||This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. (April 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
|Manufacturer||The Coca-Cola Company|
|Country of origin||USA|
|Introduced||April 23, 1985|
New Coke was the unofficial name for the reformulation of Coca-Cola introduced in April 1985 by The Coca-Cola Company to replace the original formula of its flagship soft drink, Coca-Cola (also called Coke). New Coke originally had no separate name of its own, but was simply known as "the new taste of Coca-Cola" until 1992 when it was officially renamed Coke II.
Coca-Cola's market share had been steadily losing ground to diet soft drinks and non-cola beverages for many years; meanwhile the consumers who were purchasing regular colas seemed to prefer the sweeter taste of Pepsi, as Coca-Cola soon learned in conducting blind taste tests. However, the American public's reaction to the change was negative, even hostile, and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent, rapid reintroduction of Coke's original formula (the original formula was re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic" and was put into market within three months of New Coke's debut) resulted in a significant gain in sales. This led to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy; however, the company has always claimed it was actually an attempt to replace the original product.
New Coke was only on the market in the United States for a short period, but it remains influential as a cautionary tale against tampering too extensively with a well-established and successful brand. It was discontinued internationally in July 2002.
- 1 History
- 2 After Coke Classic
- 3 Coke II
- 4 Commercial legacy
- 5 Conspiracy theories
- 6 Taste-test issues
- 7 See also
- 8 References
- 9 Further reading
- 10 External links
Just after World War II, the market share for The Coca-Cola Company's flagship beverage was 60%. By 1983, it had declined to under 24%, largely because of competition from Pepsi-Cola. Pepsi had begun to outsell Coke in supermarkets; Coke maintained its edge only through soda vending machines and fountain sales through fast food restaurants, concessions and sports venues where Coca-Cola had purchased captive "pouring rights". Market analysts believed baby boomers were more likely to purchase diet drinks as they aged and remained health- and weight-conscious. Therefore, any future growth in the full-calorie segment had to come from younger drinkers, who at that time favored Pepsi and its sweetness by even more overwhelming margins than the market as a whole. Meanwhile, the overall market for colas steadily declined in the early 1980s, as consumers increasingly purchased diet and non-cola soft drinks, many of which were sold by Coca-Cola themselves. This trend further eroded Coca-Cola's market share. When Roberto Goizueta took over as CEO in 1980, he pointedly told employees there would be no "sacred cows" in how the company did its business, including how it formulated its drinks.
Coca-Cola's most senior executives commissioned a secret effort named "Project Kansas" — headed by marketing vice president Sergio Zyman and Brian Dyson, president of Coca-Cola USA – to test and perfect the new flavor for Coke itself. It took its name from a photo of Kansas journalist William Allen White drinking a Coke; the image had been used extensively in its advertising and hung on several executives' walls. The company's marketing department again went out into the field, this time armed with samples of the possible new drink for taste tests, surveys, and focus groups.
The results of the taste tests were strong – the sweeter cola overwhelmingly beat both regular Coke and Pepsi. Then tasters were asked if they would buy and drink it if it were Coca-Cola. Most said yes, they would, although it would take some getting used to. A small minority, about 10–12%, felt angry and alienated at the very thought, saying that they might stop drinking Coke altogether. Their presence in focus groups tended to skew results in a more negative direction as they exerted indirect peer pressure on other participants.
The surveys, which were given more significance by standard marketing procedures of the era, were less negative and were key in convincing management to move forward with a change in the formula in 1985, to coincide with the drink's centenary. But the focus groups had provided a clue as to how the change would play out in a public context, a data point that the company downplayed but which was to prove important later.
Management also considered, but quickly rejected, an idea to simply make and sell the new flavor as yet another Coke variety. The company's bottlers were already complaining about absorbing other recent additions into the product line (Cherry Coke was also launched nationally during 1985) since Diet Coke in 1982. Many of them had sued over the company's syrup pricing policies. A new variety of Coke in competition with the main variety could, if successful, also cannibalize Coke’s existing sales and increase the proportion of Pepsi drinkers relative to Coke drinkers.
