Apr 09 2007

Isn’t Coke Zero just redundant?

Coca-Cola’s latest product has finally made it to Sweden, but I’m not sure why the company bothered.

Coca-Cola Zero is supposedly the sugar-free version of Coca-Cola Classic … which allegedly makes it completely different from Diet Coke, which is surprisingly the sugar-free version of New Coke (which was repackaged as Coke II in 1992).  Are you still with me?

But even if the recipes are different … why does the company think it needs another sugar-free drink in its product portfolio? The answer is marketing. The story goes that Coca-Cola decided it could sell more sugar-free pop to men if it removed the word “diet” from the name of the product.  And evidently it appears to be working so far in the U.S.

But I’m not sure the same strategy will work over here because there is no Diet Coke in Europe. Here we have Coca-Cola Light, which is essentially Diet Coke formulated to EU regulations for artificial sweeteners and to local tastes … which is probably why I’ve always thought it tastes better than Diet Coke.

So if the whole point of Coke Zero is that it doesn’t have the word “diet” in its name … that’s not really going to play here. And if the secondary point is that it tastes different from Diet Coke, well … we’ve got that covered, too.

I’ve decided the only thing Coke Zero really has going for it over here is its black logo, but hey, in Europe that may be enough!

Feed my ego!

%d bloggers like this: