Leadership keeps blaming policies like tariffs, and international issues like diesel, aluminum, and such prices.
Meanwhile, KO sells products for cheaper, and is performing well with share and stock.
The difference is not that consumers got more price sensitive. Did it hurt? Yes. But it's obviously not the main culprit.
This feels like showing up to the pizza party after KO already grabbed all the good slices, and we're still having a meeting about what went wrong.
As someone running a market, this is comforting. Here I was thinking I was responsible for the results when apparently they've already been pre-explained.
Interesting strategy. If you spend enough time explaining why you can't win, eventually nobody expects you to.
Pepsi Cola basically started out with franchise bottlers.... sounds like Caleb knew what he was doing. Now 100yrs later gonna be going full circle!
@bt Though is Coke spending a ton of money on S&T?
Coke acknowledged the business environment is tough, but found ways to navigate through. Pepsi said the business environment is tough and then cried. Said they didn’t expect it.
PepsiCo is getting a huge tariff rebate. Thats going to be booked as profit to the bottom line.
@ak this is also why PEP is focused on outsourcing. A bit of a different model thank KO, but they can control their sales team better which would allow them to determine priorities and consistency across system. You spin off ops costs, but don’t have rogue bottlers not following the corporate playbook.
True, same supply chain pressures, with a critical difference.
KO is more of a marketing/concentrate supplier. Their have a system of franchise bottlers to absorb much of the costs
PEP is vertically integrated, all cost pressures absorbed by PEP.
This is why Elliot wants PEP to refranchise.
It may be because they are not spending billions on S&T transformation projects and incurring costs associated with mass layoffs from moving jobs overseas.