The Hike Up Poly Mountain :: Descriptive Essay About A Place

The Hike Up Poly masses Our journey begins on a overcastgy and cool Monday morning in late September. The group of freshman position students cargo area eagerly at the gate to Poly C eachon anticipating the adventures to come. Once Professor has taken roll and explained what is in store for the impending hike, we start walking up a rocky path. Immediately I feel like I am in constitution. I am reminded of all the camping and hiking trips I went on as a child and I feel at peace. But something in the sky keeps bothering me, the fog. I was expecting to be able to stand on covert of Poly Mountain and see the entire city of San Luis Obispo. I brought my camera along hoping to take beautiful pictures of the city and send them home to my family. But the thick fog above my head reminds me that this probably will not happen. I try to take the ominous fog off my mind and continue examining the land. We walk yesteryear the dry step up creek bed of Brizzolara Cr eek and it becomes obvious we have not had a significant amount of rainfall in months. A fellow stamper points out some(prenominal) deer on the canyon side, the first sign of wildlife. I can hear birds chirping in the distance but cannot see any because of the great(p) fog. I am hit on the nose with a vagabond of dew move from a Coast Live Oak and another drop falling from a Eucalyptus tree. The air is still and the sun remains hidden behind the fog. We walk farther into the canyon and come across several manmade structures. A small footbridge over a gentle stream and a rock arch inviting hikers into the hills are reminders of what man can do to get up natures beauty. The path gets steeper and narrower and as we climb higher, the fog gets thicker. I am still hoping the fog will fade away complete so that I can experience the beautiful views I was expecting. Our hike up Poly Mountain becomes much more strenuous and we stop every fewer transactions to catch our bre ath. We are no longer hidden underneath The Hike Up Poly Mountain Descriptive Essay About A wanderThe Hike Up Poly Mountain Our journey begins on a foggy and cool Monday morning in late September. The group of freshman English students wait eagerly at the gate to Poly Canyon anticipating the adventures to come. Once Professor has taken roll and explained what is in store for the impending hike, we start walking up a rocky path. Immediately I feel like I am in nature. I am reminded of all the camping and hiking trips I went on as a child and I feel at peace. But something in the sky keeps bothering me, the fog. I was expecting to be able to stand on top of Poly Mountain and see the entire city of San Luis Obispo. I brought my camera along hoping to take beautiful pictures of the city and send them home to my family. But the thick fog above my head reminds me that this probably will not happen. I try to take the ominous fog off my mind and continue examining the land. We walk past the dry creek bed of Brizzolara Creek and it becomes obvious we have not had a significant amount of rainfall in months. A fellow hiker points out several deer on the canyon side, the first sign of wildlife. I can hear birds chirping in the distance but cannot see any because of the dense fog. I am hit on the nose with a drop of dew falling from a Coast Live Oak and another drop falling from a Eucalyptus tree. The air is still and the sun remains hidden behind the fog. We walk farther into the canyon and come across several manmade structures. A small footbridge over a gentle stream and a rock arch inviting hikers into the hills are reminders of what man can do to enhance natures beauty. The path gets steeper and narrower and as we climb higher, the fog gets thicker. I am still hoping the fog will fade away enough so that I can experience the beautiful views I was expecting. Our hike up Poly Mountain becomes much more strenuous and we stop every fe w minutes to catch our breath. We are no longer hidden underneath

Contrasting Responsibility in Carvers Fever and Baldwins Sonnys B

What allows a human being to constantly face-up to the responsibilities of life? What makes a mother or become continue to clothe, feed, and pick up their child from school? What makes a person wake up every morning to go to a job he or she hates, come home, and begin the whole process the following morning? Is it responsibility that makes a person do what they have to do, or rather is it fearing the egress? Truthfully, this would depend on the situation. Parents would most likely fulfill their responsibility towards their child or children because of love but a person who hates his or her job probably continues to do it fearing the consequence of unemployment. In the end, one realizes that despite all the responsibilities a person has, the choice to execute it is ultimately left to the individual.Two short stories that understand the theme of responsibility are Sonnys blue devils by James Baldwin and Fever by Raymond Carver. In Sonnys Blues, the narrators elderly mother tells h im to never allow anything icky to happen to his younger brother, Sonny. Although Sonnys injurious decisions result in both brothers distancing themselves from each other, the older brother finds it within himself to love his brother and do everything he bed do to take finagle of him. In Fever, the other short story, the narrators wife, Eileen, abandons her life as a wife and mother of two children to pursue a career as an artist with another man. This sudden abandonment of all maternal responsibilities without reservation characterizes her as a free-flowing artiste that pursues her desires without regarding the impact it might have on others. Both of these short stories show how people approach the issue of familial responsibility.An init... ... what were supposed to get out of this life... one realizes that she has put her ambitions and desires above her family and paid no heed to her familial responsibility.Abraham Lincoln once said, You cannot escape the responsibility of to morrow by evading it today (www.quotationspage.com). Ironically, one actually can. The narrator in Sonnys Blues chose to care for Sonny and accept his responsibility as an older brother. On the other hand, Eileen in Fever chose a different path by leaving her family and act her own ambitions. Conclusively, one realizes that despite all the responsibilities a person has, the element of choice determines what happens.Works CitedCarver, Raymond. Fever The Harper Anthology of Fiction Ed. Sylvan Barnet. New York HarperCollins, 1991.Baldwin, James. Sonnys Blues in Vintage Baldwin. New York Vintage, 2004.

Corticosteroids: What I Learned from Prednisone :: Medicine Health Drugs

Corticosteroids What I Learned from Prednisone If wellness equals homeostasis, then illness may be considered a loss or breakdown of homeostasis. Illness can be mild and require little or no intervention sometimes the body will heal itself. At other times, though, illness can be a breakdown in the whole system. Sometimes, when something goes wrong, the brain loses the ability to fix itself or its extension, the body. To treat the illness, there are many drugs some placebo-like and some are very potent, with enormous healing properties. Some drugs are homeopathic they come from the earth in the form of herbs and permit been used effectively to heal mild and annoying symptoms for hundreds of years. There are also beyond these, new and potent drugs that come from pharmaceutical laboratories. Some of these drugs be possessed of great healing power, but carry with them a double-edged sword, a healing edge and a destructive edge. It is one of these drugs, prednisone, that I wish to talk of in this paper. Physicians have prescribed prednisone to many of their patients who have life-threatening conditions. To illustrate, here is a quote from internationally known flutist and television referee on the arts, Eugenia Zuckerman, who was diagnosed with an immunopathic lung disease. I can breathe In less than twenty-four hours I am practicing the flute with the kind of breath control Ive been absent for months. And all it took was one day and sixty milligrams of prednisone ...I feel a little shaky and weird, but I can play the flute that now it is three days later. It is the middle of the night. Im squinting into the mirror in the bathroom. Only seventy-two hours into my prednisone therapy and my face is definitely spreading. Im already turning into a pumpkin. (2). I understand what Eugenia Zuckerman meant. I was also on prednisone. Corticosteroids (9) are wonderful-terrible-wonderful drugs. They make you crazy. (I was in psychotherapy.) They increase your appetite and increase your weight. (I was always hungry.) They put your flyaway system on high alert. (I was nervous and frightened, my hands were shaky, and one eyelid twitched.) They produce edema. (My face and ankles swelled.) They cause insomnia, (I stayed up most of the night watching erstwhile(a) movies on television.) Moreover, they give you the gift of boundless energy.

The River Warren and the Struggling Farmer :: Warren

The River Warren and the Struggling Farmer The alarm clock sounds every morning at five oclock, not a Sony or any other form of electrical device, but the sounds of the roosters crowing and horses scurrying around the dew filled pasture thirstily awaiting their morning grain. One can hardly ignore crashing and banging sounds that the hogs make as they lift their feeder covers with their noses and bounce them up and down to alert their owner he is late for breakfast again. As the farmer stumbles out of bed, he is greeted by tantalizing aroma of fresh coffee and his wifes award winning biscuits. He quickly throws on a pair of pants and heads to the table with his shirt halfway unbuttoned and his boots untied. He quickly scarves down his breakfast and is out the access ready for another day of work, with out so as thank you to his wife for meal that she was up at four oclock to prepare. For most Americans a living like this only exits in their memories of Little Hous e on the Prairie, and it is hard for them to imagine what it would be like if they had to do so much as cart their own orange juice. But for the average family of the early nineteenth century it was a way of life. There were no supermarkets or grocery stores where food could be easily purchased. The choices were easy, farm or starve For the most part people choice to farm. Means and methods of farming have changed greatly in the last one hundred years. The small time farmers are a thing of the past. Every year many farms are going under do to a fall nip off market. The price of equipment and farmland has also increased a great deal, and the market is far from keeping up. If this does not change the supermarkets may not have a produce section. A hundred years ago this would problem would never been for seen. Back then means of farming were very difficult and each fellow member of the family played an important role if the farm was going to survive. The women would always arise about an hour before the men and get breakfast started.

Essay --

The Creeds of the church were key parts of the origins of the church. They lay the foundation for the first age of the church in order to accomplish the mission given to the Apostles by Jesus. Two of these creeds were the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. Culture during that time period was key to the layout of these creeds and the messages they set. A creed was an early statement of Christian beliefs, and a symbol for others to follow by. There were numerous cultures and needs that led to the ultimate development and writing of the creeds, which atomic number 18 still used for their original purpose today. One of these needs was for the church to have a basic statement of beliefs, which was accomplished by the Apostles creed. Early Christians knew that muckle needed to have an understanding of what they believed in that wasnt requiring a lot of research. Cultures of the people and the time period also had a great influence on the creation of these creeds. They needed a way to airing the word of Christ to all people, in a time period where we didnt have the technology and communication options that we have today. A combination of the churches basic needs for success and the fact that the word needed to be spread were two of the leading causes in the creations of these creeds. One of the most important reasons that led to the creation of the church was the essential need of the early church to have a document which listed the basic beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church. This was created by the authority of the church, the apostles appointed by Christ to lead the church. They had to find a way to spread the church of God, and these creeds provided a method to complete this task. no(prenominal) of the churches at the time had all books tha... ...hrist, along with making sure everyone in the Church understood the basic beliefs of the Catholic Church. The creeds provided both of these, as they clearly verbalize what things the Catholic Church suppo rted and instructions for its followers. These were vitally important to the success of the Church. Now, there was a set list of things that every catholic person could weigh to if they began to lose sight of their faith in the Catholic beliefs. They also served as an effective method of communicating the ideas of God to all cultures, allowing the word of God to be communicated to people of many different cultures and beliefs. The languages they were written in were widely spoken in that time period therefore many could understand it without needing a translator. This allowed the Creeds to spread the word to the entire world, just as Jesus instructed the apostles to.

Essay --

The Creeds of the church were key parts of the origins of the church. They lay the foundation for the first years of the church in order to accomplish the bang given to the Apostles by deliverer. Two of these creeds were the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. Culture during that time period was key to the layout of these creeds and the messages they set. A creed was an early statement of the Nazareneian beliefs, and a symbol for others to follow by. There were numerous cultures and needs that led to the ultimate development and writing of the creeds, which are still used for their original purpose today. angiotensin converting enzyme of these needs was for the church to have a raw material statement of beliefs, which was accomplished by the Apostles creed. Early Christians knew that people needed to have an understanding of what they believed in that wasnt requiring a lot of research. Cultures of the people and the time period also had a great influence on the invention of the se creeds. They needed a way to ranch the word of Christ to all people, in a time period where we didnt have the technology and communication options that we have today. A combination of the churches basic needs for success and the fact that the word needed to be spread were two of the leading causes in the creations of these creeds. One of the most important reasons that led to the creation of the church was the essential need of the early church to have a document which listed the basic beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church. This was created by the authority of the church, the apostles appointed by Christ to lead the church. They had to find a way to spread the church of God, and these creeds provided a method to complete this task. None of the churches at the time had all books tha... ...hrist, along with fashioning sure everyone in the Church understood the basic beliefs of the Catholic Church. The creeds provided both of these, as they clearly stated what things the C atholic Church supported and instructions for its followers. These were vitally important to the success of the Church. Now, there was a set list of things that every catholic person could look to if they began to lose sight of their faith in the Catholic beliefs. They also served as an effective method of communicating the ideas of God to all cultures, allowing the word of God to be communicated to people of many different cultures and beliefs. The languages they were written in were widely spoken in that time period therefore many could understand it without needing a translator. This allowed the Creeds to spread the word to the entire world, just as Jesus instructed the apostles to.

Shutter Island Scene Reviews and Diagnosis

Psychological disorder Grandiose and Persecutory Delusional Disorder Movie title Shutter Island Movie rating 3. 5/5 Character name Teddy Daniels (Aka. Andrew Laeddis) Actors name Leonardo DiCaprio Andrew Laeddis wife went insane and drowned their children, so he murdered her.He feels guilty virtually neglecting to get his wife help, which could waste saved their children, and guilty about killing her as well the two of these add up heavily on his conscience, so much so that he creates an alternate personality (Teddy Daniels) to get away from the terrible reality that is his life. I go forth refer to him as Teddy end-to-end my character diagnosis. Scene one Teddy experiences a nightmare about his wife. The fire symbolizes non only how she first tried to commit suicide, but in like manner the death of his sanity.The nightmare begins with his wife sc quondam(a)ing him about his drinking problem, which is a repressed regret that only comes out in his dreams where he is vulnerable. She says she never left, and she walks to the windowpane where you can see the lake the one where she drowned her children and was murdered (by Teddy) at. She tells him he needs to wake up, but she really means he needs to see reality, she says shes not really on that point, and that he needs to face that. She says Laeddis is still there, which is who he was before he invented the Teddy persona to avoid feeling the guilt, since he would inevitably accuse himself for their deaths.Scene two Teddy has a flashback about his traumatic experience in Germany during World War II. He has post-traumatic stress disorder from his time spent there and his repressed memories span from killing guards to seeing thousands of innocent people turn to frozen corpses. He has guilt, shame and self-hatred induced psychosis from his involvement in the war. He sees his nurse (he replaces the image of his wife with the image of his nurse because its easier to handle) and his deceased daughter, she is a sym bol of his guilt for neglecting his wifes mental problems.If he had have done something about his wife, his children would not have died. Scene three Again Teddy replaces his wife with his nurse to avoid further pain and she asks him to help her. He picks up his daughter and she once again is a symbol of guilt as she asks him why he didnt save her. He said it was too new-made by the time he got there, meaning physically to the scene where his children were murdered as well as meaning that he was too late in getting help for his wife who was visibly losing touch with reality.Scene four Teddy talks to his old friend, who he remembers, but he does not rede still that he was a patient at Shutter Island along with his friend. He does not remember beating up his friend, even when his friend says he looks so bad because of him. Teddy stays stuck in his other personality, which is a common trait of borderline personality disorder. When he is in one identity, he shows a complete amnesia f or his other identity. He created a fictional life for himself, with fictional characters to go along with the story.He tells himself his wife died in a fire, when he really murdered her. He blames Andrew Laeddis (who is himself) for being the one who lit the match that killed his wife, which is a metaphor for him being at fault for her death, and the childrens deaths. He is in a constant search for Andrew Laeddis, saying hes the secret patient at Shutter Island, and his imagined wife tells him to kill Andrew. He wants so bad to get rid of his past self, because he would rather live without feeling the guilt.His friend says he cant deal with the truth and kill his old self at the same time, he makes the point that hes fighting against himself. When his friend mentions his deceased wife, and repeats saying let her go, Teddy hallucinates that she is certify in the room. His friend knows hes seeing her, and is clearly distressed, he knows his delusions will be the death of him. He sn aps out of his alternate personality for a moment and says that he cant let her go. Knowing that Teddy was and still is technically a patient of Shutter Island, he warns that Teddy will never leave the island.

