Introduction

Battered by competition from the sweeter Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola decided in 1985 to replace its old formula with a sweeter variation, dubbed the New Coke. Coca-Cola spent $4 million on market research. Blind taste tests showed that Coke drinkers preferred the new, sweet formula, but the launch of New Coke provoked a national uproar. Market researchers had measured the taste but had failed to measure the emotional attachment consumers had to Coca-Cola. There were angry letters, formal protests and even lawsuit threats, to force the retention of The Real Thing. Ten weeks later, the company withdrew New Coke and reintroduced its century-old formula as Classical Coke, giving the old formula even stronger status in the marketplace.

Coca-Cola: A name synonymous to American culture

The Coca-Cola Company (NYSE: KO) is an American multinational beverage corporation and manufacturer, retailer and marketer of non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups. [2] The company is best known for its flagship product Coca-Cola, invented in 1886 by pharmacist John Stith Pemberton in Columbus, Georgia.[3] The Coca-Cola formula and brand was bought in 1889 by Asa Candler who incorporated The Coca-Cola Company in 1892. Besides its namesake Coca-Cola beverage, Coca-Cola currently offers more than 500 brands in over 200 countries or territories and serves over 1.7 billion servings each day.[4]

New Coke History

Background
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% because of competition from Pepsi-Cola. Pepsi had begun to outsell Coke in supermarkets; Coke maintained its edge only through soda vending machines and fast food restaurants.[1] 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.[2] 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.[3]

Market research
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. The company's marketing department went out into the field, 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 mixture 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.[5] 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 for 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.[6] Management also considered, but quickly rejected, an idea to simply make and sell the new flavor as yet another Coke variety. A new variety of Coke in competition with the main variety could, if successful, dilute Cokes 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",[7] and the change must take place openly. [5] He insisted that the containers carry the "NEW!" label, which gave the drink its popular name.[8]

Official launch
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[13]

New Coke was introduced on April 23, 1985. Production of the original formulation ended 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,[12] which was extremely worried that New Coke would erase all its gains. Also, Goizueta's description of the new taste, given his background as one of the company's flavor chemists, was less than impressive: [It's] smoother, uh, uh, rounder yet, uh, yet bolder...[14] a more harmonious flavor.[15] 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 certified kosher [and, incidentally, halal and vegetarian] and also kosher for Passover.[16]) 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 have ever made"[17]) to avoid giving Pepsi any credit,[13][18] yet gave no other real reason for the change, further alienating reporters who had already heard from Pepsi representatives in advance on this very issue.[12] A reporter asked whether Diet Coke would also be reformulated "assuming this is a success," Goizueta curtly replied, "No. And I didn't assume that this is a success. This is a success."[15]

The emphasis on the sweeter taste of the new flavor also ran contrary to previous Coke advertising, in which spokesman Bill Cosby had touted its less-sweet taste as a reason to prefer Coke over Pepsi.[19] Nevertheless, the company's stock went up on the announcement,[20] and market research showed 80% of the American public was aware of the change within days.[21]

Early acceptance
While it is widely believed today that the new drink failed almost instantly, at the time that was not the case. The company, as it had planned, introduced the new formula with big marketing pushes in New York [21] and Washington, D.C.. 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. [22] 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.[23] Three-quarters of the respondents said they would buy New Coke again.[22] The big test, however, remained in the Southeast, where Coke was first bottled and tasted.

Backlash
Despite New Coke's acceptance with a large number of Coca-Cola drinkers, a vocal minority of them resented the change in formula and were not shy about making that known again 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. Company headquarters in Atlanta started receiving letters expressing anger or deep disappointment. Over 400,000 calls and letters were received by the company,[20] 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 1,500 calls a day compared to 400 before the change.[13] A psychiatrist Coke hired to listen in on calls told executives some people sounded as if they were discussing the death of a family member.[25] 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 of

the switch. Ads for New Coke were booed heavily when they appeared on the scoreboard at the Houston Astrodome.[21] Pepsi took advantage of the situation, running ads in which a first-time Pepsi drinker exclaimed "Now I know why Coke did it!"[28] However, Pepsi actually gained very few converts over Coke's switch, despite claiming a 14% sales increase over the same month the previous year, the largest sales growth in the company's history.[22] The most alienated customers simply refused to buy New Coke rather than switch to Pepsi,[29] or purchased large amounts of remaining old Coke, including one Texan who spent $1,000 on his hoard of the old formula.[13] 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.[30]

