What's the woman's perspective on Coca Cola?

[bilby]

Source?

Coca-Cola has a 42% share of the carbonated beverage market, Pepsi has a 30% share. This shows that, as of 2014, Coke was #1 and Pepsi #2 (in individual varieties), but before 2013, Diet Coke was #2 making Pepsi third.

But this is indeed a derail, although an interesting demonstration of human psychology. The behaviour of some on this thread is analogous to a colourblind person saying he can't tell the difference between red and green, and therefore people prefer red only because of marketing.

Your stats tell us nothing about reasons. You assume that popularity is due to some inherent quality of the product, and when challenged point to the popularity you are trying to explain as evidence for your hypothesis. That's circular reasoning.

I say that Coke is more popular than Pepsi because of marketing; you say it is because of taste - then you present figures showing that it is more popular as though they constitute evidence that can separate the two hypotheses. Given that you demonstrate that you are incapable of logic, why should anyone accept your hypothesis? Presumably it was formulated using equally flawed reasoning.

By the exact same logic, Christianity is true, because it wouldn't be the most popular religion if it wasn't.

 

[Metaphor]

Your stats tell us nothing about reasons. You assume that popularity is due to some inherent quality of the product, and when challenged point to the popularity you are trying to explain as evidence for your hypothesis. That's circular reasoning.

It would be circular reasoning if that's what I had done. I answered a question about which drink was more popular. I said people 'prefer' Coca Cola to Pepsi because more people buy Coca Cola compared to Pepsi. The difference would be even bigger still if Coca Cola's product was as cheap as Pepsi's.

I say that Coke is more popular than Pepsi because of marketing; you say it is because of taste - then you present figures showing that it is more popular as though they constitute evidence that can separate the two hypotheses. Given that you demonstrate that you are incapable of logic, why should anyone accept your hypothesis? Presumably it was formulated using equally flawed reasoning.

I'm sorry bilby, but someone who has made as many errors of logic as you have probably isn't the best judge of my command of it. I did not point to sales figures as evidence that Coke tasted better, I pointed to sales figures to demonstrate that people preferred it.

It is evident that Coca Cola is more popular than Pepsi. This is a fact.

Coca Cola has a higher profit margin than Pepsi. This is a fact. If Coca Cola's product was cheaper than it is now, it would outsell Pepsi (in terms of volume) by even more than it does now (if you believe the basic economic principle that more people will be induced to buy a product the cheaper it is).

It is also evident that marketing plays a role in the sales of each product, but it is not at all evident how many people (let alone 'the majority' or everyone) prefer Coke over Pepsi due solely to marketing.

Taste plays a very big role in deciding what things I put into my mouth. Taste is why potato chips are more popular than green beans as a snack. For you to dismiss the entire popularity difference between Coke and Pepsi as everything to do with marketing and nothing to do with taste is absurd beyond reason. But you go even further than that and think that nobody would drink a carbonated beverage but for advertising.

That'd be news to my mother, who loves room temperature tonic water, a truly foul substance yet one that I've never seen marketed or advertised.

Was my mother a pawn in Big Tonic Water's marketing game?

 

[Jayjay]

Source?

Coca-Cola has a 42% share of the carbonated beverage market, Pepsi has a 30% share. This shows that, as of 2014, Coke was #1 and Pepsi #2 (in individual varieties), but before 2013, Diet Coke was #2 making Pepsi third.

But this is indeed a derail, although an interesting demonstration of human psychology. The behaviour of some on this thread is analogous to a colourblind person saying he can't tell the difference between red and green, and therefore people prefer red only because of marketing.

Market share doesn't tell that people who taste the difference prefer Coca Cola.

To me it seems that marketing definitely plays a part, but some of it is just momentum. If you've always drank coke (especially as a child), you'll tend to prefer Coke. And why did you start drinking Coke? Marketing and dominant market position.

 

[Nexus]

Other beverage companies market just as much as Coke yet its been the leader so clearly taste preferences play a roll. Dr.Pepper came out a year before Coke so it wasn't even first cola to market. In fact other flavors like sparkling lemonade, root beer and ginger ale etc were around thirty years before coke.

 

[bilby]

It would be circular reasoning if that's what I had done. I answered a question about which drink was more popular. I said people 'prefer' Coca Cola to Pepsi because more people buy Coca Cola compared to Pepsi. The difference would be even bigger still if Coca Cola's product was as cheap as Pepsi's.

I say that Coke is more popular than Pepsi because of marketing; you say it is because of taste - then you present figures showing that it is more popular as though they constitute evidence that can separate the two hypotheses. Given that you demonstrate that you are incapable of logic, why should anyone accept your hypothesis? Presumably it was formulated using equally flawed reasoning.

I'm sorry bilby, but someone who has made as many errors of logic as you have probably isn't the best judge of my command of it. I did not point to sales figures as evidence that Coke tasted better, I pointed to sales figures to demonstrate that people preferred it.