Mary Oliver’s “Wild Geese”

The gentle, tone in Olivers poem Wild Geese is extremely encouraging, mouth straight to the reader. In this particular poem, the lines dont rhyme, however it is still harmonious in not solitary(prenominal) rhythm save repetition as well. Take note of the rhythm in the lines starting with the word You You do not curb to be good, You do not have to walk, You only have to let. This rhythm is also heard in the lines starting with the word Meanwhile Meanwhile the world goes on, Meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles, Meanwhile the wild geese. The anadiplosis of the words You and Meanwhile presents a soft rhythmic element to the writers expression. It attracts readers with its tenderness while also inspiring the understanding with what this poem really means. The metaphors Oliver uses are just ever unexpected. She uses a comprehensible dialect in its place. It may not seem too convincing, yet it makes an absolute piece become importationful and worthwhile. It is not complicated to picture wild geese flying across the atmosphere.However, it is flattering when sitting alongside the scenery of sun and rain moving across the landscapes over prairies and the cabalistic trees, the mountains and the rivers. Oliver uses this identical representation in order to illustrate humanity reaching out to those that are feeling completely alone. Once more, this is not very complicated, but a fascinating metaphor. Oliver may be considered a poet of irony however there is no way her work can be considered to be boring. Her formal word choice contains traditional gracefulness while at the same time adding modern thoughts about both nature and the human race. I feel the showtime line in the poem Wild Geese is probably the most memorable and intentional of the entire sonnet. The second and third line seems to prove this by maintaining the apprehension that one can choose whether they want to be a good person. The second line you do not have to walk on your knees, gives meani ng to one exhibiting worshiping.The third line for a hundred miles through the desert, repenting is implied as the agony along with the motivation to be penalized for their corrupt actions. The fourth and fifth lines you only have to let the soft animal of your body love what it loves, include the opening association of man to nature. While the first three lines testify you what you do not have to do, these two lines explain what you only have to do. The sixth line draws readers especially into this poem. The words tell me about despair, yours, and I will tell you mine, make an exceptionally moving demand.This calls attention to human desolation and displays strong enthusiasm to share stories of it with predominantly the reader. The lines seven to eleven impeach that anguish is precisely a human characteristic. The seventh line explains that while mankind may wait around and mourn their misfortune and discouraging situations, the world goes on. The world here, nevertheless, belon gs to the environment. The eighter from Decatur through ordinal line tell us that meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of the rain are moving across the landscapes, over the prairies and the deep trees, the mountains and the rivers. The eleventh and twelfth lines say, Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean blue air, are heading home again. So far, the poem has addressed the environment in somewhat broad expressions, but in these lines, a specific animal is identified. Like the sun, rain, and landscapes, the wild geese are going about their business, unconscious to mans desolation. The representation of geese flying high in the clean blue air is a pleasing setting. If we paid more attention to boththing that is going on in nature, humankind could greatly benefit from this.Line fourteen states Whoever you are, no matter how nongregarious, is directed towards the reader. Although most of the time Oliver may not personally know her readers, she says that whoever you are, if you are lonely and despairing, this poem is for you. Lines fifteen and sixteen state, the word offers itself to your imagination, calls you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting. Even though, the word harsh usually refers to a negative implication, here it seems to imply simply piercing and firm.In these two lines, Oliver uncovers the process by which individuals relate to the environment. The concluding lines, seventeen and eighteen, state over and over announcing your place in the family of things, this assures the readers that they are not all alone in their lonesomeness. Oliver entails that our world is unyielding about welcoming people to it. Here the family is made up of all of naturethe sun and rain, rivers and mountains, and every member of the animal kingdom. One needs only to have an interesting imagination in order to fit in with society.

Explain the Potential Effects of Five Different Life Factors on the Development of an Individual Essay

In this assignment i am going to be taking about life factors that would effect a child, these factors include genetic factors, biological influences before birth, enviromental influences, social- economic factors and lifestyle. The first is Genetic factors these argon factors that would be inherrited by the child from the mother and father.There are a lot of diverse illnesses/ diseases that can be inherited from the parents such as cystic fibrosis, coeliac disease, asthma, breakable bone disease and a lot more. These are passed to the child through with(predicate) their genes. If one of these illnesses are passed on to the child like brittle bone disease then this will effect the child in a disconfirming way be grow they might not be able to do things properly when they are older, like sports and exersize. It would limit their oppertunities and stop them from doing things that they would later want to do.This is beca usage if they have brittle bone disease then the persons bone s would be really weak and could easily break, the bones were developed with a less amount of protein called collagen. The second is biologic influences before birth, this includes the thing that the mother of the child does while she is pregrant that would effect their babyies before being born, could be if the mother decides to smoke, take drugs, have a bad fare or drink large amounts of alcohol at one time.For example if the mother drinks durning pregrancy then this would have a negative effect on the babys victimization and could cause it to have foetal alcohol syndrome. A child born with foetal alcohol syndrome can be smaller, they could also have learning disabilities and means defects. The third is Enviromental influences is the enviroment that the mother and child are living in and have been brought up in. Pollution can make tribe very ill, it can cause lack of brain development in small children. It can also cause people to have life threatening diseases such as choler a.The contiguous factor is socio-economic factors this is to do with the income of your house hold . This factor can have a major effect on a persons quality of life. The main sources of income are wages from employment, benefits from the goverment, interest from bank accounts, the amount of money coming in to the house hold will be different depending on these factors. The main groups of people that live on very little money are older people,disabled people, lone-parent families and the unemployed.For example f the main earner in the family is disabled then they substance abuse be able to work. This wil effect the wages from employment so the family will have a lower overall income. The last factor that i am going to be talking about is lifestyle. This includes how healthy and active an individual person is, a lifestyle is something that you choose, your choices and you influences. The use and mis use of substances, such as alcohol, drugs and smoking. If you mis use these substanc es then this can drastically changes your lifestyle and also the people around you.

Neil Simon

Marvin Neil Simon was born on July 4, 1927, and grew up in Washington Heights at the northern tip of Manhattan. He tended to(p) New York University briefly (1944-45) and the University of Denver (1945-46) before joining the United States Army where he began his writing career working for the Army camp newspaper. aft(prenominal) world discharged from the army, Simon returned to New York and took a job as a mailroom clerk for Warner Brothers East Coast office.He and his brother Danny began writing comedy revues and eventually put together their way into radio, then television. Simon received several Emmy Award nominations for his television writing, then moved on to the stage where he quickly established himself as Americas some successful commercial playwright by creating an unparalleled string of Broadway hits beginning with Come Blow Your Horn. During the 1966-67 seasons, Barefoot in the Park, The Odd Couple, Sweet Charity and The friend Spangled Girl were all running simultan eously.In 1973, following the death of his wife, Simon reached a low point in his career with two failures The Good have-to doe with (1973) and Gods Favorite (1976). A move to California, however, reinvigorated him and he produced a much more successful play later that year in California Suite. After marrying actress Marsha Mason, Simon went on to write Chapter Two (1977) which was considered by many critics to be his finest play to that date.His fourth musical, Theyre Playing Our Song, proved fairly successful in 1979, but his close three plays (I Ought to Be in Pictures, Fools and a revised version of Little Me) all proved unsuccessful at the box office. During the course of his career, Simon has received almost 27 awards. He got his first award in 1957 for your show of show and his latest one was in 2006 for American humor.

Effects of youth indiscipline Essay

The effects of indiscipline among the youth are manifold. Indiscipline is defined as a lack of discipline. Some of the effects of indiscipline among the youth let in lack of respect for teachers, parents and other senior figures. It could be argued that the indiscipline of authoritative individuals has reduced the morality and ethics of many young people.The effect of the downfall in morals and ethics are travaild, in part, by the education of the young people, in that teachers are no longer responsible for setting limits, merely for ensuring that certain targets are met. As discipline is no longer present, the lack of discipline does non present any sense of shame as the indiscipline is non tied to immorality anymore.The lack of guidance given to young people means that the conduct they show is not an important facet of their lives anymore. General consensus is that the set that have influenced morality are instilled inside the family, and that it is improved family values that will reverse the current trend.Most young people today believe in having things their own way. If they dont get their own way then they often go off the rails. Parents seem more afraid of children and they do not seem to realise that by constantly giving in to their demands they are making them uncontrollable and undisciplined. Indiscipline is classed as a behavioral disorder and is the cause of mental, emotional, and in some cases, physical damage. Some would argue that parents, teachers and society should shoulder some of the blame for the indiscipline currently evident amongst todays youth.Parents may be to blame as they give their children too much freedom, whereas teachers could be to blame for not focusing on things that the child is good at. Society is in like manner to blame as the current education system does not prepare a child for employment. The curriculum is so varied that children are not gaining tolerable practical knowledge. BY Ofondu Pearl

Interview people about the economy Essay

The deal of the Orange County atomic number 18 an optimistic bunch. Yet, one can see this optimism slowly fading onward into the darkness. For a country which is so c fall away to perhaps worlds biggest entertainment hub, this is not a pretty picture. It would be wrong to blame the people. elfin has gone right for the county since the economic recession of 2008, the effects of which are still quite visible. For a county which was already suffering from one of the more serious unemployment problems than compared to the sightly figures of the United States of America, the recession of 2008 has spelt doom, and its repercussions can still be felt.Take the case of the 34-year old Mr. Matthews who had a small shop selling electronic goods. However, with nearly people who gave him patronage, forbidden of rail lines or saving up for the bleak future, there are no takers for his once steadily selling shop of television sets and radios. His simply hope is a government bailout, so tha t his customers have more money in their hands, or in other words greater purchasing authority so as to indirectly get him out of this mess. Mr. Matthews situation is in complete contrast with Mrs. Mosby who is a secretary with the local government authority.She has been bear on genuinely little by the 2008 economic recession but maintains that she is concerned about a lot of her friends, whose businesses have shut or who have been shown the door in their jobs. The only consequence of this recession on her is that while her pay has not increased, prices of m each commodities of even general use have gone by which makes it elusive for her to make the ends of her household meet. She is for the moment thankful that she has a government job, but strongly advocates that it is the states responsibility to find her fellow citizens a job which at the very least promises them adequate means of survival.Recession and the deteriorating economic situation is a concern not only to those who are currently affected by it, but also those who may be affected by it in the future. Take the case of 24-year old Mike, who is a final year school-age child at the local university. He agrees that the heat in the air can be felt by all, and even though his university manages to put together a small career fair every year, it seems a difficult proposition this year. Although in the top half of his class, Mike admits that getting a job which helps him riposte his educational loans he took for college, at least currently, seems to be a daunting task.He is hopeful that by the time he graduates, the situation would improve. He doesnt make a case for out and out state intervention, but hopes that the state would help big economic powerhouses by giving them incentives and subsidies. Things have off-key sour for those who are self-employed as well. Take the instance of a lawyer who has his own practice, Miss Timberlake. Litigation has become suddenly too expensive, and people seem to pr efer to hold up matters for now. Even matters of home foreclosure have got delayed for now.People are looking at otherwise normal litigation procedures as a luxury service, which they are unable to afford at the moment, and are not as big a priority as reckon medical and health expenditure. Health damages companies are facing the heat as no other according to Jeff, who earns at one of the biggest insurance companies. The health and medical costs have spiraled over the last few geezerhood. The fact that people have very little disposal income, and are defaulting on their regular premium payments is making the matters worse for the insurance companies.Their being no solution in sight, people are turning to each other and rede them to perform acts of gratitude. For instance, appeals are being made to doctors and other hospital staff to give up a days pay. People are bonnie much more cautious and conservative in spending their money. For instance, the younger siblings are getting their older siblings clothes. The insurance companies dont have enough cash flowing in so as to be able to cope up with the increasing medical costs.This spells a disaster not secure for one or two companies, but for two industries which are vital to the US economy health and insurance. Whether there is a way out of this mess is the million dollar question facing everyone right now. The companies in both sectors, however, are optimistic and hope to see things improving with the Obama administration. Obamas success in being able to pass the health insurance bill is being seen as a huge positive and people seem to be strangely comforted by his words of promise. Job creation is what people are currently looking forward to.Perhaps, the only sections of the society who have nothing to lose right now are the school going children. However, it is amazing how the economic crisis has made way into their everyday conversations as well. David who is only 14 is angry at the whole situation . He maintains that the whole crisis is the fault of the government, which allowed risky investments to be made. He is also unhappy about the liberal policies which have allowed a bulk of the work to be outsourced to other destinations where labour is much cheaper.Stricter laws are needed, he argues emphatically. Those who are retired have been hit badly as well. Their pension schemes and other insurance amounts are simply not enough for them to be able to make their ends meet. Home foreclosures are likely and in the offing, and this has most of them worried. Take the case of Mr. Andrews, who is 66 years old and survives on a small pension scheme. Recently the prices of even basic consumables have risen so sharply risen that he is conclusion it difficult to make the ends meet.His old age means that it is much more difficult for him to find a job as compared to other freshers just out of college. He is worried that if the State fails to take some concrete steps soon, many Americans could be tinkering on the verge of starving poverty. Take the case of Mr. Murdoch who is a pains market analyst and broker. In the economic recession of 2008, he lost close to $100,000. He says that he is devastated and doesnt know if there is any hope remaining for his business, and whether he will be able to revive it in the near future.He is currently torn between the idea of proceed his business, or taking up a small job somewhere. However, he himself laughs at the irony of it all, given that it would be near impossible to find a job anywhere. He also feels responsible to many of his clients, who he was acting for, and have lost a considerable amount of money in the stock market. At the same time, however, he is quick to point out that investment in the market is subject to market risks, and therefore, one is understood to have mistaken the same.

