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

[Metaphor]

Extracts are from an article behind a paywall

Leaders call for gender balance

NSW Treasurer is no fan of the boys' club.

NSW Treasurer Gladys Berejiklian is one of the most powerful women in the country, yet even she can't get business leaders to round up a few female employees for a boardroom lunch.

I wasn't aware that female employees were cattle that needed to be rounded up for feeding.

Still, I should be grateful for small mercies. The article could have talked about "women" employees.

It is something she puzzles over, she told a Women in Banking event hosted by Deutsche Bank in Sydney.

When invited to business events, Ms Berejiklian often discovers she is the only woman in the room. So her office makes it a practice, as a condition of her acceptance, to insist on having other women present to help encourage diversity and networking opportunities for them.

"And I found even when I did that, for whatever reason, the women are still not there. And I can't work out whether it is because people are too busy to rustle them up or the women don't want to come," she said. "I don't know what the reason is. I still walk into a boardroom lunch and I'll be the only woman in the room."

Another unsavoury cattle analogy, but interestingly Ms Berejiklian entertains possibilities other than 'rampant and unalloyed misogyny'.

The issue of making sure women's voices are heard is tackled by Male Champions of Change, a forum for high-profile chief executives created by outgoing Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick.

Noting that fewer than 15 per cent of panellists at events in Australia are female, the Champions of Change encourage their peers to sign a "panel pledge" that they will not agree to speak on panels unless there is a balanced mix of male and female speakers.

It's striking that panels are still chosen on the anarchic two-step process:

i) exclude all women
ii) pick panellists randomly from the remaining population.

"Champions" include Woolworths chairman Gordon Cairns, ASX chief executive Elmer Funke Kupper, Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, Rio Tinto group executive technology and innovation Greg Lilleyman, Commonwealth Bank CEO Ian Narev and Goldman Sachs CEO Simon Rothery.

At a Male Champions of Change lunch on August 25, former IBM managing director Andrew Stevens said the pledge should apply to internal and external speaking events. "Fifty-fifty needs to be stipulated in 100 per cent of cases," he said. "The panel pledge forces people to confront their personal role in contributing to gender inequality and to take personal responsibility for making change and doing something about it "By taking action, you'll not only be stimulating and balancing and developing better outcomes on the panels themselves but you will create a virtuous circle, which is encouraging more and more opportunities for women to speak and, in doing so, will lead to a normalisation of women as authoritative figures."

One wonders what happens on panels of three, but presumably a panellist of the dominant gender can be dispensed with in such cases. It doesn't matter who, since panellists are picked at random.

Mr Stevens said he had been on a gender-balanced panel the previous week with a female chief operating officer, a female director of projects for a large listed company and a male senior vice-president of a global company. "It was diverse, it was challenging and, yes, fortunately for the audience, we had some disagreement that kept everybody on the edge of their seats," he said.

Before he enforced the pledge, the proposed panel had been all-male.

One wonders who had the delicious job of informing two of the male panellists that lacking vaginas was a more important consideration than their ideas.

Start-up conference Sydstart caught some flak in July when it announced a preliminary all-male line-up of speakers. Since then it has secured digital marketplace Envato co-founder Cyan Ta'eed, co-founder of Grok Learning Nicky Ringland and fashion website HijUp.com founder Diajeng Lestari.

The panel pledge's insistence on equal numbers of men and women reflects the idea that a token one or two women in a sea of men does little to normalise the presence of women as figures of authority.

Gazaleh Lyari, chairwoman of executive women's organisation Heads Over Heels, said it took three women to get some momentum on a board.

Coca-Cola Amatil chief executive Alison Watkins said there are three women including herself on her board.

"Instead of being in a situation where 'the woman is speaking', it's a conversation. In a company like ours - we are a very consumer-oriented company women control the decisions in probably 70 per cent or more of our purchases, so it is very important to have a female perspective."

And 70% of products by price in the luxury goods market are bought for women, yet men (gay men, fair enough, not real men) seem to be doing a pretty good job of designing them. It's almost as if innovative ideas, and not genitals, is what counts.

