Other examples of ‘New Coke’ fiasco?

One of the biggest corportate blunders in American history also is a story of a quick reversal.

Today is the 25th anniversary of the introduction of “New Coke,” writes AJC reporter Jeremiah McWilliams.

It’s a story of how one of the best run companies in the world lost its way with its customers, and then quickly turned the fiasco around.

“We’ve learned to listen more closely to our consumers since then,” Coke historian Phil Mooney told McWilliams.

Can you think of a similar corporate blunder where a company lost its way with key customers?

How about quick reversals to turn things around?

By the way, did you like the taste of New Coke?

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter.

47 comments Add your comment

jay

April 23rd, 2010
7:21 am

it’s hard to believe this folly continues to hold credibility. the “New Coke” was actually one of the most brilliant moves a coporation has ever made. at the time, Pepsi was making tons of money because they sweetened with corn syrup, while Coke used sugar. Sugar was obviously significantly more expensive, so Coke was at a disadvantage. Coke understood they couldn’t simply change to corn syrup, because it would alter the taste of Coke and there would be an uproar, threatening their position. The only way to make a switch was to create a break – in this case, a red herring. Roberto Goizueta (I am giving him the credit) arrived at the brilliant idea to create “New Coke” that was so sweet, and actually more like Pepsi, to get people to clamor for the original Coke (which they did). After a brief time, they acted like the people had won, they had been stupid, and came out with “Coke Classic”, claiming it was the original formula – even though they had substituted corn syrup for sugar. with this charade, Coke immediately reduced their production costs significantly, and people were now placated with the “return” to the “classic” formula of Coke. Even now, Coke is very careful to say that they were “stupid” and that they have “learned to listen more closely to our customers.” We are all so gullible and so easily fooled. In contrast, remember the real blunder by Audi when the 5000 series had problems with shifting into gear – they refused to take any responsibility and totally destroyed the brand for years.

TnGelding

April 23rd, 2010
8:15 am

Coke, New Coke, Coke Classic and Pepsi are nonentites in my life. Give me cool, clear water! Drink up, addicts.

GM, Ford and Chrysler come to mind, but it took decades for them to feel the results. Hopefully they’re on the path to turning it around, but it certainly wouldn’t qualify as quickly.

shadow7071

April 23rd, 2010
8:34 am

Jay, I’ve read your comments and your theory. For the past 24 years and 364 days I’ve listened to and read similar comments and theories. I must tell you this morning that you are about 99% wrong. The only part that is true is that it was intended for New Coke to appeal to loyal Pepsi consumers and still meet the needs of Coke consumers. Conspiracy theories are intriguing but I’m sorry to honestly say that none are here.

More Conspiracy theories

April 23rd, 2010
9:24 am

“It provided cover for the final removal of all coca derivatives from the product to placate the Drug Enforcement Administration, which was trying to eradicate the plant worldwide to combat an increase in cocaine trafficking and consumption. While Coke’s executives were indeed relieved that the new formula contained no coca, and concerned about the long-term future of the Peruvian government-owned coca fields that supplied it in the face of increasing DEA pressure to end cultivation of the crop, there was no direct pressure from the DEA on Coca-Cola to do so.[5] ”

“That the company intentionally changed the formula hoping that consumers would be upset with the company and demand the original formula to return, which in turn would cause sales to spike.[1] “

c mitchell

April 23rd, 2010
9:29 am

yep, that redesign of the Tropicana Orange Juice packaging – bad decision: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/business/media/23adcol.html?pagewanted=all

R

April 23rd, 2010
9:36 am

One word:

Edsel.

But in the end, they are rarities. Ugly Lemon sucking face rarities. To each their own…

Captain Midnight

April 23rd, 2010
9:43 am

The four seated Thunderbird.

Matthew

April 23rd, 2010
9:48 am

Jay, you are completely wrong about Audi. The Audi story is not about a corporate mistake at all. Audi was ruined by fraudulent journalism such as the 60 minutes story that showed an Audi taking off with no driver input. The car was rigged by mechanics to do just that – any car can be modified in the same way to give the appearance of a “sudden acceleration problem.” The real problem was the brake pedal was closer to the throttle because this was a driver’s car – designed for “heel-toe” brake/throttle application. Drivers who crashed through their garage walls were standing on the accelerator and not the brake, as the believed. the air conditioner compressor cut switch, at the bottom of the accelerator was broken from excessive force – proof that it was the throttle and not the brake that was pressed.

