In 1993, Mark Pendergrast published what he believed to be Coke's original formula in For God, Country and Coca-Cola. He'd come across the following among John Pemberton's papers: Citrate Caffein, 1 oz. Ext. Vanilla, 1 oz. Flavoring, 2.5 oz. F.E. Coco, 4 oz. Citric Acid, 3 oz. Lime Juice, 1 Qt. Sugar, 30 lbs. Water, 2.5 Gal. Caramel sufficient Mix Caffeine Acid and Lime Juice in 1 Qt Boiling water add vanilla and flavoring when cool. Flavoring Oil Orange, 80 Oil Lemon, 120 Oil Nutmeg, 40 Oil Cinnamon, 40 Oil Coriander, 40 Oil Neroli, 40 Alcohol, 1 Qt. let stand 24 hours.
In 1993, Mark Pendergrast published what he believed to be Coke's original formula in For God, Country and Coca-Cola. He'd come across the following among John Pemberton's papers:
Citrate Caffein, 1 oz. Ext. Vanilla, 1 oz. Flavoring, 2.5 oz. F.E. Coco, 4 oz. Citric Acid, 3 oz. Lime Juice, 1 Qt. Sugar, 30 lbs. Water, 2.5 Gal. Caramel sufficient Mix Caffeine Acid and Lime Juice in 1 Qt Boiling water add vanilla and flavoring when cool. Flavoring Oil Orange, 80 Oil Lemon, 120 Oil Nutmeg, 40 Oil Cinnamon, 40 Oil Coriander, 40 Oil Neroli, 40 Alcohol, 1 Qt. let stand 24 hours.
Mix Caffeine Acid and Lime Juice in 1 Qt Boiling water add vanilla and flavoring when cool.
For more trivia and history visit Coca-Cola History and Collecting: http://www2.netdoor.com/~davidroy/cocacola.html
Although it's obviously quite easy to "explain" Coke's success in hindsight, this lecture shows the power of brand names and a strategy that attempts to maximise all possible factors in selling a product. (In reality, Coke did not always adhere to the following guidelines, and routinely suffered as a result.)
You will never get very big selling a generic beverage. Therefore Coke must be a strong and legally protected brand: in effect, generating a conditioned reflex in consumers. (Even the "Cola" part of the name should have been vigourously defended.) You need to go for the biggest market: therefore have universal, global, appeal. Your product must maximise reward: food value (water and energy); flavour (hard to copy, no aftertaste), texture (carbonated, like champagne) and aroma; stimulus (sugar and caffeine); cooling. Advertise the product as being luxurious. The profit per serving can be small: over time, consumer spending and quality of life will, overall, increase, and production costs will fall. Ensure high product quality and reasonable price, limiting possibility of competitors benefitting by finding fault. Never change the flavour!
You need to go for the biggest market: therefore have universal, global, appeal.
Your product must maximise reward: food value (water and energy); flavour (hard to copy, no aftertaste), texture (carbonated, like champagne) and aroma; stimulus (sugar and caffeine); cooling.
Advertise the product as being luxurious.
The profit per serving can be small: over time, consumer spending and quality of life will, overall, increase, and production costs will fall.
Ensure high product quality and reasonable price, limiting possibility of competitors benefitting by finding fault.
Never change the flavour!
Note that Bill Gates is a personal friend of Charlie Munger. It's a shame (for the consumer) that he doesn't appear to listen to a word he says, apart from investing advice.
My opinion only, YMMV.
As might be expected, the introduction of Vanilla Coke in 2002 brought great joy to the vanilla factors of Antananarivo, especially as prices were already rising in response to a recent hurricane destroying part of the vanilla harvest.
The Many Uses of Coca-Cola
The active ingredient in Coke is phosphoric acid; before dilution, its pH is 2.8, strong enough to dissolve a nail in about 4 days. To carry Coca Cola syrup (the concentrate) the commercial truck must use the Hazardous material placards reserved for Highly Corrosive materials. Needless to say, it is greatly diluted before it reaches the consumer.
