You want an SEO position at X Corp?

Anyone can have an SEO position wherever they like at the low, low cost of $45Bn

By the way Coca-Cola still uses coca leafs in the production, although perhaps it's so dilluted there are no traces left in the final product.

There is a single company that is authorized to import coca leafs to US. They create a cocaine free extract which they sell to Coca-Cola as an ingredient for their syrup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Company#Coca_extraction

Just to be that guy… Coca-cola didn’t get its name from cocaine, but the coca leaves from which cocaine is extracted. Coca-cola still contains some amount of “decocainized” coca leaves. And the continued presence in the syrup formula is likely due to the name/brand.

From: https://www.eater.com/23620802/cocaine-in-coca-cola-coke-rec...

> it’s more likely that it “continues to be used merely to enable the Company to retain the word ‘Coca’ in the name

What does this have to do with the made up name of a short message of 140 characters? Nothing. It’s not like sending a video or 141 character messages are auto associated with the term “X”.

But in the Coca-Cola case, the words in the brand do have meaning.

Coke had Cocaine?

Still does in trace amounts iirc.

Probably tasted better back then. Never been a fan of the present sugary liquid.

It had coca extract, it still does, but now, the cocaine is removed.

The extracted cocaine is used by the pharmaceutical industry, as a bonus for top level executives.

Yes, the last part is a joke, but it is really used in medicine as a local anesthetic.

Clearly you do not remember "New Coke" where they did in fact attempt to rebrand from Coca-Cola the actual brand to "Coke" in addition to the formula change.

The brand kinda succeeded, as everyone calls is Coke, even though ti is actually Coca-Cola Classic and Coke is dead because the Coke formula was terrible tasting

New Coke wasn't terrible tasting, most people liked and sometimes preferred the drink, but they didn't like the change.

In fact, New Coke is based on the Diet Coke recipe, the latter is still a success to this day. The sugar-free version of Coca-Cola classic is Coke Zero, and it sells less than Diet Coke. If it really was about the taste, Diet Coke wouldn't have sold as well and would have been quickly overtaken by Coke Zero.

The most likely explanation for the failure of New Coke is that it replaced the classic, and an influential minority felt alienated by the change.

I think what you have here is akin to the massive errors in polling we see in elections.

The clear reveled preference of the consumer they did not like New Coke, they expressed this by not buy it.

Limited market research will often give the company the answer they are already looking for, there are plenty of examples of this

Further is completely self defeating to New Coke was better than Classic because Coke Zero failed. First off, Coke Zero tastes NOTHING like Classic, To me aspartame is actively bitter to me not sweet. So Diet Coke or Coke Zero or any other drink with aspartame in it is a no go.

But aside from my personal tastes, Diet Coke has the first move advantage for the zero cal beverage, so all of your arguments as to why classic won over coke would apply equally well to why diet won over zero.

Further still, I think there is a massive consumer disparity between the consumers of zero cal soda, and people that want regular soda. Comparing their consumer preferences is going to be very hard

Coke Zero is way better than diet. Yes, it still doesn’t taste completely like classic coke, but it is good enough that if you want to cut back on sugar it’s a decent option. Diet Coke take a lot of getting used to, you just can’t start on it without lots of willpower. Most of Coke Zero’s increasing market share is coming from classic coke drinkers (and is pulling in more men than Diet Coke did) - it should become more popular than Diet Coke in a few years, so I’m not really sure why you think Diet Coke has won?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/health/diet-soda-vs-zero-suga...

I did not make the claim it did, the parent comment above the one you replied to make the claim I just did not challenge or research it because I do not care which wins they are both gross

which one wins is irrelevant to the primary point about rebranding things

If Coke Zero steals market share from Classic Coke, it is a net win overall. Suffice it to say, Coke Zero is coke's biggest hit in a long time, commercially speaking.

"Coke" was a popular synonym for "Coca-Cola" long before the brand formally adopted it. They introduced "Diet Coke" three years before "New Coke" came along. Similarly, terms like "retweet" came from users. Most companies would kill to own brands that have this level of salience, and wouldn't throw that value away.

It actually succeeded well in marketing tests (or so I've heard). In small doses, people preferred it's more Pepsi-like taste over Coca-Cola. It's just over the course of a full soda that the opposite is true. I think the reasoning was some survey that indicated Pepsi was better liked or something like that which spooked them and led to this scenario.

Note: I've never had New Coke (was before my time). I'd love for them to bring it back in a limited form just to try it.

Pepsi is also gross...

Mountain Dew is acceptable response when you order a Coke and they respond with "We have Pepsi"..

inversely if you order Mountain Dew and they say "We have Mello Yellow" you respond with "Coke please" because Mello Yellow is gross

:)