Early in his career with Coca-Cola, Goizueta had been in charge of the company's Bahamian subsidiary. In that capacity, he had improved sales by tweaking the drink's flavor slightly, so he was receptive to the idea that changes to the taste of Coke could lead to increased profits. He believed it would be "New Coke or no Coke", and the change must take place openly. He insisted that the containers carry the "New!" label, which gave the drink its popular name.
Goizueta also made a visit to his mentor and predecessor as the company's chief executive, the ailing Robert W. Woodruff, who had built Coke into an international brand following World War II. He claimed he had secured Woodruff's blessing for the reformulation, but even many of Goizueta's closest friends within the company doubt that Woodruff truly understood what Goizueta intended.
Marketing response by Pepsi
Coke let the media know on April 19, 1985, that a major announcement was planned for the following Tuesday, April 23, concerning a change in the product. While its press release did not explicitly say so, many recipients correctly guessed it meant a change in the flagship brand's formulation. Officials at PepsiCo had expected a major move but not something so drastic.
Despite a negative reaction by top Pepsi executives to a smuggled preview six-pack of the new Coke, they nevertheless concluded it was a serious threat. Likewise, Pepsi took advantage of consumer backlash (see below) in its advertising. Roger Enrico, then director of North American operations, wasted no time taunting Pepsi's older rival. He declared a company-wide holiday and took out a full-page ad in The New York Times proclaiming that Pepsi had won the long-running "Cola Wars". Since Coke officials were preoccupied over the weekend with preparations for the big day, their Pepsi counterparts had time to cultivate skepticism among reporters, sounding themes that would later come into play in the public discourse over the changed drink. After the announcement on April 23, PepsiCo gave their employees the day off saying "By today's action, Coke has admitted that it's not the real thing."
|“||To hear some tell it, April 23, 1985, was a day that will live in marketing infamy... spawning consumer angst the likes of which no business has ever seen.||”|
|— The Coca-Cola Company, on the New Coke announcement|
New Coke was introduced on April 23, 1985. Production of the original formulation ended later that same week.
The press conference at New York City's Lincoln Center to introduce the new formula did not go over very well. Reporters present had already been fed questions by Pepsi, which was extremely worried that New Coke would erase all its gains. Goizueta, Coca-Cola's CEO, described the new flavor as being "bolder", "rounder", and "more harmonious." Goizueta defended the change by pointing out that the drink's secret formula was not sacrosanct and inviolable. As far back as 1935, Coca-Cola sought kosher certification from an Atlanta rabbi, and made two changes to the formula so that the drink could be considered kosher (and incidentally, also halal and vegetarian).
But Goizueta also refused to admit that taste tests had in any way led the company to make the change (which he called "one of the easiest decisions we've ever made") to avoid giving Pepsi any credit, yet gave no other explanation for the change, further alienating reporters who had already heard from Pepsi representatives in advance on this very issue. A reporter asked whether Diet Coke would also be reformulated "assuming this is a success," to which Goizueta curtly replied, "No. And I didn't assume that this is a success. This is a success."
The emphasis on the sweeter taste of the new flavor also ran contrary to previous Coke advertising, in which spokesman Bill Cosby had touted Coke's less-sweet taste as a reason to prefer it over Pepsi.
The company, as it had planned, introduced the new formula with big marketing pushes in New York (workers renovating the Statue of Liberty were symbolically the first Americans given cans to take home) and Washington, D.C. (where thousands of free cans were given away in Lafayette Park). As soon as New Coke was introduced, the new formula was available at drink fountains in the United States as well at McDonald's as Coca-Cola pushed this drink to market in many places. Sales figures from those cities, and other regions where it had been introduced, showed a reaction that went as the market research had predicted. In fact, Coke's sales were up 8% over the same period the year before.
Most Coke drinkers resumed buying the new drink at much the same level as they had the old one. Surveys indicated, in fact, that a majority liked the new flavoring. Three-quarters of the respondents said they would buy New Coke again. The big test, however, remained in the Southeast, where Coke was first bottled and tasted.