Company dissatisfaction
Some Coca-Cola executives had quietly been arguing for a reintroduction of the old formula as early as May.[35] 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 finally exhausted.[36] 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).[37] Finally the board of Coca-Cola changed their mind and decided to bring back the old Coke. The president Donald Keough revealed years later in the documentary "The people vs Coke" from 2002 that they realized that 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 bottle of old coke.[40] [edit]

Reversal
Coca-Cola executives announced the return of the original formula on July 10, 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".[37] The company hotline received 31,600 calls in the two days after the announcement.[13] The new product continued to be sold and retained the name Coca-Cola (until 1992, when it was officially renamed Coca-Cola II), so the old product was named 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 is partially true because Coca-Cola Classic differed from the original formula, as all bottlers who hadn't already done so were using high fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar to sweeten the drink.[41]

Theories behind the failure

The New Coke Disaster, so rightly proclaimed, cannot be attributable to one individual. In most cases, when there is a disaster, natural or man-made, affecting a large-size population, no sole individual, organization or government can be held accountable. We can only focus on preparation for, and the prevention of disasters that are yet to come. Similar is true, in the case of the New Coke product launch. Evidence would suggest that a mixture of factors brought about such product failure, including but not limited to: a lack of a product development process, competitive pressures, and perhaps poor judgment.

Underestimating the original brand Undervaluing the response from the minority of focus group Misjudging public sentiment Contradictory marketing message
completely misguided. As with many big brands, the representation was more significant than the thing represented, and if any soft drink represented new it was Pepsi, not Coca-Cola (even though Pepsi is a mere decade younger). If you tell the world you have the real thing you cannot then come up with a new real thing. To borrow the comparison of marketing guru Al Ries its like introducing a New God. This contradictory marketing message was accentuated by the fact that, since 1982, Cokes strap line had been Coke is it. Now it was telling consumers that they had got it wrong, as if they had discovered Coke wasnt it, but rather New Coke was instead. So despite the tremendous amount of hype which surrounded the launch of New Coke (one estimate puts the value of New Cokes free publicity at over US $10 million), it was destined to fail. Although Coca-Colas market researchers knew enough about branding to understand that consumers would go with their brand preference if the taste tests werent blind, they failed to make the connection that these brand preferences would still exist once the product was launched.

Taste-test issues

The keys to having a greater understanding

Sensation transference
Most people make unconscious assessments of a product, service, or event not only based on the item itself, but on secondary sensory input associated with the item, which all contribute

to one general impression - whether intended or not, accurate or not. Cheskin called this "sensation transference". Cheskins innovative insight was that impressions created in customers minds, based on experiencing products sensorially, transferred directly to concepts of value, price, quality, and emotion. These, in turn, created and fulfilled expectations of satisfaction. Cheskins research didnt always explain why these associations existed, but he confirmed that they did play an important role in both customer choice and satisfaction. Cheskins work was not just focused on appearance. Often his research led to understanding that added value and changed the product or service offering in valuable ways. For example, initially McDonalds operated burger-stands designed for walk-up service. Cheskins research showed that these configurations were uncomfortable for families, particularly women alone with their children, accounting for low sales to these customers. Cheskin was able to show that tables, chairs, and a semblance of walls helped these customers feel safe and comfortable visiting and eating on-site. Later, this understanding led to the transformation of the burger-stands into restaurants. Research on color use and imagery, too, led to the introduction of Ronald McDonald. It was these kinds of insights that Cheskins research gave his clients that helped shape companies' strategies. Some results of Cheskin and his teams research include:[citation needed] The adoption of the spoon on Betty Crocker packages (leading to a doubling of sales) The consumer flop of the Edsel automobile was predicted in a legendary article Cheskin wrote before its introduction (triggering Henry Ford to hire him shortly afterward) Uncovering the preference of American consumers for circles over triangles on packaging Developing the first successful mainstream margarine (Imperial for Unilever) The basic market research underlying the introduction of the Ford Mustang and the Lincoln Continental The development of the Marlboro Man and Marlboro packaging from what was previously a womens cigarette The creation of the Gerber Baby Rounding the corners of the Fleishmann's Gin label to appeal more to women (who made up nearly 40% of liquor store shoppers)

