Comments on: Coca-Cola and PepsiCo: $20 Billion for Distribution Flexibility http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2010/03/01/coca-cola-and-pepsico-20-billion-for-distribution-flexibility/ Providing logistics professionals with clear and concise analyses of Logistics Trends, Technologies, and Services Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:43:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: rgifford http://logisticsviewpoints.com/2010/03/01/coca-cola-and-pepsico-20-billion-for-distribution-flexibility/comment-page-1/#comment-175 rgifford Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:43:38 +0000 http://logisticsviewpoints.com/?p=3050#comment-175 Having worked for one of the largest independent Pepsi Bottlers from 1982 thru 1990, I experienced 1st hand some of the difficulties independent Bottlers & Pepsico faced trying to implement their respective marketing plans. In the Seattle major market where we operated in, we had the Pepsi franchise for both Seattle and Tacoma but not Everett. Everytime we wanted to coordinate a marketing plan that included radio ads, we tried to enlist the involvement of the family owned Everett franchise. They may or may not agree to fund some of the marketing dollars targeted for the ads. The problem was the radio waves did not stop at the county line. If we elected to go forward with our own ads, consumers in Everett heard the ads but since the Bottler in Everett was not particpating consumers in the that county would not see the same discounts as advertised. We always had to put in a caveat on availability depending on the county you lived in. Compounding the problem was many independent bottlers also had franchise agreements with other beverage companies. It was common to see a Pepsi franchise also have either 7UP or Dr. Pepper. That compounded Pepsi's problem trying to work with us as a Bottler on Marketing programs as we were also trying to leverage the 7Up and Dr. Pepper relationships. So I applaud Pepsico for taking more ownership of their bottler network. Eliminating obstacles like competing franchise interests can only help improve their ability to execute. Rod Gifford Sterling Commerce Having worked for one of the largest independent Pepsi Bottlers from 1982 thru 1990, I experienced 1st hand some of the difficulties independent Bottlers & Pepsico faced trying to implement their respective marketing plans.

In the Seattle major market where we operated in, we had the Pepsi franchise for both Seattle and Tacoma but not Everett. Everytime we wanted to coordinate a marketing plan that included radio ads, we tried to enlist the involvement of the family owned Everett franchise. They may or may not agree to fund some of the marketing dollars targeted for the ads. The problem was the radio waves did not stop at the county line. If we elected to go forward with our own ads, consumers in Everett heard the ads but since the Bottler in Everett was not particpating consumers in the that county would not see the same discounts as advertised. We always had to put in a caveat on availability depending on the county you lived in.

Compounding the problem was many independent bottlers also had franchise agreements with other beverage companies. It was common to see a Pepsi franchise also have either 7UP or Dr. Pepper. That compounded Pepsi’s problem trying to work with us as a Bottler on Marketing programs as we were also trying to leverage the 7Up and Dr. Pepper relationships.

So I applaud Pepsico for taking more ownership of their bottler network. Eliminating obstacles like competing franchise interests can only help improve their ability to execute.

Rod Gifford
Sterling Commerce

]]>