Caedmon Essay

Karolay Olaya The Ecclesiastical Essay English IV 27 September 2012 How does Caedmon qualify as histoy Caedmons story qualify as history because his horrific poetry and verses changed how we see and express christianity. Have you ever felt like you dont fit in for a reason? Well Caedmon was like that. He was a stable-hand at the monastery of Whitby in the seventh century. The Anglo-saxons loved singing indeed, it was very common for men to gather for an evening and share tales through a song.Everyone was expected to contribute. Caedmon however, he would slip away because he was either too shy to sing or he just didnt have nothing to share. According to the church historian Bede, who was born about seven years before Caedmon died, Caedmon slipped out of the hall one night to tend the animals while the others sang. Afterward, he fell asleep. A bit spoke to him in a vision, saying, Caedmon, sing me something. Caedmon replied that he could not sing. That was why he was out here, not in the hall. Yet you could sing, said the man, and suggested Caedmon sing the fount of all things. In his dream, Caedmon began to sing his great Hymn of Creation, Now let us praise the guardian of the heavenly kingdom, the power of the Creator and the counsel of His mind, the kit and boodle of the Father of glory how He, the eternal Lord, originated every marvel.When Caedmon awoke, he found he remembered the verses perfectly and was able to sing them. The monks were convinced he had been given a gift by God. Whitbys famous abbess, Hild (Hilda) convinced Caedmon to become a monk. His songs and poetry changed Christianity today because now people sing and praise to the lord through symphony which is an amazing to do and everything because of Caedmon.

Sociology: Notes on Social Dimensions of Crime

brotherly DIMENSIONS OF CRIME 1. AGE 2. gender 3. ETHNICITY 4. amicable CLASS Since the recession of the 1980s, employment rates for adolescents increase yearly and have an impact on the diminishment of young person crime The younger you are, the to a greater extent prone you are to be a victim of victimization The older you get, the more you are prone for property crimes and less for physical crimes SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF CRIME 1. AGE 2. SEX 3. ETHNICITY 4. SOCIAL CLASS MALES Offenders are most likely to be male. They account for 80% of all vicious offences. 90% of all homicides, sexual assaults, and robbery crimes.And 78% of all property crimes (breaking & entering, theft). Since the 1960s, we see an increase in female criminality. However, the specific crimes they engage in are different than the ones males engage in. (Credit card fraud, shoplifting) The feminization of poverty we are seeing the high rise of poor, single mothers Men & Women have equal tendencies to be victim ise by crimes the difference between the two is that they are more likely to be victimized by different crimes. They are not equally victimized to the same crimes. MEN Assault, theftWOMEN Sexual Assault SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF CRIME 1. AGE 2. SEX 3. ETHNICITY 4. SOCIAL CLASS Big over presentation of aboriginal peoples in federal & provincial prisons. In general, aboriginals only desexualise up 3% of Canadas population, but 16% of Canadas inmates. Howard Sapers noted that aboriginal people are mistreated (receive harsher treatment) by workers, prison guards, psychologists, and are more likely to be denied parole. They are also more likely to be sent to maximum trade protection prisons. SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF CRIME 1. AGE 2. SEX 3. ETHNICITY 4. SOCIAL CLASSTodays social class, it doesnt matter if youre large or poor, all have equal tendencies to commit crimes. The difference is the type of crimes that the poor commit and the abstruse commit. Rich commit more sophisticated/organized cri mes Poor commit more survival crimes (theft, If you make less than 15 thousand dollars a year, research shows that youre more likely to be a target of a violent crime because youre probably living in the ghetto If you make more than 60 thousand dollars a year, research shows that youre more likely to get robbed, because you have more to rob.

The Creation of Heavy Metal and Its Effect on Society

hard onlyoy medicinal do drugss squ be up on society is re any(prenominal)y profound. Most knocked out(p)standing deal dont realize this, but punishing metallic element has spawned an entire subculture, with millions innovationwide who can call themselves unfathomed admixture fans. It is more than just aggressive medical specialty it is an obsession and a way of life for a keel amount of tidy sum (Dunn 2008). Anthropologist, Sam Dunn documented how Heavy Metal has changed lives and societies across the globe. Heavy Metal medicament is a way of art, and how humans show what they see in society and translate it by dint of a very tasteful and creative way, which is the music itself(Dunn 2008). humankind nature would argue for this scenario. Humans are influenced by conditions in their environment and react, whether physically, emotionally, or in this case, creatively says sociologist of DePaul University (Deena Weinstein). This does not rule out the fact that artisti c output created by humans can go back and in turn be an influence on society.By looking at just well-nigh examples both historic and current, you can observe this demonstrate and how it has affected our world. (Weinstein 2005) Metal medication affects the world and Teen society in umadolescent diverse ways, whether it be by fashion, politics, religion, lyrical aspirations, and simply bringing people together. John Lennon was one of those people to bring calmness by music, he went on a hunger strike for a week to promote gather all around the world with music, and he was not just recognized for doing this but many former(a) inspirational acts with music.Through music, artists, solidifyings and so on, speak of things going on in the society around you. seed of Heavy Metal In the gritty streets of Birmingham, UK 1970, where Black Sabbath, took music too a more darker and disconsolate place, on that point was a man named Tony Iommi, who together with the well(p) k straight o ffn Ozzy Ozbourne, formed a band and started the geological era of Heavy Metal. The first album they produced was self titled Black Sabbath.Research shows that the Tri-Tone (Blue scale) is the d deplorables note, which was used in the in any case self titled track Black Sabbath, claimed by Cannibal Corpse guitarist Alex Webster in Metal, A Headbangers Journey (2008) This note, in the Middle Ages, was forbidden because if its thought up relationship with the devil, towns folk believed that this Tri-Tone summoned the devil, thus explaining why it was forbidden(Ezrin 2008). In the middle Ages, sorcerers used this Tri-Tone to summon the beast and cause havoc amongst the villagers who were ignorant and stimulate of heavy sounds.As Black Sabbaths music spread through out the U. K, people from all over the world started to react to this new heavier style of music and became influenced, much(prenominal) as Led Zepplin, productive Purple, Rainbow, and many more bands all over the world became interested and incorporated Heavy Metal to their psycheas and musical theater ways. Anthropologist Sam Dunn Metal, A Headbangers Journey (2008) and in addition past Heavy Metal band member says that on that points an on going battle in heavy metal to be more heavier and evil than the band that came before you, this has kept me into metal all these yearsCompetition plays a great small-arm in Heavy Metal, which is too a great factor that spread Heavy Metal world wide and turned it into many now known Heavy Metal sub genres per say. As Heavy Metal started to grow in the 70s, band after band tried to sound heavier than the wear band which is how these sub genres of metal, like I state earlier, came to be. The adolescents in that era, noticed this, competition and many teens started and incorporated, Heavy Metal to their own bands and were so influenced by this music, that it made teens in this society more hardworking and also up for a challenge. medical specialtyal Root sThe classical roots of heavy metal were fairly unadorned (Ezrin 2008), most of the really good practitioners were fans of dark powerful music, and for example Beethoven was one of them. Beethoven had created great classical music that incorporated heavy bass music and powerful orchestral sound waves, which are great assets to Heavy Metal that traced Classical music to Heavy Metal roots. Heavy Metal has other musical ancestor which is The megrims. (Morton, Blythe, from Lamb of God 2001), stated that the guitar is an African instrument, and the Guitar was used in slave music, and influenced the Blues and Heavy Metal now in todays music.In the movie Metal, A Headbangers Journey, The coach and producer/ anthropologist Sam Dunn, interviews many Heavy Metal Pioneers much(prenominal) as Toni Iommi, Ozzy Ozborne, Ronnie James Dio, roll Zombie, and they all claim to say that The Blues and Jazz classical type music were influential in their music. surround and the Effect Towards Teen So ciety It comes down to growing up in a rundown place, practiced of poverty, hopelessness, scumbags and assholes, that make your life hell and get you bottled up inside, then thats when the music comes in and sets you submit. states (Taylor, of Slipknot2005). harmony takes a maximum effect in everyones lives, Heavy Metal for many, claims that this musical genre sets them free and sets them in a straight forward positive mind set due to the message that most Heavy Metal artists send. James Munky Shaffer bassist for the band Korn says in an interview, that as a teenager, the environment he grew up in was based on drug abuse, violence, problems at home and death. I found salvation through Heavy Metal, it influenced me to stay positive, grab an instrument and just jam out and let all the electronegativity out and let the positive and creative stuff flow in you know?Ha-ha, look at me now, I am in my mid 20s and part of a great well known band selling out everywhere and loving it, all thanks to Metal (Shaffer2008). Rob Zombie, (White Zombie, Movie Director), Revolver magazine, June 2009 said that Metal is a life style, its your life style, people try to what they take heed too but in the end, what you listen too defines who you are. Heavy Metal is like mine and any other metal heads own world. The music tells you to stick to your guns and stay strong and positive, (Dickinson 2008).Bruce Dickinson of Iron inaugural was one of the worlds most influential Heavy Metal band of the late 70s- 80s that helped pioneer this musical genre. Heavy Metal Archive (2001-20011) stated that It gives them an alternate universe, it gives them a life of vagary through which they can view music and be influenced by many things the world and their society has to pop the question them. Metal does impact children nowadays in this young society, and makes them aware of whats going on in the world such as, wars, politics, corruption and genocide and inequality.The Message through Different Methods & Styles Politically Impacting the Media/Society Dee Snider of the Heavy Metal band Twisted sis- was plan of attacked by many parental groups and the (P. M. R. C) also known as the Parents Music Resource Center (1984) about censorship in Heavy Metal bands (Music in general). Sam Dunn, stated in his Documentary Metal A Headbangers Journey, that in 1984, Heavy Metal met its first organized attack and many bands were put in The wicked Fifteen.Twisted Sister were not the only band censored and put on The Filthy Fifteen but Many Heavy Metal bands such as W. A. S. P, Judas Preist, Motley Crue, Def Leppard, AC/DC, Venom, and Heavy Metal Pioneers Black Sabbath were amongst those Filthy Fifteen These bands were put in The Filthy Fifteen by the Parents Music Resource Center (1984) because their music was deemed offensive and violent. The P. M. R. C rated songs accord to the following 1. X= Profane or sexually explicit, 2. O= Occult, 3. D/A= Drugs or Alcohol, 4. V= Violen ce and 5. Sac= Sacrilegious. Although the lyrics in Twisted Sisters song Were Not Gonna Take It talked about standing up for your rights and never giving up, the video was censored as violent which led them into The Filthy Fifteen by the P. M. R. C. It must have been upsetting to the band members that their music is being prohibited to teens that in society look for help and sanctuary in music.Music that is inspirational should not be outlaw to teens because it can affect their cordial mental lives. Due to the fact that the P. M. R. C censored Twisted Sisters enthusiastic, stand up for your self, keep going on music, children were unable to buy their music and listen to what they wanted to hear. Music is a way of life, as I always say and everyone needs it in their daily personal lives to get by, whether they are down, lonely, happy, and or just out of mind and ready to free it. You can not help to imagine how many youths rebelled a shootst parents because of this cause and made them unable to listen to music that appealed their ears, and helped them get by in lifes daily struggles and challenges.Religion and Satanism Many Metal artists used religious symbolism in their music. For example when up and rising band Venom (1983) came out on stage with satanic pentagrams, gory live performances, and brutal satanic lyrics, many people were scared. In that era, Satanism was well known but only in secluded parts of Norway. As malevolency and many other bands such as Slayer(1983-present) went on stage and vulgarly scared the non-metal community, people and many other religious groups as well, started to ban there shows, and music all over the world.The media started to engage in a non stop attack of releasing ideas that these bands were satanic, insane, and inappropriate content for teens, and that they should be socially declined to the public. (Dunn2008) This however did not stop the bands from releasing their music, being less graphic, and selling out shows. No r did it stop teens from tuning in to their music and impacting their religious views and lifes. Slayer, created masterpiece after masterpiece of brutal Satanic, Anti-Christian, war related, lyrics and album covers that there were literally protests at their shows by religious groups because teens were so xcited and appealed at this new style of musical art, and parents thought their children were being manipulated and brainwashed to do bad and in the end hurt and destroy their lifes and their social backgrounds. They also manifested an idea that Slayer (1983) were Satanists, when in fact they were just trying to shock the audience and gain more fans. Having the mindset of Slayer being Satanists, they also thought up the idea that Metal Music was the doing of the devil. And that those teens were heading towards a path of destruction and anti- religious acts in their society, like burning churches down.Slayer, to defend themselves stated, We deal what we do art, and art can be a ref lection of society, and we are simply just choose up the dark reflections, and manifesting them to the world (Araya2008) Norwegian Black Metal bands certainly do live up to Satanism, (Dunn2008). Norway is an isolated country in northern Europe in which 87% of Norways population belongs to The Lutheran State Church, and yet strangely their most cultural export is Satanic Black Metal (Rasmussen 2008).Because many Satanists in Norway have a grudge against the Christian religion, due to conflicts and clashes between Vikings thousands of years ago (Rasmussen2008), there was a series of arsons. A man by the name of Varg Vekernes, and along side of him to help was a man named Jorn Tunsberg, set out a quite discrete plan to burn down some of the oldest churches in Oslo, Norway. They were convicted of arson on multiple counts and both were sentenced to prison.Because of these satanic acts in Norway due to Black Metal and what it symbolized for these men, people of all over the world started to react in an eruptive way towards the Metal community. The parents now have reason to believe that childrens musical interests could indeed affect the society in which their kids lived in and cause harmful behavior for generations to come. destruction and Violence Death has played a major piece in Metal Music. Since Metal Music spawned from dark imagery and horrific violence and brutal lyrics, a sub genre emerged known as Death Metal.Death Metal was built up on Thrash Metal and Black Metal, which consisted of machine gun guitars and fast passed drumming, with guttural vocals, also with a subatomic twist of bloody gore and violence, Death Metal was created. Cannibal Corpse, along with Death, were the first bands among many Death Metal bands to use gory imagery. Cannibal Corpse was known for producing horrific album art. Cannibal corpse(1985) 3 first albums are banned in Germany, New Zealand, and Korea due to very gory and graphic album art also horrific lyrics related to murder . (Slagel2008).Rose Dyson(2008) states that there is evidence to state that the average person these days sees more violence through popular culture that would occur in real life, and this also has been marketed in many essences, particularly in teenage society and disrupts the teenage mind into murder, suicide, corruption and drug abuse as a conflict resolution. Manny bands have been set for trial over the past 20 years, such as Judas Preist, Slayer, Slipknot, Cannibal Corpse and Marilyn Manson, due to suicides and murders all because Metal Music has been stereotyped as devil music and everything else you have read thus far in this research paper.A important reason, as to why Metal Music and these bands have been blamed as the cause to many teen deaths, is because of their lyrics. Most Metal bands have an image they portray whether it is evil, Blasphemy related, or just simply vulgar. It is unrestrained to argue that there is a relationship between the imagery in Metal and some teen suicides and acts of violence. (Klosterman2008). The most powerful predictor of whether someone will commit suicide is the feeling of helplessness (Kahn2008).No one listens to Heavy Metal in order to feel helpless, they listen to Heavy Metal in order to feel empowered and connected with other people, and that whitethorn be empowered through a song thats about suicide that makes you realize your not alone. And your not helpless and other people are going through the same thing you dont need to kill yourself Human society should realize this because blaming such horrific incidents other people cause to themselves should not be blamed on people who are merely making art in their own personal ways, such as these bands.As the media and such sources uproar and release these serious issues about teen suicide and their causes, all over the world, parents should focus on Teen Society and how teens learning and hearing these issues of teen suicide may affect them personally. Teen youth d oes get affected by seeing this media provided information because it somewhat brainwashes them into view that music of such sorts leads them into suicide and disruptive mayhem. When they grow older they judge other teenagers amongst their societies and start labeling them.

Role Theory

Understanding Intimate Partner Violence by Role surmise A guess Paper Introducing Role Theory Role possibleness is a sociological framework that has been used to inform sets of relational patterns between spate across varying linguistic contexts. It seeks to explain iodine of the most important characteristics of gracious complaisant way the fact that how state act, behave and speak atomic number 18 not separate, unique, disconnected besides rather, be reflective of certain patterns and arrangements that depend on the amicable context and the actors in these contexts (Mangus, 1957 Biddle, 1986).To illustrate, within the context of an intimate relationship such as marriage, force between collaborationists arouse be tied to the crabby patterns and arrangements of acting, behaving and speaking between provides such as earning m unmatchedy, rearing children, taking c ar of the home and initiating sexual relations.Although several(prenominal) versions of the theo ry have been explicated by scholars, at that place appears to be agreement that map theory is mainly nearly three interrelated theorys (1) patterned and characteristic accessible behaviors, (2) split or identities as assumed by complaisant participants, and (3) scripts or expectations for behavior that be mum and followed by actors in a particular sociable context (Biddle, 1986).For instance, adopting a eccentric theory perspective to intellect intimate partner violence necessitates aspect at the patterned and characteristic well-disposed behaviors of intimate partners in a relationship, the parts or identities that severally partner plays in the relationship, and the scripts or expectations that be interpreted and adhered to by the partners in a particular relational context, specifically in situations of violent encounters.Furthermore, the theory also allows for an s keeping of the relationships among the separate, collective and structural levels of parliamentar y law (Turner, 2001), as it deals with the organization and connection of affable behavior between the micro, macro and intermediate levels of society. Thus, within office theory, an psychoanalysis of intimate partner violence entails looking into the idiosyncratic behaviors of partners in a violent relationship and canvas the linkages of these behaviors to the social structures that exist in a particular society. Defining RolesCentral to region theory is the concept of lineament. Several definitions have been ascribed to the concept of procedure in the literature. On a general level, the concept of role admits a description of behaviors, characteristics, norms and values held by a person (Thomas & Biddle, 1966). An otherwise definition identifies role as a cluster of behaviors and attitudes that are understood as belonging together, such that a person is considered as acting consistently when ordinateing the various components of a single role and variably when he or she fails to do so (Turner, 2001).For instance, the impostalistic manlike role can be characterized as aggressive, ambitious, dominant, supreme and persistent whereas the traditional feminine role can be illustrated as agreeable, courteous, sympathetic, trusting, understanding and warm (Ellington & Marshall, 1997). As such, a partner who plays the masculine role must enact behaviors and attitudes that are distinctive of this role, such as being aggressive, dominant, independent and agentic. For this partner cast in the masculine role, to be passive, dependent and agreeable implies incompatibility with the traditional masculine role.Specifically, a role whitethorn nurture to behavior that is expected of people who eat particular social categories such as spatial relationes (or positions) in both formal and informal systems (Montgomery, 1998 as cited in Lynch, 2007 Biddle & Thomas, 1979 as cited in Lynch, 2007). Roles whitethorn also be reflective of the pagan values and norms in a particular society (Zurcher, 1983 as cited in Lynch, 2007). Roles may also be conceptualized as a resource that social actors puree to utilize to achieve certain social goals (Callero, 1994).This assumption suggests two things (1) that human agency is facilitated and expressed by dint of the use of roles as resources, and (2) that roles are employed as tools in the establishment of social structures (Baker & Faulkner, 1991 as cited in Callero, 1994). Most social roles exist in pairs or sets. Thus, roles can be conceptualized as related through distinctive role relationships (Mangus, 1957). As such, there could be no preserve role without a married woman role and no parent role without a child role. In the context of intimate violence, there exists the perpetrator-victim role set.As organized patterns of social behavior, roles are of several theatrical roles (Mangus, 1957). Roles may be ascribed to the individual, imposed upon an individual or achieved by the individual (Mangus , 1957). Sex and gender roles are ascribed to or imposed upon an individual (Mangus, 1957). For instance, one has to assume the masculine role if one is male or the feminine role if one is natural female. On the other hand, ones roles in free radicals and occupational systems, such as leader, mediator or peacemaker, are achieved roles. Roles may also be understood as generic or specific.Some roles may be pervasive, persistent, generalized and highly important to a persons life era other roles may be limited, subordinate, temporary, isolated and unimportant to a persons life (Mangus, 1957). To illustrate, in a violent intimate relationship, the roles of perpetrator and victim may be the predominant configuration in the relationship. On the other hand, these roles may also be seen as isolated to particular relational contexts and thus understood as subordinate to other roles such as father, mother, breadwinner and caretaker.Roles may also be highly twitch or they may be concrete ( Mangus, 1957). Abstract roles publish from social systems of statuses and are expressed as generalized moral standards (Mangus, 1957). Examples of abstract roles are evident in universal expectations of honesty and justice. Status roles include rights and duties that emanate from a given position or office (Mangus, 1957). Illustrations of status roles can be seen in the entitlements and obligations that are given to persons of authority, such as managers, leaders or decision-makers.Turner (2001) also identified cardinal broad types of roles (1) basic roles, (2) position or status roles, (3) functional group roles, and (4) value roles. Basic roles refer to roles that are associated with gender, age and social class (Banton, 1965 as cited in Turner, 2001). These are considered basic roles because they apply to a wide range of situations and because they incline to alter the meaning and taking up of other types of roles. The second type of roles, position or status roles, correspond to positions in organizations or formally organized groups (Turner, 2001).Occupational and family roles may be regarded as examples of position or status roles. Functional group roles are the informal behavior patterns that arise spontaneously as persons take on situational identities during social interactions (Benne & Sheats, 1948 as cited in Turner, 2001). Examples of functional group roles are mediator, coordinator, critic, counselor, leader and follower. Finally, value roles are similar to functional group roles in that both types of roles emerge spontaneously from the social interaction.However, value roles tend to be attached to very positively or negatively valued identities (Turner, 2001). In intimate relationships, examples of value roles can be the roles of hero, villain, saint, sinner, perpetrator or victim. After providing an overview of role theory and the concept of roles, we now turn to explain the two major nestes to understanding role theory. two Main Approache s to Understanding Roles A review of the related literature identified two main come upes to understanding roles (1) the traditional structural-functional set out and (2) the interactionist progression.In this section, we highlight the characteristics of each speak to as tumesce as fork over an explanation of the major assumptions within each perspective. We also provide illustrations as to how each approach can help enlighten our understanding of intimate partner relationships. Finally, we discuss the limitations of each approach. Traditional Structural-Functional Approach The structural-functionalist tradition of role theory reducees on how roles, as fixed components of complex social structures, cultures or social systems, turn the behavior of people (Lynch, 2007).Two related strands of role theory are embedded within this approach structural role theory and functional role theory. Structural role theory concentrates on social structures, which are understood as stable o rganizations of sets of persons (called social positions or statuses) who share the same patterned and characteristics behaviors (roles) that are in relation to others sets of persons in the structure (Biddle, 1986). This particular strand of traditional role theory refers to parts of organized groups as status and to the fixed behaviors expected of persons occupying a status as roles Stryker, 2001). Thus, roles may be conceptualized as the dynamic aspect of statuses or social positions, with roles corresponding to rights and duties attached to statuses or social positions (Stryker, 2001). at heart this strand, roles are understood as existing prior to the social interaction of people who occupy the statuses or social positions, as roles originate from the accumulated experiences of past individuals who have previously occupied a status or social position (Stryker, 2001).The second strand of traditional role theory functionalist role theory highlights the characteristic behaviors of persons who occupy social positions within a stable social system (Biddle, 1986). Within this strand, roles are conceptualized as the shared and normative expectations that prescribe and explain these characteristic behaviors (Biddle, 1986). Functional role theorists view the formula of roles as something that is disciplineed through an understanding of social norms in a society as well as something that accomplishes certain functions in social systems (Biddle, 1986).Both structural and functional strands of the traditional approach to role theory emphasize social structures as antedating roles, such that roles are seen as imposed on the individual (Turner, 2001). Thus, within this approach, the roles of perpetrator and victim can be understood as emanating from social structures such as gender. For instance, the masculine role has often been identified with being the dominant partner, the primary breadwinner, the decision-maker and the enforcer of rules in the household.On th e other hand, the feminine role has often been linked with being the subordinate partner, the caretaker of the home and the supporter of the husband and children. Such role configurations may put partner occupying the masculine role at an advantage while setting the partner playing the feminine role at a disadvantage, thus making them endangered to becoming perpetrators and victims of intimate violence (Mihalic & Elliot, 1997). Furthermore, this approach also points to socialization as the treat by which persons learn to take on and perform particular roles in society (Stryker, 2002).Thus, when persons in social relationships conform to the expectations that are attached to statuses and supported by social norms, they tend to gain approval from other people who occupy related statuses and adhere to similar norms such approval then reinforces the learning and enactment of roles (Stryker, 2002). Research has shown that typical school practices tend to create childrens identities as boy and girls (Martin, 1998 as cited in Fox & Murry, 2000).In particular, findings showed that teachers tend to treat boys voices as different from girls voices, such that the former were allowed to be louder and more as compared to the latter. Presumably, such gender role socialization contributes to the accrual of privileges to the masculine role and the corresponding accrual of disadvantages to the feminine role. In addition, both strands of the traditional structural-functional approach to role theory agree on the assumption that society, social systems and social structures shape individual behaviors (Brookes, Davidson, Daly & Halcomb, 2007).Analysis within this approach also starts from an examination of the social structure (Biddle, 1986). As such, within this approach, an examination of intimate partner violence will proceed from an investigation of the social systems and social structures that influence violent behaviors between partners in an intimate relationship. Further more, such an analysis will look into the cultural norms and values that sustain the social systems and social structures implicated in the phenomenon of intimate partner violence.However, several limitations of this approach have been raised in the related literature. According to Lynch (2007), this approach paints roles as relatively stiff structures that are difficult to combine. Furthermore, by focusing on social structures, the traditional approach to role theory fails to take into account the mental, experiential dimension of role enactment (Lynch, 2007), thus regarding persons as automatons who take on roles mechanically.As such, this approach tends to be limited in its view of intimate partner violence as mechanically carried out by individual persons according to their status or position in the social structure, without taking into account the variability and diversity of experiences related to this phenomenon. Also, as it has difficulty accounting for individual level neg otiations where actors may switch or combine roles, this approach also treats the variability and flexibility of roles as involved (Lynch, 2007). Thus, traditional role theory is unable to address issues elated with non-conformity, social change and social systems that are not well-formed (Biddle, 1986). For instance, given instances of intimate partner violence where both partners inflict violence upon one another(prenominal), traditional role theory proves to be limited in its explanation of intimate violence as emanating from the social structure. Within this approach, role changes such as when the perpetrator kick the buckets the victim and the victim becomes the perpetrator become problematic and difficult to explain.The traditional structural-functional approach to role theory has also been criticized as advancing a one-sided view of society, with its emphasis on consensus, cooperation and continuity in social life along with its look blindness to disagreement, infringe an d change (Stryker, 2001). Finally, scholars have also criticized the traditional approach to role theory as rationalizing and reinforcing the existing social order (Stryker, 2001). Interactionist ApproachThe interactionist approach to role theory arose from the symbolic interactionism perspective in sociology and as such gives importance to the roles of individual actors, the development of roles through social interaction, and the processes through which social actors understand and interpret their own and other peoples behavior (Biddle, 1986). Thus, this approach focuses on how roles emerge in social interactions and how individuals are able to influence behavioral expectations through social negotiation (Lynch, 2007).Within this approach, a role is conceptualized as neither fixed nor prescribed, but rather, something that is continuously negotiated by persons in social interaction (Mead, 1934 as cited in Lynch, 2007 Blumer, 1969 as cited in Lynch, 2007). Using this approach to un derstand intimate partner violence therefore necessitates looking at how partners in a violent relationship interact with one another as well as how they, negotiate, take on, impose or reject specific roles.In furrow to the traditional approach to role theory which highlights social systems and social structures, the interactionist approach emphasizes social processes such as communication, interpretation and negotiation (Lynch, 2007). Theorizing within this approach assumes that the relationship between personal, behavioral and social variables is interchangeable (Plummer, 1991 as cited in Lynch, 2007). As such, the interactionist role theory approach to xamining intimate partner violence will tend to focus on how partners communicate, interpret and negotiate particular issues in their relationship. As opposed to the traditional approach to role theory that posits the unidirectional influence of social structure on individual action, the interactionist approach opens up the possi bility that personal and behavioral variables may influence social structural variables. For interactionist theorists, social actors interpret and enact their own roles by imagining the roles of others actors in the social interaction (Turner, 2001).Thus, far from being automatons who take on roles mechanically, people are viewed as interpreting, negotiating and shaping their own roles to be able to interact effectively with other people who take on related roles (Turner, 2001). In this approach, analysis starts from an examination of the patterns of social interactions among individuals and groups of individuals (Turner, 2001). As such, research on intimate partner violence using this approach will look at the interpretative, negotiated and dynamic personality of violent interactions between partners. Some challenges to the interactionist approach to role theory have also been raised.One of these challenges criticized the interactionist approach for failing to take into account th e influence of social institutions and structural forces on the role enactment process (Lynch, 2007). Thus, little attention is given to the structural constraints that impinge on roles (Biddle, 1986). To illustrate, although intimate partner violence can be analyzed by studying the social interactions where violence occurs, it is also important to trace the incident of intimate violence to social structures that impose and influence the roles that people enact.In addition, as the interactionist approach tends to focus on specific instances of social interactions, interactionist theorists sometimes fail to discuss the contextual limits of their assumptions (Biddle, 1986). Also, while the approach acknowledges the reciprocal relationship between personal, behavioral and social variables, it still fails to explain how these relationships feedback and affect succeeding role enactments (Lynch, 2007). thick of Limitations of Two Main Approaches to Role TheoryIn his work on proposing an integration between role theory and posture theory, Henriksen (2008) cited important limitations of the two main approaches to role theory. These limitations represent a summary of the difficulties that are encountered when using the traditional structural-functional approach and the interactionist approach to understanding social phenomena such as intimate partner violence. On the one hand, the traditional structural-functional approach seems to ignore individual action and its influence on social structure (Henriksen, 2008).Furthermore, a structural-functional approach to role theory also appears to be limited in examining the finer grains of social interaction (Harre & van Langenhove, 1999 as cited in Henriksen, 2008 Harre & Moghaddam, 2003 as cited in Henriksen, 2008). On the other hand, the interactionist approach appears to focus on social interactions, without taking into account the influence of social structures on the patterning and stability of such interactions. The in teractionist approach has also been criticized for its limited attention to the social span of social interaction (Henriksen, 2008).It is based on these limitations of role theory that we propose an integration of role theory with positioning theory, in view of providing a better understanding of intimate partner violence at the structural, interactional and discursive levels. References Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67-92. Brookes, K. , Davidson, P. M. , Daly, J. , & Halcomb, E. J. (2007). Role theory A framework to investigate the community defend role in contemporary health care systems. Contemporary Nurse A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession, 25 (1-2), 146-155.Callero, P. L. (1994). From role-playing to role-using Understanding role as resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57 (3), 228-243. Ellington, J. E. & Marshall, L. L. (1997). Gender role perceptions of women in abusive relationships. Sex Roles, 36 (5/ 6), 349-369. Fox, G. L. & Murry, V. M. (2000). Gender and families Feminist perspectives and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1160-1172. Henriksen, T. D. (2008). Liquidating roles and crystallizing positioning Investigating the road between positioning theory and role theory.In F. Moghaddam, R. Harre, and N. Lee (Eds. ), Global conflict resolution through positioning analysis (pp. 41-64). freshly York Springer. Lynch, K. D. (2007). Modeling role enactment Linking role theory and social cognition. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37 (4), 379-399. Mangus, A. R. (1957). Role theory and marriage counseling. Social Forces, 35 (3), 200-209. Mihalic, S. W. & Elliot, D. (1997). A social learning theory model of violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12 (1), 21-47. Stryker, S. (2001).Traditional symbolic interactionism, role theory and structural symbolic interactionism The Road to Identity Theory. In J. H. Turner (ed. ), Handbook of Sociological Theory (pp . 211-230). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Thomas, E. J. & Biddle, B. J. (1966). Basic concepts for the variables of role phenomena. In B. J. Biddle & E. J. Thomas (Eds. ), Role theory concepts and research (pp. 51-65). New York John Wiley & Sons. Turner, R. H. (2001). Role theory. In J. H. Turner (ed. ), Handbook of Sociological Theory (pp. 233-254). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Human Trafficking

