company had, as Keough suggested, failed to consider the public's attachment to the idea of what Coke's old formula represented. While that has become conventional wisdom in the ensuing years, some analyses have suggested otherwise.


===After Coca-Cola Classic===
This populist version of the story served Coke's interests, however, as the whole episode did more to position and define Coca-Cola as a brand embodying values distinct from Pepsi than any deliberate effort to do so probably could have done. Allowing itself to be portrayed as a somewhat clueless large corporation forced to back off a big change by overwhelming public pressure flattered customers and added to the legend (as Keough put it, "We love any retreat which has us rushing toward our best customers with the product they love the most."<ref name="Prendergast364"/>). The bottles and cans continue to bear the "Coca-Cola Classic" title even though it has long since displaced its erstwhile usurper as the main brand.
{{redirect|Catch the wave|the wrestling tournament|Catch the Wave}}
In the short run, the reintroduction of original Coca-Cola saved Coke's sales figures and brought it back in the good graces of many customers and bottlers. Phone calls and letters to the company were as joyful and thankful as they had been angry and depressed. "You would have thought we'd cured cancer," said one executive.<ref name=oliver/>{{rp|181}}


But confusion reigned at the company's marketing department, which had to design a plan to market two Coca-Colas where such plans were inconceivable just a few months before. Coca-Cola Classic did not need much help, with a "Red, White and You" campaign showcasing the American virtues many of those who had clamored for its reintroduction had pointedly reminded the company that it embodied. But the company was at a loss to sell what was now just "Coke". "The Best Just Got Better" could no longer be used. Marketers fumbled for a strategy for the rest of the year.<ref name=pender/>{{rp|366}} Matters were not helped when McDonald's announced shortly after the reintroduction of Coca-Cola Classic, that it was immediately switching from New Coke back to original Coca-Cola at all of its restaurants.<ref name=pender/>{{rp|369}}
While in the short term the fiasco led Cosby to end his advertising for Coke, saying his commercials that praised the superiority of the new formula had hurt his credibility, no one at Coca-Cola was fired or otherwise held responsible for what is still widely perceived as a misstep, for the simple reason that it ultimately wasn't (in contrast with ]'s disastrous change to a cheaper formula in the early 1970s, which was also based on market research into product taste yet unquestionably detrimental to the company in the long term). When Goizueta died in 1997, the company's ] price was at a level well above what it was when he had taken over 16 years earlier and its position as market leader even more firmly established. At the time ], then head of Pepsi's American operations, likened New Coke to the ]<ref name="Enrico1">'']''; July 22, 1985; 48.</ref>. But he admitted later, when he himself became PepsiCo's CEO, that had people been fired or demoted over New Coke it would have sent a message that risk-taking was strongly discouraged at the company<ref name="Enrico2">Enrico, Roger and Kornbluth, Jesse; ''The Other Guy Blinked: How Pepsi Won the Cola Wars'', ], New York, NY, 240. ISBN 0-553-26632-2.</ref>.


] print ad from the "Catch the wave" campaign]]
In the late 1990s, Zyman summed up the New Coke experience thusly:
{{anchor|Catch the wave}} At the beginning of 1986, however, Coke's marketing team found a strategy by returning to one of their original motives for changing the formula: the youth market that preferred Pepsi. ], the purportedly computer-generated media personality played by ], was chosen to replace Cosby as the spokesman for Coke's new "Catch the wave" campaign. With his slicked-back hair and sunglasses, he was already known to much of the U.S. youth audience through appearances on ] and ]. The campaign was launched with a television commercial produced by ] New York, with Max saying in his trademark ], "C-c-c-catch the wave!" and referring to his fellow "Cokeologists".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.maxheadroom.com/mh_c_newcoke.html |website=The Max Headroom Chronicles|title=Max & N-N-New Coke|date= 2005|access-date= December 14, 2006}}</ref> In a riposte to Pepsi's televisual teasings, one showed Headroom asking a Pepsi can he was "interviewing" how it felt about more drinkers preferring Coke to it and then cut to the condensation forming on, and running down, the can. "S-s-s-s-sweating?" he asked.<ref>{{cite AV media |people=The Coca Cola Company |date=1986–87 |title=Max Headroom: Sweating? |url=https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=AwrJ_FArf6RkPSQM8GNXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZANMT0NVSTA1OENfMQRzZWMDcGl2cw--?p=max+headroom+sweating+pepsi+can&fr2=piv-web&fr=yfp-t#id=1&vid=fe18492a267f7db1918acf29530da4ee&action=view |access-date=2023-07-01}}</ref>
{{cquote|
Yes, it infuriated the public, cost a ton of money and lasted only 77 days before we reintroduced Coca-Cola Classic. Still, New Coke was a success because it revitalized the brand and reattached the public to Coke.<ref name="ZymanSki">Bigford, Andrew; ''SKI'' magazine; , exact date unknown, retrieved June 14, 2006</ref>
}}


The campaign was a huge success. "Max's 'C-C-Catch the wave' spots for Coke," a ''Newsweek'' article said, "two of which were directed by Ridley Scott, may be the most cleverly structured pitches ever aimed at the under-30 viewer."<ref name="Newsweek">{{cite magazine |last1=Waters |first1=Harry F. |last2=Huck |first2=Janet |last3=Smith |first3=Vern E. |date=April 20, 1987 |title=Mad About M-M-Max |magazine=Newsweek |pages=61–62}}</ref> John Reid, Coke's SVP of marketing, claimed that "76 percent of teenagers had heard of Max after our first flight of ads."<ref name="Newsweek" /> Surveys likewise showed that more than three-quarters of the target market were aware of the ads within two days. Coke's consumer hotline received more calls about Max than any previous spokesperson, some even asking if he had a girlfriend.<ref name="History of Coke TV ads">{{cite web|website=]|url=http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/ccmphtml/colahist.html|title= Highlights in the History of Coca-Cola Television Advertising|access-date= June 22, 2006}}</ref> The ads and campaign continued through 1987, and were chosen as best of 1986 by Video Storyboard of New York.<ref name="History of Coke TV ads"/>
New Coke continued to do what it had originally been designed to do: win taste tests. In 1987, '']'' surveyed 100 randomly selected cola drinkers, the majority of whom indicated a preference for Pepsi, with Classic Coke accounting for all save 2 New Coke loyalists. Given a chance to try all three in a blind test, New Coke slightly edged out Pepsi. Yet many drinkers reacted angrily to finding they had chosen a brand other than their favorite.<ref name="WSJ survey">Cited in Smith, Gary; ''Introduction to Statistical Reasoning'', ] 1998, 186-87, excerpt retrieved October 15, 2006.</ref>


===Coke II===
Goizueta never once regretted the decision, even throwing an anniversary party for New Coke in 1995, and continued to have it produced for his personal consumption until shortly before his own death.
By 1990, the Coca-Cola Company was ready to introduce a radically different marketing campaign for New Coke under the name Coke II, but in only one market – ], a Pepsi stronghold. The company and bottler put significant resources into the launch of Coke II, including offering 16 oz. cans with 4 oz. free, new "We've Got Your Number" radio and TV ads, and on-air giveaways on ]. The new ads tried to explain the taste of Coke II as having "real cola taste plus the sweetness of Pepsi, two things that add up to smooth, refreshing Coke II." Pepsi struck back with legal challenges to the taste claim, lowered its in-store prices, and ramped up its own advertising. Coke II market share rose to 4% early in the test, but then fell back to 2.3%.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Bird |first=Laura |date=July 30, 1990 |title=Coke II: The Sequel |magazine=Adweek's Marketing Week |pages=4–5}}</ref> The test was not extended past Spokane.<ref>{{cite news |last=McDermott |first=John |date=April 26, 2015 |title="New Coke" Aftertaste Recalled on Johns Island, 30 Years Later |work=Post and Courier |location=Charleston}}</ref>


In a market already offering several choices of drinks calling themselves "Coke" in some fashion or another, the public saw little reason to embrace a product they had firmly rejected seven years earlier. By 1998, Coke II could only be found in a few scattered markets in the ], ] and some overseas territories. In July 2002, Coca-Cola announced that Coke II would be discontinued entirely.<ref name="Coke II discontinuation"/>
==New Coke after Coke Classic==
In the short run the reintroduction of old Coke saved Coke's sales numbers and brought it back in the good graces of many customers and bottlers. Phone calls and letters to the company were as joyful and thankful as they had been angry and depressed ("You would have thought we'd cured cancer", said one executive<ref name="Oliver181">Oliver, ''op. cit.'', 181.</ref>).


