The real point here is that the P&L of the Coca Cola company contains only a small fraction of the costs and revenues of the entire chain that leads from the drinker back to Atlanta HQ. So trying to parse out which part of the chain of costs contributes what portion of the total just from looking at HQ’s books is doomed to failure.
We’d need a combined look at all ~300 businesses to decide how the costs break down.
We’d also probably find a wide distribution of relative costs between, say, Atlanta GA, Paris France, rural Alaska, and rural Ghana.
Perhaps you can make a starter guess by looking at the cost of generic sodas. That’s the cost of water, CO2, bottling and handling. Subtract the flavouring cost and add the Coke syrup cost to get an approximation. What do we think the profit is on generic soda cans?
I have some experience with generic products. The profit margins for the producer are lower than for a name-brand product. The retailer sometimes takes a smaller profit, as well. And particularly in the case of grocery products, the manufacturer doesn’t have to pay a “slotting allowance” to the retailer just to get the product on the retailer’s shelf. OTOH, sales of Coke and Pepsi are far higher than generics, so the retailer who stocks a generic brand is taking away shelf space that Big Pop could fill with a more popular product.
One of my theories is that the big names come up with things like Cherry Coke, Vanilla Coke, Diet Coke and Coke Zero (??), Caffiene Free and so on for their particular name brand, in order to consume more shelf space to push out less competitive brands. Each variety takes its own individual facing.
Raspberry Coke, Maple Coke, Coke with Coffee (two different flavours), Dreamworld Coke (which turned out to be grapefruit-flavoured, in total contrast to the packaging, which made me think of birthday cake)… all of which I’ve seen in our local supermarket.
…and have you seen the number of different kinds of Oreos, Triscuits, or Cheerios?