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

5 Coke vs Pepsi 21st Century Case Study

op y 9-702-442 REV JANUARY 27, 2004 DAVID B. YOFFIE tC sens Wars move on change state and Pepsi in the Twenty-First coke For everyplace a century, Coca- pot and Pepsi- smoke vied for throat share of the valet de chambres beverage grocery store. The around intense battles of the cola state of wars were fought oer the $60- ace thousand thousand pains in the united States, where the ordinary American consumed 53 congiuss of carbonated yielding draws (CSD) per year. In a carefully waged competitory struggle, from 1975 to 1995 two(prenominal) ampere-second and Pepsi achieved average one-year maturation of around 10% as both U. S. nd world boastful CSD utilize of goods and services consistently rose. According to Roger Enrico, former chief executive officer of Pepsi-genus Cola No The warfare must be perceived as a continuing battle without blood. Without deoxycytidine monophosphate, Pepsi would have a tough time being an original and tremendous competitor. The much than successful they are, the sharper we have to be. If the Coca-Cola union didnt exist, wed pray for manyone to articu youthful them. And on the aboriginal(a) side of the fence, Im sure the folks at blow would vocalise that nothing contri simplyes as much to the present-day success of the Coca-Cola company than . . . Pepsi. 1This cozy relationship was thr haveened in the deeply 1990s, however, when U. S. CSD consumption crepusculeped for two consecutive geezerhood and worldwide shipments slowed for both puff and Pepsi. In response, both firms began to stipu latterly their bottling, pricing, and dent strategies. They withal looked to emerging inter issue markets to fuel outgrowth and broadened their stain portfolios to hold non-carbonated beverages wish tea, juice, sports imbibings, and bott guide irrigate. Do As the cola wars continued into the twenty-first century, the cola heavyweights faced late challenges Could they boost sagging domestic cola gr oss gross sales?Where could they find new revenue streams? Was their era of sustained growth and positivity coming to a close, or was this apparent slow charge just anformer(a) blip in the shape of black eyes and Pepsis enviable performance? 1Roger Enrico, The Other Guy Blinked and Other Dispatches from the Cola Wars (New York piddling Books, 1988). ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Research Associate Yusi Wang prepared this slick from published sources under(a) the supervision of Professor David B.Yoffie. Parts of this fountain borrow from previous cases prepared by Professors David Yoffie and Michael Porter. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for section discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or otiose management. Copyright 2002 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to re hold naturals, call 1-800-545-7685, write Harvard work School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to http//www. hbsp. harvard. edu.No part of this publication may be reproduced, straind in a retrieval system, utilise in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any meanselectronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwisewithout the permission of Harvard Business School. copy or observation is an violation of copyright. emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Cola Wars Continue century and Pepsi in the Twenty-First hundred op y 702-442 economic science of the U. S. CSD Industry Americans consumed 23 gallons of CSD annually in 1970 and consumption grew by an average of 3% per year over the next 30 years (see let out 1).This growth was fueled by increasing availability as well as by the introduction and democraticity of diet and flavored CSDs. Through the mid-1990s, the real terms of CSDs fell, and consumer demand appeared reactive to declining d amages. 2 Many secondarys to CSDs existed, including beer, milk, coffee, bottled weewee system, juices, tea, powdered drinks, wine, sports drinks, distilled spirits, and tap water. Yet Americans drank more than than quinine water than any other beverage. At 60%-70% market share, the cola segment of the CSD industry maintained its dominance sireeout the 1990s, followed by puke/lime, citrus, pepper, root beer, orange, and other flavors. C CSD consisted of a flavor base, a sweetener, and carbonated water. Four major(ip) participants were confused in the point of intersectionion and distri unlession of CSDs 1) distill producers 2) bottlers 3) retail channels and 4) suppliers. 3 stand Producers The slim producer blended raw material ingredients (excluding sugar or last fructose corn syrup), encase it in plastic canisters, and shipped the blended ingredients to the bottler. The concentrate producer added artificial sweetener to make diet soda concentrate, period bottlers added sugar or high fructose corn syrup themselves.The process touch on little outstanding investment in machinery, overhead, or labor. A ordinary concentrate manufacturing plant cost approximately $25 cardinal to $50 zillion to build, and one plant could serve the entire United States. No A concentrate producers close to significant be were for advertising, promotion, market research, and bottler relations. Marketing programs were jointly utilize and financed by concentrate producers and bottlers. Concentrate producers usually took the lead in developing the programs, particularly in reaping planning, market research, and advertising.They invested to a great extent in their trademarks over time, with innovative and sophisticated marketing campaigns (see Exhibit 2). Bottlers assumed a self-aggrandizingr role in developing trade and consumer promotions, and salaried an agreed percentagetypically 50% or moreof promotional and advertising costs. Concentrate producers employ ed extensive sales and marketing nurse staff to work with and help improve the performance of their bottlers, dress upting standards and suggesting operating procedures.Concentrate producers similarly negotiated directly with the bottlers major suppliersparticularly sweetener and publicity suppliersto encourage reliable supply, faster auction pitch, and lower prices. Do Once a fragmented calling with hundreds of local manufacturers, the landscape of the U. S. tardily drink industry had changed dramatically over time. Among national concentrate producers, CocaCola and Pepsi-Cola, the soft drink unit of PepsiCo, claimed a combined 76% of the U. S. CSD market in sales slew in 2000, followed by Cadbury Schweppes and Cott Corporation (see Exhibit 3).There were in addition private denominate target manufacturers and some(prenominal) dozen other national and regional producers. Exhibit 4 gives financial data for blow and Pepsi and their cash in ones chips affiliated bottlers. 2 Robert Tollison et al. , Competition and Concentration (Lexington Books, 1991), p. 11. 3 The employment and distri scarceion of non-carbonated soft drinks and bottled water exit be discussed in a later section. 2 Copying or card is an incursion of copyright. emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. 702-442 op y Cola Wars Continue bump and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century BottlersBottlers purchased concentrate, added carbonated water and high fructose corn syrup, bottled or canned the CSD, and delivered it to customer accounts. give up and Pepsi bottlers offered direct store door (DSD) delivery, which gnarled route delivery sales people physically placing and managing the CSD shit in the store. Smaller national brands, such(prenominal) as Shasta and Faygo, traded by means of with(predicate) pabulum store warehouses. DSD entailed managing the shelf space by stacking the product, positioning the trademarked label, cleanup position the packages and shelves, and set ting up point-of-purchase displays and end-of-aisle displays.The importance of the bottlers relationship with the retail trade was crucial to continual brand availability and maintenance. Cooperative merchandising agreements between retailers and bottlers were used to promote soft drink sales. Retailers agreed to stipulate promotional activity and discount levels in exchange for a payment from the bottler. tC The bottling process was capital-intensive and involved specialized, high-speed lines. Lines were interchangeable just for packages of similar size and construction.Bottling and canning lines cost from $4 million to $10 million each, depending on volume and package symbol. The minimum cost to build a small bottling plant, with warehouse and business space, was $25million to $35 million. The cost of an efficient large plant, with four lines, automated warehousing, and a capacity of 40 million cases, was $75 million in 1998. 4 Roughly 80-85 plants were required for full distri bution crossways the United States. Among top bottlers in 1998, packaging accounted for approximately half of bottlers cost of goods sold, concentrate for triplet, and nutritive sweeteners for one-tenth. Labor accounted for most of the remaining variable costs. Bottlers also invested capital in trucks and distribution meshings. Bottlers gross turn a profits often exceeded 40%, but operating margins were razor thin. See Exhibit 5 for the cost structures of a typical concentrate producer and bottler. Do No The number of U. S. soft drink bottlers had fallen, from over 2,000 in 1970 to less than ccc in 2000. 6 Historically, Coca-Cola was the first concentrate producer to build nation-wide immunityd bottling crystallizeworks, a move that Pepsi and Cadbury Schweppes followed.The typical proofd bottler owned a manufacturing and sales operation in an exclusive geographic territory, with rights grant in perpetuity by the franchiser. In the case of Coca-Cola, territorial rights did not extend to honey oil accounts gust delivered to its bound accounts directly, not through its bottlers. The rights given(p) to the bottlers were subject to termination tho in the event of default by the bottler. The original Coca-Cola franchise contract, written in 1899, was a fixed-price contract that did not provide for contract renegotiation even if ingredient costs changed.With considerable effort, often involving bitter legal disputes, Coca-Cola amended the contract in 1921, 1978, and 1987 to make up concentrate price. By 1999, over 81% of shocks U. S. volume was overflyed by the 1987 Master Bottler shorten, which granted Coke the right to determine concentrate price and other terms of sale. Under the terms of this contract, Coke was not obligated to share advertising and marketing expenditures with the bottlers however, the company often did in order to ensure property and proper distribution of marketing.In 2000, Coke contributed $766 million in marketing support a nd $223 million in bag support to its top bottler alone. The 1987 contract did not give complete pricing control to Coke, but in shorter used a pricing formula that adjusted quarterly for changes in sweetener prices and stated a maximum price. This contract differed from Pepsis Master Bottling Agreement with its top bottler, which granted the bottler 4 Louisiana Coca-Cola Reveals streamer Jewel, crapulence Industry, January 1999. 5 Calculated from M. Dolan et al. , Coca-Cola Beverages, Merrill Lynch Capital Markets, July 6, 1998. Timothy Muris et al. , Strategy, Structure, and Antitrust in the Carbonated promiscuous- whoop it up Industry, (Quorum Books, 1993), p. 63 John C. Maxwell, ed. Beverage Digest Fact Book 2001. 3 Copying or handbill is an infraction of copyright. emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Cola Wars Continue Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century op y 702-442 perpetual rights to distribute Pepsi cola products spot at the aforesaid(prenominal) tim e required it to purchase its raw materials from Pepsi at prices, and on terms and conditions, determined by Pepsi.Pepsi negotiated concentrate prices with its bottling association, and normally based price increases on the CPI. Coke and Pepsi both raised concentrate prices throughout the 1980s and proterozoic 1990s, even as the real (inflation-adjusted) retail prices for CSD were down (see Exhibit 6). tC Coca-Cola and Pepsi franchise agreements allowed bottlers to handle the non-cola brands of other concentrate producers. Franchise agreements also allowed bottlers to choose whether or not to market new beverages introduced by the concentrate producer.Some restrictions applied, however, as bottlers could not control directly competitive brands. For example, a Coca-Cola bottler could not sell Royal Crown Cola, but it could distribute Seven-Up, if it decided not to carry Sprite. Franchised bottlers had the freedom to participate in or reject new package introductions, local advertis ing campaigns and promotions, and assay marketing. The bottlers also had the final say in decisions concerning retail pricing, new packaging, selling, advertising, and promotions in its territory, though they could only use packages authorized by the franchiser.In 1971, the Federal Trade Commission initiated action against eight major CPs, charging that exclusive territories granted to franchised bottlers prevented intrabrand competition (two or more bottlers competing in the same area with the same beverage). The CPs argued that interbrand competition was sufficiently strong to warrant continuation of the existing territorial agreements. After nine years of litigation, Congress enacted the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act in 1980, preserving the right of CPs to grant exclusive territories. Retail take NoIn 2000, the distribution of CSDs in the United States took place through regimen stores (35%), fountain outlets7 (23%), vending machines (14%), thingumajig stores (9%), an d other outlets (20%). Mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs, and drug stores made up most of the last category. Bottlers profitability by type of retail outlet is shown in Exhibit 7. Costs were affected by delivery method and frequency, drop size, advertising, and marketing. The main distribution channel for soft drinks was the supermarket. CSDs were among the five largest selling product lines sold by supermarkets, raditionally concession a 15%-20% gross margin ( close to average for victuals products) and accounting for 3%-4% of food store revenues. 8 CSDs represented a large percentage of a supermarkets business, and were also a prodigious traffic draw. Bottlers fought for retail shelf space to ensure visibility and accessibility for their products, and looked for new locations to increase pulse purchases, such as placing coolers at checkout counters. The proliferation of products and packaging types created intense shelf space pressures.Do Discount retailers, warehouse clubs , and drug stores accounted roughly 15% of CSD sales in the late 1990s. These firms often had their own private label CSD, or they sold a generic label such as Presidents Choice. mysterious label CSDs were usually delivered to a retailers warehouse, while branded CSDs were delivered directly to the store. With the warehouse delivery method, the retailer was responsible for storage, rapeation, merchandising, and stocking the shelves, thus incurring additional costs. The word fountain outlets traditionally referred to soda fountains, but was later used also for restaurants, cafeterias, and other establishments that served soft drinks by the glass using fountain dispensers. 