Despite New Coke's acceptance with a large number of Coca-Cola drinkers, many more resented the change in formula and were not shy about making that known — just as had happened in the focus groups. Many of these drinkers were Southerners, some of whom considered the drink a fundamental part of regional identity. They viewed the company's decision to change the formula through the prism of the Civil War, as another surrender to the "Yankees".
Company headquarters in Atlanta began receiving letters and telephone calls expressing anger or deep disappointment. Over 40,000 calls and letters were received by the company, including one letter, delivered to Goizueta, that was addressed to "Chief Dodo, The Coca-Cola Company". Another letter asked for his autograph, as the signature of "one of the dumbest executives in American business history" would likely become valuable in the future. The company hotline, 1-800-GET-COKE, received over 1,500 calls a day compared to around 400 before the change. A psychiatrist whom Coke had hired to listen in on calls told executives that some people sounded as if they were discussing the death of a family member.
They were, nonetheless, joined by some voices from outside the region. Chicago Tribune columnist Bob Greene wrote some widely reprinted pieces ridiculing the new flavor and damning Coke's executives for having changed it. Talk show hosts and comedians mocked the switch. Ads for New Coke were booed heavily when they appeared on the scoreboard at the Houston Astrodome. Even Fidel Castro, a longtime Coca-Cola drinker, contributed to the backlash, calling New Coke a sign of American capitalist decadence. Goizueta's own father expressed similar misgivings to his son, who later recalled that it was the only time the older man had agreed with Castro, whose rule he had fled Cuba to avoid.
Pepsi took advantage of the situation, running ads in which a first-time Pepsi drinker exclaimed "Now I know why Coke did it!" Pepsi gained few long-term converts over Coke's switch, despite a 14% sales increase over the same month the previous year, the largest sales growth in the company's history. The most alienated customers refused to buy either New Coke or Pepsi, or bought large amounts of "old Coke" that were still in stock, including one Texan who spent $1,000 on his hoard of the old formula. Coca-Cola's director of corporate communications, Carlton Curtis, realized over time that they were more upset about the withdrawal of the old formula than the taste of the new one.
Gay Mullins, a Seattle retiree looking to start a public relations firm with $120,000 of borrowed money, formed the organization Old Cola Drinkers of America on May 28 to lobby Coca-Cola to either reintroduce the old formula or sell it to someone else. His organization eventually received over 60,000 phone calls. He also filed a class action lawsuit against the company (which was quickly dismissed by a judge who said he preferred the taste of Pepsi), while nevertheless expressing interest in landing The Coca-Cola Company as a client of his new firm should it reintroduce the old formula. In two informal blind taste tests, Mullins either failed to distinguish New Coke from old or expressed a preference for New Coke.
Still, despite ongoing resistance in the South, New Coke continued to do well in the rest of the country. But executives were uncertain of how international markets would react. Zyman heard doubts and skepticism from his relatives in Mexico, where New Coke was slated to be introduced later that summer, when he went there on vacation.
Goizueta publicly voiced a complaint many company executives had been making in private as they shared letters the company had received thanking them for the change in formula, that bashing it had become "chic" and that, as had happened in the focus groups, peer pressure was keeping those who liked it from speaking up in its favor as vociferously as its critics were against it. Donald Keough, the Coca-Cola company's president and chief operating officer, reported overhearing this exchange at his country club outside Atlanta:
"Have you tried it?"
"Did you like it?"
"Yes, but I'll be damned if I'll let Coca-Cola know that."
Some Coca-Cola executives had quietly been arguing for a reintroduction of the old formula as early as May. By June, when soft drink sales usually start to rise, the numbers showed the new formula was leveling among consumers. Executives feared social peer pressure was now affecting their bottom line. Some consumers began trying to obtain "old" Coke from overseas, where the new formula had not yet been introduced, as domestic stocks of the old drink were exhausted. Over the course of the month, Coca-Cola's chemists also quietly reduced the acidity level of the new drink, hoping to assuage complaints about the flavor and allow its sweetness to be better perceived (ads pointing to this change were prepared, but never used).