It is evident that Coca Cola is more popular than Pepsi. This is a fact.

Coca Cola has a higher profit margin than Pepsi. This is a fact. If Coca Cola's product was cheaper than it is now, it would outsell Pepsi (in terms of volume) by even more than it does now (if you believe the basic economic principle that more people will be induced to buy a product the cheaper it is).

It is also evident that marketing plays a role in the sales of each product, but it is not at all evident how many people (let alone 'the majority' or everyone) prefer Coke over Pepsi due solely to marketing.

Taste plays a very big role in deciding what things I put into my mouth. Taste is why potato chips are more popular than green beans as a snack. For you to dismiss the entire popularity difference between Coke and Pepsi as everything to do with marketing and nothing to do with taste is absurd beyond reason. But you go even further than that and think that nobody would drink a carbonated beverage but for advertising.

Perhaps you have forgotten the exchange below (to which you never responded).

Perhaps you never saw it.

I would HATE to think that you are ignoring it only because you are dishonest.

But you keep making this unfounded claim about what I have said; and you need to stop doing that.

... You made an assertion -- that nobody would like the taste of carbonated drinks without advertising.

Actually, I made no such assertion. YOU said that that was your interpretation of what I actually asserted and asked if that was what I was saying; and I said "Pretty much". Then in a later post, I refered back to that exchange with "Not precisely what you are painting it to be; but close enough that I cant be bothered to argue the details"

That'd be news to my mother, who loves room temperature tonic water, a truly foul substance yet one that I've never seen marketed or advertised.

Was my mother a pawn in Big Tonic Water's marketing game?

In this discussion, no, she is a straw man.

 

[Metaphor]

Perhaps you have forgotten the exchange below (to which you never responded).

Perhaps you never saw it.

I would HATE to think that you are ignoring it only because you are dishonest.

Bilby, you wrote the following, which I quote verbatim

I don't buy soft drinks at all; the only reason I can see why anyone does is brand appeal.

If that is not you saying 'the only reason anyone buys carbonated beverages is brand appeal', then I don't know what to say to you.

But I can see what you actually said is that nobody would buy it, not that nobody would like the taste. A bizarre difference to nitpick over, but okay. Apparently nobody would buy carbonated beverages even though they like the taste.

 

[bilby]

Bilby, you wrote the following, which I quote verbatim

I don't buy soft drinks at all; the only reason I can see why anyone does is brand appeal.

If that is not you saying 'the only reason anyone buys carbonated beverages is brand appeal', then I don't know what to say to you.

But I can see what you actually said is that nobody would buy it, not that nobody would like the taste. A bizarre difference to nitpick over, but okay. Apparently nobody would buy carbonated beverages even though they like the taste.

Whatever.

I am sure you feel good about being the final authority on what my opinion is; and I am sure that all the other boys and girls think you are very clever indeed.

 

[Metaphor]

Bilby, you wrote the following, which I quote verbatim



If that is not you saying 'the only reason anyone buys carbonated beverages is brand appeal', then I don't know what to say to you.

But I can see what you actually said is that nobody would buy it, not that nobody would like the taste. A bizarre difference to nitpick over, but okay. Apparently nobody would buy carbonated beverages even though they like the taste.

Whatever.

I am sure you feel good about being the final authority on what my opinion is; and I am sure that all the other boys and girls think you are very clever indeed.

I know only what you asserted your opinion to be: that nobody would buy carbonated beverages but for 'brand appeal'.

I'm not trying to be 'clever'. I'm trying to get you to understand that you can't make assertions without evidence and expect people to simply accept them.

 

[bilby]

Whatever.

I am sure you feel good about being the final authority on what my opinion is; and I am sure that all the other boys and girls think you are very clever indeed.

I know only what you asserted your opinion to be: that nobody would buy carbonated beverages but for 'brand appeal'.

I'm not trying to be 'clever'. I'm trying to get you to understand that you can't make assertions without evidence and expect people to simply accept them.

Whereas I have simply given up trying to explain to you that something that is mostly true, is true enough for most people.

Clearly you would rather have pedantry than understanding; and I am sure that makes you feel like you are oh-so-smart. But then, I'm not the one who derailed his own thread on an utterly trivial point that wasn't ever in serious contention. So maybe you are not as smart as you think.

 

[barbos]

I think we all agree that both Coke and Pepsi are unhealthy and harmful to the environment.

 

[bilby]

I think we all agree that both Coke and Pepsi are unhealthy and harmful to the environment.

I doubt it.

Some people are pathologically incapable of agreeing with any statement that is not absolutely and precisely factual. If you say "The sun rises in the East", they would respond with "Talk about reducing your credibility to zero! The sun only rises due east on certain days of the year in a given location, dependant on your latitude." or "Talk about reducing your credibility to zero! The sun doesn't rise; the rotation of the Earth brings it into view, but it remains at the same distance from the centre of the Earth throughout the process".

