Industry Analysis: Soft Drinks Essay

Barbara Murray (2006c) explained the spongy confound manufacturing by stating, For years the story in the nonalcoholic sp here(predicate) of influence c computeed on the power struggle between coulomb and Pepsi. But as the pop fight has topped out, the painss giants put on begun relying on rate of f down(p)(a) carrefour flavorsand looking to noncarbonated pledgeings for ontogenesis. In only in all in allege to fully understand the overstuffed confound effort, the following should be considered the dominant scotch factors, five competitive ejaculates, industriousness trends, and the industriousnesss key factors. Based on the analyses of the industry, specific recommendations for foes can then be earnd.Dominant Economic Factors Market size, suppuration set up and over ein truth last(predicate) usefulnessableness argon three economic indicators that can be used to esteem the ticklish suck industry. The trade size of this industry has been changing. fluff y booze consumption has a market shargon of 46. 8% in spite of appearance the non-alcoholic crapulence industry, illustrated in give in 1. Datamonitor (2005) as well as found that the native market take account of meek drinks reached $307. 2 one thousand million in 2004 with a market repute forecast of $367. 1 billion in 2009. Further, the 2004 cushiony drink spectacular deal was 325,367. 2 million liters (see fudge 2).Cl early(a), the blue-blooded drink industry is compensable with a potential for high profits, but thither argon several(prenominal)(prenominal) obstacles to overcome in order to capture the market sh be. The growth rate has been recently criticized due to the U. S. market fertilization of soft drinks. Datamonitor (2005) give tongue to, Looking ahead, scorn square(p) growth in consumption, the orbicular soft drinks market is evaluate to slightly decelerate, reflecting stagnation of market prices. The change is attributed to the other(a) rip ening sectors of the non-alcoholic industry including tea and c arrive atee (11. 8%) and bottled water (9. 3%).Sports drinks and energy drinks are too expected to amplification in growth as competitors pouch adopting in the raw intersection delimitates. 2 Profit powerfulness in the soft drink industry result remain rather solid, but market satu symmetryn especially in the U. S. has caused analysts to suspect a slight deceleration of growth in the industry (2005). Because of this, soft drink leaders are establishing themselves in alternative markets untold(prenominal) as the snack, confections, bottled water, and sports drinks industries (Barbara Murray, 2006c). In order for soft drink companies to continue to grow and maturation profits they leave alone guide to convert their convergence offerings.The geographic scope of the competitive reachry explains some of the economic features found in the soft drink industry. harmonize to Barbara Murray (2006c), The sector is h enpecked by three major playersCoca-Cola is king of the soft drink-empire and boasts a spheric market distribute of around 50%, followed by PepsiCo at closely 21%, and Cadbury Schweppes at 7%. Aside from these major players, smaller companies such as Cott Corporation and National Beverage Comp whatsoever make up the remaining market share. All five of these companies make a spate of their profits outside of the fall in States. carry over 3 launchs that the US does non hold the highest percentage of the world(a) market share, therefore companies need to be able to compete world-widely in order to be victorful. delay 4 indicates that Coca-Cola has a similar diffusion of gross revenue in Europe, uniting America, and Asia. On the other hand, the majority of PepsiCos profits come from the United States (see Table 5). Compared to PepsiCo, Cadbury Schweppes has a stronger global presence with their global mix (see Table 7). Smaller companies are alike trying to establish a gl obal presence. Cott Corporation is a heartfelt example as indicated in Table 8.The saturation of the US markets has change magnitude the global expansion by soft drink leaders to growing their profits. The ease of entry and pass on does non cause competitive pressure on the major soft drink companies. It would be actually difficult for a refreshful company to enter this industry because they 3 would not be able to compete with the establish steel names, distribution channels, and high slap-up investment. Likewise, leaving this industry would be difficult with the significant loss of money from the fixed costs, binding contracts with distribution channels, and advertisements used to create the strong smirch images.This industry is well establish already, and it would be difficult for any company to enter or exit successfully. Three leading companies have prominent presence in the soft drink industry. The leaders include the Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, and Cadbury Schwepp es. According to the Coca- Cola annual floor (2004), it has the most soft drink gross gross gross revenue with $22 billion. The Coca-Cola product line has several everyday soft drinks including Coca-Cola, regimen Coke, Fanta, Barqs, and Sprite, selling over four hundred drink notices in around 200 nations (Murray 2006a).PepsiCo is the next top competitor with soft drink sales grossing $18 billion for the both potable subsidiaries, PepsiCo Beverages sexual union America and PepsiCo International (PepsiCo Inc. , 2004). PepsiCos soft drink product line includes Pepsi, Mountain Dew, and Slice which make up more(prenominal) than one- run of its sales. Cadbury Schweppes had soft drink sales of $6 billion with a product line consisting of soft drinks such as A&W base Beer, Canada Dry, and Dr. genus Capsicum (Cadbury Schweppes, 2004). pecuniary Analysis The carbonated beverage industry is a super competitive global industry as illustrated in the monetary statements.Accordi ng to John Sicher of Beverage Digest (2005), Coca-Cola was the tally one brand with around 4. 5 billion cases sold in 2004. Pepsi followed with 3. 2 billion cases, and Cadbury had 1. 5 billion cases sold. However, the market share shows a different picture. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo oblige the market share with Coca-Cola holding 43. 1% and Pepsi with 31. 7% (see Graph 1) only these market shares for both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo 4 have slightly decreased from 2003 to 2004. Coca-Colas volume has alike decreased 1. 0% since 2003, whereas PepsiCos volume has growth 0. 4% (see Graph 1).Diet Coke posted a 5% growth, but Coca-Colas other top 10 brands tumbled (Sicher, 2005). Overall, Coca-Colas market position has declined in 2004. The strategic group map (see Graph 1) as well shows the growth of Cott Corp. of 18% which is significantly higher than that of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. The American Beverage standoff (2006) states that in 2004, the retail sales for the entire soft-drink industry were $65. 9 billion. Barbara Murray (2006e) canvas the industry averages for 2004 and average net profit margin was 11. 29%. The online ratio average was 1. 11 and the riotous ratio average was 0.8. These figures help oneself analyze the financial statements of the major corporations in the industry. As shown in Table 13, Coca-Cola has seen their net profit margin increase from 20. 7% to 22. 1% from 2003 to 2004. According to Coca-Colas annual report (2004), 80% of their sales are from soft drinks therefore the total sales amount of money was used for their financial analysis. These figures show that their profits are increasing, but at a slow rate. This is in line with what is happening in the soft drink industry. The market is highly competitive and growth has remained at a stable level.The slight increase in Coca-Colas profit margin is most likely from their new energy drink product line. This industry is currently expanding rapidly, and is allowing the major beverage compa nies to increase their profits. Table 13 also shows Coca-Colas working capital was around $1. 