Your Coke conspiracy theory is just as invalid. Coke began the switch to corn syrup in 1980 – well before the “new coke” fiasco.

Take your tinfoil hat off once in a while and let your skull breathe.

ssrmorb

April 23rd, 2010
9:48 am

The success in Coca Cola’s New Coke was the company’s good sense
to listen and act to what their customer’s had to say of the product
instead of trying to force the product down the customer’s throat.
(No Pun Intended.)

The fiasco was more at the level of a bad idea that was easily
and quickly dropped before it brought damage to the business.

Mary

April 23rd, 2010
10:05 am

I HATED the “New Coke”…so glad when “Classic Coke” was put on the grocery store shelves.

Jim Thomas

April 23rd, 2010
10:06 am

I love Mountain Dew.

observor

April 23rd, 2010
10:08 am

Here’s one that many may have forgotten about:

“Urban Outfitters sells a Monopoly knockoff called Ghettopoly, in which the classic game pieces such as the top hat, shoe, and car are replaced with machine guns, marijuana leaves, and rocks of crack cocaine. In reaction to protests, the retailer discontinues the game.”

Mike

April 23rd, 2010
10:11 am

Macy’s has been a big corporate blunder for the last five years. They eliminate century-old brands that inspired loyalty – in the case of Marshall Field’s, it inspired worldwide respect and admiration and their main store was one of the top tourist destinations for the city.

They bragged that this would create a “national department store” which would somehow be better able to serve customers. This killed tourism shopping – why go to Chicago, or Miami, or Seattle to buy the same stuff you can get at Lenox?

Dozens of high-end brand names that proudly offered “exclusives” to regional department stores ran away from Macy’s, which they deemed too common.

Then they consolidated the regional buying offices, putting thousands out of work and further homogenizing the product mix. Of course, closing down the old Macy’s South office at Perimeter allowed the AJC to move out of downtown… unless one considers that to be another big mistake.

Fried chicken skin is greasy and delicious

April 23rd, 2010
10:14 am

New Coke tasted like Pepsi. People who drink Coke were like a nest of yellow jackets until “Classic,” was brought back. Truly a dumb move. I’m glad Coke acknowledges it as such.

Crest

April 23rd, 2010
10:19 am

Mountain Dew will rot your teeth out faster than any other soda

Nickie

April 23rd, 2010
10:29 am

Captain Midnight – Oh, I agree on the four seater Thunderbird – more aptly named the “Blunderbird”. I plan to drive my restored ‘55 T-bird forever!

Falcon60

April 23rd, 2010
10:32 am

Whether it was a conspiracy or poor information from “insiders”, it took a lot of guts for Coca-Cola to shelve a brand that was so successful in order to compete with Pepsi. It took even more guts for Coke to admit they made a mistake and “re-introduce” Coke as Coke Classic. Even after all that it’s still the Number 1 soft drink i the world and one of the most recognizable brand in history.

KJ

April 23rd, 2010
10:32 am

“Coke, New Coke, Coke Classic and Pepsi are nonentites (sic) in my life.”

That’s just super.

Crystal Pepsi, anyone?

DeepSthBoy

April 23rd, 2010
10:51 am

What many of you may also not recall is that once Coke had “re-introduced” Classic Coke, they did NOT pull New Coke from the grocery store shelves. For quite a good bit of time, both products were available, and the combined sales of the two products were greater than the sales of Coke had been before New Coke was introduced. Coke ultimately garnered a slightly higher market share.

I worked for Trust Company Bank at this time and I remember the hoopla that surrounded the intro of New Coke. They had a huge “coming out party” at Woodruff Park downtown, and gave away zillions of free samples of New Coke. I was such a believer in that company at the time, that I was willing to go along with the strategy simply because I figured they new better than we did.

Hard to say now whether the whole thing was some sort of conspiracy or a huge blunder. I know that Roberto Goizueta was a hallowed corporate figure and one of the best this country has seen in the last 100 years. Warren Buffett certainly loved him.

TK

April 23rd, 2010
10:52 am

Webvan. An online grocery store with home delivery. People never abandoned traditional brick and mortar stores. It lost 830 million dollars.
On the flip side witness Blockbuster. Netflix for example, which offers home delivery has eliminated the need for a trip to a traditional store to pick up a movie.

Keith

April 23rd, 2010
11:03 am

Crystal Pepsi
The McDLT

rc35

April 23rd, 2010
11:20 am

At the mini-microeconomic level, the New Coke was a major blunder. My wife was a devout Coke drinker–until the switch. She went to Pepsi and never switched back. In the last 25 years, we’ve bought an awful lot of cola–with a ratio of about 24:1 Pepsi to Coke.

For the commenter who mentioned Macy’s, their biggest gaffe to me was that red star. Every time I see it, I expect to hear the “Internationale” with a voiceover by Stalin or Mao opening with “Comrades”.

Rachel Tobin Ramos

April 23rd, 2010
11:21 am

How about some of the decisions that Bob Nardelli made when he was CEO of Home Depot? I guess, Henry, it took a little longer to reverse those. But the company lost its way with customers when it neglected customer service, at least according to customers and analysts that I’ve talked to.

Jerrod

April 23rd, 2010
11:22 am

We’ve got a satirical take on the New Coke fiasco, as well as another epic soft drink blunder in this episode of Perspectives, San Antonio’s #1 Historical News Program…with puppets!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u3WoRuVOC8

Mike

April 23rd, 2010
11:36 am

The McDLT wasn’t a failure with consumers. The gimmick was that the lettuce and tomato wouldn’t get warm and soggy because it was in a separate container until you were ready to eat it. This required a special double-clamshell box. When McDonald’s dumped all of the foam packaging, the McDLT disappeared.

Anyone remember the “Arch Deluxe?”

They may have finally gotten it right with the latest wave of “premium” sandwiches. The new Angus burgers are good, but I have to be in denial about the salt and fat to consider eating one.

DawgDad

April 23rd, 2010
11:39 am

The premise of your story is baseless. “It seemed like a good idea at the time”? Only if they were COMPLETELY ignoring customer preference. The change was widely advertised ahead of time and was a dud with customers before it was even implemented. Gross arrogance was driving this, and that is timelessly dangerous.

brandi

April 23rd, 2010
12:38 pm

The Great Sugar Shaft
by James Bovard, April 1998

The U.S. government has devotedly jacked up American sugar prices far above world market prices since the close of the War of 1812. The sugar industry is one of America’s oldest infant industries — yet it dodders with the same uncompetitiveness that it showed during the second term of James Madison. Few cases better illustrate how trade policy can be completely immune to economic sense.

The U.S. imposed high tariffs on sugar in 1816 in order to placate the growers in the newly acquired Louisiana territory. In the 1820s, sugar plantation owners complained that growing sugar in the United States was “warring with nature” because the U.S. climate was unsuited to sugar production. Naturally, the plantation owners believed that all Americans should be conscripted into the “war.” Protectionists warned that if sugar tariffs were lifted, then the value of slaves working on the sugar plantations would collapse — thus causing a general fall in slave values throughout the South.

In 1934, the U.S. government imposed sugar import quotas to complement high sugar tariffs and direct government subsidies to sugar growers. By the 1950s, the U.S. sugar program was renown for its byzantine, impenetrable regulations. Like most arcane systems, the sugar program vested vast power in the few people who understood and controlled the system. As author Douglas Cater observed in 1964, “In reviewing the sugar quotas, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Cooley has had the habit of receiving the [foreign representatives interested in acquiring sugar quotas] one by one to make their presentations, then summoning each afterward to announce his verdict. By all accounts, he has a zest for this princely power and enjoys the frequent meetings with foreign ambassadors to confer on matters of sugar and state.”

Sugar quotas have also provided a safety net for former congressmen, many of whom have been hired as lobbyists for foreign sugar producers.

Since 1980, the sugar program has cost consumers and taxpayers the equivalent of more than $3 million for each American sugar grower. Some people win the lottery; other people grow sugar. Congressmen justify the sugar program as protecting Americans from the “roller-coaster of international sugar prices,” as Rep. Byron Dorgan (D.-N.D.) declared. Unfortunately, Congress protects consumers from the roller-coaster by pegging American sugar prices on a level with the Goodyear blimp floating far above the amusement park. U.S. sugar prices have been as high as or higher than world prices for 44 of the last 45 years.

Sugar sold for 21 cents a pound in the United States when the world sugar price was less than 3 cents a pound. Each 1-cent increase in the price of sugar adds between $250 million and $300 million to consumers’ food bills. A Commerce Department study estimated that the sugar program was costing American consumers more than $3 billion a year.

