P&P Study Marketing Research Ola AlHassan 57490 Shaikha Al Falasi 58746 Rand Amin 60415 Feras Al Otaibi 43971 Bisma Omer 55021
Executive Summary The rationale for this study is that Coca Cola wants to find out what is the bait for Coca Cola Life. They want to know how they should position and promote this product. Should this be done in terms of positioning it as a natural product or a as a product to lose weight? Or do they simply promote it as a product that contains less calories or sugar? Other promotional strategies possible could be focusing on taste or rather on the brand name and using a brand extension strategy. One of the main findings is that AUS undergraduate students view the Coca Cola Life product as an unhealthy product despite the fact that they use natural sweetener such as stevia. The use of this natural sweetener is seen as insignificant because the product still includes sugar. The second main finding is that the students are very loyal to Coca Cola as a brand. This is because the brand name appears frequently in their daily lives increasing their consumption and loyalty s towards Coca Cola. The two main findings have led to the following insights on Coca Cola’s positioning and promoting strategies. Coca Cola should not use factors such as taste, health and obesity, and natural sweeteners to promote and position its Life product. It should, on the other hand, use the power of its brand name and use a
brand extension strategy as that is the strongest bait that leads to consumers purchasing their products.
Findings The main characteristics of Coca Cola life that differentiate it from regular Coca Cola, are the fact that it uses natural sweetening such as Stevia and has less calories. However, when the focus group was asked whether they know what Stevia is, the majority (7/10) of the participants did not know what it was. One of the participants also pointed out, after further inspection of the can, that sugar was still mentioned in the ingredient list and that Stevia was not the only source of sweetening used. According to these findings, we can conclude that the majority of the AUS undergraduate community would not be more inclined to buy the product based on the fact that it uses Stevia as they are simply unaware of what it is. They would not be inclined to buy the product either based on the fact that it uses natural sweetener as they still perceive it as an unhealthy option due to the fact that it still contains sugar. But if Coca Cola had to choose between the two, then choosing the term “Naturally sweetened” would be a more powerful strategy as the users will at least understand what that means and the term “natural” has positive connotations when it comes to food and drink as mentioned in the focus group. Participants were well aware of the health issues that come with drinking Coca Cola products such as
calcium deficiency and bad teeth. As for labelling the product, the focus group was asked if they would prefer if the unit used was calories or kilojoules and the majority said that they would prefer to see it in calories as that is the most commonly used unit when food, drinks or exercise are being discussed and therefore are more familiar with the concept of calories and can easily interpret and scale it. This also implies that Coca Cola should label the reduced calories as a number, rather than a decreased percentage as consumers are familiar with the concept of calories and daily calorie intake, thus it will be easier for them to identity if this product is suitable for their needs and daily intake. Therefore, Coca Cola should not use “Stevia” and “Naturally Sweetened” to position and promote Coca Cola Life because these factors do not appeal to the market and do not have any impact on their purchasing behavior, as Life is still viewed as an unhealthy product, regardless of the fact that it is naturally sweetened with Stevia which also means that it is unnecessary for Coca Cola to inform and educate their consumers about what Stevia is as it would not have any impact on their preferences. As for the taste of Coca Cola Life, a taste test was carried out in the focus group as none of the participants have ever tried Coca Cola Life before. The
responses were quite similar between the participants and the overall impressions were negative, such as it being “too fizzy” and a “watered down” version of regular Coca Cola. Some of them also pointed out that it tasted similar to their Zero and Lite products. Following that, the moderator asked them if they would switch from Regular to Life and most of them said that they would not switch. Only 2 out of 10 participants said that they would switch, but they were indifferent and did not really care but no one enjoyed it enough to fully give up Regular cola for Life. The participants were also given this scenario: A restaurant only offers water and Coca Cola Life and were asked what they would choose. The majority (7 out of 10 participants) chose water and one of them said “If there is no regular Coca Cola, I will just get water”. Furthermore, the participants’ perception about Coca Cola beverages in general is that they are unhealthy, they expressed that they would choose to drink the tastier one (Regular) when choosing to drink a Coca Cola beverage. One of the participants clearly stated she prefers the Regular one as she doesn't necessarily believe the Life edition to be healthy, and that the Regular is tastier. Other participants expressed the same thing, saying that Coca Cola drinks are not healthier even with natural ingredients; referring to Stevia Sweetener. Taking all of these responses into account, we can conclude that Coca Cola should not use good taste to promote and position Life, as people did not enjoy the
taste of it to begin with. As for the reduced calories aspect of Coca Cola life, the focus group was asked to reflect on the concept of obesity and how Coca Cola life fits into that. A strong statement was made by one of the participants when they stated “It does not make any difference”. The overall impressions were that it was a rather weak method of fixing the obesity rate and that it is not a suitable product to reduce weight as it still contains a lot of sugar and a relatively high number of calories when compared to Coca Cola’s Zero and Lite products. A lot of participants expressed that Coca Cola products in general should be avoided when trying to lose weight and that 90 calories is still relatively high for a drink especially when you have a zerocalorie option. It was also noted that people who are health or weight conscious will pay attention to the details on the can and as mentioned before there is sugar mentioned and the calories are relatively high therefore will not opt for that option. They also stated that if someone is obese or is trying to lose weight then Coca Cola life would be appropriate every “once in a while” due to the fact that “we all have urges” implying that Coca Cola Life in this scenario would be an occasional drink rather than a daily drink and as for the weight context, it would be a product to maintain weight but definitely not to lose weight. Another strong statement was made by one of the participants and they stated that “Coca
Cola is the product to blame” insinuating that Coca Cola products are the ones to blame for the high obesity rates and would not view any Coca Cola product as a solution to the obesity and health problems discussed such as bad teeth and calcium deficiency. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that Coca Cola should not position Life as a product to reduce weight or as a fix to obesity and the health problems associated with sugar consumption and Cola products. If it positioned as a diet drink, then that might harm the image of their Zero and Lite products as now there is extra emphasis on these products being artificial as compare to the naturally sweetened Life and will therefore appear unhealthier after the launch of Cola Life. Throughout the focus group, it is apparent that most of them are very loyal to the Coca Cola brand in general and the brand appears frequently in their lives, as mentioned in the focus group, such as when ordering fast food or watching a movie at the cinema. The relevance and strength of the brand name has a major impact on the purchasing behavior of the participants present and the AUS undergraduate community and it can be clearly seen by their comments about Coca Cola Life, such as “Someone like me, I’m going to buy it because it says Coca Cola” or “If it was another brand, I wouldn't have even looked at it”. It is also clear that the
participants understand the power of the branding because of comments such as “People prefer Coca Cola because of its name” and “The only thing working for this product is the fact that it has Coca Cola’s name on it”. Although the AUS undergraduates seem to understand that a lot of their choices are affected by brand image, it does not seem to bother them and are still loyal to Coca Cola. Their loyalty is also visible when price is discussed and a lot of them stated that price does not matter to them and does not affect their purchasing decisions one of the Regular Cola drinkers did not even know how much the price of one can was, emphasizing the concept that price is irrelevant and they will buy a Coca Cola can regardless. Due to this brand loyalty, Coca Cola should promote Life using the brand extension strategy as it already has a large number of consumers hooked to Coca Cola based solely on the brand and one of the participants stated that “If I just see Life without Coca Cola, I would never try it” and Coca Cola should take that to their advantage. Another important remark made was when one of the participants said “I don't consider it (Life) as a whole new product” this means that for positioning and promotion Coca Cola should simply position it as another product by the Coca Cola company without the extra details of the fact that is naturally sweetened with stevia, has less calories or by taste.