The transformation in the mid-1950s of the Duncan Hines cake mix package toward a more 'colonial' style to reflect American consumers' desire for both newness and tradition Cheskins approach and successes won respect from corporate leaders at McDonald's, Ford, Polaroid, General Mills, and many others. Henry Ford, Walt Disney, and Ray Kroc personally engaged Cheskin on the basis of his innovative approach. One famous Cheskin study involved the testing of identical deodorants in different packages. Samples were mailed to users and told that the formulations were different. However, the only difference between them was their packaging (three different colour schemes). As one might expect from Cheskin's work, the trials showed that customers preferred one over the others. In fact, some perceived one of the samples as so threatening that they reported rashes and trips to dermatologists, yet had no trouble with the same formula in a different package. It could be concluded that consumers are not aware of their reactions, that they are irrational, or that this approach was 'preying' on consumers. However, there is more to this understanding of how people behave. That people have admittedly strange reactions to elements separate from product effectiveness is amoral; i.e., not right nor wrong.[citation needed] It is not appropriate for companies or any other organization to cast judgement on how consumers' brains work or how society affects consumers' perceptions and experiences; instead, this is another mechanism that companies and developers of products take into account in making decisions on how to meet their customers needs. Whether an organization uses these understandings ethically or not is another question entirely. There is a fine line between clear, motivating communication and propaganda.

Brand loyalty
"Marketing battles take place in the mind of a consumer or prospect. That's where you win. That's where you lose. Jack Trout, Big Brands, Big Trouble The American Marketing Association defines brand loyalty as: The situation in which a consumer generally buys the same manufacturer-originated product or service repeatedly over time rather than buying from multiple suppliers within the category (sales promotion definition).

The degree to which a consumer consistently purchases the same brand within a product class (consumer behavior definition).[1] In a survey of nearly 200 senior marketing managers, 69 percent responded that they found the "loyalty" metric very useful.[2] If Your Brain Has a 'Buy Button,' What Pushes It? By SANDRA BLAKESLEE New York Times 19 October 2004 Knowing what brand you are buying can influence your preferences by commandeering brain circuits involved with memory, decision making and self-image, researchers have found. When researchers monitored brain scans of 67 people who were given a blind taste test of Coca-Cola and Pepsi, each soft drink lit up the brain's reward system, and the participants were evenly split as to which drink they preferred. But when the same people were told what they were drinking, activity in a different set of brain regions linked to brand loyalty overrode their original preferences. Three out of four said that they preferred Coca-Cola. The study, published in the Oct. 14 issue of the journal Neuron, is the first to explore how cultural messages penetrate the human brain and shape personal preferences. Circulating in draft form over the last year, the study has been widely discussed by neuroscientists and advertisers, as well as people who worry about the power of commercials in determining consumer behavior. At issue is whether marketers can exploit advances in brain science to make more effective commercials. Is there a "buy button" in the brain? What drives brand loyalty? The psychology behind human behavior as it pertains to brand selection can be both rudimentary and complicated at the same time. We will explore this conundrum by investigating noted authors' insight into the realm of brand preference. By unveiling current research and opinions of experts, a convergence of ideologies will advocate techniques in order to deepen current and potential relationships. Methods will be introduced

which evoke the use of our five senses to evaluate, develop, and drive a deeply-rooted brand preference. Let's begin by understanding how we interact with our surroundings. Communications Model To better understand the process of preference, let's first look at a basic communications model. The five components of this model are sender, medium, filter, receiver, and feedback. On a daily basis, we are exposed to messages (sender/medium) via our radio, television, billboards, Internet, mail, and word-of-mouth. Although these messages are pervasive, we continually screen out (perceptual screen) or ignore content that has little or no relevance to us. All messages are coded patterns and sensations colors, sounds, odors, shapes, etc. Those messages deemed recognizable, or a basis for a relationship, are decoded and stored in our memory (filter/screen). A successful convergence between sender and receiver will result in some type of response to a brand's compelling message (feedback).

