Questions attached below. 

SECTION

A (Total 65 marks)

The assignment is based on the case, “Coca-cola goes green: the launch of Coke Life” by Matthias Koch, published by Ivey Publishing, 2016.

Important: As much as possible, answer the questions in the context of the case scenario at the time of the article. However, if necessary, your argument may be based on more recent information on Coca-Cola or Coca-Cola Life (referencing required).

Proper referencing using the APA referencing format is required. There will be a maximum of 10 marks penalty for inappropriate referencing.

The total length of the report must not exceed 2,200 words, with font Times New Roman size 12, with 1.5-line spacing (excluding cover page, table of contents, and references, if any). A penalty will be applied to the reports that exceed the word limit.

Question 1

Assuming you were the CEO of the Coke-Cola Company (TCCC) in 2013, formulate the justification for the decision to launch Coca-Cola Life (aka. Coke Life).

NOTE. In your justification, elaborate on the internal and external factors that may have led to this decision. You may refer to other information about the business situation faced by TCCC in 2013 to support your argument (proper referencing required). (16 marks)

Question 2

(a) Illustrate how TCCC was satisfying four (4) different customer segments in the soft drink market before the launch of Coke Life. (12 marks)

(b) Discuss how Coke Life is positioned to complement TCCC’s existing offering of cola products. (8 marks)

Question 3

In 2013, TCCC introduced “Coca-Cola Life” to the family of Coca-Cola brands (i.e., Classic, Diet, and Zero). While Coke Life is available in the U.S., it has been gradually rebranded into “Coca-Cola Stevia” in some markets, including Australia (since 2017), New Zealand (since 2018), and Singapore (since 2018).

Compare these two (2) branding strategies in terms of their potential to achieve stronger brand equity.

Note. You may want to research further on the brand elements designed for these two strategies. (20marks)

Resources: Coca-Cola Life USA:

https://us.coca-cola.com/coke-life/

Coca-Cola Stevia Australia:

https://www.coca-cola.com.au/en/products/coca-cola-with-stevia/

Question 4

Examine the launch of Coke Life from an ethical perspective.

(9 marks)

W16333

COCA-COLA GOES GREEN: THE LAUNCH OF COKE LIFE1

Matthias Koch wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The author does not intend to illustrate either effective
or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The author may have disguised certain names and other identifying information to
protect confidentiality.

This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the
permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights
organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western
University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) cases@ivey.ca; www.iveycases.com.

Copyright © 2016, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation Version: 2016-06-13

In June 2013, The Coca-Cola Company (TCCC) began a two-year initiative to launch Coke Life, a
naturally sweetened carbonated soft drink with reduced sugar. Coke Life complemented TCCC’s
established product line consisting of Coca-Cola (also known as Coca-Cola Classic), Diet Coke, and
Coke Zero. Coke Life substituted a portion of the sugar component with stevia leaf extract and contained
35 per cent less sugar than Coca-Cola Classic. TCCC claimed that “Coke Life is for adults looking for a
great tasting Coke but [one that has] fewer kilojoules and [is] sweetened from natural sources.”2

When TCCC launched Coke Life, the market for carbonated soft drinks was highly competitive and
shrinking. Further, TCCC had its top brands positioned in this market already. So, why would TCCC add
another drink to the mix?

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY

TCCC was the world’s largest company in the non-alcoholic beverage industry.3 Soft drinks bearing the
Coca-Cola trademark had been sold in the United States since 1886. TCCC distributed its products to
more than 200 countries worldwide. Its brand portfolio consisted of over 500 non-alcoholic beverage
brands, mainly sparkling drinks but also still beverages such as water, juice drinks, ready-to-drink teas
and coffees, and sports and energy drinks.4 TCCC owned four of the top five drink brands in the world:
Coca-Cola Classic, Diet Coke, Fanta, and Sprite (see Exhibit 1).

As of the end of 2014, TCCC had approximately 130,000 employees. In 2013, TCCC had total sales of
US$46.9 billion5 and a gross profit of $28.4 billion (60.7 per cent). That year, TCCC realized earnings
before taxes of $11.5 billion (24.5 per cent) (see Exhibit 2).