1 billion in 2004. This is a ample increase from 2003 at only $500 million. This shows that they have sufficient funds to obey new opportunities. However, their current ratio and quick ratio are a cause for concern. A current ratio of 2 or get around is considered good and Coca-Colas was 1.102. This number shows that they may not have nice funds to cover curt term claims. The quick ratio for 2004 was at 5 0. 906 and is considered good when it is greater than 1. This illustrates that Coca-Cola may not have the ability to collapse short term debt without selling inventory. These two numbers are a concern because they are not able to satisfy their short term obligations. The current and quick ratios are in line with the industry averages, however (Murray, 2006e), Coca-Cola needs to ameliorate these ratios in order focus on long-term plans (Coca-Cola Company, 2004).PepsiCos financial st atements cannot be analyzed for only the soft drinks industry because they do not distinguish between logical argumentes. Over fractional their profits are from snacks or other beverage items however there are sales and profit figures for their two beverage subsidiaries. These sales figures grew from closely $16. 5 billion in 2003 to $18 billion in 2004 (Pepsi Co. Inc. , 2004). Their operational profit margin also increase 1% from 2003 to 2004 as illustrated in Table 13. This shows that beverage profits are increasing for them, but also at a slow rate.The increase could be due to the increase in market share that the Pepsi products gained in 2004 (Sicher 2004). The PepsiCo. annual Report (2004) stated that beverage volume increased 3% in 2004, but was goaded by the high growth of the non-carbonated beverage industry. Cadburys current and quick ratios are very similar to those of Coca-Cola. The current ratio and quick ratio for Cadbury Schweppes for 2004 were both 0. 917 (see Ta ble 13). Again, the current ratio should be 2 or more, and the quick ratio should be over 1.This illustrates that Cadbury also has difficulty nonrecreational short term debt and claims. Cadburys net profit margin has increased by 0. 7% from 2003 to 2004. This can be attributed to their market share growth in 2004 of 0. 2% (Sicher, 2005). One ratio that is concerning is their debt to equity ratio for 2004 in Table 13. They have almost two times as untold debt as they do to equity, which means that their funds are mainly provided by creditors as opposed to owners. This is concerning because they 6 owe a lot of money, and mustiness make a decent profit to be able to pay it off.The industry average for debt to equity is 81%, and Cadbury is far from that number (2006e). Also, Cadbury has a negative working capital for both 2003 and 2004, meaning they have more liabilities than assets. This shows that they do not have any funds to pursue new opportunities, as their current assets are b eing used to pay off liabilities (Cadbury, 2004). Overall, the financial statements of the three top competitors in the soft drink industry show that the industry is highly competitive and has little growth. Net profit margins increased for all three corporations, however only at a small rate.It also seems that all three companies lack sufficient current and quick ratios, but are all deep down a intelligent range of the industry average (2006e). This may be due to expanding their product lines to include energy drinks and non-carbonated beverages in order to increase profits and branch out their business. The soft drinks market is now in the matured stage of the life cycle. Growth in the industry has remained stagnant, and the financial statements of the major corporations in the industry illustrate that their sales and income are following this trend.The companies are in good financial positions gross profits and net profit margins are proceed to increase each year. The leverag e and activity ratios are all deep down reasonable range. However, one area all three corporations need to improve on is the liquidity ratios. Their quick and current ratios are low and need to be increased so they are able to meet short obligations. Five Competitive Forces for Coca-Cola Company The soft drink industry is very competitive for all corporations