Stored experiences in our long-term memory are connected through a series of nodes and networks. An example could be all the associations you might have with the word Starbucks including coffee, rich aroma, relaxing, sofa, earth tones, etc. As presented by Shultz and Barnes, "This node and connection process, called spreading activation, makes every person different (Strategic Brand Communications Campaigns, 1999). Since we all have different experiences, connections, and relationships, this supports a theory that the consumer, not the organization, owns the brand. Brand Loyalty Defined You learn that creating customer loyalty is neither strategic nor tactic; rather, it is the ultimate objective and meaning of brand equity. Brand loyalty is brand equity. Daryl Travis, Emotional Branding So, what constitutes brand loyalty? According to Bloemer and Kasper, brand loyalty implies that consumers bind themselves to products or services as a result of a deep-seated commitment. To exemplify this point, they rendered a distinction between repeat purchases

and actual brand loyalty. In their published research, they assert that a repeat purchase behavior "is the actual re-buying of a brand whereas loyalty includes "antecedents or a reason/fact occurring before the behavior. Bloemer and Kasper further delineate brand loyalty into "spurious and "true loyalty. Spurious loyalty exhibits the following attributes: Biased Behavioral response Expressed over time By some decision-making unit, with respect to one or more alternate brands A function of inertia True brand loyalty includes the above, but replaces inertia with a psychological process resulting in brand commitment (Ref: Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 16, Issue 2, July 1995). Next, let's turn to how this psychology plays out in the branding process. Brand Positioning "A strong brand position means the brand has a unique, credible, sustainable, and valued place in the customer's mind. It revolves around a benefit that helps your product or service stand apart from the competition. Scott Davis, Brand Asset Management Organizations seek to develop and project brand perceptions based on internally driven needs and goals. In Jack Trout's book "Differentiate or Die, he presents evidence that supports his theories on consumer behavior and interpretation. Although these concepts seem self-evident on the surface, organizations tend to ignore these immutable laws in their daily branding activities. Minds Can't Cope Due to the shear volume of messages we encounter on a daily basis, the human mind can't begin to cope with interpreting them all. Trout notes some statistics: Humans tolerate constant daily electronic bombardment Printed knowledge doubles every four to five years 4,000 books are published around the world every day The world wide web grows by 1,000,000 pages each day!

You've watched 140,000 TV commercial by the age 18 Minds Are Limited Perceptions are selective Memory is highly selective There is a physiological limitation to processing stimuli A dramatic difference is needed in crowded category How much of your message gets through the clutter depends Minds Are Insecure Minds are both emotional and rational Purchasing decisions are really not known Recallmind's remember things that no longer exist What conclusions can we draw from these theories? During a recent speaking engagement, I asked the audience if they knew the current tag line for United Airlines. They resoundingly responded with "Fly the Friendly Skies! When I pointed out that United changed its tag in 1997 to "Rising and again in 2004 to "Its Time to Fly, they were astonished. Despite the millions of dollars United spent on this ad campaign ("minds can't cope and "limited), the audience only recalled something that didn't exist ("minds are insecure). When drafting your brand positioning strategy, you may want to consider your previous message layering activities and determine if your new value proposition enhances or conflicts in the minds of your intended audience. Now let's turn to a technique to analyze brand perceptions. Brand Molecule "The functional, emotional, and social dimensions of the jobs that customers need to get done constitute the circumstances in which they buy. Dr. Clayton Christensen, The Innovator's Solution A brand molecule, according to Hill and Lederer, is the process of identifying all associations connected to your brand. In addition to understanding the type of connections, you need to evaluate the importance of each association and how much weight it carries independently.

By unfolding a brand molecule, the organization is able to view all possible connections, either positive or negative, in its current state. By virtue of this analysis, you can achieve greater clarity and insight into your positioning or re-branding process. The McDonalds brand molecule, as portrayed in this pictorial, illuminates the basic constructs of this process. Key elements of this model include: linking all brand associations (emanating from the center), the importance of each (size), and how they relate to each other. Once accomplished, you can begin the process of removing those associations that no longer "fit and adding new identifiers in their place. This process provides the manager with an opportunity to view the entire brand and affect change in a strategic manner.