Congress, in a moment of economic sobriety, abolished sugar quotas in June 1974. But, on May 5, 1982, President Reagan reimposed import quotas. The quotas sought to create an artificial shortage of sugar that would drive up U.S. prices and force consumers to unknowingly support American sugar growers. And by keeping the subsidies covert and off-budget, quotas did not interfere with Reagan’s bragging about how he was cutting wasteful government spending.

Between May 1982 and November 1984, the U.S. government reduced the sugar import quotas six times as the USDA desperately tried to balance foreign and domestic sugar supplies with domestic demand.

While USDA bureaucrats worked overtime to minutely regulate the quantity of sugar allowed into the United States, a bomb went off that destroyed their best-laid plans. On November 6, 1984, both Coca Cola and Pepsi announced plans to stop using sugar in soft drinks, replacing it with high-fructose corn syrup. At the drop of two press releases, U.S. sugar consumption decreased by more than 500,000 tons a year — equal to the entire quotas of 25 of the 42 nations allowed to sell sugar to the United States. The quota program drove sugar prices so high that it wrecked the market for sugar — and thereby destroyed the government’s ability to control sugar supply and demand. On January 16, 1985, Agriculture Secretary John Block announced an effective 20 percent cut in the quota for all exporting countries.

Sugar quotas made it very profitable to import products with high amounts of sugar. As a USDA report noted, “The incentive to circumvent restrictions had led to creation of new products which had never been traded in the United States and which were designed specifically for the U.S. market.” On June 28, 1983, Reagan declared an embargo on imports of certain blends and mixtures of sugar and other ingredients in bulk containers. Naturally, businesses began importing some of the same products in smaller containers. The Economic Report of the President noted, “Entrepreneurs were importing high-sugar content products, such as iced-tea mix, and then sifting their sugar content from them and selling the sugar at the high domestic price.” On November 7, 1984, the Customs Service announced new restrictions on sugar- and sweetener-blend imports.

Federal restrictions made sugar smuggling immensely profitable. The Justice Department caught 30 companies in a major sting operation named Operation Bittersweet. Federal prosecutors were proud that the crackdown netted $16 million in fines for the government — less than one-tenth of 1 percent of what the sugar program cost American consumers during the 1980s. The Justice Department was more worried about businessmen’s bringing in cheap foreign sugar than about the sugar lobby’s bribing of congressmen to extort billions of dollars from consumers. (Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, a Washington, D.C., consumer lobby, reported that the sugar lobby donated more than $3 million to congressmen between 1984 and 1989.)

A few thousand sugar growers became the tail that wagged the dog of American foreign policy. Early in 1982, Reagan announced the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) to aid Caribbean nations by giving them expanded access to the U.S. market. In his May 5, 1982, announcement, Reagan promised, “The interests of foreign suppliers are also protected, since this system provides such suppliers reasonable access to a stable, higher-priced U.S. market. In arriving at this decision, we have taken fully into account the CBI.” But between 1981 and 1988, USDA slashed the amount of sugar that Caribbean nations could ship to the United States by 74 percent. The State Department estimated that the reductions in sugar-import quotas cost Third World nations $800 million a year. The sugar program has indirectly become a full-employment program for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, as many poor Third World farmers who previously grew sugar cane are now harvesting marijuana.

The Reagan administration responded to sugar-import cutbacks by creating a new foreign-aid program — the Quota Offset Program — to give free food to countries hurt by reductions. In 1986, the United States. dumped almost $200 million of free food on Caribbean nations and the Philippines. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “By flooding local markets and driving commodity prices down, the U.S. is making it more difficult for local farmers to replace sugar with other crops.” Richard Holwill, deputy assistant secretary of state, observed, “It makes us look like damn fools when we go down there and preach free enterprise.”

The U.S. government’s generosity to sugar farmers victimizes other American businesses. Brazil retaliated against the United States for cutting its sugar quota by reducing its purchases of American grain. In the Dominican Republic, former sugar growers are now producing wheat and corn, thereby providing more competition for American farmers. American candy producers are at a disadvantage because foreign companies can buy their sugar at much lower prices. Since 1982, dextrose and confectionery coating imports have risen tenfold and chocolate imports are up fivefold.

The sugar program has also decreased soybean exports. In the Red River valley of Minnesota, heavily subsidized sugar growers have bid up the rents on farmland by more than 50 percent. As a result, relatively unsubsidized soybean farmers can no longer find sufficient land to grow soybeans, America’s premier export crop. This illustrates how restrictions on imports become restrictions on exports.

