It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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. It took its name from a famous photo of that state's renowned journalist William Allen White drinking a Coke; the image had been used extensively in its advertising and hung on several executives' walls. The company's marketing department again went out into the field, this time 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.
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.
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", and the change must take place openly. He insisted that the containers carry the "New!" label, which gave the drink its popular name.
Sometimes you have to use your intuition...
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Thecakeisalie
I've come to the conclusion that common sense is the LAST thing you want to rely on in a logical debate. Common sense has a tendency to blind your eyes from the conclusion the evidence is presenting says. Follow the evidence, not your feelings. In fact, in a logical debate I consider the the phrase "use your common sense" as a euphemism for "listen to MY confirmation bias".
This happened to me 3 times this morning, and all 3 of which involved scenarios where I said something factual, or objective, and people perceived it as if I was a proponent of the injustice. When in actuality, I also recognize the issue as an injustice, but was explaining how one could defend their actions in a court of law based on the facts of the situation.
The recent article by Tribune’s Vienna correspondent provoked a spate of angry letters which, besides calling him a fool and a liar and making other charges of what one might call a routine nature, also carried the very serious implication that he ought to have kept silent even if he knew that he was speaking the truth. He himself made a brief answer in Tribune, but the question involved is so important that it is worth discussing it at greater length.
Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticizes A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don’t criticize: or at least criticize “constructively,” which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.
I equate common sense more to empirical proof. We might not necessarily know why 'it' behaves the way it does but we do know 'it' repeatedly and consistently does behave the way it does.