8 Progressive Grocer 1998 Sales Manual Databook, July 1998, p. 68. 4 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. 702-442 op y Cola Wars Continue Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century tC Historically, Pepsi had focussed on sales through retail outlets, whil e Coke had dominated fountain sales. Coca-Cola had a 65% share of the fountain market in 2000, while Pepsi had 21%.Competition for fountain sales was intense. National fountain accounts were essentially paid sampling, with CSD companies earning pretax operating margins of around 2%. For restaurants, by contrast, fountain sales were extremely profitableabout 80 cents out of every dollar spent stayed with the restaurant retailers. In 1999, for example, Burger King franchisees were believed to pay about $6. 20 per gallon for Coke syrup, but they true a substantial rebate on each gallon in the form of a check one large Midwestern Burger King franchisee said his annual rebate ran $1. 45 per gallon, or about 23%. Coke and Pepsi also invested in the development of fountain equipment, such as service dispensers, and provided their fountain customers with cups, point-of-sale material, advertising, and in-store promotions to increase brand presence. After Pepsi entered the fast-food restaur ant business with the acquisitions of Pizza Hut (1978), greaser Bell (1986), and Kentucky Fried Chicken (1986), Coca-Cola taked other chains such as Wendys and Burger King to switch to Coke. PepsiCo spun its restaurant business off to the public in 1997 under the arouse Tricon, while adjudgeing the Frito-Lay snack food business.In 2000, fountain pouring rights remained split along pre-Tricon lines, as Pepsi supplied all of Taco Bells and KFCs, and the overwhelming majority of Pizza Hut restaurants. Coke kept up(p) exclusivity deals with Mc put one overalds and Burger King. No Coke and Cadbury Schweppes handled fountain accounts from their national franchisor companies. Employees of the franchisee companies negotiated and signed pouring rights contracts which, in the case of big restaurant chains, could cover the entire United States or even the world. The accounts were actually serviced by employees of the franchisors fountain divisions, local bottlers, or both.Local bottlers, w hen they were used, were paid service fees for delivering syrup and fixing and placing machines. Historically, PepsiCo could only sell directly to end-user national accounts. By 1999, Pepsi had persuaded most of its bottlers to modify their franchise agreements to allow Pepsi to sell fountain syrup via restaurant commissary companies, which sell a range of supplies to restaurants. Concentrate producers offered bottlers rebates to encourage them to purchase and install vending machines. The owners of the property on which vending equipment was located usually received a sales commission.Coke and Pepsi were the largest suppliers of CSDs to the vending channel. Juice, tea, sports drinks, lemonade, and water were also obtainable through vending machines. Suppliers to Concentrate Producers and Bottlers Do Concentrate producers required few inputs the concentrate for most regular colas consisted of caramel coloring, phosphoric and/or citric acid, natural flavors, and caffeine. 10 Bottler s purchased two major inputs packaging, which included $3. 4 billion in cans, $1. 3 billion in plastic bottles, and $0. 6 billion in glass and sweeteners, which included $1. 1 billion in sugar and high fructose corn syrup, and $1. billion in artificial sweetener (pre dominatingly aspartame). The majority of U. S. CSDs were packaged in metal cans (60%), then plastic bottles (38%), and glass bottles (2%). Cans were an attractive packaging material because they were easily handled, stocked, and displayed, weighed little, and were lasting and recyclable. Plastic bottles, introduced in 1978, boosted home consumption of CSDs because of their larger 1-liter, 2-liter, and 3-liter sizes. Single-serve 20-oz. PET bottles quickly gained popularity and represented 35% of vended drinks and 3% of grocery drinks in 2000. Nikhil Deogun and Richard Gibson, Coke Beats Out Pepsi for Contracts With Burger King, Dominos, The Wall path Journal, April 15, 1999. 10 base on ingredients lists, Coke Classic and Pepsi-Cola, 2001. 5 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Cola Wars Continue Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century op y 702-442 The concentrate producers schema towards can manufacturers was typical of their supplier relationships. Coke and Pepsi negotiated on behalf of their bottling networks, and were among the metal can industrys largest customers.Since the can constituted about 40% of the pith cost of a packaged beverage, bottlers and concentrate producers often maintained relationships with more than one supplier. In the 1960s and 1970s, Coke and Pepsi prickerward integrated to make some of their own cans, but for the most part exited the business by 1990. In 1994, Coke and Pepsi or else sought to establish stable long-term relationships with their suppliers. major can producers included American National Can, Crown Cork & Seal, and Reynolds Metals. Metal cans were viewed as commodities, and there was d egenerative excess supply in the industry.Often two or three can manufacturers competed for a single contract. primeval History11 tC The Evolution of the U. S. Soft Drink Industry Coca-Cola was formulated in 1886 by John Pemberton, a pharmacist in Atlanta, Georgia, who sold it at drug store soda fountains as a potion for amiable and physical disorders. A few years later, Asa Candler acquired the formula, established a sales force, and began brand advertising of Coca-Cola. tightly guarded in an Atlanta bank vault, the formula for Coca-Cola syrup, known as Merchandise 7X, remained a well-protected secret.Candler granted Coca-Colas first bottling franchise in 1899 for a nominal one dollar, believe that the future of the drink rested with soda fountains. The companys bottling network grew quickly, however, reaching 370 franchisees by 1910. No In its early years, Coke was constantly plagued by imitations and counterfeits, which the company precipitously fought in court. In 1916 alone , courts barred 153 imitations of Coca-Cola, including the brands Coca-Kola, Koca-Nola, Cold-Cola, and the like. Coke introduced and procure a unique 6. 5ounce skirt bottle to be used by its franchisees that subsequently became an American icon.Robert sweet woodruff, who became chief executive officer in 1923, began working with franchised bottlers to make Coke available wherever and whenever a consumer might want it. He pushed the bottlers to place the beverage in arms reach of desire, and argued that if Coke were not conveniently available when the consumer was thirsty, the sale would be lost forever. During the 1920s and 1930s, Coke pioneered open-top coolers to storekeepers, developed automatic fountain dispensers, and introduced vending machines. waldmeister also initiated lifestyle advertising for Coca-Cola, emphasizing the role of Coke in a consumers life.Do Woodruff also developed Cokes international business. In the onset of World War II, at the request of General Eisenh ower, he promised that every man in uniform gets a bottle of Coca-Cola for five cents wherever he is and whatever it costs the company. Beginning in 1942, Coke was rationaliseed from wartime sugar rationing whenever the product was destined for the military or retailers serving soldiers. Coca-Cola bottling plants followed the movements of American troops 64 bottling plants were set up during the warlargely at government expense.This contributed to Cokes dominant market shares in most europiuman and Asian countries. Pepsi-Cola was invented in 1893 in New Bern, compass north Carolina by pharmacist Caleb Bradham. Like Coke, Pepsi adopted a franchise bottling system, and by 1910 it had built a network of 270 11 See J. C. Louis and Harvey Yazijian, The Cola Wars (Everest House, 1980) Mark Pendergrast, For God, Country, and Coca-Cola (Charles Scribners, 1993) David Greising, Id Like the World to Buy a Coke (John Wiley & Sons, 1997). 6 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright . emailprotected harvard. du or 617-783-7860. 702-442 op y Cola Wars Continue Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century franchised bottlers. Pepsi struggled, however, declaring loser in 1923 and again in 1932. Business began to pick up in the midst of the Great Depression, when Pepsi bring down the price for its 12-ounce bottle to a nickel, the same price Coke charged for its 6. 5-ounce bottle. When Pepsi tried to expand its bottling network in the late 1930s, its choices were small local bottlers striving to compete with wealthy Coke franchisees. 12 Pepsi withal began to gain market share.In 1938, Coke filed suit against Pepsi, claiming that Pepsi-Cola was an infringement on the CocaCola trademark. The court ruled in regard of Pepsi in 1941, ending a series of suits and countersuits between the two companies. With its famous radio jingle, Twice as more, for Nickel Too, Pepsis U. S. sales surpassed those of Royal Crown and Dr Pepper in the 1940s, trailing only Coca-Cola. In 19 50, Cokes share of the U. S. CSD market was 47% and Pepsis was 10% hundreds of regional CSD companies continued to produce a wide assortment of flavors. tCThe Cola Wars Begin In 1950, Alfred Steele, a former Coca-Cola marketing executive, became Pepsis CEO. Steele made Beat Coke his theme and encouraged bottlers to focus on take-home sales through supermarkets. The company introduced the first 26-ounce bottles to the market, targeting family consumption, while Coke stayed with its 6. 5-ounce bottle. Pepsis growth soon began tracking the growth of supermarkets and convenience stores in the United States There were about 10,000 supermarkets in 1945, 15,000 in 1955, and 32,000 at the peak in 1962.No In 1963, under the leadership of new CEO Donald Kendall, Pepsi launched its Pepsi Generation campaign that targeted the young and young at heart. Pepsis ad agency created an intense commercial using sports cars, motorcycles, helicopters, and a catchy slogan. The campaign helped Pepsi narro w Cokes lead to a 2-to-1 margin. At the same time, Pepsi worked with its bottlers to modernize plants and improve store delivery services. By 1970, Pepsis franchise bottlers were generally larger compared to Coke bottlers.Cokes bottling network remained fragmented, with more than 800 supreme franchised bottlers that focused mostly on U. S. cities of 50,000 or less. 13 Throughout this period, Pepsi sold concentrate to its bottlers at a price approximately 20% lower than Coke. In the early 1970s, Pepsi increase the concentrate price to equal that of Coke. To have the best bottlers opposition, Pepsi promised to use the extra margin to increase advertising and promotion. Do Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola began to experiment with new cola and non-cola flavors and a variety of packaging options in the 1960s.Before then, the two companies had adopted a single product strategy, selling only their flagship brand. Coke introduced Fanta (1960), Sprite (1961), and lowcalorie Tab (1963). Pepsi count ered with Teem (1960), Mountain Dew (1964), and fare Pepsi (1964). Each introduced non-returnable glass bottles and 12-ounce metal cans in various packages. Coke and Pepsi also diversified into non-soft-drink industries. Coke purchased Minute Maid (fruit juice), Duncan Foods (coffee, tea, hot chocolate), and Belmont Springs Water.Pepsi merged with snackfood giant Frito-Lay in 1965 to become PepsiCo, claiming synergies based on shared customer targets, store-door delivery systems, and marketing orientations. In the late 1950s, Coca-Cola, still under Robert Woodruffs leadership, began using advertising that finally recognized the existence of competitors, such as Americans Preferred Taste (1955) and No Wonder Coke Refreshes Best (1960). In meetings with Coca-Cola bottlers, however, executives only discussed the growth of their own brand and never referred to its closest competitor by name. 2 Louis and Yazijian, p,. 23. 13 Pendergrast, p. 310. 7 Copying or posting is an infringement o f copyright. emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Cola Wars Continue Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century op y 702-442 During the 1960s, Coke primarily focused on overseas markets, apparently believing that domestic soft drink consumption had neared saturation at 22. 7 gallons per capita in 1970. 14 Pepsi retardation battled aggressively in the United States, doubling its share between 1950 and 1970. The Pepsi ChallengeIn 1974, Pepsi launched the Pepsi Challenge in Dallas, Texas. Coke was the dominant brand in the city and Pepsi ran a distant 3rd behind Dr Pepper. In blind prove tests hosted by Pepsis small local bottler, the company tried to demonstrate that consumers in fact pet Pepsi to Coke. After its sales shot up in Dallas, Pepsi started to roll out the campaign nationwide, although many of its franchise bottlers were initially reluctant to join. tC Coke countered with rebates, rival claims, retail price cuts, and a series of advertisements speculative the t ests validity.In particular, Coke used retail price discounts selectively in markets where the Coke bottler was company owned and the Pepsi bottler was an independent franchisee. Nonetheless, the Pepsi Challenge successfully eroded Cokes market share. In 1979, Pepsi passed Coke in food store sales for the first time with a 1. 4 share point lead. Breaking precedent, Brian Dyson, chairperson of Coca-Cola, inadvertently uttered the name Pepsi in front of Cokes bottlers at the 1979 bottlers conference. No During the same period, Coke was renegotiating its franchise bottling contract to obtain greater flexibility in pricing concentrate and syrups.Bottlers pass the new contract in 1978 only after Coke conceded to link concentrate price changes to the CPI, adjust the price to reflect any cost savings associated with a modification of ingredients, and supply unsweetened concentrate to bottlers who preferred to purchase their own sweetener on the open market. 15 This brought Cokes policies in line with Pepsi, which traditionally sold its concentrate unsweetened to its bottlers. Immediately after securing bottler approval, Coke announced a significant concentrate price hike. Pepsi followed with a 15% price increase of its own. Cola Wars Heat UpIn 1980, Cuban-born Roberto Goizueta was named CEO and Don Keough president of Coca-Cola. In the same year, Coke switched from sugar to the lower-priced high fructose corn syrup, a move Pepsi emulated three years later. Coke also intensified its marketing effort, increasing advertising expending from $74 million to $181 million between 1981 and 1984. Pepsi elevated its advertising expenditure from $66 million to $ one hundred twenty-five million over the same period. Goizueta sold off most of the non-CSD businesses he had inherited, including wine, coffee, tea, and industrial water treatment, while keeping Minute Maid. DoDiet Coke was introduced in 1982 as the first extension of the Coke brand name. Much of CocaCola management referred to its brand as Mother Coke, and considered it too sacred to be extended to other products. disdain internal opposition from company lawyers over copyright issues, Diet Coke was a phenomenal success. Praised as the most successful consumer product launch of the Eighties, it became within a few years not only the nations most popular diet soft drink, but also the third-largest selling soft drink in the United States. 