On August 16, 2002, the Coca-Cola Company announced a change of the label of Coke Classic in which the word "Classic" was no longer so prominent, leading to speculation that it would eventually be removed and the last traces of New Coke eliminated.<ref name="Coke II discontinuation">John H. McConnell; ''How to Design, Implement and Interpret an Employee Survey'', AMACOM Division of the American Management Association, {{ISBN|0-8144-0709-9}}, 2003, 3.</ref> In 2009, Coca-Cola permanently removed "Classic" from its North American packaging.<ref>{{cite news|last=Clifford|first=Stephen|title=Coca-Cola Deleting 'Classic' From Coke Label |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/business/media/31coke.html |newspaper=]|date=January 31, 2009|access-date=October 3, 2011}}</ref>
But confusion reigned at the company's marketing department, which had to come up with a plan to market two Cokes where such plans had been completely off the table mere months before. Classic Coke didn't need much help, with a "Red, White and You" campaign showcasing the American virtues many of those who had clamored for its reintroduction had pointedly reminded the company it embodied. But the company was at a loss to sell what was now just Coke. "The Best Just Got Better" could no longer be used. Marketers fumbled for a strategy for the rest of the year.<ref name="Prendergast366">Prendergast, ''op. cit.'', 366</ref> Matters were not helped when McDonald's announced shortly after the reintroduction that it was switching over to Classic Coke at every store across the country<ref name="Prendergast369">Prendergast, ''op. cit.'', 369.</ref>
] print ad from "Catch the Wave."]]
At the beginning of 1986, however, Coke's marketing team found a strategy by returning to their original motives for changing the drink — the youth market so beholden to Pepsi. ], the purportedly computer-generated ] media personality played by ], was chosen to replace Cosby as the spokesman (of sorts) for Coke's new "Catch the Wave" campaign. A very stylish figure in his jacket and ], he was already known to much of the U.S. youth audience through appearances on ], where he had first appeared in the ]'s "Paranoimia" ], and ]. The campaign was launched with a memorable ], produced by ] New York, with Max saying in his trademark ], "C-c-c-catch the wave!" and referring to his fellow "Cokeologists". In a riposte to Pepsi's televisual teasings, one showed Headroom asking a Pepsi can he was "interviewing" how it felt about more drinkers preferring the new Coke to it and then cut to the condensation forming on the can. "Sweating?" he asked.


It was a huge success, and surveys likewise showed that more than three-quarters of the target market were aware of the ads within two days. Coke's corporate hotline received more calls about him than any previous spokesperson, some even asking if he was married. <ref name="History of Coke TV ads">], , retrieved June 22, 2006</ref> Cartoonist ] followed suit with "]", a similar cyber-caricature of ], in some of his '']'' ]. The ads and campaign continued throughout the year and were chosen as best of 1986 by Video Storyboard of New York.<ref name="History of Coke TV ads"/>

However, some stutterers and advocates for them complained that the ads were insulting. Some viewers found them annoying, and ultimately Coke itself found that some viewers thought they were Pepsi ads.

==Coke II==
]
In 1985, New Coke was sold only in the ] and ], and for a short time in ], while the original formula continued to be sold in the rest of the world (although had the new version been a success it would presumably have been introduced worldwide). But New Coke was eventually returned to the company's product portfolio; it was test-marketed under the name Coke II in 1990 and officially renamed Coke II in 1992. So, having determined not to make it a second brand, the company ultimately did exactly that.

However, Coke, perhaps not wanting to get burned a second time, did little to promote or otherwise distinguish it, and in a market already offering far more choice of drinks calling themselves "Coke" in some fashion or another, the public saw little reason to embrace a product they had firmly rejected seven years earlier, and within a year or so Coke II was largely off the American shelves again. By 1998 it could only be found in some scattered ] markets, and sometime in 2002 was discontinued entirely. On August 16 of that year, Coke announced a change of the label in which the word "Classic" was no longer so prominent, leading to speculation that it would eventually be removed and the last legacy of New Coke eliminated from the company's packaging.<ref name="Coke II discontinuation">John H. McConnell; ''How to Design, Implement and Interpret an Employee Survey'', AMACOM Division of the ], ISBN 0-8144-0709-9, 2003, 3. As of late 2006, however, "Classic" remains on the label, albeit in slightly smaller type and below the name of the drink.</ref> The production of Coke II is, however, still theoretically possible- comparatively few brands have been canceled by Coca-Cola outright, and the decision is usually left to semi-independent bottling companies to decide what they will bottle.

It has found acceptance in some foreign markets. ], it was still selling in ] (one of the four ]), along with ]. It is also still very popular in the ] ], where it is still sold in most ] vending machines.
]
===Commercial legacy=== ===Commercial legacy===
"For a product so widely despised," noted '']'' blogger Tim Nudd in 2006, "New Coke (a.k.a. Coke II) still gets an admirable amount of ink." He noted '']: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking'' (2005) by ], and '']: Evolution, Extinction and Economics'' (2005) by ], that dealt with it at some length, as well as two recent mentions in '']'' and '']''.<ref name="Nudd">{{cite web|author=Nudd, Tim|date= February 24, 2006|url=http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2006/02/where_are_the_l.html |title=Where are the last few cans of New Coke?|website=]|access-date=June 26, 2006}}</ref>


Within Coca-Cola, the role the company's bottlers had played in forcing its hand led executives to create a new subsidiary, ], which bought out several of the larger bottlers and placed distribution and marketing efforts more tightly under Coca-Cola's control.{{citation needed|date=January 2016}}
New Coke had the spotlight for only three months but casts a long shadow, in both the business world and popular culture, that can be seen today. It is most frequently mentioned as a cautionary tale among businesses against tampering too extensively with a well-established and successful brand.

"For a product so widely despised," noted '']'' blogger Tim Nudd in 2006, more than two decades later, "New Coke (aka Coke II) still gets an admirable amount of ink." He noted ''Blink'' and another recent book that dealt with it at some length, as well as two recent mentions in '']'' and '']''.<ref name="Nudd">Nudd, Tim; February 24, 2006; ; '']''; retrieved June 26, 2006</ref>.

Within Coca-Cola, the role the company's bottlers had played in forcing its hand led executives to create a new subsidiary, Coca-Cola Enterprises, which bought several of the larger ones out and put distribution and marketing efforts more tightly under its control.

==Conspiracy theories==


===Conspiracy theories===
<!--- Editors: Please make sure anything you introduce here is cited and not phrased speculatively. Yes, this is difficult with "conspiracy theories". But you could at least try. Something you heard somewhere is just not good enough. If you really think it should be in here but you have no sourcing better than that, put it on the talk page. ---> <!--- Editors: Please make sure anything you introduce here is cited and not phrased speculatively. Yes, this is difficult with "conspiracy theories". But you could at least try. Something you heard somewhere is just not good enough. If you really think it should be in here but you have no sourcing better than that, put it on the talk page. --->


Coca-Cola's sudden reversal on New Coke led to several ]s and ] that have circulated in the years since to explain how a company with the resources and experience of Coca-Cola could have made such an apparently colossal blunder. The Coca-Cola Company's apparently sudden reversal on New Coke led to ], including:


* The company intentionally changed the formula, hoping consumers would be upset with the company, and demand the original formula to return, which in turn would cause sales to spike.<ref name=Snopes>{{cite web|last=Mikkelson|first=Barbara|title=Knew Coke / New Coke Origin|website=]|url=http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp|date=March 13, 2007|access-date=March 16, 2010}}</ref> Keough, the company president, answered this speculation by saying "We're not that dumb, and we're not that smart."<ref name=Snopes/><ref name="ThePeoplevsCoke" />
The simplest was that the company had planned all along to reintroduce the old formula as a ploy to reinvigorate interest in the product. There have been apocryphal tales of employees seeing batches of the old formula continuing to be produced well after April, and others who say that long before July they saw the graphics for the Coke Classic containers (which Coke said at the time were hastily conceived and produced within a day, which raised some eyebrows as large corporations rarely do such momentous things with that much haste). The company denies the accusation to this day.
* The putative switch was planned all along to cover the change from sugar-sweetened Coke to much less expensive high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a theory that was supposedly given credence by the apparently different taste of Coke Classic when it first hit the market (the U.S. ] association took out a full-page ad lambasting Coke for using HFCS in all bottling of the old formula when it was reintroduced).<ref name=oliver/> In fact, Coca-Cola began allowing bottlers to remove up to half of the product's cane sugar as early as 1980, five years before the introduction of New Coke. By the time the new formula was introduced, most bottlers in the U.S. had already sweetened Coca-Cola entirely with HFCS.<ref name=Snopes/>
* It provided cover for the final removal of all ] derivatives from the product to placate the ], which was trying to ] the plant worldwide to combat an increase in ] trafficking and consumption. While Coke's executives were indeed relieved the new formula contained no coca and concerned about the long-term future of the ]-owned coca fields that supplied it in the face of increasing DEA pressure to end cultivation of the crop, according to author ] there was no direct pressure from the DEA on Coca-Cola to do so.<ref name=pender/> This theory was endorsed in a ] article, as well as by historian Bartow Elmore, author of '']'',<ref name=NYT>{{cite web|work=]|title='Citizen Coke,' by Bartow J. Elmore|author=Macy, Beth|date=January 2, 2015|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/books/review/citizen-coke-by-bartow-j-elmore.html}}</ref> who claims the reformulation was made in response to the escalating ] by the ].<ref>{{cite magazine|magazine=TIME|url=https://time.com/3950205/new-coke-history-america/|title=New Coke History America}}</ref>


===Taste test problems===
Other explanations that have been proffered:
In his book '']'' (2005), ] relates his conversations with market researchers in the food industry who put most of the blame for the failure of New Coke on the flawed nature of ]. They claim most are subject to ]es. Tests such as the ] were "sip tests", meaning that drinkers were given small samples (less than a can or bottle's worth) to try. Gladwell contends that what people say they like in these tests may not reflect what they actually buy to drink at home over several days.<ref name="glad">{{cite book|last1=Gladwell|first1=Malcolm|title=Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking|date=2005|publisher=Back Bay|location=New YorK (etc.)|isbn=978-0-316-17232-5|edition=1.|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/blinkpowerofthin00glad}}</ref> Carol Dollard, who once worked in product development for PepsiCo, told Gladwell: "I've seen many times where the sip test will give you one result and the home-use test will give you the exact opposite."<ref name="glad" />{{rp|159}} For example, although many consumers react positively to the sweeter taste of Pepsi in small volumes, it may become unattractively sweet when drunk in quantity. A more comprehensive testing regimen could possibly have revealed this, Gladwell's sources believe.<ref name="glad" />
* The putative switch was planned all along to cover the change from sugar-sweetened Coke to much more inexpensive ]&nbsp;(HFCS), a theory that was supposedly given credence by the apparently different taste of Coke Classic when it first hit the market (the U.S. sugar trade association took out a full-page ad lambasting Coke for using HFCS in all bottling of the old formula when it was reintroduced.<ref name="Oliver183" />). However, as noted above, some Coke bottlers had been using HFCS for several years already, though it is true that eventually all bottlers would abandon cane sugar. Also, many of those who claimed the reintroduced Coke Classic tasted different had not been able to sample the old drink for a couple of months, and naturally their memories may have played a part in idealizing the taste.
* In another theory, it provided cover for the final removal of all ] derivatives from the product to placate the ], which was trying to ] the plant worldwide to combat an increase in ] trafficking and consumption. While Coke's executives were indeed relieved that the new formula contained no coca, and were indeed concerned about the long-term future of the ]-owned coca fields that supplied it in the face of increasing DEA pressure to end cultivation of the crop, there was no direct pressure from the DEA on Coca-Cola to do so.<ref name="Prendergast355"/>
*It is also thought that Coke may have introduced the product in order to re-assert their logo copyright which was due to expire in 1985, 100 years after the logo had first been copyrighted.{{citation needed}}
* Yet another theory agrees that the switch was meant ultimately to fail, but that it was not about providing cover for any substantive change in the product, instead a sort of pre-emptive ]. Pepsi, this theory holds, had been developing and considering marketing a product called Pepsi Supreme which was to have tasted more like Coke as a way to increase its market share and attract yet more Coke drinkers to its product line. By pulling a similar move themselves, Coke guaranteed, it is believed, that any move by Pepsi would look like mere imitation and thus headed off a challenge to its flagship drink. (Pepsi supposedly had such a product in development at the time, and was going to introduce it if the combination of New Coke and Coke Classic had successfully cut into its market share; but since that never happened Pepsi Supreme never saw the light of day.)
* Another theory calls the whole thing a ] manipulation scheme. The subsequent drop in Coca-Cola's share price made it easier for the company and its primary owners to buy back shares, un-diluting the company's ownership. Once sufficient shares had been purchased or taken off the market, "classic" Coke was returned to market to drive the stock price back up.{{citation needed}} However, as the company's share price went up on New Coke's introduction and closed the year up 33.5%, it is unlikely that such a scheme would have been successful, and indeed Coke's executives were looking to boost the share price through their actions.<ref name="Oliver189">Oliver, ''op. cit.'', 189</ref>
* A final theory suggests that the company was attempting to increase the amount of shelf space for its products in supermarkets in order to make Pepsi look smaller by comparison. This is a common reason for ], as the introduction of Cherry Coke and more recent variations illustrates, but if that were the real goal, the new formula could have simply been introduced alongside the old one to begin with.


Gladwell reports that other market researchers have criticized Coke for not realizing that much of its success as a brand came from what they call ], a phenomenon first described by marketer Louis Cheskin in the late 1940s: tasters unconsciously add their reactions to the drink's packaging into their assessment of the taste.<ref name="Cheskin">{{cite journal|author=Cheskin, Louis |author2=Ward, L.B.|date= September 1948|title=Indirect Approach to Market Reactions|journal=]}}</ref> For example, one of the researchers told Gladwell that his firm's research found ] drinkers believed a sample from a bottle with a more yellow label was more "lemony", although the flavor was identical.<ref name="glad" />{{rp|163}} In Coke's case, it is alleged that buyers, subject to sensation transference, were also "tasting" the red color of the container and distinctive Coca-Cola script. It was therefore, in their opinion, a mistake to focus solely on the product and its taste. "The mistake Coke made was in attributing their loss in share entirely to the product." said Darrel Rhea, an executive with the firm Cheskin founded. He points to PepsiCo's work in establishing a youth-oriented brand identity from the 1960s as having more bearing on its success.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gordon|first1=Ian|last2=Frank|first2=Thomas|title=The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism.|journal=The Journal of American History|date=December 1999|volume=86|issue=3|pages=1396|doi=10.2307/2568708|jstor=2568708}}</ref>
Keough answered all speculation by saying "We're not that dumb, and we're not that smart," as Coke Classic was reintroduced.


Coke considered but rejected gradually changing the drink's flavor incrementally, without announcing they were doing so. Executives feared the public would notice and exaggerate slight differences in taste. In 1998, Joel Dubow, a professor of ] at ], tested this "flavor balance hypothesis" and argued that it was not true. He and fellow researcher Nancy Childs tested mixtures of Coca-Cola Classic and Coke II and found that the gradual changes of taste were not noticed by a significant number of tasters. Coke, he said, would have succeeded had it chosen this strategy.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Dubow|first1=Joel S|last2=Childs|first2=Nancy M|title=New Coke, Mixture Perception, and the Flavor Balance Hypothesis|journal=Journal of Business Research|date=November 1998|volume=43|issue=3|pages=147–155|doi=10.1016/s0148-2963(97)00220-8}}</ref>
==Was it really necessary?==
Although the reason for Coke's early-'80s loss of market share was originally thought by both companies and all observers to be Pepsi's sweeter taste, later research has suggested otherwise.


==2019 reintroduction==
The real culprit, according to this, turned out to be the 1965 merger between ] and ] that created ]. The new company was able to take advantage of Frito-Lay's highly developed ] ] system to leverage more shelf space at supermarkets and other food retailers. With more shelf space available, sale specials were common for Pepsi products. Price, not loyalty, was the motivating factor for most retail consumers, and Pepsi gained substantial market share as a result{{fact}}.
On May 21, 2019, Coca-Cola announced that the 1985 reformulation (once again bearing the name "New Coke") would be reintroduced in limited quantities to promote the ] of the ] series '']''.<ref> CBS News, May 21, 2019</ref> The show, set in 1985, included cans of New Coke in three of the season's episodes.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Haasch |first1=Palmer |title=New Coke is the weirdest pop culture throwback in Stranger Things 3 |url=https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/6/20683542/stranger-things-3-new-coke-1985-coca-cola-where-to-buy |website=polygon.com |publisher=Vox Media |access-date=5 September 2020 |date=6 July 2019}}</ref>


About 500,000 cans of New Coke were produced for the promotion,<ref>{{cite web |title=New Coke and Netflix Take Viewers Back to 1985 for Stranger Things Season 3 in First-of-its-Kind Partnership |url=https://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/new-coke-and-netflix-take-viewers-back-to-1985-for-stranger-things |website=The Coca-Cola Company |access-date=21 May 2019 |archive-date=August 21, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190821224636/https://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/new-coke-and-netflix-take-viewers-back-to-1985-for-stranger-things |url-status=dead }}</ref> to be sold mostly online.<ref name="Stranger">{{Cite web|url=https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/05/233769/stranger-things-3-new-coke|title="Stranger Things" Brought Back New Coke & Broke The Internet|last=Fredette|first=Meagan|website=www.refinery29.com|language=en|access-date=2020-03-27}}</ref> So many people were eager to buy it, however, that the volume of orders crashed the Coca-Cola website. Many fans complained because they wanted to order some, and the company apologized for the delays on social media platforms. It was also available in select vending machines in cities such as New York and Los Angeles.<ref name="Stranger"/>
===Taste-test issues===
In talks, and his book '']'', author ] relates his conversations with market researchers in the food industry who put most of the blame for the failure of New Coke on the flawed nature of ]s. They claim most are subject to ]es.


The reintroduction of New Coke received friendlier reviews than it had in 1985. A writer at '']'' said it was "nice and refreshing", lacking the lingering ] of classic Coca-Cola. "I would take this over other colas," said a colleague.<ref>{{cite news|last=Suknanan|first=Jasmin|title='New Coke' Is Back After 34 Years—Here's What It Tastes Like|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasminsuknanan/new-coke-1980s-taste-test|newspaper=]|date=May 25, 2019|access-date=February 24, 2021}}</ref> '']'' staffers also had favorable impressions: "sweeter and smoother than regular Coke", "almost syrupy in a pleasant way", although an older member who recalled the original rollout in 1985 said it had not improved for them.<ref>{{cite magazine|last=Campbell-Schmitt|first=Adam|title=We Compared New Coke to Coca-Cola—Here Are Our Thoughts|url=https://www.foodandwine.com/news/new-coke-vs-coca-cola-taste-test|magazine=] |date=May 29, 2019|access-date=February 24, 2021}}</ref>
Tests such as the ] were what are called in the industry "sip tests," meaning that drinkers were given small samples (less than a can or bottle's worth) to try out. Gladwell contends that what people say they like in these tests may not reflect what they will actually buy to sit at home and drink over a week or so.<ref name="Gladwell"> Gladwell, Malcolm; '']'', ], New York, NY 2005. 155-166. ISBN 0-316-17232-4.</ref> Carol Dollard, who once worked in new product development for Pepsi, told Gladwell, "I've seen many times where the sip test will give you one result and the home-use test will give you the exact opposite."<ref name="Dollard">Gladwell, ''op. cit.'', 159.</ref> For example, although many consumers react positively to the sweeter taste of Pepsi when drinking it in small volumes, it may become unattractively sickly when drunk in quantity. Coke, on the other hand, may be more attractive for drinking in volume, precisely ''because'' it is less sweet. A more comprehensive testing regime could possibly have revealed this, Gladwell's sources believe.<ref name="Gladwell" />


Tim Murphy, a reporter for the ] magazine '']'', suggested that, in ultimately overcoming an initial resistance that he saw as ], New Coke had won the war after losing the battle. "Soft-drink trends have also proven Coke right about a willingness to adapt to new tastes: A majority of Coke sales today are non-Classic products, such as Diet and Coke Zero," he wrote. This explained the favorable response from tasters. "It tasted weird then; it tastes like what's normal now."<ref name="Mother Jones story" />
Gladwell reports that other market researchers have criticized Coke for not realizing that much of its success as a brand came from what they call ], a phenomenon first described by marketer Louis Cheskin in the late 1940s: tasters unconsciously add their reactions to the drink's packaging into their assessment of the taste<ref name="Cheskin">Cheskin, Louis and Ward, L.B.; ]; "Indirect Approach to Market Reactions," ;'']'', referenced by Gladwell.</ref>. For example, one of the researchers told Gladwell that his firm's research had found 7-Up drinkers offered a sample from a bottle with a distinctly more yellowish label believe the flavor to be more ]y, although it wasn't.<ref name="7UP">Gladwell, ''op. cit.'', 163.</ref>


==See also==
In Coke's case, it is alleged that buyers, subject to sensation transference, were "tasting" the red color of the container and distinctive Coca-Cola script as much as the drink itself. It was thus, in their opinion, a mistake to focus solely on the product and its taste. "The mistake Coke made," said Darrel Rhea, an executive with the firm Cheskin founded, "was in attributing their loss in share entirely to the product"<ref name="7UP"/>. He points to Pepsi's work in establishing a youth-oriented brand identity from the 1960s onward<ref name="Frank">For general background on this see Frank, Thomas, The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture and the Rise of Hip Consumerism, University of Chicago Press, 1997, 168-183 ("Carnival and Cola: Hip vs. Square in the Cola wars").</ref> as having more bearing on its success.
{{Portal|1980s|Drink}}
* ]
* ]


===Other soft drink failures===
An alternative Coke considered but rejected was to have gradually changed the drink's flavor incrementally, without announcing that they were doing so. Executives feared that the public would notice and exaggerate slight differences in taste. But Joel Dubow, a professor of food marketing at ], tested this "flavor balance hypothesis" and argues that it was not true. He and fellow researcher Nancy Childs tested mixtures of classic Coke and Coca-Cola II and found that the gradual changes of taste were not noticed by a significant amount of tasters. Coke, he said, would have succeeded had it chosen this strategy.<ref name="FBH">J. Dubow and N. Childs (1998). "". ''Journal of Business Research'' '''43''' (3): 147-155.</ref>
* ], early 1990s failure for that company that is occasionally reintroduced for limited periods

* ], bottled water brand produced by Coca-Cola that failed in the United Kingdom despite huge marketing push
==New Coke in popular culture==
* ], failed Coca-Cola promotion in 1990

* ], Coca-Cola brand intended to appeal to ] drinkers in early 1990s known for its counterintuitive marketing, managed by Sergio Zyman
As with business, New Coke has enjoyed a healthy afterlife in pop-culture references.

*'']'' spoofed the conspiracy theory in "]". In it, ], ], and ] are captured by the ] queen, who dangles Leela over a vat of Slurm fluid which the ] queen herself expelled out her ].
<blockquote>
Slurm Queen: "Soon, you'll be submerged in Royal ], which in a matter of minutes will transform you into a Slurm Queen like myself!"<br>

Glurmo (Slurm soldier): "But your Highness, she's a commoner. Her Slurm will taste foul."<br>

Slurm Queen: "Yes. Which is why we'll market it as New Slurm. Then, when everyone hates it, we'll bring back Slurm Classic and make billions!"
</blockquote>

*On ]'s '']'', comedian ] voiced his opinion on the development of New Coke: "The pope (]) was involved...the pope was more than involved."

*In "]", a ninth-season episode of '']'', stand-up comic Jimmy Vaulmer/Swanson says in a performance "Well, they're getting a new pope, have you seen this, have you heard about this? Apparently, they're going to call the new one 'New Pope' and the John Paul 'Pope Classic.' ... Wow, what a wonderful audience."

* On the television show '']'', one episode includes Bleeding Gums Murphy having a guest star spot on '']''. Introducing him as Grandpa Murphy, ] then has to explain to his children why they have a fourth grandpa and why this one is also a jazz musician. Bill Cosby replies, "Oh, oh you see, the kids, they listen to the ], which gives them the ]. With the hippin' and the hoppin' and the bippin' and the boppin', so they don't know what the ] is all about. You see jazz is like ] Pudding Pop. No, actually, it's more like ] film. No, actually it's like the New Coke — it'll be around forever. Heh heh heh." In another episode, ] half-brother Herb claims that New Coke could be the blunder of the century. One of the other homeless men says, "Hey, I invented that!" In a comic strip of ], a homeless man who Lisa thinks is ] is forced to reveal that his poverty is because of New Coke.

* In the Broadway version of '']'', which takes place in 1985, it is mentioned in the song "All About The Green." It is said that all the stock should be bought for New Coke instead of ], because no one was likely to pay three dollars for a cup of coffee in the future.

* In 2004 WWE Wrestler ] was managed by his father ], who referred to himself as 'Chavo Classic'.

* In ]'s novel '']'' - the sequel to '']'' - the character of Forrest Gump is responsible for developing the recipe for New Coke.

* The Off-Broadway play ''Fizz'' written by Rogelio Martinez, is the "totally fictionalized story of America's most successful blunder," which tells the story of Roberto Gozuieta during the introduction of New Coke. It opened at the Ohio Theater in New York City on ], ].<ref name="FIZZ">Noveck, Lauren; September 14, 2006; ; nytheatre.com; retrieved November 20, 2006.</ref>

* In '']'', the main character is transported from the 1970s to the late 1980s. He asks for a Coke, and is confused when the response is "Do you want New Coke, ], ], ], or ]-free Coke?"

* During a flashback in the famous shooting episode of ] ''In the Shadow of Two Gunmen'' ] tells a movie executive "You know why the New Coke marketing campaign failed? Because nobody liked New Coke!"

==See also==
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


==References== ==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

<div class="references-small"><references/></div>


==Further reading== ==Further reading==
*Civille, Gail Vance and Lyon, Brenda G., ''Aroma and Flavor Lexicon for Sensory Evaluation'', American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA 1996. * {{cite book |author=Civille, Gail Vance |author2=Lyon, Brenda G.|title=Aroma and Flavor Lexicon for Sensory Evaluation|publisher= American Society for Testing and Materials|location= West Conshohocken, PA |date=1996}}
*Hine, Thomas; ''The Total Package: The Secret History and Hidden Meanings of Boxes, Bottles, Cans, and Other Persuasive Containers''; Back Bay Books, 1997. ISBN 0-316-36546-7. * {{cite book |author=Hine, Thomas|title=The Total Package: The Secret History and Hidden Meanings of Boxes, Bottles, Cans, and Other Persuasive Containers|publisher=Back Bay Books|date=1997|isbn=978-0-316-36546-8|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/totalpackage00thom}}
*Imram, Nazlin (1999). "The role of visual cues in customer perception and acceptance of a food product", ''Nutrition & Food Science''', '''99''' (5):224-230 * {{cite journal |author=Imram, Nazlin |date=1999|title=The role of visual cues in customer perception and acceptance of a food product|journal=Nutrition & Food Science|volume=99|number=5|pages=224–230|doi=10.1108/00346659910277650}}
*Leven, S. and Levine, D., (1996). "", ''Cognitive Science'', '''20''':271-299. * {{cite journal|author=Leven, S.|author2=Levine, D.|date=1996|url=http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~j_montie/Coke.html|title=Multiattribute Decision Making in Context: A Dynamic Neural Network Methodology|journal=Cognitive Science|volume=20|issue=2|pages=271–299|doi=10.1207/s15516709cog2002_4|access-date=November 20, 2006|archive-date=January 13, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070113145422/http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~j_montie/Coke.html|url-status=dead}}
*Meilgaard, Morten; Civille, Gail Vance and Carr, B. Thomas, ''Sensory Evaulation Techniques'', third edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. 1999. * {{cite book|author1=Meilgaard, Morten |author2=Civille, Gail Vance |author3=Carr, B. Thomas |title=Sensory Evaluation Techniques|edition=Third |publisher= CRC Press|location= Boca Raton, FL|date= 1999}}
*Wilson, Timothy and Schooler, Jonathan (1999), "Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions," ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', '''60'''(2):181-192. * {{cite journal |author=Wilson, Timothy |author2=Schooler, Jonathan |date=1999|title=Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=60|number=2|pages=181–192|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.181|pmid=2016668 }}


