# Examples of companies or people who have succeeded by making their product worse? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 1, 2010, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/examples-of-companies-or-people-who-have-succeeded-by-making-their-product-worse/562511 "2010-12-01T05:00:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/examples-of-companies-or-people-who-have-succeeded-by-making-their-product-worse/562511/41 "2010-12-02T20:51:34Z")
_What was Coca-Cola’s market share, say, three years before the introduction of New Coke versus three years after the “return” of Classic Coke (now in HFCS)?_ To expand–Snopes [here](http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp) disputes the idea that the maneuver was planned in any way, either for market share or foisting the sweetener switch, though I notice there’s very little actual evidence. Basically they say people find it “unthinkable” that New Coke could be anything but marketing blunder, so conspiracies must be invented. In other words, _they_ find cynical corporate intent dismissible here. I’m not sure why either assumption (cynicism or incompetence) can’t reasonably be imagined. As far as I can tell, the sweetener switch _did_ happen in conjunction with the branding switches. But what I’m actually asking is if, intended or not, the entire episode had the _effect_ of boosting Coca-Cola as a brand? I can’t recall seeing data. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/examples-of-companies-or-people-who-have-succeeded-by-making-their-product-worse/562511/42 "2010-12-02T21:04:47Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > But what I’m actually asking is if, intended or not, the entire episode had the _effect_ of boosting Coca-Cola as a brand? I can’t recall seeing data. According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_coke), > [@](#): > > By the end of the year, Coke Classic was substantially outselling both New Coke and Pepsi. Six months after the rollout, Coke’s sales had increased at more than twice the rate of Pepsi’s.[40] > > New Coke’s sales dwindled to a three percent share of the market, although it was doing quite well in Los Angeles and some other key markets.[40] Later research, however, suggested that it was not the reintroduction of Classic Coke, but instead the less-heralded rollout of Cherry Coke, that can be credited with the company’s success that year.[41] ---
**Author:** ![ptr2void](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ptr2void/32/3406_2.png) [@ptr2void](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ptr2void)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/examples-of-companies-or-people-who-have-succeeded-by-making-their-product-worse/562511/43 "2010-12-02T21:22:46Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Also, this may not be exactly what the OP is looking for, but it’s related and _is_ interesting. [This New York Times article](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28borker.html) is about a guy who operates an online eyeglass retailer but deliberately antagonizes his customers so that they complain on websites that let you describe bad customer service experiences. These complaints cause his site to get a high position in Google search results, getting him lots more business. And that actually prompted [Google to change their algorithm today](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/12/02/131753456/google-changes-search-results-after-story-about-retailer-rankings). Yay! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/examples-of-companies-or-people-who-have-succeeded-by-making-their-product-worse/562511.md?page=2)