14 Maxwell. 15 Pendergrast, p. 323. 8 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. 702-442 op y Cola Wars Continue Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century In April 1985, Coke announced the change of its 99-year-old Coca-Cola formula. Explaining this radical break with tradition, Goizueta saw a sharp depreciation in the determine of the Coca-Cola trademark as the product had a declining share in a shrinking segment of the market. 16 On the day of Cokes announcement, Pepsi declared a holiday for its employees , claiming that the new Coke tasted more like Pepsi. The reformulation prompted an outcry from Cokes most loyal customers.Bottlers joined the clamor. Three months later, the company brought back the original formula under the name Coca-Cola Classic, while retaining the new formula as the flagship brand under the name New Coke. Six months later, Coke announced that Coca-Cola Classic (the original formula) would henceforth be considered its flagship brand. tC New CSD brands proliferated in the 1980s. Coke introduced 11 new products, including Cherry Coke, Caffeine-Free Coke, and Minute-Maid Orange. Pepsi introduced 13 products, including Caffeine-Free Pepsi-Cola, Lemon-Lime Slice, and Cherry Pepsi.The number of packaging types and sizes also change magnitude dramatically, and the battle for shelf space in supermarkets and other food stores grew fierce. By the late 1980s, both Coke and Pepsi offered more than ten major brands, using at least seventeen containers and legion(predicate) packaging options. 17 The struggle for market share intensified and the level of retail price discounting increased sharply. Consumers were constantly exposed to cents-off promotions and a host of other supermarket discounts. No Throughout the 1980s, the smaller concentrate producers were progressively squeezed by Coke and Pepsi.As their shelf-space declined, small brands were shuffled from one owner to another. Over five years, Dr Pepper was sold (all and in part) some(prenominal) times, Canada Dry twice, Sunkist once, Shasta once, and A&W Brands once. Some of the deals were made by food companies, but several were leveraged buyouts by investment firms. Philip Morris acquired Seven-Up in 1978 for a big premium, but despite superior brand rankings and established distribution channels, racked up huge losses in the early 1980s and exited in 1985. (Exhibit 8a shows the brand performance of top companies, as ranked by retailers. )In the 1990s, through a series of strategic acquisiti ons, Cadbury Schweppes emerged as the clear (albeit distant) third-largest concentrate producer, snapping up the Dr Pepper/Seven-Up Companies (1995) and Snapple Beverage Group (2000). (Appendix A describes Cadbury Schweppes operations and financial performance. ) Bottler Consolidation and Spin-Off Do Relations between Coke and its franchised bottlers had been strained since the contract renegotiation of 1978. Coke struggled to persuade bottlers to cooperate in marketing and promotion programs, upgrade plant and equipment, and support new product launches. 8 The cola wars had particularly weakened small independent franchised bottlers. High advertising using up, product and packaging proliferation, and far-flung retail price discounting raised capital requirements for bottlers, while lowering their margins. Many bottlers that had been owned by one family for several generations no longer had the resources or the commitment to be competitive. At a July 1980 dinner with Cokes fifteen largest domestic bottlers, Goizueta announced a plan to refranchise bottling operations. Coke began buying up sick managed bottlers, infusing capital, 6 The Wall Street Journal, April 24, 1986. 17 Timothy Muris, David Scheffman, and Pablo Spiller, Strategy, Structure, and Antitrust in the Carbonated Soft Drink Industry. (Quorum Books, 1993), p. 73. 18 Greising, p. 88. 9 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Cola Wars Continue Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century op y 702-442 and quickly reselling them to better-performing bottlers. Refranchising allowed Cokes larger bottlers to expand after-school(prenominal) their traditionally exclusive geographic territories.When two of its largest bottling companies came up for sale in 1985, Coke moved fleetly to buy them for $2. 4 billion, preempting outside financial bidders. Together with other bottlers that Coke had recently bought, these acquisitions placed one-third of Coc a-Colas volume in company-owned bottlers. In 1986, Coke began to replace its 1978 franchise agreement with the Master Bottler Contract that afforded Coke much greater freedom to change concentrate price. tC Cokes bottler acquisitions had increased its long-term debt to approximately $1 billion.In 1986, on the initiative of Doug Ivester, who later became CEO, the company created an independent bottling subsidiary, Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE), and sold 51% of its shares to the public, while retaining the rest. The minority equity position enabled Coke to separate its financial statements from CCE. As Cokes first so-called anchor bottler, CCE consolidated small territories into larger regions, renegotiated with suppliers and retailers, merged redundant distribution and material purchasing, and cut its work force by 20%. CCE moved towards mega-facilities, investing in 50 million-case production lines with high levels of automation.Coke continued to acquire independent franchised bottler s and sell them to CCE. 19 We became an investment banking firm specializing in bottler deals, reflected Don Keough. In 1997 alone, Coke put together more than $7 billion in deals involving bottlers. 20 By 2000, CCE was Cokes largest bottler with annual sales of more than $14. 7 billion, handling 70% of Cokes North American volume. Some industry observers questioned Cokes accounting practice, as Coke retained substantial managerial influence in its arguably independent anchor bottler. 21 NoIn the late 1980s, Pepsi also acquired MEI Bottling for $591 million, Grand Metropolitans bottling operations for $705 million, and General Cinemas bottling operations for $1. 8 billion. The number of Pepsi bottlers decreased from more than 400 in the mid-1980s to less than 200 in the mid-1990s. Pepsi owned about half of these bottling operations outright and held equity positions in most of the rest. Experience in the snack food and restaurant businesses boosted Pepsis confidence in its ability t o manage the bottling business. In the late 1990s, Pepsi changed course and also adopted the anchor bottler model.In April 1999, the Pepsi Bottling Group (PBG) went public, with Pepsi retaining a 35% equity stake. By 2000, PBG produced 55% of PepsiCo beverages in North America and 32% worldwide. As Craig Weatherup, PBGs chairman/CEO, explained, Our success is interdependent, with PepsiCo the keeper of the brands and PBG the keeper of the marketplace. In that regard, were joined at the hip. 22 Do The bottler consolidation of the 1990s made smaller concentrate producers more and more dependent on the Pepsi and Coke bottling network to distribute their products. In response, Cadbury Schweppes in 1998 bought and merged two large U.S. bottlers to form its own bottler. In 2000, Cokes bottling system was the most consolidated, with its top 10 bottlers producing 94% of domestic volume. Pepsis and Cadbury Schweppes top 10 bottlers produced 85% and 71% of the domestic volume of their respect ive franchisors. 19 Greising, p. 292. 20 Beverage Industry, January 1999, p. 17. 21 Albert Meyer and Dwight Owsen, Coca-Colas Accounting, Accounting Today, September 28, 1998 22 Kent Steinriede, PBG Charts Its Own Course, Beverage Industry, whitethorn 1, 1999. 10 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Adapting to the Times 702-442 op y Cola Wars Continue Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century In the late 1990s, a variety of problems began to emerge for the soft drink industry as a whole. Although Americans still drank more CSDs than any other beverage, U. S. sales volume registered only a 0. 2% increase in 2000, to just under 10 billion cases (a case was equivalent to 24 eight-ounce containers, or 192 ounces). This slow growth was in contrast to the 5%-7% annual growth in the United States during the 1980s.Concurrently, financial crisis in various parts of the world left Coke and Pepsi bottlers over-invested and under-util ized. tC Coca-Cola was also impacted by difficulties in leadership transition. After the death of the popular CEO Roberto Goizueta in 1997, his successor Douglas Ivestor had two rocky years at the helm, during which Coke faced a high-profile race favoritism suit and a European public relations scandal after hundreds of people became ill from grime soft drinks. Douglas zestful assumed leadership in April 2000 one of his first moves was to lay off 5,200 employees, or 20% of worldwide staff.While expressing enthusiastic support for the current strategic course of the Company under Doug Dafts leadership, Cokes Board voted against Dafts eleventh-hour negotiations to acquire Quaker Oats in November 2000. As they had numerous times over the last century, analysts predicted the end of Coke and Pepsis stellar growth and profitability. Meanwhile, Coke and Pepsi turned their attention to bolstering domestic markets, diversifying into non-carbonated beverages (non-carbs), and cultivating int ernational markets.Balancing Market Growth, Market helping, and Profitability in the United States No During the early 1990s, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo bottlers employed a low-price strategy in the supermarket channel in order to compete more effectively with high-quality, low-price store brands. As the threat of the low-priced brands lessened, CCE responded in March 1999 with its first major price increase at the retail level after 20 years of flat take-home pricing. Its strategy was to reposition Coke Classic as a premium brand. PBG followed that price increase shortly after. harm wars had driven soda prices down to the point where bottlers couldnt get a decent return on supermarket sales, explained a Pepsi executive. 23 Observed one industry analyst, Cokes growth is coming internationally, and Pepsis is coming from Frito-Lay. It is in the companies mutual best interest not to destroy the domestic market and eat up each others share. 24 Consumers initial reaction to price increases was a decline in supermarket purchases. When CCE raised prices in supermarkets by 6. 0%-8. 0% in both 1999 and 2000, comparable volumes in North America declined each year (1. % in 1999 and 0. 8% in 2000). In 2001, however, the bottling companies effected more moderate price increases and consumer demand appeared to be on the upswing. Do Both Coke and Pepsi also set about to boost the flagging cola market in other ways, including exclusive marketing agreements with Britney Spears (Pepsi) and hassle Potter (Coke). Pepsi reintroduced the highly effective Pepsi Challenge, which was designed to boost overall cola sales and draw consumers out-of-door from private labels as much as it was to plug Pepsi over Coke.In contrast to the supermarket channel, Coke and Pepsis challenger in the fountain channel intensified in the late 1990s. To penetrate Cokes stronghold, Pepsi aggressively pursued national 23 Lauren R. Rublin, Chipping Away Coca-Cola Could Learn a Thing or both from the Rena issance at PepsiCo, Barrons, June 12, 2000. 24 Rublin. 11 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Cola Wars Continue Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century op y 702-442 accounts, forcing Coke to make costly concessions to retain its biggest customers.Pepsi broke Cokes stronghold at Disney with a 1998 contract to supply soft drinks at the new DisneyQuest, Club Disney and ESPN Zone chains. After a heated bidding war in 1999 over the 10,000-store chain of Burger King Corporation, Coke again won the fountain contract involving $220 million per year for 40 million gallons of syrup soda, but only after agreeing to double its $25 million in rebates to the food chain. Pepsi also sued Coke over access to the fountain market, charging Coke with attempting to monopolize the market for fountain-dispensed soft drinks through independent foodservice distributors throughout the United States. Coke persuaded a Federal court to dismiss the suit in 2000. Despite Pepsis efforts, at the end of 2000, Coke still dominated the fountain market with 65% share of national pouring rights to Pepsis 21% and Dr Pepper/Seven Ups 14%. tC The Rise of Non-Cola Beverages As consumer trends shifted from diet soda, to lemon-lime, to tea-based drinks, to other popular non-carbs, Coke and Pepsi vigorously expanded their brand portfolios. Each new product was accompanied by debate on how much each company should stray from its core product regular cola.On one hand, cola sales consistently dwarfed ersatz beverages sales, and cola-defenders show concern that over-enthusiastic expansion would distract the company from its flagship product. Also, history had shown that explosions in demand for alternative drinks were regularly followed by slow or negative growth. On the other hand, as domestic cola demand appeared to plateau, alternative beverages could provide a growth engine for the firms. No By the late 1990s, the soft drink industry had seen various alternative beverage categories come and go.From double-digit expansion in the late 1980s, diet CSDs peaked in 1991 at 29. 8% of the CSD segment and then declined to their 1988-level share of 24. 4% in 1999. PepsiCos introduction of Pepsi unitary in late 1998 was partially responsible for the minor recovery of the diet drink segment. Flavored soft drinks such as citrus, lemon-lime, pepper, and root beer were also popular. In 1999, Mountain Dew grew faster than any other CSD brand for the third year in a row, posting 6. 0% volume growth, but in 2000, its growth slowed to 1. 5% due to competing new-age non-carbs. DoAt the turn of this century, CSDs accounted for 41. 3% of total non-alcoholic beverage consumption, bottled water accounted for 10. 3%, and other non-carbs accounted for the remainder. 25 When metrical in gallons, sales of non-carbs rose by 18% in 1995 and 5% in 2000, compared to 3% and 0. 2% respectively for CSDs. The drinks with high growth and high hype we re non-carbs such as juices/juice drinks, sports drinks, tea-based drinks, dairy-based drinksand especially bottled water. In the 1990s, the bottled water industry grew on average 8. 3% per year, and volume reached more than 5 billion gallons in 2000.Revenue growth outpaced volume growth, with a 9. 3% increase to approximately $5. 6 billion, and per capita consumption gained 5. 1 gallons to 13. 2 gallons per person. Pepsis Aquafina went national in 1998. Coke followed in 1999 with Dasani. Though Pepsi and Coke sold reverse-osmosis purified water instead of spring water, they had a distribution advantage over competing water brands. 26 Coke and Pepsi launched other new drinks throughout the 1990s. They also aggressively acquired brands that rounded out their portfolios, including Tropicana (Pepsi, 1998), Gatorade (Pepsi, 5 Maxwell. Does not include tap water / hybrids / all others category. 