We've all seen this e-mail forward at one point or another; this one seems to be a pretty standard variation, although it doesn't have the usual conclusion: some form of "Coke is bad! Don't drink it!" I guess it's implied, though.
So, how much of this do you think is true? I usually clean road haze off of my windshield with water, so I'm betting that coca-cola will also do the job. Toilet bowl cleaning sounds possible; steak-eating less so. Mark down your bets, and then read on to see how you did!
Claim #1: The highway patrol uses coke to clean up blood -- False. While the ever-groovy MythBusters have shown that coke can be used to clean up blood, there are no verified accounts of it being used by any official agency to do so. (You can still give yourself partial credit if you said True).
Claim #2, 3, 6, 7, and 9: Coke will clean almost anything -- True!1. Carbonic acid is a useful cleaner, although soda water will make less of a mess and be just as effective in most cases. The phosphoric acid in coke will also attack rust, and while coke is not the best rust remover, it should work. (NOTE: I can not find any references that I trust that recommend that an untrained person should be trying to remove rust from car battery terminals. If you do decide to try this, some sites recommend baking soda and water as the first choice in car battery corrosion removal).
Claim #4 and 5: Coke will eat x -- Nearly always False2. Coke may eat a lot of the things that it is claimed to eat, but usually not in the time period claimed. Steak is up in the air - will it ever dissolve? Probably not. No one has ever cared enough to wait around and see.
Teeth enamel will probably dissolve, but it'll take a couple days before you start to see any effects, and you may need to use a milk tooth rather than an adult one (the teeth that children loose have already lost the root, and are hollow shells of enamel). Tooth enamel is sensitive to acid, and coke will eat it away. Other drinks, such as orange juice, have more citric acid than does coke, and therefor should be more effective solvents. To a large extent the tooth-eating claim is based on Clive M. McCay's testimony before a U.S. House of Representatives' committee.
In the fall of 1950, a Cornell University professor named Clive M. McCay testified before a select committee in the U.S. House of Representatives that the sugar in Coke caused cavities. And, he said, the phosphoric acid was a dangerous additive. Giving a vivid account that instantly became part of the national folklore, Dr. McCay described how a tooth left in a glass of Coca-Cola would soften and begin to dissolve in a period of two days. -- Secret Formula, written by Frederick Allen. http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/tooth.asp
I didn't find this all that convincing, so I started browsing dentistry pages. After much searching, I haven't come up with much more than the fact that acid is bad for your teeth, and will destroy the enamel. I would recommend running the experiment for at least a week, and possibly changing the coke every so often. By far the greatest coke-related threat to your teeth is the sugar it contains, which is why we have diet coke.
Nails are the same deal, only ever so much more so. In theory, the phosphoric acid will eat the iron, but at a much slower rate than it eats rust. I can find absolutely no information of how much coke would be needed, or how long a nail would have to soak, to dissolve. I am certain that it would be a lot, and a very long time.
Claim #10: Coke cleans off road haze -- True! But it makes your car all sticky.
And finally: do trucks carrying Coca-Cola syrup need hazmat stickers? The urban myth sites are unusually silent, but sometimes refer to antidotal evidence. The antidotal evidence is shaky. On the other hand, some of Coca-Cola's adds looking to hire drivers do require hazmat endorsements, although other adds just list them as a plus. Most likely some of the trucks delivering chemicals to the plants making the syrup do require these stickers, but those delivering the syrup to the bottling plants do not.3
References and comments:
1. These claims are collected from Joey Green's book Polish Your Furniture with Panty Hose. He is reprinting claims made by house-hold hints columnists Heloise (toilet bowl, battery terminals) and Mary Ellen (rust off chrome, rusted bolt, remove grease from clothes). I have not tested these out myself, but the Coca-Cola company has not sued his book off the market, and www.snopes.com (urban myth busters) recognizes the book as a reliable source. More importantly, none of these people has anything to gain by recommending false household tips in their columns and books; that would be counterproductive. See: Polish Your Furniture with Panty Hose, Joey Green, 1995, Hyperion Books. http://www.wackyuses.com/coke.html and http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/acid.asp On the other hand, coke may stain; in at least one experiment, it stained the toilet bowl it was supposed to clean. http://www.clevermag.com/investigations/coke.htm
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/tooth.asp
3. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/w/watervscoke.htm http://www.labsafety.org/archives/arch9808.htm And a few adds: http://www.cokecce.com/srclib/2.5.html http://www.jobjournal.com/jobsearch_details.asp?jobid=53978
Other references: http://www2.coca-cola.com/contactus/myths_rumors/index.html
"I'll have a Coke." "Is Pepsi alright?" "Yeah. Whatever."
