We all know Macca’s don’t use REAL Coke, just syrup mixed with soda water (or whatever), but is it true that they receive the syrup for free from Coca-Cola as an incentive to exclusively use their product because I can’t believe that Pepsi-Cola wouldn’t have approached them with a “too good to refuse offer”?
Umm… what do you think “real” Coke is EXCEPT cola syrup mixed with soda water?
Ummm… that wasn’t my question ANYWAY so there’s no need to be a smart-ass.
Thanks 4 the info. At least you were HELPFUL, unlike astorian who just had nothing valid whatsoever to offer except a sarcastic comment. Thanx again. =)
Wow, that’s a lot of hostility for someone who’s been around such a short time. Welcome to the SDMB, and try to lighten up a little. You’ll get along a lot better if you do.
For the record, astorian was trying to inform you of something you obviously are ignorant of, which is that all soft drinks consist of a syrup mixed with carbonated water. Please note that the Straight Dope’s aim is fighting ignorance.
>> We all know Macca’s don’t use REAL Coke, just syrup mixed with soda water
That makes it “not real”? That process is called post-mix and is very common in many restaurants and bars. In a way it is like manufactiring the soft drink on the spot instead of at the factory but the result is just as “real”. Search for “postmix” if you want to learn more about the process.
psychotropic, I’d recommend that you re-think your attack on astorian. His (?) observation was quite reasonable, especially on SDMB.
I’d also like to point out that a Usenet post is hardly an authoritative cite. As a teenager, I was a control clerk for a McDonald’s franchise in Toronto, and I know we paid for our Coke™ syrup, but I don’t have an authoritative link.
As an interesting aside, we were also forbidden from mixing Coke or Sprite™ with anything, unlike the rootbeer and orange drinks, which were McD’s own brand.
Eh, I’m gonna guess he understood that post-mixed pop was still basically the same as pre-mixed. Notice the emphasis on “REAL”. Looked to me like he was just using it like “I know it’s ont ‘real’, or in other words, pre-mixed”…
Regardless, fountain soda does differ from real soda based simply on mixture levels and a lower degree of carbonation, so it’s worth noting a difference anyways…
I didn’t know McDonald’s had its own brand of soda!
Coke and Mickie Dees have a long term contract for Coke to be the exclusive supplier. However, I don’t believe it would be legal for Coke to give away a product. I believe that would be an anit-trust issue.
If the market is X for a product…say gasoline @ 1.35/gal…you can’t move in to a market, sell gas for 25 cents/ gal at a loss to you to force your competition out. That is an anti-trust issue.
MickDees pays Coke a negotiated price…albeit a heavy discount considering MickDees size (they are the biggest Coke sellers in the world).
Syrup: the syrup IS the taste and quality of the product. It’s real…probably more real than bottled stuff.
>> However, I don’t believe it would be legal for Coke to give away a product.
You can give away anything you want and it is legal. In any case, the contract would not be for something for nothing but rather coke in exchange for publicity, visibility etc.
What’s with the “ummm” business?
And since when has “Macca’s” been a nickname for McDonald’s?
Don’t you think that is a rather broad statement to be making, without checking its truth?
For instance, it is illegal in most states for licensed bars to distribute alcoholic beverages to the public for free.
It is in both the UK and Australia.
Wallon, we are talking in reference to antitrust laws.
>> I don’t believe it would be legal for Coke to give away a product.
>> I believe that would be an anit-trust issue
Obviously there are other scenarios where giving away stuff might breach some specific laws but that is not what we are talking about.
I know, best I could do though. I read through it and it appeared reaonable and in keeping with what I’d expect, although that in itself isn’t exactly best practice 
. Nice to see that you can confirm it, though.
If anyone’s still actually interested in the subject of this thread, I work for Boston Market, which is a fully-owned subsidiary of McDonalds, and we pay 39.40 for each 5-gallon box of Coke syrup (5 gallons of syrup makes about 30 gallons of Coke.) Just adding in my own .03 there.
It certainly would be illegal in Australia if it was used for the purposes of unfair competition or was part of a strategy to drive someone else out of business. It’s covered under the Trade Practices Act (which is modelled to some extent on US anti-trust laws) here and I would be surprised if it wasn’t the same in the US. Giving away a few samples isn’t a problem but giving away billions of dollars worth of goods with the intention of keeping someone else out of a market certainly is.
So to answer Psychotropic’s original question: Chuckas (there’s another Australian nickname for McDonald’s for you Americans) would not be getting their syrup free from Coke because:
*Why would Coke not charge their biggest client?
*If they tried it the ACCC and Alan Fels would come down on them like a ton of bricks
Not true, generally speaking. It’s only anti-trust if you have market power.
Ironically though, gasoline is one of the few markets regulated by many states (along with alcohol and tobacco). In many states, there’s a “sales below cost” act, or something similar, which proscribes the practice of selling gas below some reference price. In my view, this is generally anti-consumer–what’s the difference between using milk as a loss leader and using gasoline as a loss leader? The lobbying power of the mom and pop gasoline retailers.