Ms Watkins shared the stage at the Deutsche Bank event with Ms Berejiklian, Ms Lyari and AFL commissioner and Mirvac board director Sam Mostyn. Ms Mostyn said the quality of decision-making improved with increased diversity. 'You can't stop at one or two. You can never just have a couple of women around to solve the issue. It must be at least one-third of any leadership team or board for the real dividend to accrue."

You can't argue against that. High quality solutions don't come from high quality decision makers, but from gender diversity. It's all so clear.

I still walk into a boardroom lunch and I'll be the only woman in the room.

I know I'm not part of the elite, but what's a board room lunch? From this article, it appears board room lunches and yakking on panels are all senior executives do all day.

(I'm sure there's some laughing at the peasants, but that's probably integrated with the board room lunch).

 

[Nexus]

You can never just have a couple of women around to solve the issue. It must be at least one-third of any leadership team or board for the real dividend to accrue.

It's amazing human civilization was able to accomplish anything in the last 8,000 years with the evil patriarchy excluding the minimum percentage of females necessary to solve issues. Perhaps it was pure luck that brought us from hunter gatherers to landing on the moon.

 

[Jayjay]

You can never just have a couple of women around to solve the issue. It must be at least one-third of any leadership team or board for the real dividend to accrue.

It's amazing human civilization was able to accomplish anything in the last 8,000 years with the evil patriarchy excluding the minimum percentage of females necessary to solve issues. Perhaps it was pure luck that brought us from hunter gatherers to landing on the moon.

In that latter example, it seems rather telling that we were able to get to the moon once, and then it seems to take a really long time before we can go at it again.

 

[dismal]

It's amazing human civilization was able to accomplish anything in the last 8,000 years with the evil patriarchy excluding the minimum percentage of females necessary to solve issues. Perhaps it was pure luck that brought us from hunter gatherers to landing on the moon.

In that latter example, it seems rather telling that we were able to get to the moon once, and then it seems to take a really long time before we can go at it again.

We didn't devolve into not being able to go to the moon, we evolved into not giving a shit about doing it any more.

Progress.

 

[skepticalbip]

It's amazing human civilization was able to accomplish anything in the last 8,000 years with the evil patriarchy excluding the minimum percentage of females necessary to solve issues. Perhaps it was pure luck that brought us from hunter gatherers to landing on the moon.

In that latter example, it seems rather telling that we were able to get to the moon once, and then it seems to take a really long time before we can go at it again.

It isn't a matter that we can't send people back to the Moon today. It is a matter that we have already collected several hundred pounds of Moon rocks and brought them back to study and also have plenty pictures of people hopping around on that orb to look at. NASA has a limited budget and there are more interesting and important things to spend it on than a return trip. We spend that budget on learning about the other planets and their moons (our many probes to the outer solar system), the Sun (several solar observation satellites), terrestrial navigation (the GPS), weather and climate prediction (many satellites studying the Earth), learning about the cosmos (many many satellites gathering data about the universe such as the Hubble and other satellites looking in all RF bands from infrared to gamma).

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Will someone please find this rich lady some girlfriends to eat lunch with...

aa

 

[bigfield]

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.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Presumably the job of a board (or anyone at the top) is to make the best decisions possible. Presumably, the decisions they make actually matter.

So if you are selecting on a variable in addition to merit that has nothing to do with merit (by definition), then you aren't selecting the highest quality, most meritorious board members, and the board's decisions will be lower quality. If you are a consumer or employee, this is going to affect you negatively.

But it gets worse than that, obviously. Despite my hyperbole about random selection, the pipeline for being selected for the very top is to look at people who are almost there. But to get these 50% 'balanced' panels, companies will need to promote less meritorious women into the 'almost there' positions, and so on further down the line. They're already doing this of course -- 'women in management' courses are rampant (this is in the public service too -- where we're supposed to be selecting on merit).

I notice they don't care about the gender balance of who cleans the toilets.

 

[bilby]

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.

Presumably the job of a board (or anyone at the top) is to make the best decisions possible. Presumably, the decisions they make actually matter.

My experience suggests otherwise.

Decisions made at board level become instructions to senior managers, who pass them on to managers, who pass them on to supervisors, who tell the guys who actually do the work "This is the directive from the Big Boss". The workers examine the instructions, determine that they are completely at odds with reality, and implement something that gives (as far as possible) the appearance of compliance, while not actually destroying the company, as the original instructions would require.