If you're like me, you've had that little snippet of a conversation so many times you don't even notice it anymore. But every so often I used to wonder about the anal people out there who really cared so much that they would order another drink instead. But not anymore.
This writeup expands a bit on the items above that mention that Coca Cola is a very heavily protected brand name.
That, my non-lawyer friends, is a citation to the judgment in a lawsuit. You'll note that Coca-Cola is in a dispute with Overland.
Overland owns the Topaz Lodge and Casino. It seems that, "on 23 of 29 separate occasions over a three-year period, employees at the Topaz Lodge and Casino substituted, without comment, Pepsi-Cola in response to specific orders for 'Coca-Cola' or 'Coke.'"
Yes, that's right. Coca-Cola sued them because they didn't ask "Is Pepsi okay?" when people requested Coke.
Coca-Cola has a Trade Research Department whose entire purpose is to, "ensure that retail establishments do not misuse the trademarks of the Coca-Cola Company." I'm going to quote the rest of the footnote because its just too great. All emphasis by me:
The standard procedure followed by Trade Research employees is to visit retail establishments who do not serve the products of the Coca-Cola Company and, without identifying themselves as Trade Research employees, place a specific order for "Coca-Cola" or "Coke." If a beverage is served without comment, the Trade Research employees take a sample of the beverage and send it to Coca-Cola's laboratory for chemical analysis in order to establish that the beverage is not a product of the Coca-Cola Company. The Trade Research employees carefully document all the facts pertaining to their orders. An employee of Coca-Cola's Trade Research Department first visited the Topaz Lodge and Casino in December 1975. After discovering that another beverage was being served, without comment, in response to specific orders for "Coca-Cola" or "Coke," the Coca-Cola Company appealed to Overland to stop its deceptive practice. When subsequent investigations revealed that the deceptive practice was continuing, Coca-Cola again communicated its protest to Overland. Only when further investigations showed that the deceptive practice had not ceased did Coca-Cola bring suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
An employee of Coca-Cola's Trade Research Department first visited the Topaz Lodge and Casino in December 1975. After discovering that another beverage was being served, without comment, in response to specific orders for "Coca-Cola" or "Coke," the Coca-Cola Company appealed to Overland to stop its deceptive practice. When subsequent investigations revealed that the deceptive practice was continuing, Coca-Cola again communicated its protest to Overland. Only when further investigations showed that the deceptive practice had not ceased did Coca-Cola bring suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Yes. If you own a restaraunt and don't ask, "Is Pepsi okay?" Coke might send some people to test you, and then sue.
In case you're wondering, Coca-Cola won this suit. In summary judgment. It didn't even go to trial.
Just a sidebar here, in case you're wondering why Coke would go to such great lengths to make sure people who order Coke get Coke. It's possible for a brand name to be used so frequently that it just becomes another word. We xerox things. We don't grab a facial tissue, we grab a kleenex. Spam is not just a food, its the damn thing in our email boxes.
Once that happens, a corporation can lose its trademark. Anyone (I think) can sell a xerox machine, even if they're not Xerox Corp. The same is true of a frisbee.
How can a corporation prevent this from happening? By suing. A court won't find that a trademark has become generic if there are reams of prior suits making clear that it is not.
I'm sure there's a more detailed answer to this, but I'm not a lawyer, let alone a trademark lawyer. But that's the basic reason.
All quotes taken from Coca-Cola Co. v. Overland, Inc., 692 F.2d 1250 (C.A.Nev. 1982).
printable version chaos
Everything2 Help
cooled by dem bones