Old "New Coke" Tries Again

[username]

They brought it back as a promo for Stranger Things. I doubt it will be around full time.

 

[mau1]

Pappymac said: "I stopped drinking sugar sweetened soft drinks when I developed Type II diabetes about 20 years ago. I pretty much stopped drinking "Diet" soft drinks about 10 years ago because I found out what the artificial sweeteners could do to your kidneys and other internal organs. (I do occasionally have one, but usually no more than once a week.)
I also found I like my whiskey, rum or tequila either straight up or over ice."
Couldn't agree more.

 

[mso489]

No one knows the inner mysteries of corporate life, so there is no telling what they're up to. Having lived through the promo for New Coke, and the lifespan of it, and it being discontinued, I think they spent way too much money and customer dissatisfaction to have it be a calculated ploy, or if a ploy, a successful one. It was a public embarrassment. Of course, Pepsi and others dove right in a savaged them. I think it was just a "big idea" in the company that was ill conceived at every point. Sort of a soft-drink Edsel, for those who remember that failed new automobile brand from Ford. Stranger Things indeed.

 

[condorlover1]

I am sure you have noticed that Hollywood has been remaking all the Classical Movies obviously since they have run out of new story lines. I am waiting for them to reshoot Casablanca and set it in a gay bar in Iran with Rick being played by Caitlyn Jenner and the Peter Lorre character played by Eddie Murphy. :rofl:

 

[mso489]

condor', I think you have an actual "treatment" (series concept and outline) there. Someone might pay big money for that. Puff it up a few pages and go for it. Your retirement could be secure and lavish.

 

[bnichols23]

He dang well better see that they leave my Casablanca alone, though. I get mean when people start fooling around with perfection. }

B

 

[timelord]

Bill, I found these two little snippets in Internet Movie DB regarding Casablanca:

Back in the early-to-mid 2000s, Madonna wanted to remake "Casablanca (1942)" with her playing IIsa Lund and Ashton Kutcher in the role of Rick Blaine. Madonna pitched the idea to every studio but was unanimously rejected by every studio with one studio executive telling her "That film is deemed untouchable". The project has since been scrapped by Madonna.

In the 1980s this film's script was sent to readers at a number of major studios and production companies under its original title, "Everybody Comes to Rick's". Some readers recognized the script but most did not. Many complained that the script was "not good enough" to make a decent movie. Others gave such complaints as "too dated", "too much dialog" and "not enough sex".

The first is reassuring with the 'untouchable' remark; the second not so 'cos if it ever was remade it would be a travesty! (And as for people working in the film business not even recognising the script...).

 

[bnichols23]

Yup, TL, don't I know it? That's why "there needs to be a law," by dang. }
B

 

[warren]

When a company is making billions of a dollars in profits, year after year after year ..., such a mistake as the Edsel or New Coke hardly makes a blip on the bottom line.

 

[piperusak]

Когда компания зарабатывает миллиарды долларов прибыли из года в год ..., такая ошибка, как Edsel или New Coke, вряд ли делает ошибку.

Campaign mistakes are not only loss of money, but also loss of loyal and regular customers. I do not have diabetes and do not need a diet, but I try to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks in them SO MUCH SUGAR. A sweetener in general poison, it is better then buy soda water

 

[mso489]

A soft drink footnote. I had a colleague whose spouse was a senior economist at Chapel Hill who also served as an expert witness in anti-trust cases, one of which was an extended case about how the big soft drink companies muscled the small ones out of shelf space in grocery stores nationwide. The guy was a show-stopper in court and totally won over judges because of his spot-on knowledge.

 

[warren]

A store wants profit making products at the eye level of the targeted consumer, lower for the child oriented products and higher for the adult oriented ones. Smaller vendors have to pay, in some way, for the "premier" space and facing width. So, certain items obviously get more "facings" and the "prime" space. It's only logical.
Now, if a producer comes in offering a new product, to be accompanied by a promotion campaign, heavily discounted to the store, good space will be found (up front, near the registers, perhaps a temporary, introductory "island" display. etc) just to see how the product performs. Manufacturers/wholesalers make their product profitable for the store or, the product doesn't get a "showcase" area.
An Albertsons owned chain has steadily built up a great reputation for "house" branded products over the years, this is why such product gets premier display space to the dismay of Campbells, Eggos, Kraft, etc.
And yes, there is a fine line when it comes to legal/illegal discrimination against smaller vendors. One needs to remember the "golden Rule", "He who has the gold makes the rules."