This document is authorized for use only in Guan Chong’s MKT364 Case Studies in Marketing Management at Singapore University of Social Sciences from Mar 2020 to Apr 2020.

Page 2 9B16A018

THE GLOBAL SOFT DRINK MARKET

The beverages market was divided into alcoholic beverages (hard drinks) and non-alcoholic beverages
(soft drinks). In 2014, the soft drink market grew by 3 per cent in volume and 6 per cent in sales to reach
approximately $650 billion.6 The U.S. market remained the world’s largest market for soft drinks. In terms of
volume growth, the Asia-Pacific region was ranked second, with volume expanding by 6.9 per cent.

The key categories within the soft drink market were carbonated soft drinks (CSDs), accounting for
approximately 35 per cent, bottled water (25 per cent), and fruit drinks and juices (15 per cent). Other
categories were ready-to-drink tea, sports and energy, and other (25 per cent).7

In the first half of 2014, CSD volumes in the United States decreased by approximately 1 per cent. In the
same timeframe, non-alcoholic ready-to-drink (NARTD) beverages, sports and energy drinks, and bottled
water grew strongly. The ready-to-drink coffee segment recorded growth of approximately 8 per cent.

The NARTD category was estimated to increase by 5 per cent between 2014 and 2017. Since 2010,
NARTD retail value had grown by $135 billion. Further, Euromonitor International projected that this market
would grow by approximately $200 billion by 2020. The market for diet soft drinks, on the other hand, had
constantly decelerated over the last 10 years, even falling into decline in 2008 (see Exhibits 3 and 4).8

Within the CSD segment, TCCC had accumulated a market share of over 40 per cent.9 However, the non-
alcoholic beverage segment was highly competitive, consisting of numerous players ranging from small
and/or emerging companies to large and well-established manufacturers.10 PepsiCo Inc. was one of
TCCC’s primary competitors, with an approximately 27 per cent market share within the CSD segment.
Other significant competitors were Nestlé S.A., Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc., Groupe Danone,
Mondelez International, Inc., Kraft Foods Group, Inc., Suntory Beverage & Food Limited, and the
Unilever Group.

MARKET SEGMENTATION

The soft drink market spanned from bottled water to sugar-sweetened soft drinks, with cola being the
dominating flavour.11 On one end, bottled water was positioned as a tasteless and sugar-free option to
satisfy the basic need of thirst. Bottled water represented the health-oriented consumer segment.
Consumers in this segment valued a sugar-free, healthy drink that supported their healthy lifestyle.

Sugar-sweetened soft drinks were positioned on the other end of the spectrum. They were targeted
towards taste-oriented consumers. Consumers in this segment valued the strong, natural, and pure taste of
sugar. Coca-Cola Classic—branded red—and Pepsi Classic—branded blue—represented the original cola
brands for the two key cola manufacturers. The drinks contained over 10 grams of sugar and over 40
calories per 100 millilitres. Over the last decades, TCCC and PepsiCo had launched more than a dozen
cola products, including caffeine-free versions and cherry- and/or vanilla-flavoured versions.12

Based on the amount of sugar, two product categories had emerged within the cola segment of the
CSD market:

 Full-sugar drinks: Coca-Cola Classic and Pepsi Classic
 No-sugar drinks: Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi; Coke Zero and Pepsi Max

This document is authorized for use only in Guan Chong’s MKT364 Case Studies in Marketing Management at Singapore University of Social Sciences from Mar 2020 to Apr 2020.

Page 3 9B16A018

TCCC and PepsiCo had launched diet versions of their classic products, branded silver. The diet versions
contained no sugar and minimal calories. In 1993 and 2005, PepsiCo and TCCC introduced Pepsi Max
and Coke Zero, respectively. Like the diet products, Pepsi Max and Coke Zero were sugar- and calorie-
free. No-sugar soft drinks targeted a hybrid consumer segment—that is, consumers who valued both the
sweet taste of soft drinks and their individual health.