26 Reverse osmosis is a method of producing pure water by forcing saline or impure water throu gh a semi-permeable membrane across which salts or impurities cannot pass. 12 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. 702-442 op y Cola Wars Continue Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century 2000), and SoBe (Pepsi, 2000). Both companies predicted that future increases in market share would come from beverages other than CSDs.Pepsi pronounced itself a total beverage company, and Coca-Cola appeared to be moving in the same direction, recasting its performance metric from share of the soda market to share of stomach. If Americans want to drink tap water, we want it to be Pepsi tap water, said Pepsis vice-president for new business, describing the philosophy behind the new strategy. 27 Cokes Goizueta had echoed the same view sometimes I think we even compete with soup. 28 Though cola remained the clear leader in terms of both companies volume sales, both Coke and Pepsi relied heavily on non-carbs to stimulate their overall grow th in the late 1990s.In 1999, non-carbs accounted for 80% of Pepsis and more than 100% of Cokes growth. 29 tC At the turn of the century, Pepsi had the lions share of non-CSD sales. Pepsi led Coke by a wide margin in 2000 volume sales in three key segments Gatorade (76%) led PowerAde (15%) in the $2. 6billion sports drinks segment, Lipton (38%) led Nestea (27%) in the $3. 5-billion tea-based drinks segment, and Aquafina (13%) led Dasani (8%) in the $6. 0-billion bottled water segment. 30 Including multi-serve juices, Tropicana held an approximate 44% share of the $3-billion chilled orange juice market, more than twice that of Minute Maid. 1 With the acquisition of Quaker and South Beach Beverages, Pepsi raised its non-carb market share to 31%, to Cokes 19% (see Exhibit 8b). No Non-CSD beverages complicated Cokes and Pepsis traditional production and distribution processes. While bottlers could easily manage some types of alternative beverages (e. g. , cold-filled Lipton Brisk), othe r types required costly new equipment and changes in production, warehousing, and distribution practices (e. g. , hot-filled Lipton Iced Tea). In many cases, Coke and Pepsi paid more than half the cost of these investments.The few bottlers that invested in these capabilities either purchased concentrate or other additives from Coke and Pepsi (e. g. , Dasanis mineral packet) or compensated the franchiser through per-unit royalty fees (e. g. , Aquafina). Most bottlers, however, did not invest in hot-fill (for some iced tea), reverse-osmosis (for some bottled water), or other specialized equipment, and instead bought their finished product from a central regional plant or one owned directly by Coca-Cola or PepsiCo. They would then distribute these alongside their own bottled products at a percentage mark-up.More split pallets32 led to slightly higher labor costs, but otherwise did not significantly affect distribution practices. Despite these complicated and evolving arrangements, hig her retail prices for alternative beverages meant that margins for the franchiser, bottler, and distributor were consistently higher than on CSDs. Internationalizing the Cola Wars Do As domestic demand appeared to plateau, Coke and Pepsi increasingly looked overseas for new growth. Throughout the 1990s, new access to markets in China, India, and Eastern Europe aroused some of the most intense battles of the cola wars.In many international markets, per capita consumption levels remained a fraction of those in the United States. For example, while the 27 Marcy Magiera, Pepsi Moving Fast To Get Beyond Colas, Advertising Age, July 5, 1993. 28 Greising, p. 233. 29 Bonnie Herzog, PepsiCo, Inc. The Joy of Growth, Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, September 8, 2000. 30 Maxwell, p. 152-3. 31 Betsy McKay, Juiced Up Pepsi Edges last(prenominal) Coke, and It has Nothing to Do With Cola, The Wall Street Journal, November 6, 2000. 32 Pallets are hard beds, usually of wood, used to organiz e, store, and transport products.A split pallet carries more than one product type. 13 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Cola Wars Continue Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century op y 702-442 average American drank 874 eight-ounce cans of CSDs in 1999, the average Chinese drank 22. In 1999, Coke held a world market share of 53%, compared to Pepsis 21% and Cadbury Schweppes 6%. Among major overseas markets, Coke dominated in Western Europe and much of Latin America, while Pepsi had marked presence in the Middle East and Southeast Asia (see Exhibit 9). C By the end of World War II, Coca-Cola was the largest international producer of soft drinks. Coke steady expanded its overseas operations in the 1950s, and the name Coca-Cola soon became a synonym for American culture. Coke built brand presence in developing markets where soft drink consumption was low but potential was large, such as Indonesia With 200 million inhabit ants, a median age of 18, and per capita consumption of 9 eight-ounce cans of soda a year, one Coke executive noted that they sit squarely on the equator and everybodys young. Its soft drink heaven. 33 By the early 1990s, Cokes CEO Roberto Goizueta said, Coca-Cola used to be an American company with a large international business. Now we are a large international company with a sizable American business. 34 No Following Coke, Pepsi entered Europe soon after World War II, andbenefiting from Arab and Soviet exclusion of Cokeinto the Middle East and Soviet bloc in the early 1970s. However, Pepsi put less emphasis on its international operations during the subsequent decade. In 1980, international sales accounted for 62% of Cokes soft drink volume, versus 20% for Pepsi.Pepsi rejoined the international battles in the late 1980s, realizing that many of its hostile bottling operations were inefficiently run and woefully uncompetitive. 35 In the early 1990s, Pepsi utilized a niche strateg y which targeted geographic areas where per capitas were relatively established and the markets presented high volume and profit opportunities. These were often Coke fortresses, and Pepsi put its guerilla tactics to work, noting that as big as Coca-Cola is, you certainly dont want a shootout at high noon, said Wayne Calloway, then CEO of PepsiCo. 6 Coke struck back in one high-profile coup in 1996, Pepsis longtime bottler in Venezuela defected to Coke, temporarily reducing Pepsis 80% share of the cola market to nearly nothing overnight. In the late 1990s, Pepsi moved even further away from head-to-head competition and instead concentrated on emerging markets that were still up for grabs. We kept beating our heads in markets that Coke won 20 years ago, explained Calloways successor, Roger Enrico. That is a very difficult proposition. 37 In 1999, PepsiCos bottler sales were up 5% internationally and its operating profit from overseas was up 37%. Market share gains were reported in mos t of Pepsi-Cola Internationals top 25 markets, including increases of 10% in India, 16% in China, and more than 100% in Russia. By 2000, international sales accounted for 62% of Cokes and 9% of Pepsis revenues. Do Concentrate producers encountered various obstacles in international operations, including cultural differences, political instability, regulations, price controls, advertising restrictions, foreign exchange controls, and lack of infrastructure.When Coke attempted to acquire Cadbury Schweppes international practice, for example, it ran into regulatory roadblocks in Europe and in Mexico and Australia, where Cokes market shares exceed 50%. On the other hand, Japanese domestic-protection price controls in the 1950s greased the skids for Cokes high concentrate prices and high profitability, and in India, mandatory certification for bottled drinking water caused several local brands to fold. 33 John Huey, The Worlds Best Brand, Fortune, may 31, 1993. 34John Huey, The Worlds Be st Brand, Fortune, May 31, 1993. 5 Larry Jabbonsky, Room to Run, Beverage World, August 1993. 36The Wall Street Journal, June 13, 1991. 37 John Byrne, PepsiCos New Formula How Roger Enrico is Remaking the Company and Himself, BusinessWeek, April 10, 2000. 14 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. 702-442 op y Cola Wars Continue Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century To cope with immature distribution networks, Coke and Pepsi created their own ground-up, and often novel, systems.Coke introduced vending machines to Japan, a channel that lastly accounted for more than half of Cokes Japanese sales. 38 In India, Pepsi found the most prominent businessman in town and gave him exclusive distribution rights, tapping his connections to drive growth. Significantly, both Coke and Pepsi recognized local-market demands for non-cola products. In 2000, Coke carried more than 200 brands in Japan alone, most of which were teas, coffees, juices, and flavored water.In Brazil, Coke offered two brands of guarana, a popular caffeinated carbonated berry drink accounting for one-quarter of that countrys CSD sales, despite rivals TV ads ridiculing gringo guarana. tC When the economy foundered in certain parts of the world during the late 1990s, annual consumption declined in many regions. study financial quakes in East Asia in 1997, Russia in 1998 and Brazil in 1999 shook the cola giants, who had invested heavily in bottler infrastructure. From 1995 to 2000, Cokes top line slowed to an average annual growth of less than 3%.Profits actually fell from $3. 0 billion in 1995 to $2. 2 billion in 2000. In Russia, where Coke invested more than $700 million from 1991 to 1999, the collapse of the economy caused sales to drop by as much as 60% and left Cokes seven bottling plants operating at 50% capacity. In Brazil, its third-largest market, Coke lost more than 10% of its 54% market share to low-cost local drinks produced by fam ily-owned bottlers exempt from that countrys punitive soft-drink taxes. In 1998, Coke estimated that a strong dollar cut into net sales by 9%.Pepsi, with its relatively lower overseas presence, was less affected by the crises. Nonetheless, Pepsi also subsidized its bottlers while experiencing a drop in sales. No Despite these financial setbacks, both Coke and Pepsi expressed confidence in the future growth of international consumption and used the downturn as an opportunity to snatch up bottlers, distribution, and even rival brands. To increase sales, they tried to make their products more inexpensive through measures such as refundable glass packaging (instead of plastic) and cheaper 6. ounce bottles. The End of an Era? At the turn of the century, growth of cola sales in the United States appeared to have plateaued. Coke and Pepsi were investing hundreds of millions of dollars to shore up international bottlers operating at low capacity. The companies overall growth in soft drink sales were falling short of precedent and of investors expectations. Was the fundamental nature of the cola wars changing? Would the parameters of this new rivalry include reduced profitability and stagnant growth inconceivable under the old form of rivalry? DoOr, were the troubles of the late 1990s just another step in the evolution of two of Americas most successful companies? In 2001, non-cola, non-carbs, and even convenience foods offered diversification and growth potential. Low international per capita soft drink consumption figures hinted at tremendous opportunity in the competition for worldwide throat share. Noted a Coke executive in 2000, the cola wars are going to be played now across a lot of different battlefields. 39 38 June Preston, Things May Go Better for Coke amid Asia Crisis, capital of Singapore Bottler Says, Journal of Commerce, June 29, 1998, . A3. 39 Betsy McKay, Juiced Up Pepsi Edges Past Coke, and It has Nothing to Do With Cola, The Wall Street Journal, Nov ember 6, 2000. 15 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. Do Exhibit 1 702-442 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. emailprotected harvard. edu or 617-783-7860. No U. S. Industry usance Statistics 1970 1975 1981 1985 1990 1992 1994 1995 1996 1998 1999 2000 Historical Carbonated Soft Drink Consumption Cases (millions) Gallons/capita As a % of total beverage consumption 3,090 22. 7 2. 4 3,780 26. 3 14. 4 5,180 34. 2 18. 7 6,500 40. 3 22. 4 7,914 46. 9 26. 1 8,160 47. 2 26. 3 8,608 50. 0 27. 2 8,952 50. 9 28. 1 9,489 52. 0 28. 8 9,880 54. 0 30. 0 9,930 53. 6 29. 4 9,950 53. 0 29. 0 22. 7 22. 8 18. 5 35. 7 6. 5 5. 2 1. 3 1. 8 26. 3 21. 8 21. 6 33 1. 2 6. 8 7. 3 4. 8 1. 7 2 34. 2 20. 6 24. 3 27. 2 2. 7 6. 9 7. 3 6 2. 1 2 40. 3 24. 0 25. 0 26. 9 4. 5 7. 8 7. 3 6. 2 2. 4 1. 8 46. 9 24. 3 24. 2 26. 2 8. 1 8. 8 7. 0 5. 4 2. 0 1. 5 47. 2 23. 3 23. 8 26. 5 8. 2 9. 1 6. 8 5. 4 2. 0 0. 6 1. 4 50. 0 22. 8 23. 2 23. 3 9. 6 9. 4 7. 1 4. 8 1. 7 0. 9 1. 3 50. 9 22. 3 22. 8 1. 3 10. 1 9. 5 6. 8 4. 9 1. 8 1. 1 1. 2 52. 0 22. 3 22. 7 20. 2 11. 0 9. 7 6. 9 4. 8 1. 8 1. 1 1. 2 54. 0 22. 1 22. 0 18. 0 11. 8 10. 0 6. 9 4. 7 2. 0 1. 3 1. 3 53. 6 22. 2 21. 9 17. 2 12. 6 10. 2 7. 0 4. 6 2. 0 1. 4 1. 3 53. 0 22. 2 21. 7 16. 8 13. 2 10. 4 7. 0 4. 6 2. 0 1. 5 1. 2 114. 5 126. 5 133. 3 146. 2 154. 4 154. 3 154. 0 152. 6 153. 6 154. 1 153. 8 153. 6 68 56 49. 2 36. 3 28. 1 28. 2 28. 5 29. 9 28. 9 28. 4 28. 7 28. 9 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 182. 5 U. S. Liquid Consumption Trends (gallons/capita) Carbonated soft drinksBeer Milk Coffeea Bottled Waterb Juices Teaa Powdered drinks Wine Sports Drinksc Distilled spirits Subtotal Tap water/hybrids/all others Totald tC opy Source John C. Maxwell, Beverage Digest Fact Book 2001, and The Maxwell Consumer Report, Feb. 3, 1994 Adams pot likker Handbook, casewriter estimates. aFrom 1985, coffee and tea data are based on a three-year m oving average to counter-balance gillyflower swings, thereby portraying consumption more realistically. bBottled water includes all packages, single-serve, and bulk. cSports drinks included in Tap water/hybids/all others pre-1992. This analysis assumes that each person consumes on average one-half gallon of liquid per day. -16- Cola Wars Continue Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century Advertisement Spending for the Top 10 CSD Brands ($ millions) op y Exhibit 2 Share of market 2000 Total market 20. 4 13. 6 8. 7 7. 2 6. 6 6. 3 5. 3 2. 0 1. 7 1. 1 1999 20. 3 13. 8 8. 5 7. 1 6. 8 3. 6 5. 1 2. 1 1. 8 1. 1 Advertisement Spendinga per 2000 2000 1999 share point 207. 3 130. 0 1. 2 50. 5 84. 0 83. 6 0. 5 44. 5 NA 2. 7 148. 9 91. 1 25. 5 37. 1 68. 4 71. 3 0. 8 39. 2 NA 2. 9 tC Coke ClassicPepsi-Cola Diet Coke Mountain Dew Sprite Dr Pepper Diet Pepsi 7UP Caffeine Free Diet Coke Barqs root beer Total top 10 702-442 72. 9 72. 9 10. 2 9. 6 0. 1 7. 0 12. 7 13. 3 0. 1 22. 3 NA 2. 4 604. 2 485. 2 8. 3 707. 6 650. 0 NA Source Top 10 Soft-Drink Brands, Advertising Age, September 24, 2001 casewriter estimates. aAdvertisement spending measured in 11 media channels from CMR. Brands and total market in 192-oz cases from Do No Beverage Digest/Maxwell. Case volume from all channels. 17 Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. emailprotected arvard. edu or 617-783-7860. 702-442 Cola Wars Continue Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century U. S. Soft Drink Market Share by Case Volume (percent) 1966 op y Exhibit 3 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998 2000E 27. 7 1. 5 1. 4 2. 8 33. 4 28. 4 1. 8 1. 3 3. 2 34. 7 26. 2 2. 6 2. 6 3. 9 35. 3 2