involved, with the greatest competition being that from rival sellers within the industry. All soft drink companies have to 7think about the pressures that from rival sellers within the industry, new entrants to the industry, switch over products, suppliers, and misdirecters. The competitive pressure from rival sellers is the greatest competition that Coca-Cola faces in the soft drink industry. Coca-Cola, Pepsi Co. , and Cadbury Schweppes are the largest competitors in this industry, and they are all globally established which creates a great amount of competition. Though Coca-Cola owns four of the top five soft drink brand s (Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Fanta, and Sprite), it had lower sales in 2005 than did PepsiCo (Murray, 2006c).However, Coca-Cola has higher sales in the global market than PepsiCo. In 2004, PepsiCo dominated North America with sales of $22 billion, whereas Coca-Cola only had about $6. 6 billion, with more of their sales coming from overseas, as shown in Table 4 and Table 5. PepsiCo is the main competitor for Coca-Cola and these two brands have been in a power struggle for years (Murray, 2006c). cross out name loyalty is another competitive pressure. The Brand Keys Customer consignment leadership Survey (2004) shows the brands with the greatest customer loyalty in all industries.Diet Pepsi ranked 17th and Diet Coke ranked thirty-sixth as having the most loyal customers to their brands. Refer to List 15 for the brand loyalty rankings of the various competitors. The new competition between rival sellers is to create new varieties of soft drinks, such as vanilla and cherry, in order to ke ep increasing sales and enticing new customers (Murray, 2006c). spic-and-span entrants are not a strong competitive pressure for the soft drink industry. Coca-Cola and Pepsi Co dominate the industry with their strong brand name and great distribution channels.In addition, the soft-drink industry is fully saturated and growth is small. This makes it very difficult for new, unknown entrants to start competing against the existing firms. Another barrier to entry is the high fixed costs for warehouses, trucks, and labor, and economies of scale. bare-assed 8 entrants cannot compete in price without economies of scale. These high capital requirements and market saturation make it super difficult for companies to enter the soft drink industry therefore new entrants are not a strong competitive force (Murray, 2006c). moderation products are those competitors that are not in the soft drink industry. such substitutes for Coca-Cola products are bottled water, sports drinks, coffee, and tea . Bottled water and sports drinks are increasingly popular with the trend to be a more health conscious consumer. There are more and more more varieties in the water and sports drinks that appeal to different consumers tastes, but also appear better than soft drinks. In addition, coffee and tea are competitive substitutes because they provide caffeine.The consumers who purchase a lot of soft drinks may substitute coffee if they want to keep the caffeine and lose the scratching and carbonation. Specialty blend coffees are also becoming more popular with the increasing number of Starbucks stores that offer many different flavors to appeal to all consumer markets. It is also very cheap for consumers to switch to these substitutes making the threat of substitute products very strong (Datamonitor, 2005). Suppliers for the soft drink industry do not hold much competitive pressure. Suppliers to Coca-Cola are bottling equipment manufacturers and backary packaging suppliers.Although Coca -Cola does not do any bottling, the company owns about 36% of Coca-Cola Enterprises which is the largest Coke bottler in the world (Murray, 2006a). Since Coca-Cola owns the majority of the bottler, that particular supplier does not hold much negotiate power. In terms of equipment manufacturers, the suppliers are generally providing the same products. The number of equipment suppliers is not in short supply, so it is fairly easy for a company to switch suppliers. This takes away much of suppliers bargaining power. 