All sugar-free drinks were artificially sweetened using acesulfame potassium and/or aspartame.13
Acesulfame potassium, also referred to as “Ace-K,” was a sugar substitute that contained very few
calories and was approximately 200 times sweeter than sugar. Aspartame was mainly made of aspartic
acid and phenylalanine.14 Some people had to avoid phenylalanine, as their metabolisms could not break
it down (see Exhibit 5).

WICKED CONSUMER TRENDS, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, AND LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTIONS

Obesity and being overweight were considered major global threats to societal welfare.15 According to the
World Health Organization, obesity had more than doubled worldwide since 1980. In 2014, almost two
billion adults were overweight. In addition, 42 million children under the age of five were overweight or
obese in 2013. Most of the world’s population lived in countries where overweight and obesity killed
more people than underweight.

From the mid-2000s onwards, sugar-sweetened soft drinks had been heavily criticized for their negative
impact on health. The long-term effects were thoroughly researched. The scientific evidence suggested
that sugary drinks increased the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic conditions. The
World Health Organization had launched several initiatives, research studies, and educational documents
encouraging adults and children to reduce their sugar intake.16 According to the Australia New Zealand
Standards Code, a balanced diet for an average adult included 90 grams of sugar per day.17

As a result of the growing scientific evidence, policymakers worldwide had begun to intervene. The
Mexican government, for example, introduced a nation-wide sugary drink tax that took effect in 2014.
The policy aimed to help curb rising rates of obesity and diabetes in Mexico, which had overtaken the
United States as the world’s most overweight country.18 Likewise, the Measure D soda tax was approved
by 75 per cent of Berkeley, California, voters on November 4, 2014, and took effect on January 1, 2015,
as the first such tax in the United States.19

Further, on July 9, 2015, San Francisco lawmakers decided that ads for carbonated soft drinks must
include warning labels. Advertisements for sugary beverages would have to bear the message,
“WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.
This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.”20

In 2013, TCCC launched a controversial television ad showcasing TCCC’s achievements in fighting
obesity.21

POSITIONING AND BRANDING OF COKE LIFE

Coke Life—branded green—complemented TCCC’s existing product line as a reduced-sugar version of
Coca-Cola Classic. TCCC positioned its cola brands as follows:22

This document is authorized for use only in Guan Chong’s MKT364 Case Studies in Marketing Management at Singapore University of Social Sciences from Mar 2020 to Apr 2020.

Page 4 9B16A018

 Coca-Cola Classic: the original brand valued by consumers for its great, natural taste;
 Coke Zero: designed for young adults with zero sugar;
 Diet Coke: distinct taste with zero sugar and low kilojoules; valued by dedicated drinkers; and
 Coke Life: for adults looking for a great-tasting Coke that was naturally sweetened and had fewer

kilojoules.

Coke Life claimed to contain 35 per cent less sugar (6.6 grams per 100 millilitres) than Coca-Cola
Classic. In contrast to Diet Coke and Coke Zero, Coke Life was naturally sweetened using stevia leaf
extract as a substitute for sugar. Stevia was a sweetener extracted from the stevia plant leaves and
contained zero calories.23

Coke Life was the first branded Coke product to use stevia leaf extract. Geoff Parker of the Australian
Beverages Council stated: “We know consumers are asking for more choice . . . particularly stevia-
sweetened beverages. Coke Life is an innovation that is expected to really excite the category and draw
people into the soft-drink category.”24

TCCC described Coke Life’s brand identity as follows: “It delivers the best possible Coca-Cola taste with
35 per cent less sugar and kilojoules than Coca-Cola. To achieve a great-tasting, lower-kilojoule
alternative to the original Coca-Cola drink, the company has combined sugar with stevia—a natural
sweetener with minimal kilojoules. . . . With the addition of the much-anticipated Coca-Cola Life, the
Coca-Cola family now has something for every taste: Coca-Cola; lower-kilojoule Coca-Cola Life; and
two no-sugar options, Coca-Cola Zero and Diet Coke.”25

