Thanks.
I could really say the same about the majority of the ingredients that go into fine dining recipes.
I assume that they can’t taste the difference in quality, but they can taste the pretentiousness.
There is a mild bit of this, just in the purchase of soda.
Paying 2 or 3 times as much for the name-brand Coca-Cola vs. the generic store brand cola is much the same. Most consumers can’t tell the difference between the brands – most can hardly tell Coke from Pepsi in a blind taste test. So buying the name brand at a higher price is just cultural – all that money spent on advertising doesn’t affect the taste.
I think this is wrong. I’ve actually done a double blind soda taste test with Coke, Pepsi, and a store brand, and every one of the ~8 people who did it could tell the difference between them, and all but one correctly identified which one was which as well. For what it’s worth, Pepsi is sweeter and vanillay-er, and Coke is orangier in flavor.
It’s easy and fun to do a double blind taste test at home with 2 people, and I encourage you to try it and see.
There’s also lots of empirical evidence that this is the case: New Coke was a big market failure, and it was a big failure because it didn’t taste as good!
But also: branding on the level of sodas is more about an association with quality and self identity than it is with conspicuous consumption. Like, no one sees you drinking a real coke and thinks this guy has it going on. Prada bags and iPhones yes, Coke, not so much.
This isn’t exactly what happened.
In blind taste tests, sweeter products tend to win, and Pepsi (which has a sweeter taste profile) usually beats the original Coke formula in blind tests (hence, the long-running “Pepsi Challenge” ad campaign).
And, in the 1980s, Coke was losing market share; the company reasoned that younger drinkers (whom the company felt were key to regaining market share) preferred the sweeter taste of Pepsi. So, the “new Coke” formulation was created to taste more like Pepsi. And, in blind taste tests, “new Coke” actually did well.
But, it was a failure because real-world usage isn’t a blind taste test. Coke’s loyal drinkers preferred the taste of original Coke, and they were outraged that the company would change how it tastes, to be more like a product that they did not like, as well as the fact that the original formulation, which they loved, had been entirely pulled from the market.
You added a lot more context, but this seems pretty consistent with my single sentence that New Coke was a failure because it didn’t taste as good.
…to a particular segment of consumers. As I noted, in their market research studies, new Coke tasted even better than original Coke, as well as Pepsi, among a broad sample of soft drink drinkers. To people who weren’t Coke loyalists, New Coke tasted better than original Coke.
Had they decided to launch New Coke as a “flanker” to the original formula, while keeping the original formula available, it might well have been successful. They had considered doing this, but ultimately chose not to.
I work in consumer research, and was in college, studying marketing and research, in 1985, when all of this happened. It was a real-time case study of how one can get an answer to a question in market research, but if you are asking the wrong question, you may not get the results you expect. Coke was so obsessed with beating Pepsi, that they developed a blind spot in considering the impact on their current consumers.
I see. Thanks for the continued explanation.
There have been a number of heart breaking distillery disasters.
This warehouse fire is the latest in a series of notable accidents at Kentucky bourbon distilleries. In June 2018, a portion of the Barton 1792 Distillery warehouse collapsed and 9,000 bourbon barrels fell to the ground. Two weeks later, the rest of the warehouse crashed down and another 9,000 bourbon barrels were smashed. No one was hurt in either incident, but run-off from the barrels seeped into two nearby streams, killing hundreds of fish.
Name-brand Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola aren’t even the top of the market. There are many small “craft” soda producers throughout the country using real sugar and natural flavorings. Foxon Park, for instance, will sell you a twelve-pack of twelve-ounce glass bottles for $18.60. So more than Coke but not nearly as crazy expensive as fine wines or liquors.
Probably true. I would have figured coffee would have been a bigger bang for the buck as far as the restaurant was concerned, if served as “Super-duper Jamaican Blue Mountain Coffee” and charged $10 a cup or something, rather than as a more or less forgettable crust on a steak.
I think they served it as coffee as well, but that was a front of the house thing, I didn’t get all that involved.
Didn’t seem to go through all that much though, we certainly used more in the back than they used up front.
Blind taste tests in general don’t seem to support the idea that cola fanciers are good at identifying their preferred beverage. Some examples here:
“A…study from 1983 (not currently on JSTOR, but you can read the abstract here) found that participants couldn’t tell when they were given Coca-Cola in a Pepsi bottle or vice versa. Interestingly, though, when surreptitiously given two cups of the same drink—one cup marked with the letter “L”, the other with the letter “S”—participants overwhelmingly preferred the latter. Why? In a different part of the study, participants indictated that they simply preferred the letter “S” (6.8/10 on a likeability scale) to the letter “L” (6/10), presumably because the former is more frequent, and people tend to like what they know.”
Science!
As to why there aren’t any sodas as pricey as expensive alcohol brands - an overwhelming reason is that there’s no snob appeal to sodas. Fruit juices touted as being “superfoods” do command a premium, but not Limited Edition Bourbon Aged 40 Years In Casks Hand-Rubbed By Tibetan Virgins expensive.
There is a great deal of labor involved in making spirits. A bourbon aged twenty years requires the storage and labor to tend to it for two decades. The fact that some people are happier with cheap bourbon in diet ginger ale doesn’t mean that other people have the same taste. There is art that I don’t like to appreciate, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value. Not all of us want to eat goop out of styrofoam buckets.
I think soda would be better compared to beer. And that’s almost completely due to the difference in care & feeding; sodas just require water, sugar, flavor and CO2, all mixed up and bottled. Beers require malted barley, hops, water and specific yeast, and then require absurdly sanitary conditions, as well as very specific temperature conditions for fermentation and aging.
And there are different taxes involved for alcoholic beverages that sodas don’t have.
All that adds up… and even then market pricing comes into play. I’d bet most of the cost of most beers is markup because people will pay more for beer than soda because it gets you drunk, not because they’re selling just over the cost of the beer.
Some off-brand sofas taste like their muse and some don’t. Diet Pepsi and Coke Zero taste very similar to me. Diet Coke tastes acidic and has less flavour. Any pop served from a fountain might be too watery. Pepsi and Coke taste different as above. My memory of New Coke is it tasted more like an off-brand version of Pepsi rather than a true copy. Drinks made with cane sugar are better but I rarely drink them since I do not like to drink big calories.
That said, I don’t get SodaStream. Why go to the trouble to make a version of a drink you already like cheaply available in small convenient containers? (Yes, it may be slightly cheaper and better for the environment. But if not making a more unique drink…)
It does not seem overly surprising that people who care about customizing the taste are mixing their own. Then you still need carbonated water.
IIRC Diet Coke is basically the sugar-free version of New Coke, while Coke Zero is the analog for original Coca-Cola. It’s just that Diet Coke took off (considerably better than Tab) so it was kept, and Coca-Cola was brought back to replace New Coke. So New Coke should be essentially a sugar/corn-syrup sweetened version of Diet Coke in taste.
What I recall about New Coke is that it was sweeter and tangier than Coca Cola. Not in a bad way, but definitely in a “this is not Coke” kind of way. I always have thought that if they’d introduced it as a companion product, they may have been able to snag some total market share from Pepsi, even if there was some internal cannibalization going on. I remember liking it just fine, but not feeling like it was a good replacement for old Coke.
Close. Diet Coke was developed and introduced several years before New Coke, and it was formulated to taste similar to Diet Pepsi, rather than being a diet version of Coca-Cola. New Coke did, indeed, use the Diet Coke formula as its starting point.
And, yes, Coke Zero was developed to be more like a no-calorie version of Coca-Cola in its taste.