==External links== ==External links==
* {{cite news |url=http://members.lycos.co.uk/thomassheils/newcoke.htm |title=God, What a Blunder: The New Coke Story |author=Bastedo, Michael |author2=Davis, Angela |website=lycos.co.uk |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060515214006/http://members.lycos.co.uk/thomassheils/newcoke.htm |archive-date=May 15, 2006 |df=mdy-all }} With a good talk on the problems of their research methodologies (focus groups v. surveys).
*
* {{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp|title= Coke Lore (Knew Coke) — Snopes' take on New Coke|website=Snopes|date= May 2, 1999}}
* With a good talk on the problems of their research methodologies (focus groups v. surveys).
* {{cite web |url=http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/coke-lore-new-coke |website=Coca-Cola |title=Coke Lore: New Coke |access-date=October 30, 2013 |archive-date=December 11, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191211062459/http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/coke-lore-new-coke |url-status=dead }}
* from ] news in Los Angeles, courtesy of ].com
* {{cite web|url=http://stjohnscollegeblog.weebly.com/1/post/2012/2/new-coke-a-market-research-disaster.html|title= New Coke - a market research disaster? |website= St John's College Blog|date=2012}}
* — ]' take on New Coke
* {{cite news|url= http://edition.cnn.com/resources/video.almanac/1985/coke/new.coke.50sec.lg.mov|title= QuickTime news clip on New Coke introduction|work= ]|location= Los Angeles|publisher= ]|url-status= bot: unknown|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080228192304/http://edition.cnn.com/resources/video.almanac/1985/coke/new.coke.50sec.lg.mov|archive-date= February 28, 2008|df= mdy-all}}


{{Varieties of Coca-Cola}}
{{Cc brands}}
{{Coca-Cola}}


] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
]
]

Latest revision as of 04:14, 12 December 2024

1985 reformulation of Coca-Cola

A can of New Coke
Product typeCola
OwnerThe Coca-Cola Company
CountryUnited States
IntroducedApril 23, 1985
DiscontinuedJuly 2002

New Coke was the unofficial name of a reformulation of the soft drink Coca-Cola, introduced by the Coca-Cola Company in April 1985. It was renamed Coke II in 1990, and discontinued in July 2002.

By 1985, Coca-Cola had been losing market share to diet soft drinks and non-cola beverages for several years. Blind taste tests suggested that consumers preferred the sweeter taste of the competing product Pepsi-Cola, and so the Coca-Cola recipe was reformulated. The American public reacted negatively, and New Coke was considered a major failure.

The company reintroduced the original formula within three months, rebranded "Coca-Cola Classic", resulting in a significant sales boost. This led to speculation that the New Coke formula had been a ploy to stimulate sales of the original Coca-Cola, which the company has vehemently denied. The story of New Coke remains influential as a cautionary tale against tampering with an established successful brand.

Background

After World War II, Coca-Cola held 60 percent of the market share for cola. By 1983, it had declined to under 24 percent, largely because of competition from Pepsi-Cola. Pepsi had begun to outsell Coke in supermarkets; Coke maintained its lead only through venues such as soda vending machines and fast food restaurants, especially McDonald's.

Market analysts believed baby boomers were more likely to purchase diet drinks as they aged and became health- and weight-conscious. Growth in the full-calorie segment would come from younger drinkers, who at that time favored Pepsi by increasing margins. Meanwhile, the overall market for colas steadily declined in the early 1980s, as consumers increasingly purchased diet and non-cola soft drinks, many of which were sold by Coca-Cola. This further eroded Coca-Cola's market share. When Roberto Goizueta became Coca-Cola CEO in 1980, he told employees there would be no "sacred cows" in how the company did business, including how it formulated its drinks.

Development

Coca-Cola's senior executives commissioned a secret project headed by marketing vice president Sergio Zyman and Coca-Cola USA president Brian Dyson to create a new flavor for Coke. This project was named "Project Kansas", from a photo of Kansas journalist William Allen White drinking a Coke; the image had been used extensively in Coca-Cola advertising and hung on several executives' walls.

The sweeter cola overwhelmingly beat both regular Coke and Pepsi in taste tests, surveys, and focus groups. The southeastern United States, one of Coca-Cola's strongest and most reliable markets, narrowly preferred the new flavor; this preference widened once the testers revealed the new taste was also a Coca-Cola product. One bottling company threatened to sue the company if it did not put the drink on the market.

Asked if they would buy and drink the product if it were Coca-Cola, most testers said they would, although said it would take some getting used to. About 10–12 percent of testers felt angry and alienated at the thought, and said they might stop drinking Coke. Their presence in focus groups tended to negatively skew results as they exerted indirect peer pressure on other participants.

The surveys, which were given more significance by standard marketing procedures of the era, were less negative than the taste tests and were key in convincing management to change the formula in 1985, to coincide with the drink's centenary. However, the groups had provided a clue as to how the change would play out in the public, a finding the company downplayed.

Management rejected an idea to make and sell the new flavor as a separate variety of Coca-Cola. The company's bottlers were already complaining about absorbing other recent additions into the product line since 1982, after the introduction of Diet Coke; Cherry Coke was launched nationally nearly concurrently with New Coke during 1985. Many bottling companies had sued over the company's syrup pricing policies. A new variety of Coke in competition with the main variety could also have cannibalized Coke's sales and increased the proportion of Pepsi drinkers relative to Coke drinkers.

Early in his career with Coca-Cola, Goizueta had been in charge of the Bahamas subsidiary. He had improved sales by tweaking the drink's flavor slightly, and so was receptive to the idea that changing the flavor of Coke could boost profits. He believed it would be "New Coke or no Coke", and that the change must take place openly. He insisted that the containers carry the "New!" label, which gave the drink its popular name.

Goizueta also made a visit to his mentor and predecessor as the company's chief executive, the ailing Robert W. Woodruff, who had built Coca-Cola into an international brand following World War II. Goizueta claimed he had secured Woodruff's blessing for the reformulation, but many of Goizueta's closest friends within the company doubted that Woodruff understood Goizueta's intentions. Woodruff died in March 1985, a month before New Coke was launched.

Launch

New Coke was introduced on April 23, 1985. Production of the original formulation ended later that week. In many areas, New Coke was initially sold in original Coke packaging; bottlers used up remaining cans, cartons and labels before new packaging became widely available. Old cans containing New Coke were identified by their gold colored tops, while glass and plastic bottles had red caps instead of silver or white, respectively. Bright yellow stickers indicating the change were placed on the cartons of multi-packs.

The press conference at New York City's Lincoln Center to introduce the new formula did not go well. Reporters had already been fed questions by Pepsi, which was worried that New Coke would erase its gains. Goizueta, Coca-Cola's CEO, described the new flavor as "bolder", "rounder", and "more harmonious", and defended the change by saying that the drink's secret formula was not sacrosanct and inviolable. As far back as 1935, Coca-Cola sought kosher certification from Atlanta rabbi Tobias Geffen, and made two changes to the formula so the drink could be considered kosher (as well as halal and vegetarian). Goizueta also refused to admit that taste tests had led the change, calling it "one of the easiest decisions we've ever made". When a reporter asked whether Diet Coke would also be reformulated "assuming is a success," Goizueta curtly replied, "No. And I didn't assume that this is a success. This is a success."

The emphasis on the new formula's sweeter taste also ran contrary to previous Coke advertising, in which spokesman Bill Cosby had touted the original Coke's less-sweet taste as a reason to prefer it over the sweeter taste of Pepsi. The Coca-Cola company's stock went up after the announcement, and market research showed 80 percent of the American public was aware of the reformulation within days of the change.

Initial success

Coca-Cola introduced the new formula with marketing pushes in New York City, where workers renovating the Statue of Liberty for its centenary in 1986 were given free cans, and Washington, D.C., where thousands of cans were given away in Lafayette Park. As soon as New Coke was introduced, the new formula was available at McDonald's and other drink fountains in the United States. Sales figures from those cities, and other areas where it had been introduced such as Miami and Detroit, showed a reaction that went as the market research had predicted. In fact, Coke's sales were up 8 percent over the same period as the year before.

Most Coke drinkers resumed buying the new Coke at much the same level as they had the old one. Surveys indicated that the majority of regular Coke drinkers liked the new flavoring. Three quarters of the respondents said they would buy New Coke again. The big test, however, remained in the South, where Coca-Cola had been created and bottled.

Backlash

To hear some tell it, April 23, 1985, was a day that will live in marketing infamy ... spawning consumer angst the likes of which no business has ever seen.

— The Coca-Cola Company, on the New Coke announcement

Though New Coke had been accepted by many loyal Coca-Cola drinkers, many more resented the change, as had happened in the focus groups. Many critics were from the southern US states, some of whom considered Coca-Cola part of their regional identity. Some viewed the change through the prism of the Civil War as a surrender to the "Yankees" as PepsiCo, the manufacturer of Pepsi, is based in Purchase, New York.

In a Chicago Tribune story about reaction in the South, a professor at the University of Mississippi observed that "changing Coca-Cola is an intrusion on tradition" and thus would not be well received in that region. An Alabama resident wondered why the company had introduced the new flavor in New York; elsewhere in the state an Anniston Star columnist, noting Goizueta's Cuban origins, insinuated that the flavor change was a Communist plot. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found a majority of patrons at The Varsity, a popular local restaurant in that city, favored the old formula. "Why didn't they test anybody here?" the co-owner asked.