The key product design elements reflected the brand identity of Coke Life. The dominant colour was
green, the major graphical element was a small leaf, and “Life” was printed in italic font. The green
packaging extended the familiar red (Coca-Cola Classic), silver (Diet Coke), and black (Coke Zero)
product line offerings in a way that was easily understood.26 Furthermore, TCCC had created an eco-
friendly bottle, dubbed the “PlantBottle,” which was made from 100 per cent recyclable material.27

TCCC had painfully experienced the importance of branding when the launch of “New Coke” in 1985 led
to what was eventually known as the “New Coke debacle.”28 When introducing New Coke, TCCC
overrated the functional benefits—that is, the taste of the product—thereby neglecting the symbolic
benefits of the product. TCCC commented on this event as follows: “The fabled secret formula for Coca-
Cola was changed, adopting a formula preferred in taste tests of nearly 200,000 consumers. What these
tests didn’t show, of course, was the bond consumers felt with their Coca-Cola—something they didn’t
want anyone, including The Coca-Cola Company, tampering with.”29

MARKETING OPERATIONS

TCCC decided to roll out Coke Life sequentially. Coke Life was launched in Argentina in June 2013; in
Chile in November 2013; and in the United Kingdom in August 2014.30 The United States, Mexico, and
Sweden followed in September 2014. In the following months, Coke Life was introduced in Ireland (in
December 2014); Belgium, France, Germany, Norway, and the Netherlands (in January 2015);
Switzerland (in February 2015); Japan (in March 2015); and Australia and New Zealand (in April 2015).

TCCC used its existing indirect channels (bottler–distributor–merchant–consumer) to organize the
distribution of Coke Life, with the main channel routes being supermarkets and general merchandisers
(48 per cent), as well as food service and drinking places (20 per cent).31

This document is authorized for use only in Guan Chong’s MKT364 Case Studies in Marketing Management at Singapore University of Social Sciences from Mar 2020 to Apr 2020.

Page 5 9B16A018

The pricing strategy differed across countries. In Australia, Coke Life maintained stability with its
identical price compared to other TCCC products.32 However, in the United Kingdom Coke Life started at
a lower price compared to Diet Coke and was eventually priced higher than Diet Coke.33

TCCC launched multimillion-dollar communication campaigns across multiple channels, including
television, cinema, out-of-home, print, digital, public relations, and sampling.34 In Australia, for instance,
the campaign used the locally developed “Let Life Surprise You” claim to engage with customers,
underlining that TCCC would make every effort to ensure that Coke Life was available for everyone,
everywhere.35 As part of its communication campaign, TCCC partnered with the two leading retailers and
launched co-branded spots to introduce Coke Life.36 Five months after the “Let Life Surprise You”
campaign, TCCC launched the “Coke Come Alive” campaign featuring all its cola products, including
Coke Life.

In Argentina, TCCC launched a commercial connecting Coke Life with parenting. The spot was uploaded
onto YouTube with the following caption: “In a span of 60 seconds, Coke Argentina tells a true-to-life
story of the highs and lows of early parenthood in this new spot by Santo Buenos Aires for Coke Life. We
see a couple go through all the milestones after bringing home a baby—from sheer exhaustion to toddler
mischief to the ‘Toys R Us has thrown up all over my house’ stage.”37

COKE LIFE: SUCCESS OR FAILURE?

In 2013, when Coke Life was introduced, TCCC sales dropped by 2.4 per cent compared to 2012.
TCCC’s marketing director in Australia, Lisa Winn, for instance, hoped Coca-Cola Life would reverse
the decline in soft drink sales. She said, “When they launched Coke Life in the United Kingdom last year,
it created a halo around the whole trademark, lifting sales across all the product. Sales for the four to five
months after launching were up 4.9 per cent for the whole trademark.”38

On the other hand, Queensland University of Technology Professor Amanda Lee, former chair of
Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council’s Dietary Guidelines Working Committee,
criticized Coke Life’s marketing campaign: “It reminds me of the stage we were up at 30 years ago when
manufacturers were making healthy cigarettes. I’m worried, it’s trying to make a product that’s
intrinsically unhealthy, healthy.”39

“We’ve made a commitment that by 2020, low- or no-calorie Cokes will account for 50 per cent of sales,”
said Coca-Cola Enterprises general manager Leendert den Hollander.40 What response would the launch
of Coke Life trigger, and would it be successful?