A real-world example of this process was the recent transformation of Cadillac. In the late 80s and early 90s, sales for this brand were declining due to European and Japanese penetration into the luxury car market. To reverse this erosion, the Cadillac group invested in the brand molecule analysis to reinvent both the design and market preference. This brand was meticulously assessed, disassembled, reassembled, and re-positioned in the late 1990s from something grandpa drove into a fast, sexy, and desirable product. Today, you know when a Caddy commercial is playing when you hear Led Zeppelin's "been a long time" blaring through the speakers.

Sensory Approach "Almost our entire understanding of the world is experienced through our senses. Martin Lindstrom, Brand Sense The most innovative brand research I've encountered recently was derived from Lindstrom and his "Brand Sense concept. A precursor to his theory lies in three components, and when combined, builds both loyalty and what he terms "smash ability. The constructs of his theory reside in the following: Sensory branding stimulates your relationship with the brand

Allows emotional response to dominate our rationale thinking Offers different dimensions of a single brand Ultimate goal: Strong, positive, loyal bond between brand and consumer so the consumer will turn to brand repeatedly Goal: Emotional engagement, match between perception/reality The essence of Lindstrom's work lies in what he terms the "Six Sensory Steps. These include (1) sensory audit, (2) brand staging, (3) brand drama, (4) brand signature, (5) implementation, and (6) evaluation. Through this discovery method, an organization can unveil aspects of its current offering or new avenues to exploit. This process, according to the author, will enhance brand loyalty and deepen existing relationships. Since this article can't possibly delve into all six steps, a cursory view of a few elements of this process is provided next. Lindstrom's approach to brand loyalty stems from the use of our five senses. In order to understand any brand, a sensory audit must be conducted to assess the brand's leveraging of sensory touch points. This involves examining a brand's stimuli, enhancement, and bonding capabilities. Lindstrom's point is simply the more sensory components, the stronger the foundation of your brand. Another area discussed is the synergy across sensory touch points. Lindstrom suggests we use many senses when evaluating our surroundings, including brands. Returning to the Starbucks example, one could view an encounter with this retailer in this manner: Visual Unique logo on building, cups, and bags Visual/Auditory Smell/Taste Uniform and customer approach Interior aesthetics (sofa, colors, wall paper, music) Visual/Auditory/Touch

Distinct aroma of freshly ground coffee

When analyzing your brand, how strong are the links between each of your sensory touch points? How interdependent are they? In the beginning of this article we mentioned Lindstrom's term "smashability. This simply means how independent each sensory aspect is and what is its ability to stand on its own? If you removed the Starbucks logo from the building, would you still know the brand? Conclusion

In order to understand the psychology of brand preference, we undertook this journey by examining a basic communications model and the process of receiving/filtering messages. Next we reviewed research that suggested a distinction between spurious and true brand loyalty. Several truisms concerning how a brand is positioned in the marketplace revealed the challenges with marketing to the human mind. Finally, we surveyed research that submits the essence of brands is connected through our five senses. The culmination of this information may help any organization facing brand loyalty issues with their constituents and provide resources to uncover core issues.

Consumer impression vs. consumer expression

A lot of us remember when the role of the CMO was much simpler. Information flowed in one direction: from companies to consumers. When we drew up our plans and budgets, the key metric was consumer impressions: how many people would see, hear or read our ad? Today the only place that approach still works is on Mad Men. Now information flows in many directions, consumer touch points have multiplied, and the old, one-size-fits-all approach has given way to precision marketing and one-to-one communications. Perhaps the most consequential change is how consumers have become empowered to create their own content about our brands and share it throughout their networks and beyond. It has changed my role as the chief marketing and commercial officer at Coca-Cola, and the company's approach to consumer engagement as we work to double our business by 2020. In the near term, "consumer impressions" will remain the backbone of our measurement because it is the metric universally used to compare audiences across nearly all types of media. But impressions only tell advertisers the raw size of the audience. By definition, impressions are passive. They give us no real sense of engagement, and consumer engagement with our brands is ultimately what we're striving to achieve. Awareness is fine, but advocacy will take your business to the next level. (I used to think that loyalty was the highest rung on the consumer pyramid until I became the CMO of Allstate Insurance. There, I saw clearly that so much business was driven through personal referrals and advocacy by individuals for their agent.)

