Coke and Pepsi Learn to Compete in India

Coke and Pepsi learn to compete in India

The political environment in India has proven to be critical to company performance for both PepsiCo and Coca-Cola India. What specific aspects of the political environment have played key roles? Could these effects have been anticipated prior to market entry? If not, could developments in the political arena have been handled better by each company?

The keys that played roles base on my opinion the first one will be: the India is hasn't be very friendly country to foreign investors for many years. The Principle of indigenous available if an item could be obtained anywhere else within the country, imports of similar products were forbidden. This actually made the Indians consumers to don't have as many choices of products or brands and guarantee of quality or reliability. Foreign investor was basically allow on the highest sectors of the country and was almost entirely prohibited in consumer goods sectors. Could these effects have been anticipated prior to market entry? Yes some these effects may have been anticipated finding out first consumers' tastes every country is different and every consumer is different like the book said "what works here" does not always "work there". The environment in India is challenging especially when the same country doesn't accept outsiders. Coca-Cola should of take they dispute with the government over its trade secrets after decades in the market they choose to leave India base that India want it to get 40% equity plus they want it Coca-Cola syrup formula ( A GOOD EXAMPLE OF CORRUPTION WITHIN INDIAN GOVERNMENT) or you give me what I want or I kick you out. Could developments in the political arena have been handled better by each company? Coca-Cola because they could agree to start their own new bottling plants instead of buying out Parle and they wouldn't agree to sell 40%. With Pepsi-Co actually no they because they didn't have any types of problem when they got to India like Coca-Cola did.

Timing of entry into the Indian market brought different results for PepsiCo and Coca- Cola India. What benefits or disadvantages accrued as a result of earlier or later market entry?

While Coke got kick out from India from not giving up the secret syrup and some the % to the government, Pepsi comes and don't even got bother by the government. While Coke's application was being denied, Pepsi's was being approved, giving them a head start in the market. It seems logical that Pepsi would benefit from this head start in the market, but they were facing competition and a market that didn't typically consume carbonated products. As Coca-Cola entered the market, one of the competitors was ready to align with Coke while Pepsi struggled.

The Indian market is enormous in terms of population and geography. How have the two companies responded to the sheer scale of operations in India in terms of product policies, promotional activities, pricing policies, and distribution arrangements?

Both companies did a great job with the marketing and promoting their products with sporting events and festival in India. This allowed the consumers to take advantage of special events and contests that encouraged the purchase and continued consumption of both products. Coca-Cola also changing the prices on the products very often, they reduce their prices 15% to 25% in order to make their products affordable to more consumers and this is good because they don't only concentrate in high class consumers but in other consumers as well. Coke also took the initiative to change the size to grab more attention and gain more of the market share.

"Global localization" (glocalization) is a policy that both companies have implemented successfully. Give examples for each company from the case

Both Coca-Cola and Pepsi created brands/flavors specific to India. PepsiCo launched Lehar 7UP, their soda that falls into the clear lemon category. Coca-Cola bought brands from Parle, their competitor, including