This document is authorized for use only in Guan Chong’s MKT364 Case Studies in Marketing Management at Singapore University of Social Sciences from Mar 2020 to Apr 2020.

Page 6 9B16A018

EXHIBIT 1: MAJOR BRANDS OF THE COCA-COLA COMPANY

Coca-Cola Minute Maid Aquarius
 Bonaqua / Bonaqa
Diet Coke / Coca-Cola Light Georgia Minute Maid Pulpy Ayataka
Coca-Cola Zero Powerade Dasani
 Gold Peak

Fanta
 Del Valle Simply I LOHAS
Sprite Schweppes Glacéau Vitaminwater FUZE TEA

Source: The Coca-Cola Company, Form 10-K 2013, February 27, 2014, accessed November 5, 2015, www.coca-
colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/us/en/private/fileassets/pdf/2014/02/2013-annual-report-on-form-10-k .

EXHIBIT 2: FINANCIAL FIGURES FOR THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, 2010–2013 (MILLIONS US$)

Year Ended Dec. 31 2013 2012 2011 2010
Net operating revenue 46,854 48,017 46,542 35,119
Cost of goods sold 18,421 19,053 18,215 12,693
Gross profit 28,433 28,964 28,327 22,426
Gross profit margin (per cent) 60.7 60.3 60.9 63.9
Selling, general, admin. expense 17,310 17,738 17,422 13,194
Earnings before taxes 11,477 11,809 11,458 14,207

Source: The Coca-Cola Company, Form 10-K 2013, February 27, 2014, accessed November 5, 2015, www.coca-
colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/us/en/private/fileassets/pdf/2014/02/2013-annual-report-on-form-10-k ;
The Coca-Cola Company, Form 10-K 2012, February 27, 2013, accessed November 5, 2015, www.coca-
colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/us/en/private/fileassets/pdf/2013/03/2012-annual-report-on-form-10-k .

This document is authorized for use only in Guan Chong’s MKT364 Case Studies in Marketing Management at Singapore University of Social Sciences from Mar 2020 to Apr 2020.

Page 7 9B16A018

EXHIBIT 3: GLOBAL SOFT DRINK MARKET BY SEGMENT (US$ BILLION)

Note: RTD = “Ready to drink.”

Source: MarketLine, Stevia – Sugar Substitute – New Trends in the Beverage Market, October 2014, accessed April 10, 2016,
http://store.marketline.com/Product/stevia_sugar_substitute_new_trends_in_the_beverage_market?productid=ML00017-053.

EXHIBIT 4: DIET COKE AND DIET PEPSI GROWTH INDEX

Source: MarketLine, Stevia – Sugar Substitute – New Trends in the Beverage Market, October 2014, accessed April 10, 2016,
http://store.marketline.com/Product/stevia_sugar_substitute_new_trends_in_the_beverage_market?productid=ML00017-053.

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

B
ill

io
n

U
S

$

Bottled water Carbonates Juices RTD tea & coffee, functional drinks, concentrates

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

1

0%

5%

0%

-5%

-10%

-15%

-20%

This document is authorized for use only in Guan Chong’s MKT364 Case Studies in Marketing Management at Singapore University of Social Sciences from Mar 2020 to Apr 2020.

Page 8 9B16A018

EXHIBIT 5: COLA PRODUCT COMPARISON—TCCC VERSUS PEPSICO

TCCC Classic Diet Zero
Colour Red Silver Black
Carbohydrates/sugars per 100 ml 10.6 g 0 g 0 g
Calories 43 0.4 0.3

PepsiCo Classic Diet Max
Colour Blue Silver Black
Carbohydrates/sugars per 100 ml 11.7 g 0 g 0 g
Calories 45 0 0

Source: “Coca-Cola Life,” The Coca-Cola Company, 2015, accessed November 5, 2015, www.coca-cola.com.au/cokelife;
“The Facts about Your Favorite Beverages,” PepsiCo, May 4, 2016, accessed May 11, 2016,
www.pepsicobeveragefacts.com/Home/product?formula=35005*26*01-01&form=RTD&size=12.