The supervisors than ignore the aspects of the implementation that don't quite match the instructions, and report success to the managers; the managers then adjust their reporting of the new process to make it seem even more like it complies with the original directive; the senior managers massage the feedback from the managers to make it look even more like compliance, and report back to the board on the wonderful and successful implementation of their decisions.

I guess there may be some big corporations where the board's decisions actually matter; but generally, they don't - if they work they get implemented, and if they don't they get ignored by the workers - who have a far better grasp of the reality than the guys in the boardroom.

So if you are selecting on a variable in addition to merit that has nothing to do with merit (by definition), then you aren't selecting the highest quality, most meritorious board members, and the board's decisions will be lower quality. If you are a consumer or employee, this is going to affect you negatively.

But it gets worse than that, obviously. Despite my hyperbole about random selection, the pipeline for being selected for the very top is to look at people who are almost there. But to get these 50% 'balanced' panels, companies will need to promote less meritorious women into the 'almost there' positions, and so on further down the line. They're already doing this of course -- 'women in management' courses are rampant (this is in the public service too -- where we're supposed to be selecting on merit).

I notice they don't care about the gender balance of who cleans the toilets.

That's because the people who clean the toilets are not presented to the stock market as the face of the company. The board is; and it is far more important that the board be seen to meet the current 'flavour of the month' requirement in the market (which may be having been to the 'right' schools, or having the right parents, or having the right gender or racial balance, or any number of other bullshit 'feel good' things), than it is that they make good decisions about the company they nominally run.

Most companies spend lots of money on image. Boardroom salaries are part of that. Coca-Cola spends a shitload of cash on telling the customers how wonderful and different their product is; and they spend a slightly smaller amount on telling the sharemarket how wonderful and different their leadership is. The actual difference between a board made up of six men, and one made up of three men and three women, is as trivial as the difference between Coke and Pepsi; it's all about appearances. They take great care in the selection of board members; and they take great care in the selection of new label designs - but that's not because either affects the actual product. It's all purely about marketing.

 

[Metaphor]

The actual difference between a board made up of six men, and one made up of three men and three women, is as trivial as the difference between Coke and Pepsi; it's all about appearances.

Talk about reducing your credibility to zero!

Coca-Cola tastes a lot better than Pepsi, and Coca-Cola knows it, which is why their products cost a lot more than Pepsi, and they still outsell Pepsi.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I've taken the Pepsi challenge and couldn't tell the difference. It's a moot point.

Sort of like executives. They're basically interchangeable.

 

[bilby]

The actual difference between a board made up of six men, and one made up of three men and three women, is as trivial as the difference between Coke and Pepsi; it's all about appearances.

Talk about reducing your credibility to zero!

Coca-Cola tastes a lot better than Pepsi,

This is highly debatable

and Coca-Cola knows it,

This is certainly untrue

which is why their products cost a lot more than Pepsi, and they still outsell Pepsi.

The taste of either product has little or no bearing on their sales figures.

- - - Updated - - -

I've taken the Pepsi challenge and couldn't tell the difference. It's a moot point.

Sort of like executives. They're basically interchangeable.

^This.

 

[Metaphor]

I've taken the Pepsi challenge and couldn't tell the difference. It's a moot point.

Sort of like executives. They're basically interchangeable.

How I wish that were true.

I can assure you there are billions who can taste the difference between Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and of the people who can taste the difference, much more than half prefer Coca-Cola.

Coke controls 42% of the total carbonated soft drink market, compared with Pepsi's 30%.

 

[Metaphor]

The taste of either product has little or no bearing on their sales figures.

Utter nonsense, but then, you must know it's nonsense. If taste had no bearing, Coca Cola could sell brown-coloured sparkling water and still outsell every other brand, including ones producing actual cola.

Being as you're in Australia, bilby, you must know about Coca-Cola's disastrous entry into the energy drink market with the original formulation of 'Mother'. It tasted so foul that when they re-formulated it and re-launched it (due to abysmal sales figures), the packaging said 'brand new formulation' and 'tastes nothing like the old one'.

Maybe you buy all your items based on brand appeal, but some of us actually have taste buds.