It's a disease. I am not sure that there is a cure.

 

[Metaphor]

I know only what you asserted your opinion to be: that nobody would buy carbonated beverages but for 'brand appeal'.

I'm not trying to be 'clever'. I'm trying to get you to understand that you can't make assertions without evidence and expect people to simply accept them.

Whereas I have simply given up trying to explain to you that something that is mostly true, is true enough for most people.

Clearly you would rather have pedantry than understanding; and I am sure that makes you feel like you are oh-so-smart. But then, I'm not the one who derailed his own thread on an utterly trivial point that wasn't ever in serious contention. So maybe you are not as smart as you think.

And you haven't even explained how it's 'mostly true'. You simply treated your assertion as if it were a fact.

All of that I can usually handle, but the smug contempt you delivered this assertion with was too much.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Metaphor, eat a Snickers.

You're using words like "obscene" about things that are really, really trivial.


BTW. Kids do quite like sweet drinks, like fruit juice, though a lot of them stick to water and milk by preference due to familiarity and momentum.

They tend to dislike fizzy drinks unless parental pressure and the concept of "cool" encourage them to persist with acquiring the taste, both of those pressures can be traced back to the way advertising modifies perception.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor, eat a Snickers.

I don't like their marketing.

 

[Jayjay]

I think we all agree that both Coke and Pepsi are unhealthy and harmful to the environment.

And that they would continue to be so even fi there were more women in their boardrooms.

Getting back to the topic, it's not so much about making the companies better by including women. In some industries like media or entertaintment, more inclusive leadership and board rooms might make a difference, but for your average Coke or McDonalds, I don't think the female perspective would matter that much. However, it would matter that by getting more women or diversity in general in the boardrooms would mean that they might hire more diverse higher executive, and break the lock that white old men tend to have in those circles. No big deal for customers or the average Joe, but huge deal for the rich 1%er women.

 

[bilby]

Whereas I have simply given up trying to explain to you that something that is mostly true, is true enough for most people.

Clearly you would rather have pedantry than understanding; and I am sure that makes you feel like you are oh-so-smart. But then, I'm not the one who derailed his own thread on an utterly trivial point that wasn't ever in serious contention. So maybe you are not as smart as you think.

And you haven't even explained how it's 'mostly true'. You simply treated your assertion as if it were a fact.

It is a fact. It is a fact that is tangential to the OP, and this thread is in PD, not a science forum. I neither want nor need to present hard evidence for it. BVut instead of simply ignoring it, or asserting you contrary opinion once and then moving on, you derailed your own thread in pursuit of some pathetic pedantic goal. That's entirely your choice; but don't expect others to view it as rational.

All of that I can usually handle, but the smug contempt you delivered this assertion with was too much.

LOL

You may find a mirror a valuable investment.

 

[Metaphor]

Getting back to the topic, it's not so much about making the companies better by including women. In some industries like media or entertaintment, more inclusive leadership and board rooms might make a difference, but for your average Coke or McDonalds, I don't think the female perspective would matter that much. However, it would matter that by getting more women or diversity in general in the boardrooms would mean that they might hire more diverse higher executive, and break the lock that white old men tend to have in those circles. No big deal for customers or the average Joe, but huge deal for the rich 1%er women.

Why is diversity of characteristics irrelevant to decision making in senior executives a valuable goal?

 

[Jayjay]

Getting back to the topic, it's not so much about making the companies better by including women. In some industries like media or entertaintment, more inclusive leadership and board rooms might make a difference, but for your average Coke or McDonalds, I don't think the female perspective would matter that much. However, it would matter that by getting more women or diversity in general in the boardrooms would mean that they might hire more diverse higher executive, and break the lock that white old men tend to have in those circles. No big deal for customers or the average Joe, but huge deal for the rich 1%er women.

Why is diversity of characteristics irrelevant to decision making in senior executives a valuable goal?

Why is maintaining lack of diversity a valuable goal? All other things being equal, to me it seems diversity should be the default position.

 

[ronburgundy]

The simplest explanation of gender quotas is that they are an easy way to capitalise on today's zeitgeist: people want to see more women at the top of everything, and companies are delivering that image.

The rationalisations for this strategy (eg. More women equals better decision-making) are for the public's consumption.

On the plus side, the only people who are getting shafted by these are rich fucks, so I'm a little short on outrage and feelings of injustice.

No -- everyone is getting shafted -- consumers, employees, the public.
.

If you think corporate board members are making decisions to benefit their employees, consumers, or the public, then corporations have some bridges they'd like to sell you.

 

[dismal]

Why is diversity of characteristics irrelevant to decision making in senior executives a valuable goal?

Why is maintaining lack of diversity a valuable goal? All other things being equal, to me it seems diversity should be the default position.

Diversity of thought can be a useful thing. I'm not sure that diversity of skin pigmentations and chromosomes necessarily provides much of that.