The sugar program is corporate welfare in its most overt form. The General Accounting Office estimated that only 17 of the nation’s largest sugar cane farmers received more than half of all the benefits provided by the sugar cane subsidies. GAO also estimated that the 28 largest Florida sugar cane producers received almost 90 percent of all the benefits enjoyed by Florida sugar producers from federal programs.

The number of American jobs destroyed by sugar quotas since 1980 exceeds the total number of sugar farmers in the United States. The Commerce Department estimates that the high price of sugar has destroyed almost 9,000 U.S. jobs in food manufacturing since 1981. In early 1990, the Brach Candy Company announced plans to close its Chicago candy factory and relocate 3,000 jobs to Canada because of the high cost of sugar in the United States. Thanks to the cutback in sugar imports, 10 sugar refineries have closed in recent years and 7,000 refinery jobs have been lost. The United States has only 13,000 sugar farmers.

Many observers expected that, with the Republican Revolution in Congress, the sugar program would be abolished when the new farm bill was written in 1996. Instead, the sugar program’s survival became one of the starkest symbols of that revolution’s collapse. Two-hundred and twenty-three House members cosponsored a bill to get rid of the sugar program; but, when push came to shove, the sugar lobby persuaded several sponsors of the bill (including freshman conservative stalwarts Rep. Steve Stockman [R.-Tex.] and Rep. Sue Myrick [R.-N.C.]) to switch sides. The House voted 217-208 to continue the program.

Environmentalists were anxious about the adverse effects of Florida sugar cane production on the Everglades. Congress did not choose the obvious solution — ending subsides that irrationally encourage sugar production in a fragile area — but instead voted $200 million to clean up the Everglades by buying some of the sugar cane fields from farmers.

There is no reason why the United States must produce its own sugar cane. Sugar is cheaper in Canada primarily because Canada has almost no sugar growers — and thus no trade restrictions or government support programs. Paying lavish subsidies to produce sugar in Florida makes as much sense as creating a federal subsidy program to grow bananas in Massachusetts. The only thing that could make American sugar cane farmers world-class competitive would be massive global warming.

Mr. Bovard is the author of Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (St. Martin’s Press, 1994) and Shakedown (Viking-Penguin Press, 1995).

BOOKS BY JAMES BOVARD

Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State & The Demise of the Citizen (1999)
Shakedown: How the State Screws You from A to Z (1996)
Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1995)
The Fair Trade Fraud (1991)
The Farm Fiasco (1991)

brandi

April 23rd, 2010
12:44 pm

Lying Atlanta Newspapers!

shadow7071

April 23rd, 2010
3:43 pm

Brandi, you research is very interesting. And, I guess that you’re trying to make the case that government limits on sugar cane production had something to do with New Coke? Again, as intriguing as conspiracy theories are, there is there is no smoking gun here. New Coke was a business decision to meet the needs of a changing consumer market. It was a wrong decision. It was corrected. End of story.

hvsteve

April 23rd, 2010
7:53 pm

The reference to Macy’s shows, in my opinion, how you can never overestimate the intelligence of the American consumer.

May Department Stores Inc (MDSI) had spent years going around the country buying up venerable department store chains. By the time they were finished, you couldn’t tell if you were in a Hechts in the south, Robinson-May in the west or Filenes in the northeast unless you saw the store name on a sign. But they never had a consumer revolt because people were still shopping at Filenes or Hechts. MDSI had recently purchased Marshall Fields. The bidding war against Federated (Macys) ended with MDSI paying what some analysts felt was way to much and helped weaken the company to the point where Macys bought them. (CEO Gene Kahn also made some other bad marketing decisions, which helped make the company a loser after years of stellar profits). Fields would have, surely, somewhere down the road, been homogonized into a copy of all the other May stores, but retained the name.

Though Macys has gone through a rough patch, the decision to nationalize the brand will surely pay off. It is much cheaper to buy national ad space and costly promotional events, such as the Thanksgiving Day parade, were wasted on half the country where there were no Macy stores to benefit from the good will.

Ron

April 23rd, 2010
10:34 pm

Today is the 25th anniversary of the introduction of ‘New Coke’. It was envisioned that New Coke would appeal to both loyal Pepsi drinkers as well as loyal Coke drinkers. A product that would position The Coca-Cola Company to rule the cola segment of the soft drink market. This project taught us a lot about our company, leadership, brand, product and our loyal customers and consumers. RIP Charlie.