So, in addition to "consumer impressions," we are increasingly tracking "consumer expressions." To us, an expression is any level of engagement with our brand content by a consumer or constituent. It could be a comment, a "like," uploading a photo or video or passing content onto their networks. We're measuring those expressions and applying what we learn to global brand activations and those created at the local level by our 2,700 marketers around the world. For example, in our 24-Hour Live Session with Maroon 5, we captured impressions (the number of online views) but gained tremendous insights from expressions by our consumers their comments, input on the song that was being created and what they shared with their networks. So what are the keys to winning in this new era of empowered, engaged and networked consumers? Here are some of the top "expression" lessons we've learned so far: Accept that consumers can generate more messages than you ever could. Don't fight this wave of expression. Feed it with content that touches consumers' passion points like sports, music and popular culture. We estimate on YouTube there are about 146 million views of content related to Coca-Cola. However, only 26 million views were of content that we created. The other 120 million views were of content created by others. We can't match the volume of our consumers' creative output, but we can spark it with the right type of content. Develop content that is "Liquid and Linked." Liquid content is creative work that is so compelling, authentic and culturally relevant that it can flow through any medium. Liquid content includes emotionally compelling stories that quickly become pervasive. Similarly, "linked" content is content that is linked to our brand strategies and our business objectives. No matter where consumers encounter it, linked content supports our overall strategy. When content is both "Liquid and Linked," it generates consumer expressions and has the potential to scale quickly. An example of "Liquid and Linked" was our FIFA 2010 World Cup program, which was the largest-ever Coca-Cola activation in history. More than 160 countries used a common World Cup Visual Identity System, a pool of television commercials, and a common a digital platform. All were linked by the common thread of celebration. Accept that you don't own your brands; your consumers do. Coca-Cola first learned this lesson in 1985 with the introduction of New Coke, but it's become even more important with

the growth of social media. As I write this, Coca-Cola's Facebook page has more than 25 million likes (fans). Our fanpage wasn't started by an employee at our headquarters in Atlanta. Instead, it was launched by two consumers in Los Angeles as an authentic expression of how they felt about Coca-Cola. A decade ago, a company like ours would have sent a "cease and desist" letter from our lawyer. Instead, we've partnered with them to create new content, and our Facebook page is growing by about 100,000 fans every week. Build a process that shares successes and failures quickly throughout your company. Increasing consumer expressions requires many experiments, and some will fail. Build a pipeline so you can quickly replicate your successes in other markets and share the lessons from any failures. For example, our "Happiness Machine" video was a hit on YouTube so we turned it into a TV commercial, and we've replicated that low-cost, viral concept in other markets. Be a facilitator who manages communities, not a director who tries to control them. In 2009, we launched Expedition 206. Consumers voted for the three people they wanted to see travel the world as Coca-Cola Ambassadors, visiting most of the 206 countries where Coca Cola is sold and driving an online conversation about what makes people happy around the world. On every step of their 273,000 mile journey, the ambassadors blogged and created all the content. Our role was to facilitate their journey, which was no small task. We had to give up control of the content, so our ambassadors could share their own experiences. In an era of consumer expressions, seek to facilitate and participate with communities, not control them. Speak up to set the record straight, but give your fans a chance to do so first. Of course, not every consumer expression will be positive. You have to be part of the conversation so you can set the record straight when you need to. Even better, we've found that our fans make online communities self-policing. When our Facebook site was targeted by an activist group whose members posted negative messages, our fans responded with messages of support for our company, and our fans challenged the use of the community for activist purposes. Marketing has changed dramatically since Doc Pemberton poured the world's first glass of Coca-Cola in 1886. On May 8th, 2011, Coca-Cola and our fans around the world will celebrate our 125th anniversary. While I'll be curious how many impressions our activities generate, I will look most closely to the expressions of our consumers as a better measure of our success in keeping the world's most valuable brand relevant for the next 125 years.

Coca-Colas surprising turnaround Conspiracy theories

Coca-Cola's sudden reversal on New Coke led to several urban legends 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. The simplest was that the company had planned all along to reintroduce the old formula as a ploy to reinvigorate interest in the product. There have been apocryphal tales of employees seeing batches of the old formula continuing to be produced well after April, and others who say that long before July they saw the graphics for the Coke Classic containers (which Coke said at the time were hastily conceived and produced within a day, which raised some eyebrows as large corporations rarely do such momentous things with that much haste). The company denies the accusation to this day.

Final thought Conclusion 11. References