In addition to the noisier public protests, boycotts, and bottles being emptied into the streets of Southern cities, the company had more serious reasons to be concerned. Its bottlers, and not just the ones still suing the company over syrup pricing policies, were expressing concern. While they had given Goizueta a standing ovation when he announced the change at an April 22 bottlers' meeting at Atlanta's Woodruff Arts Center, glad the company had finally taken some initiative in the face of Pepsi's advances, they were less enthusiastic about the taste. Most of them saw great difficulty having to promote and sell a drink that had long been marketed as "The Real Thing", constant and unchanging, now that it had been changed.
The 20 bottlers still suing Coca-Cola made much of the change in their legal arguments. Coca-Cola had argued in its defense when the suit was originally filed that the formula's uniqueness and difference from Diet Coke justified different pricing policies from the latter – but if the new formula was simply an HFCS-sweetened Diet Coke, Coca-Cola could not argue the formula was unique. Bottlers, particularly in the South, were also tired of facing personal opprobrium over the change. Many reported that some acquaintances had stopped speaking to them, or had expressed displeasure in other emotionally hurtful ways. On June 23, several of the bottlers took these complaints to Coca-Cola executives in a private meeting. With the company now fearing boycotts not only from its consumers but its bottlers, talks about reintroducing the old formula moved from "if" to "when".
Finally the Coca-Cola board changed their minds and decided to bring back the old Coke. Company president Donald Keough revealed years later in the 2002 documentary The People vs. Coke that they realized this was the only right thing to do when they visited a small restaurant in Monaco and the owner of the restaurant proudly said that they had "the real thing, it's a real Coke," offering them a chilled 6 and 1/2 oz. glass bottle of original Coca-Cola.
Coca-Cola executives announced the return of the original formula during the afternoon of July 11, less than three months after New Coke's introduction. ABC News' Peter Jennings interrupted General Hospital to share the news with viewers. On the floor of the U.S. Senate, David Pryor called the reintroduction "a meaningful moment in U.S. history". The company hotline received 31,600 calls in the two days after the announcement.
The new product continued to be sold and retained the name Coca-Cola (until 1992, when it was officially renamed Coke II), so the old product was renamed Coca-Cola Classic, also called Coke Classic, later just Coke and for a short period of time it was referred to by the public as Old Coke. Many who tasted the reintroduced formula were not convinced that the first batches really were the same formula that had supposedly been retired that spring. This was true for some regions because Coca-Cola Classic differed from the original formula in that all bottlers who hadn't already done so were using high fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar to sweeten the drink.
"There is a twist to this story which will please every humanist and will probably keep Harvard professors puzzled for years," said Keough at a press conference. "The simple fact is that all the time and money and skill poured into consumer research on the new Coca-Cola could not measure or reveal the deep and abiding emotional attachment to original Coca-Cola felt by so many people."
The company gave Gay Mullins, founder of the organization Old Cola Drinkers of America (which had lobbied Coca-Cola to either reintroduce the old formula or sell it to someone else) the first case of Coca-Cola Classic.
By the end of the year, Coca-Cola 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.
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. 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.
Coke spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out where it had made a mistake, ultimately concluding that it had underestimated the public reaction of the portion of the customer base that would be alienated by the switch. This would not emerge for several years afterward, however, and in the meantime the public simply concluded that the company had, as Keough suggested, failed to consider the public's attachment to the idea of what Coke's old formula represented. While that has become conventional wisdom in the ensuing years, some analyses have suggested otherwise.
This populist version of the story served Coke's interests, however, as the whole episode did more to position and define Coca-Cola as a brand embodying values distinct from Pepsi than any deliberate effort to do so probably could have done. Allowing itself to be portrayed as a somewhat clueless large corporation forced to back off a big change by overwhelming public pressure flattered customers (as Keough put it, "We love any retreat which has us rushing toward our best customers with the product they love the most.") Bottles and cans continued to bear the "Coca-Cola Classic" title until 2009 when the company announced that it would discontinue the use of "Classic" to avoid confusion with the younger generation.
While in the short term the fiasco led Bill Cosby to end his advertising for Coke, saying his commercials that praised the superiority of the new formula had hurt his credibility, no one at Coca-Cola was fired or otherwise held responsible for what is still widely perceived as a misstep, for the simple reason that it ultimately wasn't. When Goizueta died in 1997, the company's share price was at a level well above what it was when he had taken over 16 years earlier and its position as market leader even more firmly established. At the time Roger Enrico, then head of Pepsi's American operations, likened New Coke to the Edsel. Later, when he was himself PepsiCo's CEO, he modified his assessment of the situation, saying that had people been fired or demoted over New Coke, it would have sent a message that risk-taking was strongly discouraged at the company.
In the late 1990s, Zyman summed up the New Coke experience thus:
Yes, it infuriated the public, cost us a ton of money and lasted for only 77 days before we reintroduced Coca-Cola Classic. Still, New Coke was a success because it revitalized the brand and reattached the public to Coke.
New Coke continued to do what it had originally been designed to do: win taste tests. In 1987, The Wall Street Journal surveyed 100 randomly selected cola drinkers, the majority of whom indicated a preference for Pepsi, with Classic Coke accounting for the remainder save two New Coke loyalists. When this group was given a chance to try all three in a blind test, New Coke slightly edged out Pepsi – yet many drinkers reacted angrily to finding they had chosen a brand other than their favorite.
Goizueta claimed that he never once regretted the decision, even throwing an anniversary party for New Coke in 1995, and continued to drink it until his death in 1997.
After Coke Classic
In the short run, the reintroduction of old Coke saved Coke's sales numbers and brought it back in the good graces of many customers and bottlers. Phone calls and letters to the company were as joyful and thankful as they had been angry and depressed ("You would have thought we'd cured cancer", said one executive).
But confusion reigned at the company's marketing department, which had to come up with a plan to market two Coca-Colas where such plans had been completely off the table just a few months before. Coca-Cola Classic did not need much help, with a "Red, White and You" campaign showcasing the American virtues many of those who had clamored for its reintroduction had pointedly reminded the company it embodied. But the company was at a loss to sell what was now just Coke. "The Best Just Got Better" could no longer be used. Marketers fumbled for a strategy for the rest of the year. Matters were not helped when McDonald's announced shortly after the reintroduction that it was switching from New Coke back to Coca-Cola Classic at every store across the country.
At the beginning of 1986, however, Coke's marketing team found a strategy by returning to one of their original motives for changing the drink: the youth market so beholden to Pepsi. Max Headroom, the purportedly computer-generated media personality played by Matt Frewer, was chosen to replace Cosby as the spokesman for Coke's new "Catch the Wave" campaign. With his slicked-back hair and sunglasses, he was already known to much of the U.S. youth audience through appearances on MTV, where he had first appeared in the Art of Noise's "Paranoimia" video, and Cinemax. The campaign was launched with a television commercial produced by McCann-Erickson New York, with Max saying in his trademark stutter, "C-c-c-catch the wave!" and referring to his fellow "Cokeologists". In a riposte to Pepsi's televisual teasings, one showed Headroom asking a Pepsi can he was "interviewing" how it felt about more drinkers preferring Coke to it and then cut to the condensation forming on, and running down, the can. "S-s-s-s-sweating?" he asked.
It was a huge success, and surveys likewise showed that more than three-quarters of the target market were aware of the ads within two days. Coke's corporate hotline received more calls about Max than any previous spokesperson, some even asking if he had a girlfriend. The ads and campaign continued throughout the year and were chosen as best of 1986 by Video Storyboard of New York.
In 1985, New Coke was sold only in Canada, the United States, and United States territories, while the original formula continued to be sold in the rest of the world. New Coke was eventually returned to the company's product portfolio; it was test-marketed in certain U.S. cities under the name Coke II in 1990 and officially renamed Coke II in late 1992, despite the company's original intention not to create a second brand. Filmmaker Miranda July is said to have suggested the name of Coke II while working as a tastemaker for an ad agency.
However, Coca-Cola did little to promote or otherwise distinguish it. In a market already offering far more choice of drinks calling themselves "Coke" in some fashion or another, the public saw little reason to embrace a product they had firmly rejected seven years earlier, and within about a year, Coke II was largely off the American shelves again. By 1998, it could be found only in some scattered Midwestern markets, and in July 2002, Coca-Cola confirmed its discontinuation.
On August 16, 2002, Coca-Cola announced a change of the label in which the word "Classic" was no longer so prominent, leading to speculation that it would eventually be removed and the last traces of New Coke eliminated. In 2009, Coca-Cola permanently removed "Classic" from its North American packaging.
New Coke had the spotlight for only three months but casts a long shadow, in both the business world and popular culture, that can be seen today. It is most frequently mentioned as a cautionary tale among businesses against tampering too extensively with a well-established and successful brand.
"For a product so widely despised," noted AdWeek blogger Tim Nudd in 2006, more than two decades later, "New Coke (a.k.a. Coke II) still gets an admirable amount of ink." He noted Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, and Why Most Things Fail, by Paul Ormerod, that dealt with it at some length, as well as two recent mentions in Forbes and Sports Illustrated.
Within Coca-Cola, the role the company's bottlers had played in forcing its hand led executives to create a new subsidiary, Coca-Cola Enterprises, which bought out several of the larger bottlers and placed distribution and marketing efforts more tightly under Coca-Cola's control.
Coca-Cola's sudden reversal on New Coke led to several rumors and conspiracy theories that have circulated in the years since to explain how a company with the resources and experience of Coca-Cola could have made such an apparently colossal blunder.
Some explanations that have been proffered are:
- The company intentionally changed the formula, hoping consumers would be upset with the company, and demand the original formula to return, which in turn would cause sales to spike. Keough answered this speculation by saying "We're not that dumb, and we're not that smart."
- The putative switch was planned all along to cover the change from sugar-sweetened Coke to much less expensive high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a theory that was supposedly given credence by the apparently different taste of Coke Classic when it first hit the market (the U.S. sugar trade association took out a full-page ad lambasting Coke for using HFCS in all bottling of the old formula when it was reintroduced). In fact, Coca-Cola began allowing bottlers to remove up to half of the product's cane sugar as early as 1980, five years before the introduction of New Coke. By the time the new formula was introduced, many bottlers were already sweetening the drink entirely with HFCS.
- It provided cover for the final removal of all coca derivatives from the product to placate the Drug Enforcement Administration, which was trying to eradicate the plant worldwide to combat an increase in cocaine trafficking and consumption. While Coke's executives were indeed relieved the new formula contained no coca and concerned about the long-term future of the Peruvian government-owned coca fields that supplied it in the face of increasing DEA pressure to end cultivation of the crop, according to author Mark Pendergrast there was no direct pressure from the DEA on Coca-Cola to do so. This theory was endorsed in a Time magazine article, as well as by historian Bartow Elmore, who claims that the reformulation was made in response to the escalating War on Drugs by the Reagan Administration. However, evidence indicates that the last traces of cocaine were actually removed from the formula in the 1920s.
In talks, and his book Blink, author Malcolm Gladwell relates his conversations with market researchers in the food industry who put most of the blame for the failure of New Coke on the flawed nature of taste tests. They claim most are subject to systematic biases.
Tests such as the Pepsi Challenge were what are called in the industry "sip tests", meaning that drinkers were given small samples (less than a can or bottle's worth) to try out. Gladwell contends that what people say they like in these tests may not reflect what they will actually buy to sit at home and drink over a week or so. Carol Dollard, who once worked in new product development for Pepsi, told Gladwell, "I've seen many times where the sip test will give you one result and the home-use test will give you the exact opposite." For example, although many consumers react positively to the sweeter taste of Pepsi when drinking it in small volumes, it may become unattractively sweet when drunk in quantity. Coke, on the other hand, may be more attractive for drinking in volume, precisely because it is less sweet. A more comprehensive testing regimen could possibly have revealed this, Gladwell's sources believe.
Gladwell reports that other market researchers have criticized Coke for not realizing that much of its success as a brand came from what they call sensation transference, a phenomenon first described by marketer Louis Cheskin in the late 1940s: tasters unconsciously add their reactions to the drink's packaging into their assessment of the taste. For example, one of the researchers told Gladwell that his firm's research had found 7-Up drinkers offered a sample from a bottle with a distinctly more yellowish label believe the flavor to be more lemony, although it wasn't.
In Coke's case, it is alleged that buyers, subject to sensation transference, were "tasting" the red color of the container and distinctive Coca-Cola script as much as the drink itself. It was thus, in their opinion, a mistake to focus solely on the product and its taste. "The mistake Coke made," said Darrel Rhea, an executive with the firm Cheskin founded, "was in attributing their loss in share entirely to the product". He points to Pepsi's work in establishing a youth-oriented brand identity from the 1960s onward as having more bearing on its success.
Coke considered but rejected gradually changing the drink's flavor incrementally, without announcing that they were doing so. Executives feared that the public would notice and exaggerate slight differences in taste. In 1998, Joel Dubow, a professor of food marketing at St. Joseph's University, tested this "flavor balance hypothesis" and argued that it was not true. He and fellow researcher Nancy Childs tested mixtures of classic Coke and Coca-Cola II and found that the gradual changes of taste were not noticed by a significant number of tasters. Coke, he said, would have succeeded had it chosen this strategy.
- Mikkelson, Barbara (March 13, 2007). "Knew Coke / New Coke Origin". Snopes.com. Retrieved March 16, 2010.
- ;Ibid., 40
- "The Real Story of New Coke, http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/coke-lore-new-coke/>
- Newsweek, July 22, 1985: 39.
- Hays, Constance; The Real Thing:Truth and Power at the Coca-Cola Company, Random House, 2004, ISBN 0-8129-7364-X, 114
- Pendergrast, Mark; For God, Country and Coca-Cola: The Definitive History of the Great American Soft Drink and the Company that Makes It, Basic Books, 1994, ISBN 0-465-05468-4, 355
- Schindler, Robert M. (1992). "The Real Lesson of New Coke: The Value of Focus Groups for Predicting the Effects of Social Influence". Marketing Research. 4 (4): 22 [p. 27]. ISSN 1040-8460.
- Hays, 106
- Pendergrast, 358
- Pendergrast, 356
- Hays, 115.
- Pendergrast, 359
- Oliver, Thomas; The Real Coke, The Real Story, Penguin, 1986; ISBN 0-14-010408-9; 125
- "The Real Story of New Coke". Coke Lore. The Coca-Cola Company. Retrieved October 10, 2011.
- Pendergrast, 352
- American Jewish Historical Society
- Hays, 117
- The Coca-Cola Company's official history of New Coke does not mention Pepsi, referring instead to its "chief competitor".
- Oliver, 136
- Hays, 119
- Matthews, Blair (Spring 2005). "Coca Cola's Big Mistake: New Coke 20 Years Later ...". Soda Pop Dreams. Archived from the original on December 2009. Retrieved June 16, 2006.
- Demott, John; June 24, 1985; "All Afizz Over the New Coke; Time.
- Oliver, 153
- Oliver, op.cit., 149-51
- Oliver, 163.
- Pendergrast, 362
- Hays, 118
- Oliver, 148-49.
- In a frequently retold story (see Matthews), an elderly woman at a Marietta, Georgia supermarket confronts a Coca-Cola deliveryman as he restocks the shelves with bottles of New Coke. The woman hits him with her umbrella, yelling "It tastes like shit!" A nearby counterpart from Pepsi begins to snicker, only to be told in turn, "You stay out of it! This is family business! Your stuff tastes worse than shit!"
- Oliver, 175
- June 21, 1985; "Coke Flavor-Suit Rejected"; UPI.
- Oliver, 160.
- Oliver, 162
- Oliver, 154
- Oliver, 157.
- Oliver, 158
- Pendergrast, 364
- Hays, 106, 116
- Hays, 121
- Daniel Barry, BBC Documentary "The People vs Coke"
- Oliver, 183
- The New York Times; October 23, 1985; Topics; Cars and Cola Jokes; retrieved November 19, 2006.
- Oliver, 187.
- Pendergrast, 360
- Geller, Martinne (January 30, 2009). "Coke scraps "Classic" tag from flagship cola: report". Reuters.
- Time; July 22, 1985; 48
- Enrico, Roger and Kornbluth, Jesse; The Other Guy Blinked: How Pepsi Won the Cola Wars, Bantam Books, New York, NY, 240. ISBN 0-553-26632-2.
- Bigford, Andrew; SKI magazine; "Last Run: Sergio Zyman", exact date unknown, retrieved June 14, 2006
- Cited in Smith, Gary; Introduction to Statistical Reasoning, McGraw Hill 1998, 186–87, excerpt retrieved here  October 15, 2006.
- Oliver, 181.
- Pendergrast, 366
- Pendergrast, 369.
- the Max Headroom chronicles: Max & N-N-New Coke, 2005, accessed December 14, 2006.
- Library of Congress, Highlights in the History of Coca-Cola Television Advertising, retrieved June 22, 2006
- Onstad, Katrina (July 14, 2011). "Miranda July, The Make-Believer". The New York Times.
- John H. McConnell; How to Design, Implement and Interpret an Employee Survey, AMACOM Division of the American Management Association, ISBN 0-8144-0709-9, 2003, 3.
- Clifford, Stephen (January 31, 2009). "Coca-Cola Deleting 'Classic' From Coke Label". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2011.
- Nudd, Tim; February 24, 2006; Where are the last few cans of New Coke?; AdWeek; retrieved June 26, 2006
- Daniel Barry, BBC Documentary: "People vs Coke"
- Gladwell, Malcolm; Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Little, Brown, New York, NY 2005. 155–166. ISBN 0-316-17232-4.
- Gladwell, 159.
- Cheskin, Louis and Ward, L.B.; September 1948; "Indirect Approach to Market Reactions," ;Harvard Business Review, referenced by Gladwell.
- Gladwell, 163.
- For general background on this see Frank, Thomas, The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture and the Rise of Hip Consumerism, University of Chicago Press, 1997, 168–183 ("Carnival and Cola: Hip vs. Square in the Cola wars").
- J. Dubow and N. Childs (1998). "New Coke, Mixture Perception and the Flavor Balance Hypothesis". Journal of Business Research 43 (3): 147–155.
- Civille, Gail Vance and Lyon, Brenda G., Aroma and Flavor Lexicon for Sensory Evaluation, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA 1996.
- Hine, Thomas; The Total Package: The Secret History and Hidden Meanings of Boxes, Bottles, Cans, and Other Persuasive Containers; Back Bay Books, 1997. ISBN 0-316-36546-7.
- Imram, Nazlin (1999). "The role of visual cues in customer perception and acceptance of a food product", Nutrition & Food Science', 99 (5):224–230
- Leven, S. and Levine, D., (1996). "Multiattribute Decision Making in Context: A Dynamic Neural Network Methodology", Cognitive Science, 20:271–299.
- Meilgaard, Morten; Civille, Gail Vance and Carr, B. Thomas, Sensory Evaluation Techniques, third edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. 1999.
- Wilson, Timothy and Schooler, Jonathan (1999), "Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2):181–192.
- New Coke - a market research disaster? - St John's College ... Blog
- Coca-Cola history on New Coke
- God, What a Blunder: The New Coke Story By Michael Bastedo Angela Davis With a good talk on the problems of their research methodologies (focus groups v. surveys).
- QuickTime news clip on New Coke introduction from KTLA news in Los Angeles, courtesy of CNN.com
- Cokelore (Knew Coke) — Snopes' take on New Coke