Steve

April 23rd, 2010
11:25 pm

In the case of Macy’s, for most of the past year Chicago has been it’s #1 growth market. Field’s had long lost it’s luster by the time Macy’s bought the May Company in 2005. Target was it’s final blow as they tried to use the same operating systems that worked great in Mass Merchandising, but not so great in the department store field. Field’s had about 10 high volume stores (out of 60+) that matched Macy’s typical volume. Macy’s expected to take about 10 years to turn that group of stores around but has done it in less than 5. The creation of a national department store under the worldwide recognized name Macy’s has in no way been a fiasco!

brandi

April 24th, 2010
12:57 am

Shadow7071, Really!
Coke switched from sugar cane to corn syrup. In order to make the switch coke with sugar was replaced with new coke. When old coke was brought back it did not contain cane sugar it contained corn syrup. Look at the ingredients on today’s can and compare to a can before new coke. I am sure you can find one on ebay or at the coke museum. Lying Atlanta Newspapers!

brandi

April 24th, 2010
1:06 am

Shadow7071
,
Better yet drop in your local Mexican grocery store. They import real coke (contains cane sugar instead of corn syrup) in glass bottles. Enjoy!

shadow7071

April 24th, 2010
8:45 am

Brandi, the strategic decision behind New Coke had nothing to do with the industry switch from sucrose to HFCS.

Andy

April 24th, 2010
11:38 am

I will give you 2 blunders:

1. Apple created the laser printer but refused to put a parallel port on them so they wouldn’t hook up to IBM compatible PCs thus allowing HP to be created and become the giant it is today.

2. IBM not buying the DOS code from the young punks and allowing them to keep ownership of the code thus allowing for Microsoft to do what it did.

Ricardo Cabeza

April 24th, 2010
11:47 am

Airlines charging extra for checked bags, and now one airline proposing to charge for carry on bags. Huge blunder. The traveling public is saying “enough.”
I predict there will be a retreat from this practice by years end. They may not go away completely, but there will be reductions in the cost as well as exemptions for certain travelers.

alohagator

April 24th, 2010
12:08 pm

Xerox invented the personal computer with a graphical user interface, the mouse and WYSIWYG (the modern computer “desktop”). They gave it away to Apple in a demo.

brandi

April 24th, 2010
1:21 pm

Shadow7071

When did the change take place?

brandi

April 24th, 2010
1:56 pm

The introduction of new coke was a ruse to cover the change in flavor from cane sugar to corn syrup!

Contrary to the Lying Atlanta Newspapers propaganda agenda, cokes move will go down as one of the greatest business moves in history.
The new coke story is a primer to future business students. A few well placed bribes to a few of our congressmen can insure your business success by preventing competition.

Obama and health care would be your current example. Maybe, Henry Unger ,Queens College Graduate will compare the billions in cost to fix the price of sugar with the billions obama will waste on health care!

shadow 7071

April 24th, 2010
1:58 pm

Brandi, your argument is based on your opinion which in turn is based on others knowledge, research and opinion. I don’t have an argument here. I don’t have to.

Erros

April 24th, 2010
3:38 pm

In caso you want to see several marketing mistakes like this – in Brazil – see: http://www.errosdemarketing.com.br

Ken

April 25th, 2010
2:37 am

Atari’s E.T. video game……………millions of cartridges were destroyed and buried in Arizona. I think that qualifies as a great corporate blunder.

MKT 101

April 25th, 2010
9:55 am

This was not a “fiasco”—it was all planned by coke execs to create more buzz for coke “classic” due to the emerging popularity of pepsi for the younger buyers. It’s an old marketing strategy–do what is necessary to create buzz for an old product.

Laughing all the way to the Bank

April 26th, 2010
3:00 am

The funny thing about the so-called fiasco is that the diet version of New Coke is the number 3 Cola in the world today. Yes, Diet Coke has been a huge success for Coke.. Drink up!!

Don Jones

April 26th, 2010
5:02 am

I think “Mission Accomplished” is the Blunder of the Century. Fortunately for the Grand Oil Party, the nation of sheep failed to rise up. The dunderhead that uttered it should be in jail, along with his gang of thugs.

Lefty

April 26th, 2010
12:39 pm

Anyone remember when you had to pay for every minute you were on the internet? AOL tried to move to unlimited dial-up access for a monthly fee and everyone ended up getting nothing but busy signals. It was a good idea, they simply didn’t have the resources to provide the product and everyone ended up angry.