This document is authorized for use only in Guan Chong’s MKT364 Case Studies in Marketing Management at Singapore University of Social Sciences from Mar 2020 to Apr 2020.

Page 9 9B16A018

ENDNOTES

1 This case has been written on the basis of published sources only. Consequently, the interpretation and perspectives
presented in this case are not necessarily those of The Coca-Cola Company or any of its employees.
2 “Coca-Cola Life,” The Coca-Cola Company, 2015, accessed November 5, 2015, www.coca-cola.com.au/cokelife.
3 Sharon Bailey, “Soft Drink Industry Now Looking to Still Beverages to Boost Sales,” Market Realist, November 20, 2014,
accessed November 5, 2015, http://marketrealist.com/2014/11/guide-non-alcoholic-beverage-industry.
4 The Coca-Cola Company, Form 10-K 2014, op. cit.
5 All currency amounts are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise specified.
6 MarketLine, Stevia – Sugar Substitute – New Trends in the Beverage Market, October 2014, accessed April 10, 2016,
http://store.marketline.com/Product/stevia_sugar_substitute_new_trends_in_the_beverage_market?productid=ML00017-
053.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Sharon Bailey, op. cit.; Justin Fox, “Still Sweet on Coke and Pepsi?” Bloomberg View, January 21, 2015, accessed
November 5, 2015, www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-21/still-sweet-on-coke-and-pepsi-.
10 The Coca-Cola Company, Form 10-K 2014, February 25, 2015, accessed November 5, 2015, www.coca-
colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/us/en/private/fileassets/pdf/2015/02/2014-annual-report-on-form-10-k .
11 Mintel Group, Category Insights: Carbonated Soft Drinks, July 2015; Euromonitor International, Coca-Cola Co The, Swot
Analysis, In Soft Drinks (World), March 2013, accessed April 10, 2016, www.euromonitor.com/medialibrary/PDF/Coca-Cola-
Co_SWOT_Analysis .
12 “All Brands,” The Coca-Cola Company, August 31, 2012, accessed November 5, 2015, www.coca-
colacompany.com/brands/all; “The Facts about Your Favorite Beverages,” PepsiCo May 4, 2016, accessed May 11, 2016,
www.pepsicobeveragefacts.com.
13 “Ingredient Glossary,” The Coca-Cola Company, 2014, accessed November 5, 2015, www.coca-
colaproductfacts.com/en/coca-cola-ingredients.
14 Ibid.
15 “Obesity and Overweight,” World Health Organization, January 2015, accessed November 6, 2015,
www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en.
16 World Health Organization, Guideline: Sugar Intake for Adults and Children, 2015, accessed November 6, 2015,
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng ?ua=1.
17 Australian Government, Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code – Standard 1.2.8 – Nutrition Information
Requirements, March 25, 2015, accessed November 6, 2015, www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L00395.
18 Maria Gallucci, “As Mexico’s Sugary Drink Tax Turns 1 Year Old, US Health Proponents Hope It Can Sway American
Voters,” International Business Times, January 11, 2015, accessed November 5, 2015, www.ibtimes.com/mexicos-sugary-
drink-tax-turns-1-year-old-us-health-proponents-hope-it-can-sway-1779632.
19 Allison Aubrey, “How Did Berkeley Pass a Soda Tax? Bloomberg’s Cash Didn’t Hurt,” npr, November 5, 2014, accessed
November 5, 2015, www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/11/05/361793296/how-did-berkeley-pass-a-soda-tax-bloombergs-
cash-didnt-hurt?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=us.
20 Katy Steinmetz, “San Francisco Approves Warning Label for Sugary Drink Ads,” Time, June 9, 2015, accessed November
5, 2015, http://time.com/3915485/san-francisco-soda-warning-label.
21 “Coca-Cola to Run Ads on Obesity,” YouTube video, 2:08, January 14, 2013, accessed November 6, 2015,
https://youtu.be/6r_9HPzMZTU.
22 “Coca-Cola Life,” The Coca-Cola Company, 2015, accessed November 5, 2015, www.coca-cola.com.au/cokelife.
23 “Ingredient Glossary,” The Coca-Cola Company, op cit.
24 Journey Australia Staff, “Life Is Sweet: Coke Life Arrives in Australia and New Zealand,” The Coca-Cola Company, March
31, 2015, accessed November 5, 2015, www.coca-colajourney.com.au/stories/life-is-sweet-coke-life-arrives-in-australia-and-
new-zealand-in-april.
25 Ibid.
26 The usage of the colour green matched that of its key competitor product, Pepsi True.
27 Luke Graham, “Coca-Cola Unveils New Eco-Bottle Made from Plants,” CNBC, June 4, 2015, accessed November 6,
2015, www.cnbc.com/2015/06/04/coca-cola-unveils-new-eco-bottle-made-from-plants.html.
28 “The Real Story of New Coke,” The Coca-Cola Company, November 14, 2012, accessed November 5, 2015, www.coca-
colacompany.com/history/the-real-story-of-new-coke.
29 Ibid.
30 Jay Moye, “Lower-Calorie Coca-Cola Life to Launch in Great Britain,” The Coca-Cola Company, June 11, 2014, accessed
November 5, 2015, www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/lower-calorie-coca-cola-life-to-launch-in-great-britain.
31 Sierra Services, Breaking Down the Chain: A Guide to the Soft Drink Industry, 2011, accessed November 5, 2015,
www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/SoftDrinkIndustryMarketing_11 .
32 Sue Mitchell, “Coca-Cola Puts Lid on New Product Coke Life until April,” The Sydney Morning Herald, October 30, 2014,
accessed November 5, 2015, www.smh.com.au/business/cocacola-puts-lid-on-new-product-coke-life-until-april-20141029-
11dpd1.html.

This document is authorized for use only in Guan Chong’s MKT364 Case Studies in Marketing Management at Singapore University of Social Sciences from Mar 2020 to Apr 2020.

Page 10 9B16A018

33 “Coke Life One Year On: Sales Success or Marketing Gimmick?” Steve Kaplan Marketing, October 13, 2015, accessed
November 6, 2015, https://stevekaplanmarketing.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/coke-life-one-year-on-sales-success-or-
marketing-gimmick.
34 “Coca-Cola to Launch Multimillion Dollar Marketing Campaign via Ogilvy & Mather for Coca-Cola Life,” CampaignBrief,
March 30, 2015, accessed November 6, 2015, www.campaignbrief.com/2015/03/coca-cola-to-launch-multimilli.html.
35 Ibid.
36 “Coke Life Australian Launch,” YouTube video 0:30, April 9, 2015, accessed November 6, 2015,
https://youtu.be/fQzJ5KJMRWE.
37 “Heartwarming Coca-Cola Life Commercial from Argentina Showing Trials Tribulations Parenting – #kids,” YouTube video,
1:00, December 16, 2013, accessed November 6, 2015, https://youtu.be/yRqUTA6AegA.
38 Esther Han, “Coca-Cola Accused of ‘Greenwashing’ with Launch of Sugar-Reduced Coke Life,” The Sydney Morning
Herald, March 31, 2015, accessed November 5, 2015, www.smh.com.au/national/health/cocacola-accused-of-
greenwashing-with-launch-of-sugarreduced-coke-life-20150330-1mas6u.html.
39 Ibid.
40 “Life Flies High with 9% Share of Coke’s Advertising Spend,” The Grocer, March 27, 2015, accessed November 6, 2015,
www.thegrocer.co.uk/reports/digital-features/soft-drinks-report-2015/life-flies-high-with-9-share-of-cokes-advertising-
spend/516139.article.

This document is authorized for use only in Guan Chong’s MKT364 Case Studies in Marketing Management at Singapore University of Social Sciences from Mar 2020 to Apr 2020.