The company received over 40,000 calls and letters expressing anger or disappointment, including one letter, delivered to Goizueta, addressed to "Chief Dodo, the Coca-Cola Company". Another letter asked for his autograph, as the signature of "one of the dumbest executives in American business history" would likely become valuable in the future. The company hotline, 1-800-GET-COKE, received over 1,500 calls a day compared to around 400 before the change. A psychiatrist whom Coke had hired to listen in on calls told executives that many people sounded as if they were discussing the death of a family member.

There were critics of New Coke from outside the region. Chicago Tribune columnist Bob Greene wrote some widely reprinted pieces ridiculing the new flavor and expressing anger at Coke's executives for having changed it. Comedians and talk show hosts, including Johnny Carson and David Letterman, made regular jokes mocking the switch. Ads for New Coke were booed heavily when they appeared on the scoreboard at the Houston Astrodome. Even Fidel Castro, a longtime Coca-Cola drinker, contributed to the backlash, calling New Coke a sign of American capitalist decadence. Goizueta's father expressed similar misgivings to his son, who later recalled that it was the only time his father had agreed with Castro, whose regime he had fled Cuba to avoid.

Gay Mullins, a Seattle retiree looking to start a public relations firm with $120,000 of borrowed money, formed the Old Cola Drinkers of America on May 28 to lobby Coca-Cola to either reintroduce the old formula or sell it to someone else. His organization eventually received over 60,000 phone calls. He also filed a class action lawsuit against the company (which was quickly dismissed by a judge who said he preferred the taste of Pepsi), while nevertheless expressing interest in securing the Coca-Cola Company as a client of his new firm should it reintroduce the old formula. In two informal blind taste tests, Mullins either failed to distinguish New Coke from old or expressed a preference for New Coke.

Despite ongoing resistance in the South, New Coke continued to do well in the rest of the country. However, the executives were uncertain of how international markets would react. They met with international Coke bottlers in Monaco; to their surprise, the bottlers were not interested in selling New Coke. Zyman also heard doubts and skepticism from his relatives in Mexico, where New Coke was scheduled to be introduced later that summer, when he went there on vacation.

Goizueta stated that Coca-Cola employees who liked New Coke felt unable to speak up due to peer pressure, as had happened in the focus groups. Donald Keough, the Coca-Cola president and chief operating officer at the time, reported overhearing someone say at his country club that they liked New Coke, but they would be "damned if I'll let Coca-Cola know that".

Response by PepsiCo

PepsiCo took advantage of the situation, running ads in which a first-time Pepsi drinker exclaimed, "Now I know why Coke did it!" Even amidst consumer anger and several Pepsi ads mocking Coca-Cola's debacle, Pepsi actually gained very few long-term converts over Coke's switch, despite a 14 percent sales increase over the same month the previous year, the largest sales growth in the company's history. Coca-Cola's director of corporate communications, Carlton Curtis, realized over time that consumers were more upset about the withdrawal of the old formula than the taste of the new one.

Immediately following the announcement of Coca-Cola's change, Roger Enrico, then director of PepsiCo's North American operations, took out a full page ad in The New York Times proclaiming PepsiCo the winner of the long-running "Cola Wars" and declared a company-wide holiday on April 26, saying "By today's action, Coke had admitted that it's not the real thing." Since Coke officials were preoccupied over the weekend with preparations for the announcement, their PepsiCo counterparts had time to cultivate skepticism among reporters, sounding themes that would later come into play in the public discourse over the changed drink.

Company dissatisfaction

Behind the scenes, some Coca-Cola executives had quietly been arguing for a reintroduction of the old formula as early as May. By mid-June, when soft drink sales usually start to rise, the numbers showed that new Coke was leveling among consumers. Executives feared social peer pressure was now affecting their bottom line. Many consumers even began trying to obtain original Coca-Cola from overseas, where New Coke had not yet been introduced, as domestic stocks of the old drink were exhausted. Due to some complaints about New Coke's taste, company chemists quietly reduced the acidity level of the new formula, allowing its sweetness to be better perceived (advertisements pointing to this change were prepared, but never used).

In addition to the noisier public protests, boycotts, and bottles of New Coke being emptied into the streets of several cities, the company had more serious reasons to be concerned. Coca-Cola bottlers, and not just the ones still suing the company over syrup pricing policies, were expressing concern. While they had given Goizueta a standing ovation when he announced the change at an April 22 bottlers' meeting at Atlanta's Woodruff Arts Center, glad the company had finally taken some initiative in the face of PepsiCo's advances, they were less enthusiastic about the taste of New Coke. Most of them saw great difficulty in having to promote and sell a drink that had long been marketed as "The Real Thing", constant and unchanging, now that it had actually been changed.

The 20 bottlers still suing the Coca-Cola company made much of the formula change in their legal arguments. In its defense, the company had argued when the suit was originally filed that the new formula was unique and different from Diet Coke, which justified different pricing policies from the latter; however, if the new formula was merely a high-fructose corn syrup-sweetened version of Diet Coke, the company could not argue the formula for New Coke was unique. Bottlers, particularly in the South, were also tired of facing personal attacks over the change; many reported that some acquaintances and even friends and relatives had actually ostracized them or had expressed their displeasure over New Coke in other emotionally hurtful ways. On June 23, several of the bottlers voiced these complaints in a private meeting with Coca-Cola executives at the company's headquarters in Atlanta. With the Coca-Cola company now fearing boycotts not only from consumers but its bottlers, talks about reintroducing the old formula moved from "if" to when.

Finally, the Coca-Cola board decided that enough was enough and in early July, plans were set in motion to resume production of original Coca-Cola. Company president Donald Keough revealed years later, in the documentary The People vs. Coke (2002), that they realized this was the only right thing to do when they visited a small restaurant in Monaco and the owner proudly said they served "the real thing, it's a real Coke", offering them a chilled 6+1⁄2 oz. glass bottle of original Coca-Cola.

Reversal and return

On the afternoon of July 11, 1985, Coca-Cola executives held a press conference and announced the return of the original Coca-Cola formula, 79 days after New Coke's introduction. Peter Jennings of ABC News interrupted General Hospital with a special bulletin to share the news with viewers. On the floor of the U.S. Senate, David Pryor called the reintroduction "a meaningful moment in U.S. history". The company hotline received 31,600 calls in the two days after the announcement.

The new product continued to be marketed and sold as Coke (until 1990, when it was renamed Coke II) while the original formula was named Coca-Cola Classic, and for a short time it was referred to by the public as Old Coke. Some who tasted the reintroduced formula were not convinced that the first batches really were the same formula that had supposedly been retired that spring. This was true for a few regions, because Coca-Cola Classic differed from the original formula in that all bottlers who had not already done so were using high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) instead of cane sugar to sweeten the drink, though most had by this time.

"There is a twist to this story which will please every humanist and will probably keep Harvard professors puzzled for years," said Keough at a press conference. "The simple fact is that all the time and money and skill poured into consumer research on the new Coca-Cola could not measure or reveal the deep and abiding emotional attachment to original Coca-Cola felt by so many people."

Gay Mullins, founder of the organization Old Cola Drinkers of America (which had lobbied Coca-Cola to either reintroduce the old formula or sell it to someone else), was given the first case of Coca-Cola Classic. Later he complained that the drink now made him sick, which he blamed on the drink's use of HFCS; he also claimed that HFCS had dulled his taste buds, accounting for his preference for New Coke in taste tests.

Aftermath and legacy

Six months after New Coke's introduction, sales of Coke had increased at twice the rate of rival Pepsi. By the end of 1985, Coca-Cola Classic was substantially outselling both New Coke and Pepsi.

New Coke's sales dwindled to a three percent share of the market, although it was selling quite well in Los Angeles and some other key markets. Later research, however, suggested that it was not the return of Coca-Cola Classic, but instead the largely unnoticed introduction of Cherry Coke, which appeared almost simultaneously with New Coke, that can be credited with the company's success in 1985.

The Coca-Cola Company spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out where it had made a mistake, ultimately concluding that it had underestimated the public reaction of the portion of the customer base that would be alienated by the switch. This would not emerge for several years afterward, however, and in the meantime the public simply concluded that the company had, as Keough suggested, failed to consider the public's attachment to the idea of what Coke's old formula represented. While that has become conventional wisdom in the ensuing years, some analyses have suggested otherwise.

This populist version of the story served Coke's interests, however, as the episode did more to position and define Coca-Cola as a brand embodying values distinct from Pepsi. Allowing itself to be portrayed as a somewhat clueless large corporation forced to withdraw from a big change by overwhelming public pressure flattered customers, as Keough put it, "We love any retreat which has us rushing toward our best customers with the product they love the most." Bottles and cans continued to bear the "Coca-Cola Classic" title until January 2009, when the company announced it would stop printing the word "Classic" on the labels of 16-US-fluid-ounce (470 ml) bottles sold in parts of the southeastern United States. The change was part of a larger strategy to rejuvenate the product's image.

Bill Cosby ended his long-time advertising for Coca-Cola, claiming that his commercials praising the superiority of the new formula had hurt his credibility. No one at Coca-Cola was fired for the change. When Goizueta died in 1997, the company's share price was well above what it was when he had taken over 16 years earlier and its position as market leader even more firmly established. At the time, Roger Enrico, then head of PepsiCo's American operations, likened New Coke to the Edsel. Later, when he became PepsiCo's CEO, he modified his assessment of the situation, saying that had people been fired or demoted over New Coke, it would have sent a message that risk-taking was strongly discouraged at the company.

In the late 1990s, Zyman summed up the New Coke experience thus:

Yes, it infuriated the public, cost us a ton of money and lasted for only 77 days before we reintroduced Coca-Cola Classic. Still, New Coke was a success because it revitalized the brand and reattached the public to Coke.

New Coke continued to do what it had originally been designed to do: win taste tests. In 1987, The Wall Street Journal surveyed 100 randomly selected cola drinkers, the majority of whom indicated a preference for Pepsi, with Classic Coke accounting for the remainder save two New Coke loyalists. When this group was given a chance to try all three in a blind test, New Coke slightly edged out Pepsi, but many drinkers reacted angrily to finding they had chosen a brand other than their favorite.

Goizueta claimed that he never once regretted the decision to change Coca-Cola. He even threw a tenth anniversary party for New Coke in 1995 and continued to drink it until his death in 1997.

After Coca-Cola Classic

"Catch the wave" redirects here. For the wrestling tournament, see Catch the Wave.

In the short run, the reintroduction of original Coca-Cola saved Coke's sales figures and brought it back in the good graces of many customers and bottlers. Phone calls and letters to the company were as joyful and thankful as they had been angry and depressed. "You would have thought we'd cured cancer," said one executive.

But confusion reigned at the company's marketing department, which had to design a plan to market two Coca-Colas where such plans were inconceivable just a few months before. Coca-Cola Classic did not need much help, with a "Red, White and You" campaign showcasing the American virtues many of those who had clamored for its reintroduction had pointedly reminded the company that it embodied. But the company was at a loss to sell what was now just "Coke". "The Best Just Got Better" could no longer be used. Marketers fumbled for a strategy for the rest of the year. Matters were not helped when McDonald's announced shortly after the reintroduction of Coca-Cola Classic, that it was immediately switching from New Coke back to original Coca-Cola at all of its restaurants.

Max Headroom print ad from the "Catch the wave" campaign

At the beginning of 1986, however, Coke's marketing team found a strategy by returning to one of their original motives for changing the formula: the youth market that preferred Pepsi. Max Headroom, the purportedly computer-generated media personality played by Matt Frewer, was chosen to replace Cosby as the spokesman for Coke's new "Catch the wave" campaign. With his slicked-back hair and sunglasses, he was already known to much of the U.S. youth audience through appearances on MTV and Cinemax. The campaign was launched with a television commercial produced by McCann Erickson New York, with Max saying in his trademark stutter, "C-c-c-catch the wave!" and referring to his fellow "Cokeologists". In a riposte to Pepsi's televisual teasings, one showed Headroom asking a Pepsi can he was "interviewing" how it felt about more drinkers preferring Coke to it and then cut to the condensation forming on, and running down, the can. "S-s-s-s-sweating?" he asked.

The campaign was a huge success. "Max's 'C-C-Catch the wave' spots for Coke," a Newsweek article said, "two of which were directed by Ridley Scott, may be the most cleverly structured pitches ever aimed at the under-30 viewer." John Reid, Coke's SVP of marketing, claimed that "76 percent of teenagers had heard of Max after our first flight of ads." Surveys likewise showed that more than three-quarters of the target market were aware of the ads within two days. Coke's consumer hotline received more calls about Max than any previous spokesperson, some even asking if he had a girlfriend. The ads and campaign continued through 1987, and were chosen as best of 1986 by Video Storyboard of New York.

Coke II

By 1990, the Coca-Cola Company was ready to introduce a radically different marketing campaign for New Coke under the name Coke II, but in only one market – Spokane, Washington, a Pepsi stronghold. The company and bottler put significant resources into the launch of Coke II, including offering 16 oz. cans with 4 oz. free, new "We've Got Your Number" radio and TV ads, and on-air giveaways on KZZU. The new ads tried to explain the taste of Coke II as having "real cola taste plus the sweetness of Pepsi, two things that add up to smooth, refreshing Coke II." Pepsi struck back with legal challenges to the taste claim, lowered its in-store prices, and ramped up its own advertising. Coke II market share rose to 4% early in the test, but then fell back to 2.3%. The test was not extended past Spokane.

In a market already offering several choices of drinks calling themselves "Coke" in some fashion or another, the public saw little reason to embrace a product they had firmly rejected seven years earlier. By 1998, Coke II could only be found in a few scattered markets in the Northwest, Midwest and some overseas territories. In July 2002, Coca-Cola announced that Coke II would be discontinued entirely.

On August 16, 2002, the Coca-Cola Company announced a change of the label of Coke Classic in which the word "Classic" was no longer so prominent, leading to speculation that it would eventually be removed and the last traces of New Coke eliminated. In 2009, Coca-Cola permanently removed "Classic" from its North American packaging.

Commercial legacy

"For a product so widely despised," noted AdWeek blogger Tim Nudd in 2006, "New Coke (a.k.a. Coke II) still gets an admirable amount of ink." He noted Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (2005) by Malcolm Gladwell, and Why Most Things Fail: Evolution, Extinction and Economics (2005) by Paul Ormerod, that dealt with it at some length, as well as two recent mentions in Forbes and Sports Illustrated.

Within Coca-Cola, the role the company's bottlers had played in forcing its hand led executives to create a new subsidiary, Coca-Cola Enterprises, which bought out several of the larger bottlers and placed distribution and marketing efforts more tightly under Coca-Cola's control.

Conspiracy theories

The Coca-Cola Company's apparently sudden reversal on New Coke led to conspiracy theories, including:

  • The company intentionally changed the formula, hoping consumers would be upset with the company, and demand the original formula to return, which in turn would cause sales to spike. Keough, the company president, answered this speculation by saying "We're not that dumb, and we're not that smart."
  • The putative switch was planned all along to cover the change from sugar-sweetened Coke to much less expensive high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a theory that was supposedly given credence by the apparently different taste of Coke Classic when it first hit the market (the U.S. sugar trade association took out a full-page ad lambasting Coke for using HFCS in all bottling of the old formula when it was reintroduced). In fact, Coca-Cola began allowing bottlers to remove up to half of the product's cane sugar as early as 1980, five years before the introduction of New Coke. By the time the new formula was introduced, most bottlers in the U.S. had already sweetened Coca-Cola entirely with HFCS.
  • It provided cover for the final removal of all coca derivatives from the product to placate the Drug Enforcement Administration, which was trying to eradicate the plant worldwide to combat an increase in cocaine trafficking and consumption. While Coke's executives were indeed relieved the new formula contained no coca and concerned about the long-term future of the Peruvian government-owned coca fields that supplied it in the face of increasing DEA pressure to end cultivation of the crop, according to author Mark Pendergrast there was no direct pressure from the DEA on Coca-Cola to do so. This theory was endorsed in a Time article, as well as by historian Bartow Elmore, author of Citizen Coke: The Making of Coca-Cola Capitalism, who claims the reformulation was made in response to the escalating War on Drugs by the Reagan Administration.

Taste test problems

In his book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (2005), Malcolm Gladwell relates his conversations with market researchers in the food industry who put most of the blame for the failure of New Coke on the flawed nature of taste tests. They claim most are subject to systematic biases. Tests such as the Pepsi Challenge were "sip tests", meaning that drinkers were given small samples (less than a can or bottle's worth) to try. Gladwell contends that what people say they like in these tests may not reflect what they actually buy to drink at home over several days. Carol Dollard, who once worked in product development for PepsiCo, told Gladwell: "I've seen many times where the sip test will give you one result and the home-use test will give you the exact opposite." For example, although many consumers react positively to the sweeter taste of Pepsi in small volumes, it may become unattractively sweet when drunk in quantity. A more comprehensive testing regimen could possibly have revealed this, Gladwell's sources believe.

Gladwell reports that other market researchers have criticized Coke for not realizing that much of its success as a brand came from what they call sensation transference, a phenomenon first described by marketer Louis Cheskin in the late 1940s: tasters unconsciously add their reactions to the drink's packaging into their assessment of the taste. For example, one of the researchers told Gladwell that his firm's research found 7-Up drinkers believed a sample from a bottle with a more yellow label was more "lemony", although the flavor was identical. In Coke's case, it is alleged that buyers, subject to sensation transference, were also "tasting" the red color of the container and distinctive Coca-Cola script. It was therefore, in their opinion, a mistake to focus solely on the product and its taste. "The mistake Coke made was in attributing their loss in share entirely to the product." said Darrel Rhea, an executive with the firm Cheskin founded. He points to PepsiCo's work in establishing a youth-oriented brand identity from the 1960s as having more bearing on its success.

Coke considered but rejected gradually changing the drink's flavor incrementally, without announcing they were doing so. Executives feared the public would notice and exaggerate slight differences in taste. In 1998, Joel Dubow, a professor of food marketing at St. Joseph's University, tested this "flavor balance hypothesis" and argued that it was not true. He and fellow researcher Nancy Childs tested mixtures of Coca-Cola Classic and Coke II and found that the gradual changes of taste were not noticed by a significant number of tasters. Coke, he said, would have succeeded had it chosen this strategy.