 

[bilby]

The taste of either product has little or no bearing on their sales figures.

Utter nonsense, but then, you must know it's nonsense. If taste had no bearing, Coca Cola could sell brown-coloured sparkling water and still outsell every other brand, including ones producing actual cola.

They do.

Being as you're in Australia, bilby, you must know about Coca-Cola's disastrous entry into the energy drink market with the original formulation of 'Mother'. It tasted so foul that when they re-formulated it and re-launched it (due to abysmal sales figures), the packaging said 'brand new formulation' and 'tastes nothing like the old one'.

Maybe you buy all your items based on brand appeal, but some of us actually have taste buds.

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

 

[Metaphor]

Utter nonsense, but then, you must know it's nonsense. If taste had no bearing, Coca Cola could sell brown-coloured sparkling water and still outsell every other brand, including ones producing actual cola.

They do.

Being as you're in Australia, bilby, you must know about Coca-Cola's disastrous entry into the energy drink market with the original formulation of 'Mother'. It tasted so foul that when they re-formulated it and re-launched it (due to abysmal sales figures), the packaging said 'brand new formulation' and 'tastes nothing like the old one'.

Maybe you buy all your items based on brand appeal, but some of us actually have taste buds.

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

So, because you don't like soft drinks, you can't imagine anyone else liking them, and they really only buy them because they're such putty-like lumps they'll buy anything that's advertised?

I find red wine and Indian food revolting, but I don't imagine the only reason other people drink and eat it is because 'marketing'.

What unexamined contempt you have for others.

 

[bilby]

They do.

Being as you're in Australia, bilby, you must know about Coca-Cola's disastrous entry into the energy drink market with the original formulation of 'Mother'. It tasted so foul that when they re-formulated it and re-launched it (due to abysmal sales figures), the packaging said 'brand new formulation' and 'tastes nothing like the old one'.

Maybe you buy all your items based on brand appeal, but some of us actually have taste buds.

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

So, because you don't like soft drinks, you can't imagine anyone else liking them, and they really only buy them because they're such putty-like lumps they'll buy anything that's advertised?

Pretty much.

I find red wine and Indian food revolting, but I don't imagine the only reason other people drink and eat it is because 'marketing'.

I rarely see marketing for red wine or Indian food. Coca-cola advertising is everywhere.

What unexamined contempt you have for others.

Oh, it's not unexamined.

 

[Metaphor]

Pretty much.

Thanks for the confirmation. It speaks for itself.

I rarely see marketing for red wine or Indian food. Coca-cola advertising is everywhere.

I see, things that would otherwise have no appeal whatsoever to any normal human being, like milk and cars and television shows and nappies and bus timetables, need to be marketed and advertised.

Oh, it's not unexamined.

That makes it worse. You must realise after a moment's thought that your view is wrong, but you continue to hold it.

 

[bilby]

Thanks for the confirmation. It speaks for itself.

I rarely see marketing for red wine or Indian food. Coca-cola advertising is everywhere.

I see, things that would otherwise have no appeal whatsoever to any normal human being, like milk and cars and television shows and nappies and bus timetables, need to be marketed and advertised.

Things that would otherwise have no appeal whatsoever to any normal human being, like carbonated soft drinks, need to be marketed and advertised, or they don't sell. Coca-Cola is primarily a sales and marketing corporation.

Oh, it's not unexamined.

That makes it worse. You must realise after a moment's thought that your view is wrong, but you continue to hold it.

On the contrary. After careful reflection and examination of the facts, I remain confident that my view is correct.

Not precisely what you are painting it to be; but close enough that I cant be bothered to argue the details - and certainly correct.

 

[zorq]

Off on this tangent, studies show that if people are only given a single sip of a beverage in a blind taste test they will prefer the sweeter of two drinks. This is why Pepsi beats Coke in their Pepsi challenge sip test. But if presented with an entire glass for consumption over a long time, they will prefer the less sweet drink. This is why New Coke failed. They tried making Coke sweeter so that they could beat Pepsi in their Pepsi challenge. Oops.

Personally, I like Pepsi better than Coke and Mexican Coke better than Pepsi. Women on management boards don't really affect my decision to buy stocks or not.