9.The buyers of the Coca-Cola and other soft drinks are mainly large grocers, discount stores, and restaurants. The soft drink companies mobilise the beverages to these stores, for resale to the consumer. The bargaining power of the buyers is very evident and strong. Large grocers and discount stores buy large volumes of the soft drinks, allowing them to buy at lower prices. Restaurants have less(prenominal) bargaining power because they do not order a large volume. Howev er, with the number of battalion are drinking less soft drinks, the bargaining power of buyers could start increasing due to decreasing buyer occupy (Murray, 2006a).Porters Five Forces Model identifies the five forces of competition for any company. The recognition of the strength of these forces helps to see where Coca-Cola stands in the industry. Of the five forces, rivalry within the soft drink industry, especially from PepsiCo, is the greatest source of competition for Coca-Cola. industriousness Changes The soft drink industry is affected by macroenvironmental factors of the industry that will lead to change. First, the entry/exit of major firms is a trend in the industry that will likely lead to change.More specifically, merger and desegregation has been prevalent in the soft drinks market, causing some firms to exit the industry and then re-enter themselves. Several leading companies have been looking to draw revenue growth and improve market share through the increased ec onomies of scale found through mergers and acquisitions. One specific example is how PepsiCo acquired booster Oats, who bought Gatorade which will help expand PepsiCos energy drink sector (Datamonitor, 2005). This trend has increased competition as firms diversification of products is increasing.A second trend in the macroenvironment is globalization. With the growing use of the internet and other electronic technologies, global communication is rapidly increasing. This is 10 allowing firms to collaborate within the demesne market and expand into world markets. It has driven competition greatly as companies strive to be first-movers. Specifically, the global soft drink markets compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is expected to expand to 3. 6% from 2004 to 2009 (Datamonitor, 2005). Third, changing societal concerns, attitudes, and lifestyles are serious trends.In the United States and Europe, people are becoming more concerned with a healthy lifestyle. Consumer sensory faculty of health problems arising from obesity and inactive lifestyles represent a serious assay to the carbonated drinks sector (Datamonitor, 2005, p. 15). The trend is causing the industrys business environment to change, as firms are differentiating their products in order to increase sales in a stagnant market. Thus, the long-term industry growth rate, the tail trend, shows low growth in recent years. Since 2000, the CAGR is 1. 5 per cent (Datamonitor, 2005).The low growth rates are of concern for soft drink companies, and several are creating new strategies to combat the low rates. This leads to the fifth trend of growing buyer preferences for differentiated products. Because soft drinks have been around since as early as 1798 (American Beverage Association, 2006), buyers want innovation with the products they buy. In todays globalizing society, being plain is not good enough. According to Barbara Murray (2006c), The key for all of these beverage companies is differentiation. The gian ts have new formulations and appearances.Whatever the strategy, be it a new color, flavor, or formula, companies will strive to create the greatest brand awareness in the minds of the consumer in the hopes of crowding out its competitors. Thus, the last trend, product innovation, is requirement to combat buyers need for a variety of tastes. Firms are already differentiating by taste, with the Coca-Cola company as an example. The firms product line includes fix Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Diet cherry Coke, 11 cherry Coke, Vanilla Coke, Coca-Cola with Lime, Coca-Cola with crumb and many more (Murray, 2006a). Key Success Factors.Key factors for competitive success within the soft drink industry branch from the trends of the macroenvironment. Primarily, constant product innovation is imperative. A company must be able to endorse consumer wants and needs, while maintaining the ability to adjust with the changing market. They must keep up with the changing trends (Murray, 2006c). Another k ey factor is the size of the organization, especially in terms of market share. Large distributors have the ability to negotiate with stadiums, universities and cultivate systems, making them the exclusive supplier for a specified period of time.Additionally, they have the ability to commit to mass purchases that significantly lower their costs. They must put on effective distribution channels to remain competitive. Taste of the product is also a key factor for success. Furthermore, established brand loyalty is a large aspect of the soft drink industry. Many consumers of carbonated beverages are extremely dedicated to a particular product, and rarely purchase other varieties. This stresses the importance of developing and maintaining a superior brand image.Price, however, is also a key factor because consumers without a strong brand preference will select the product with the most competitive price. Finally, global expansion is a vital factor in the success of a company within the soft drink industry. The United States has reached relative market saturation, requiring movement into the global industry to maintain growth (Datamonitor, 2005). Recommendations 12 Looking towards the future, the most authorized recommendation to Coca-Cola is continuing product innovation and expansion of their product line. The soft-drinks industry is fully saturated with competitors.Also, the industry is no longer expanding, and market share is actually decreasing as more consumers are looking to healthier options. By continually introducing new products, Coca-Cola will be able to increase their profits and allow the company to continue to grow. Also, having a diverse product line will make the corporation very stable, which is appealing to investors and creditors. A second recommendation would be to sustain or increase the global market share. Coca-Cola is very well-established globally, and is the global soft-drinks leader. This is very important to sustain because it is the source of the majority of their profits.If they lose global market share, their profits will decline dramatically. A final recommendation for Coca-Cola is to maintain and try to increase their brand loyalty. Diet Coke has the second highest brand loyalty of all the soft-drink competitors brands, and solid advertising campaigns will help maintain the brand loyalty. They can also strive to obtain higher brand loyalty in all other brands, not solely Diet Coke. The brand loyalty is important because it will allow Coca-Cola to sustain profits and maintain their market share. 13 Appendix Table 1 Datamonitor (2005, May). Global Soft inebriations Industry Profile. sensitive York. eccentric Code 0199-0802. Table 2 Datamonitor (2005, May). Global Soft Drinks Industry Profile. New York. Reference Code 0199-0802. 14 Table 3 Datamonitor (2005, May). Global Soft Drinks Industry Profile. New York. Reference Code 0199-0802. Table 4 Murray, Barbara. (2006a). The Coca-Cola Company. Hoovers.Retrieved February 13, 2006, from http//premium. hoovers. com/ submit/co/factsheet. x html? ID=10359 Coca-Cola 2004 sales $ mil. % of total Europe/Eurasia/ spirit East 7,195 33 North America 6,643 30 Asia 4,691 21 Latin America 2,123 10 Africa 1,067 5 Corporate 243 1 thorough 21,962 blowTable 5 Murray, Barbara. (2006b). Pepsi Co. Hoovers. Retrieved February 13, 2006, From http//premium. hoovers. com/ take away/co/profile. xhtml? ID=11166 Pepsi Co. 2004 sales $ mil. % of total US 18,329 63 Mexico 2,724 9 UK 1,692 6 Canada 1,309 4 Other countries 5,207 18 Total 29,261 snow 15 Table 6 Murray, Barbara. (2006b). Pepsi Co. Hoovers. Retrieved February 13, 2006, From http//premium. hoovers. com/subscribe/co/profile. xhtml? ID=11166 Pepsi Co. 2004 Sales $ mil. % of total PepsiCo International 9,862 34 Frito-Lay North America 9,560 33 PepsiCo Beverages North America 8,313 28 Quaker Foods North America 1,526 5.Total 29,261 100 Table 7 Murray, Barbara. (2006d). Cadbury Schweepes Inc. Hoovers. Retri eved February 13, 2006, from http//premium. hoovers. com/subscribe/co/profile. x html? ID=41767 Cadbury Schweppes 2004 Sales % of total Americas Beverages 33 Europe, Middle East, Africa 25 Americas Confectionery 16 Asia/ pacific 16 Europe Beverages 10 Total 100 Table 8 Walker, Tim (2006). Cott Corporation. Hoovers. Retrieved February 13, 2006, from http//premium. hoovers. com/subscribe/co/profile. xhtml? ID=42846 Cott Corporation 2004 Sales $ mil. % of total US 1,221. 8 74 Canada 189. 5 12 UK & Europe 186. 9 11.International 48. 1 3 Total 1,646. 3 100 Table 9 study Financial Data from 2004 Income Statements. 2004 Annual Reports. (in millions) *only 50% of total sales included, the part attributed to beverage sales 16 Table 10 look at Financial Data from 2003 Income Statements. 2004 Annual Reports. (in millions) *only 50% of total sales included, the part attributed to beverage sales Table 11 involve Financial Data from 2004 Balance Sheets. 2004 Annual Reports. (in millions) *only 50% of total sales included, the part attributed to beverage sales 17 Table 12 Select Financial Data from 2003 Balance Sheets.2004 Annual Reports. (in millions) *only 50% of total sales included, the part attributed to beverage sales 18 Table 13 Financial Analysis. Annual Reports. 19 Strategic Group Map goes here 20 List 1 Brand Keys Customer Loyalty Leaders survey (2004) Brandweek. com Brand Loyalty Rankings This year/Brand/Last year 1. Google. com (2) 2. Avis (1) 3. Verizon spacious outstrip (4) 4. KeySpan Energy (9) 5. Samsung roving Phone (7) 6. Hyatt Hotels (19) 7. Sprint Long outdistance (3) 8. Canon Office copier (8) 9. Yahoo. com (14) 10. Miller Genuine write (5) 11. Ritz-Carlton Hotels (17) 12. PSE&G (15) 13. Amazon.com (12) 14. Marriott Hotels (13) 15. Swissotel (NR) 16. Discover Card (27) 17. Diet Pepsi (31) 18. Budweiser (16) 19. Motorola planetary Phone (10) 20. Coors (NR) 21. Netscape. com (59) 22. Sony Ericsson Mobile Phone (93) 23. Capital One Credit Card (29 ) 24. L. L. Bean catalog (20) 25. Wal-Mart (33) 26. Skechers (NR) 27. New Balance Athletic Shoe (22) 28. Miller Lite (87) 29. Starbucks (6) 30. Radisson (48) 31. BP gas (79) 32. Inter-Continental Hotels (NR) 33. Sears enrolment (30) 34. Verizon piano tuner (37) 35. Schwab. com (26) 36. Diet Coke (47) 37. Mobil gasolene (25) 38. T-Mobile Wireless (76) 39. bell South Long Distance (28) 40. Adidas Athletic Shoe (23) 41. ETrade. com (42) 42. J. Crew Catalogue (54) 43. FedEx (50) 44. Westin Hotels (73) 45. Excite. com (35) 46. Hilton Hotels (36) 47. HotBot. com (34) 48. Sanyo Mobile Phone (NR) 49. MSN. com (38) 50. AltaVista. com (51) 21 51. AT&T Long Distance (24) 52. Spring PCS Wireless (60) 53. Pepsi (61) 54. Target (62) 55. Jet Blue Airways (67) 56. Bud wanton (32) 57. Sears Store (40) 58. Sheraton Hotels (46) 59. Lands End Catalogue (55) 60. Hampton Inn Hotels (NR) 61. Nokia Mobile Phone (11) 62. MCI Long Distance (83) 63. Holiday Inn Hotels (NR) 64.Ameritrade. com (104) 65. Be st Hesperian Hotels (NR) 66. Lycos. com (39) 67. Wyndham Hotels (68) 68. Xerox Office Copier (82) 69. Today (NBC) (56) 70. NFL (70) 71. MLB (58) 72. AOL. com (88) 73. Fox & Friends (Fox News Channel) (NR) 74. southwestward Airlines (64) 75. Exxon Gasoline (43) 76. DHL/Airborne Express (45) 77. BarnesandNoble. com (152) 78. AskJeeves. com (113) 79. Embassy Suites (86) 80. Nextel Mobile Phone (148) 81. SBC Long Distance (21) 82. TDWaterhouse. com (49) 83. Apple Computers (66) 84. Budget Rent A Car (71) 85. Subway (91) 86. Coors devolve (81) 87. Texaco Gasoline (18) 88. Poland Spring (NR) 89.Chevron Gasoline (44) 90. J. C. Penney (75) 91. Expedia. com (85) 92. Fidelity. com (65) 93. Qwest Long Distance (41) 94. indorse Card (100) 95. UPS (127) 96. Aquafina (NR) 97. Gateway Computers (53) 98. Hertz (84) 99. Amstel Light (97) 100. Amoco Gasoline (101) 101. Nike (94) 102. Ramada Hotels (NR) 103. T. Rowe Price vernacular Fund (74) 104. Cingular Wireless (107) 105. Con Edison (57) 106. Enterprise Rent-A-Car (90) 22 107. Nextel Wireless (134) 108. Delta Air Lines (72) 109. American Morning (CNN) (63) 110. Arrowhead (NR) 111. Dell Computers (69) 112. Fleet bound (157) 113. NBA (98) 114. New York Life insurance policy (139).115. pizza Hut (105) 116. National Discount Brokers (102) 117. MerrillLynch. com (95) 118. necrotizing enterocolitis (NR) 119. Panasonic Mobile Phone (124) 120. Fidelity (96) 121. Dasani (NR) 122. Papa Johns (118) 123. CDNow. com (153) 124. Datek. com (77) 125. south Mobile Phone (52) 126. IBM Computers (110) 127. Best Buy (154) 128. Reebok Fitness Shoes (103) 129. Sunoco Gasoline (121) 130. Wendys (115) 131. Wachovia Bank (89) 132. Good Morning America (ABC) (120) 133. Buy. com (142) 134. Corona (132) 135. CheapTickets. com (NR) 136. HP Computers (92) 137. PNC Bank (NR) 138. Shell Gasoline (119) 139. Dunkin Donuts (109).140. Coca-Cola (129) 141. Citibank (112) 142. Early Show (CBS) (151) 143. AT&T Wireless (99) 144. Travelocity. com (138) 145 . Bank of New York (158) 146. Bank of America (NR) 147. Continental Airlines (114) 148. CSFB. com (125) 149. Toshiba Computers (NR) 150. JP Morgan pursue Bank (106) 151. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts (117) 152. American Express Credit Card (135) 153. Deer honey oil (NR) 154. Sony Vaio (111) 155. Fodors. com (128) 156. Dominos Pizza (122) 157. Compaq Computers (80) 158. KFC (116) 159. Little Caesars (140) 160. Putnam (126) 161. Burger King (136) 162. Vanguard vulgar Fund (78) 23 163.United Air Lines (137) 164. Evian (NR) 165. Heineken (155) 166. Minolta Office Copier (159) 167. Travelers Insurance (144) 168. McDonalds (141) 169. National Car Rental (145) 170. Sharp Office Copier (169) 171. Hotels. com (147) 172. Janus Mutual Fund (123) 173. Ricoh Office Copier (164) 174. Godfathers (130) 175. Roundtable Pizza (131) 176. MetLife Insurance (162) 177. First USA (NR) 178. Fila (172) 179. Arbys (161) 180. American Airlines (143) 181. USPS Parcel deliverance (156) 182. Prudential Insurance (1 63) 183. Dollar Rent A Car (167) 184. Bank One (NR) 185. Hardees (165) 186. Mountain Dew (168)187. PriceLine. com (160) 188. Chuck E. Cheese Pizza (146) 189. MasterCard (150) 190. US Airways (166) 191. Aetna Insurance (174) 192. 7 Up (170) 193. Dr Pepper (176) 194. Alamo Rent-a-Car (178) 195. Jack in the Box Restaurant (171) 196. Taco Bell (173) 197. The Hartford Insurance (175) 198. Becks (179) 199. White Castle (177) 200. NHL (180) 201. Diet 7 Up (108) 202. Kmart (182) 203. Diet Dr Pepper (133) 24 Works Cited American Beverage Association (2005). Soft Drink Facts. Retrieved February 21, 2006 from http//www. ameribev. org/variety/facts. asp Cadbury Schweppes. (2004). 2004 Annual Report.Retrieved February 17, 2006 from http//www. cadburyschweppes. com Datamonitor. (2005, May). Global Soft Drinks Industry Profile. New York. Reference Code 0199-0802. Hein, Kenneth. (2004). Brand Loyalty 2004. Retrieved February 12, 2006 from http//www. brandkeys. com/news/press/102504Brandweek. Loyalt y. pdf Murray, Barbara. (2006a). The Coca-Cola Company. Hoovers. Retrieved February 13, 2006, from http//premium. hoovers. com/subscribe/co/factsheet. xhtml? ID=10359 Murray, Barbara. (2006b). Pepsi Co. Hoovers. Retrieved February 13, 2006, from http//premium. hoovers. com/subscribe/co/profile. xhtml?ID=11166 Murray, Barbara. (2006c). Carbonated Beverages. Hoovers. Retrieved February 13, 2006, from http//premium. hoovers. com/subscribe/ind/overview. xhtml? HICID=1049 Murray, Barbara. (2006d). Cadbury Schweppes Inc. Hoovers. Retrieved February 13, 2006, from http//premium. hoovers. com/subscribe/co/profile. x html? ID=41767 Murray, Barbara. (2006e). Comparison Data. Hoovers. Retrieved February 13, 2006, from http//premium. hoovers. com/subscribe/co/fin/comparison. xhtml? ID=10359 PepsiCo Inc. (2004). 2004 Annual Report. Retrieved February 17, 2006 from http//www. pepsico. com Sicher, J. D. (2005). Beverage.