2019 reintroduction

On May 21, 2019, Coca-Cola announced that the 1985 reformulation (once again bearing the name "New Coke") would be reintroduced in limited quantities to promote the third season of the Netflix series Stranger Things. The show, set in 1985, included cans of New Coke in three of the season's episodes.

About 500,000 cans of New Coke were produced for the promotion, to be sold mostly online. So many people were eager to buy it, however, that the volume of orders crashed the Coca-Cola website. Many fans complained because they wanted to order some, and the company apologized for the delays on social media platforms. It was also available in select vending machines in cities such as New York and Los Angeles.

The reintroduction of New Coke received friendlier reviews than it had in 1985. A writer at BuzzFeed said it was "nice and refreshing", lacking the lingering aftertaste of classic Coca-Cola. "I would take this over other colas," said a colleague. Food & Wine staffers also had favorable impressions: "sweeter and smoother than regular Coke", "almost syrupy in a pleasant way", although an older member who recalled the original rollout in 1985 said it had not improved for them.

Tim Murphy, a reporter for the progressive magazine Mother Jones, suggested that, in ultimately overcoming an initial resistance that he saw as reactionary, New Coke had won the war after losing the battle. "Soft-drink trends have also proven Coke right about a willingness to adapt to new tastes: A majority of Coke sales today are non-Classic products, such as Diet and Coke Zero," he wrote. This explained the favorable response from tasters. "It tasted weird then; it tastes like what's normal now."

See also

Other soft drink failures

  • Crystal Pepsi, early 1990s failure for that company that is occasionally reintroduced for limited periods
  • Dasani, bottled water brand produced by Coca-Cola that failed in the United Kingdom despite huge marketing push
  • MagiCan, failed Coca-Cola promotion in 1990
  • OK Soda, Coca-Cola brand intended to appeal to Generation X drinkers in early 1990s known for its counterintuitive marketing, managed by Sergio Zyman

References

  1. Jamieson, Sean (April 5, 1990). "Coke II makes its Spokane debut". Spokesman-Review. (Spokane, Washington). p. A8.
  2. ^ Mikkelson, Barbara (March 13, 2007). "Knew Coke / New Coke Origin". Snopes.com. Retrieved March 16, 2010.
  3. Koten, John; Kilman, Scott (July 12, 1985). "Coca-Cola Faces Tough Marketing Task in Attempting to Sell Old and New Coke". The Wall Street Journal.
  4. Stevenson, Richard W. (August 20, 1985). "New Coke vs. Classic: The Verdict Is Still Out". The New York Times. Retrieved April 8, 2017.
  5. ^ "The Real Story of New Coke". Coke Lore. The Coca-Cola Company. Archived from the original on December 11, 2019. Retrieved October 10, 2011.
  6. ^ Demott, John S. (June 24, 1985). "All Afizz Over the New Coke". Time. Retrieved April 8, 2017.
  7. ^ Hays, Constance L. (2005). The Real Thing: Truth and Power at the Coca-Cola Company (Random House Trade pbk. ed.). New York: Random House. ISBN 978-0-8129-7364-8.
  8. ^ Murphy, Tim (July 9, 2019). "New Coke Didn't Fail. It Was Murdered". Mother Jones. Retrieved February 23, 2021.
  9. ^ Pendergrast, Mark (2004). For God, Country and Coca-Cola : The Definitive History of the Great American Soft Drink and the Company that Makes It (2. ed., rev. and expanded,  ed.). New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-05468-8.
  10. Schindler, Robert M. (1992). "The Real Lesson of New Coke: The Value of Focus Groups for Predicting the Effects of Social Influence". Marketing Research. 4 (4): 22 . ISSN 1040-8460. Archived from the original on July 2, 2018. Retrieved April 8, 2017.
  11. ^ Oliver, Thomas (1987). The Real Coke, The Real Story (Repr ed.). New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0140104080.
  12. Horowitz, Roger (January 8, 2013) "The Real Thing: How Coke Became Kosher", Science History Institute. Retrieved July 4, 2019
  13. ^ Matthews, Blair (Spring 2005). "Coca Cola's Big Mistake: New Coke 20 Years Later ..." Soda Pop Dreams. Archived from the original on July 5, 2008. Retrieved June 16, 2006. Alt URL Archived April 2, 2018, at the Wayback Machine
  14. "Coke Flavor-Suit Rejected". UPI. June 21, 1985.
  15. ^ Barry, Daniel (2003). "The People v. Coke". Trouble at the Top. BBC2.
  16. "Top Ten Bad Beverage Ideas". Time. Retrieved October 23, 2020.
  17. ^ "Topics; Cars and Cola Jokes". The New York Times. October 23, 1985. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
  18. ^ McKay, Betsy (January 30, 2009). "Coke to Omit 'Classic'". The Wall Street Journal.
  19. TIME; July 22, 1985; 48
  20. "Roger Enrico, the president of Pepsi-Cola U.S.A., was quick to proclaim the 10-week-old new Coke "the Edsel of the 80's" "IDEAS & TRENDS - Coca-Cola Swallows Its Words". The New York Times. July 14, 1985.
  21. EnErico, Roger; Kornbluth, Jesse (1988). The Other Guy Blinked: How Pepsi Won the Cola Wars. New York, NY: Bantam Books. p. 240. ISBN 978-0-553-26632-0.
  22. Bigford, Andrew. "Last Run: Sergio Zyman". SKI Magazine. Archived from the original on May 4, 2006. Retrieved June 14, 2006.
  23. Smith, Gary (October 15, 2006) . Introduction to Statistical Reasoning. McGraw Hill. pp. 186–87. Archived from the original on September 2, 2006. Retrieved October 16, 2006.
  24. "Max & N-N-New Coke". The Max Headroom Chronicles. 2005. Retrieved December 14, 2006.
  25. The Coca Cola Company (1986–87). Max Headroom: Sweating?. Retrieved July 1, 2023.
  26. ^ Waters, Harry F.; Huck, Janet; Smith, Vern E. (April 20, 1987). "Mad About M-M-Max". Newsweek. pp. 61–62.
  27. ^ "Highlights in the History of Coca-Cola Television Advertising". Library of Congress. Retrieved June 22, 2006.
  28. Bird, Laura (July 30, 1990). "Coke II: The Sequel". Adweek's Marketing Week. pp. 4–5.
  29. McDermott, John (April 26, 2015). ""New Coke" Aftertaste Recalled on Johns Island, 30 Years Later". Post and Courier. Charleston.
  30. ^ John H. McConnell; How to Design, Implement and Interpret an Employee Survey, AMACOM Division of the American Management Association, ISBN 0-8144-0709-9, 2003, 3.
  31. Clifford, Stephen (January 31, 2009). "Coca-Cola Deleting 'Classic' From Coke Label". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2011.
  32. Nudd, Tim (February 24, 2006). "Where are the last few cans of New Coke?". AdWeek. Retrieved June 26, 2006.
  33. Macy, Beth (January 2, 2015). "'Citizen Coke,' by Bartow J. Elmore". The New York Times.
  34. "New Coke History America". TIME.
  35. ^ Gladwell, Malcolm (2005). Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (1. ed.). New YorK (etc.): Back Bay. ISBN 978-0-316-17232-5.
  36. Cheskin, Louis; Ward, L.B. (September 1948). "Indirect Approach to Market Reactions". Harvard Business Review.
  37. Gordon, Ian; Frank, Thomas (December 1999). "The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and the Rise of Hip Consumerism". The Journal of American History. 86 (3): 1396. doi:10.2307/2568708. JSTOR 2568708.
  38. Dubow, Joel S; Childs, Nancy M (November 1998). "New Coke, Mixture Perception, and the Flavor Balance Hypothesis". Journal of Business Research. 43 (3): 147–155. doi:10.1016/s0148-2963(97)00220-8.
  39. New Coke is coming back and it's all because of Netflix's hit show "Stranger Things" CBS News, May 21, 2019
  40. Haasch, Palmer (July 6, 2019). "New Coke is the weirdest pop culture throwback in Stranger Things 3". polygon.com. Vox Media. Retrieved September 5, 2020.
  41. "New Coke and Netflix Take Viewers Back to 1985 for Stranger Things Season 3 in First-of-its-Kind Partnership". The Coca-Cola Company. Archived from the original on August 21, 2019. Retrieved May 21, 2019.
  42. ^ Fredette, Meagan. ""Stranger Things" Brought Back New Coke & Broke The Internet". www.refinery29.com. Retrieved March 27, 2020.
  43. Suknanan, Jasmin (May 25, 2019). "'New Coke' Is Back After 34 Years—Here's What It Tastes Like". BuzzFeed. Retrieved February 24, 2021.
  44. Campbell-Schmitt, Adam (May 29, 2019). "We Compared New Coke to Coca-Cola—Here Are Our Thoughts". Food & Wine. Retrieved February 24, 2021.

Further reading

External links

Varieties of Coca-Cola
Regular
Low-calorie
Other brands
The Coca-Cola Company
Brands
Soft drinks
Juices and teas
Sports drinks
Monster Beverage
(17.9% stake)
Bottled water
Coffee-based
Dairy-based
Purchased from Bisleri
The Coca-Cola Company logo
Joint ventures
Former holdings
Legal
Campaigns
and slogans
Other
Categories: