DOCSLIB.ORG

The Grey Matters of Neuromarketing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Grey Matters of Neuromarketing the grey matters of neuromarketing: what is it & why does it work? marketing with your prospects’ “animal brains” in mind separating the “pseudo” from the “science.” “Religion, enlightenment in the fourth grade classroom. Take a few seconds to transport yourself back to fourth grade science class. We realize superstition this may be a less-than-pleasant mental trip for some of you, so we’ll make it quick. and fear were The kid next to you takes on a sickly green color as your teacher passes out the dead frogs. The girls in the next replaced by row are giggling and exchanging notes filled with glitter reason and and gossip. But that’s not the important stuff. The target of our time travel is that poster hanging on the back of knowledge.” the classroom door. The poster, with its bold, glossy colors, shouts: SCIENTIFIC METHOD PURPOSE J. D. Bernal, Marxist RESEARCH historian and scientist HYPOTH… You get the idea. The scientific method: the steps your science teacher had you take to make something scientific. “To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.” Yeah, she said something like that. Put into motion by ancient Egyptians, the deductive Plato and the empirical Aristotle, and then further refined by Arab scholar Alhazen, Galileo, Kepler, Bacon, Descartes and Mill, the scientific method and evidence-based thinking separated the “pseudo” from the “science.” It drew the line between alchemists and chemists, mystics and metrics. It put the sun at the center of the solar system and shined light on the atom. 2 escaping the “dark labyrinth.” Einstein famously stated that we cannot understand the universe without speaking its language: the “triangles, circles and other geometrical figures” that make life tick. If you don’t speak the language, you might as well be “wandering around in a dark labyrinth,” he claimed. Einstein used this “dark labyrinth” to symbolize the futility of physics without quantifiable data and mathematical models, but you don’t have to be a theoretical physicist or quantum mechanic to realize how relevant this analogy is to many aspects of life. You have to speak the language of your subject matter in order to understand it. Just as important, you have to speak the language of your audience in order to connect with and make an impact on them. ©Yousef Karsh 3 putting the science “The rational into marketing. mind is the market to your prospects’ intuitive brains, humble servant, not their rational minds. the intuitive When it comes to marketing your business, you have to speak the language of your brain the sacred prospects. But you must know that this dialect isn’t a purely conscious or tangible one. Not only is this language more emotional than logical, but your prospects are also gift. We have speaking it without even realizing it. And that’s okay. In fact, it’s how things are created a society supposed to work. that honors the It’s not your prospects’ job to know the science of this language. That, my friend, is your job. servant, and has forgotten “It is not the customers’ job to know what they want.” Steve Jobs, co-founder and former chairman/CEO of Apple Inc. the gift.” You have to understand the language of the unconscious, intuitive brain, not the conscious, rational mind. Albert Einstein “The conscious mind is simply not running the show, but we’ve created an entire industry pretending that it does.” Douglas Van Praet, author of Unconscious Branding This unconscious language of the “animal brain” is the language of neuromarketing, and to survive in today’s marketplace, you have to learn, live and love this language. 4 neuromarketing ≠ manipulating minds. This isn’t about using sneaky strategies to control your prospects and customers. Today’s buyer is far too savvy and empowered to fall for marketing manipulations and subliminal advertising that vilified the industry in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Neuromarketing is about understanding the real way your prospects think, decide and purchase – the “rumblings below the cortical surface” – so you can create more likable, more effective and less costly marketing. 5 * “The fact of neuromarketing = smarter marketing. Most business owners, and even marketers themselves, are selling their products and the matter is services without understanding how to connect them with people. anyone can do *Smarter marketing = understanding how your customers’ brains work to get better neuromarketing results with less guesswork and less cost. With the help of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and without ever electroencephalogram (EEG) technology, modern neuroscience is showing us what consumers are really connecting with when they’re making decisions. What’s more, it’s scanning a showing us that consumers’ brains tell quite a different story than the spiel that comes single brain.” out of their mouths. “Our conscious minds are designed to think up stories to try to explain and make meaning of the hidden forces and hardwired Douglas Van Praet, author neural programs that guide our behavior” … of Unconscious Branding In other words, your prospects are making decisions based on underlying brain processes that they’re not even aware of. And then they’re offering up whatever evidence that comes to mind: any reasonable explanation that make their decisions seem logical. In the world of psychiatry, this post-rationalization – “I chose X because of Y.” – is called “confabulation.” … “to believe our lies and confabulations… to hide most of our intentions and promote self-confidence, an adaptive function that improves lives and prevents information overload.” Douglas Van Praet, author of Unconscious Branding Note: You don’t need a big research budget and access to fMRI and EEG machines to take advantage of neuromarketing. All you need is awareness of the research that’s being done and the common sense to apply it to your own marketing. 6 aristotle: “know thyself.” neuromarketers: easier said than done. The visual cortex sees more than meets the eye. Blindsight: the ability to respond to visual stimuli without consciously perceiving them. Studies of individuals blinded by brain damage show that this isn’t just hokey subliminal manipulation. Even with lesions in their primary visual cortex, known as “V1,” they’re able to navigate around obstacles, correctly point to specific targets and reach out and grab strategically placed items – all without conscious knowledge of how they’re doing it. The top neurologists and neurosurgeons in the world admit there is still a lot we don’t fully understand about perception, with neural projections going backward from each level in the visual processing hierarchy outnumbering those going forward. We may not completely understand how blindsight works. But this is not due to lack of neuroscientists’ effort. There are several viable theories based on some pretty compelling research, like the Nature study on macaque monkeys that suggests the boss of blindsight is the lateral geniculate nucleus, which lies in the sensory-relaying thalamus. www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature09179 7 But what visual experts do know is that what was once thought – that perceptions must enter consciousness to affect our behavior – is simply not true. There’s more to the picture than the primary V1 pathway. We have a secondary, more primitive system – V2, V3, V4 and V5 – that feeds directly into our subconscious. What’s the takeaway from this? You need to keep your message consistent and your marketing on point at all times, even when your prospects aren’t paying attention or, more accurately, when they aren’t consciously paying attention. Colors, shapes, messaging, names, logos, etc. – it’s all subject to subconscious storage in your prospects’ emotional brains. So keep it consistent, keep it genuine and keep it remarkable… even when no one’s “watching.” The ventral putamen likes it sweet. You’re probably familiar with the classic Pepsi Challenge: the ongoing blind taste test, first conducted in 1975 by PepsiCo, that consistently puts Pepsi ahead of Coke. Neuroscientist Read Montague re-enacted the Pepsi challenge in 2003, but this time scanning the tasters’ brains with an MRI machine. Just as in the original Challenge, the two carbonated beverages were not labeled. On average, people reported liking the unlabeled Pepsi more. This was backed up by the MRI machine: Pepsi produced a stronger response in the ventral putamen, a brain region associated with reward processing. And even in the minority of subjects who reported preferring the unlabeled Coke, the putamen in their brains was five times less active than it was in the majority who reported preferring the unlabeled Pepsi. The preference for Pepsi has been highly attributed to its sweeter taste. 8 The syrupy scandal. “You would Coke’s response in 1985 led to what Time magazine ranks as #23 on the have thought we list of 50 Worst Inventions Ever and what Advertising Age claimed to be the industry’s sixth worst moment: the product that introduced “the new taste cured cancer.” of Coca-Cola.” Coca-Cola executive, Officially labeled Coca-Cola II in 1992, the new, sweeter beverage gave rise talking about the public’s to a campaign group called “Old Cola Drinkers of America.” The group euphoric of Coke’s original, 99-year-old formula publicly poured the new Coke down drains and, naturally, the media drank it up. Just 77 days after the new formula was introduced, Coca-Cola executives announced the return of the original, 99-year-old formula. ABC News’ Peter Jennings even interrupted General Hospital to share “the second coming” of the old Coke: Coke Classic. Conspiracy theories still bubble up now and again: • Some people swear that the soft drink company purposely changed the formula to upset the public, incite demand for its old product and spike sales.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coke Won the Cola Wars Because Great Taste Takes More Than a Single Sip
    Name: __________________ Date: Economics Mr. Thadhani Coke vs. Pepsi Directions: Answer the following questions after viewing the article. Sweet Sorrow: Coke won the cola wars because great taste takes more than a single sip. By Michael Yglesia The inspired Pepsi Challenge marketing campaign of the 1980s was my childhood introduction to one of the fundamentals of scientific inquiry: the double-blind experiment. In a world beset with soft drink advertising, how could you really know which soda you liked best? Clearly what made sense was to put prejudice and branding aside, don a blindfold, and focus on pure flavor. It was one of the greatest marketing coups of all time. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Pepsi steadily gained on Coke in terms of market share. Characters in the ads always picked Pepsi, of course, but so did most people who tried it in real life—the sweeter taste was more appealing. By 1983, Pepsi was outselling Coke in supermarkets, leaving Coke dependent on its larger infrastructure of soda machines and fast food tie-ins to preserve its lead. That was a success in its own right. But even better, Pepsi forced Coke into an infamous business blunder. Faced with eroding market share, Coke began a series of its own internal taste tests aimed at developing a superior product. Thus was born the dread New Coke, a sweeter cola reformulated to best both Pepsi and the classic formulation of Coke in blind taste tests. The backlash was fast and furious, with over 400,000 letters of complaint pouring in to the company.
    [Show full text]
  • Coca-Cola's Biggest Mistake: Lesson Plan
    Coca-Cola’s biggest mistake Teacher’s notes Teacher’s Key b: Level: Intermediate upwards kosher – from Yiddish and Hebrew – meaning approved or allowed by Jewish laws concerning food Timing: 90 minutes plus faux pas – from French – used to describe something Material needed: One copy of the student embarrassing that you say or do in a social situation worksheets and Vocabulary record per student Group size: Any Teaching and learning strategy: dealing with non-English words in English It is generally quite challenging for students to identify Overview non-English words or phrases that appear in a text. You may do this by simply stumbling over them and This lesson plan for both pre-experience and in-work realizing that they ‘don’t sound English’ or that their business students is based around an article first published pronunciation and spelling patterns aren’t easy to in Business Spotlight Issue 3/2013. The article is about work out (sometimes not even for native speakers!). Coca-Cola and a far-reaching marketing decision the company made in the 1980s. It compares advertising and If you come across words or expressions like this, look them up, find out which language they come market strategies of Coca-Cola and its nearest rival Pepsi, from and how to pronounce them correctly (by and looks at Coca-Cola’s rise and fall in the soft drinks reading the phonetic transcription and clicking on market share. the audio link if there is one). If possible, try to The tasks in the worksheets encourage the students to find out whether they are now commonly used in learn and use new business vocabulary and functional English or whether they were only included in the language, and also to practise useful business skills such text at the whim of the writer.
    [Show full text]
  • Redefining the Rules of Engagement of the Cola Wars
    FW University of Florida Warrington College of Business Administration HONORS THESIS Redefining the Rules of Engagement in the Cola Wars A comparative study of multi-point corporate social responsibility practices as part of an integrated strategy and source of competitive advantage in the soft drink manufacturing industry. Presented by: Frederique Whitaker UF ID: 4104 - 9853 Faculty Advisor: Jennifer Knippen ~ 1 ~ FW Abstract: The Cola Wars commenced over a century ago as Coca-Cola and Pepsi vigorously began fighting for market share in the soft drink manufacturing industry. Today the war continues but the battlefield has expanded beyond the storefront to all the firms’ stakeholders. This thesis seeks to explain the linkages between these two firms' corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices and their respective resources and capabilities, and suggests these linkages could help explain differentials in performance between the two rivals. This result will be achieved through both industry- and firm-level analyses, to identify sources of superior profitability and competitive advantage in The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo, before analyzing each firm's multi-faceted approach to CSR, the linkages between their practices and resources and capabilities and the implications for each firm’s respective performance. This analysis concludes with some future strategy recommendations for these two industry leaders. ~ 2 ~ FW Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Group 8 - STP Case Study Coca Cola Introduction
    Group 8 - STP Case Study Coca Cola Introduction • The Coca-Cola company is the world largest beverage company • The company best known product coca cola was invented by john Stith Pemberton in 1886 • The Coca-Cola formula and brand was bought in 1889 by ASA Candler who incorporated The Coca-Cola company in 1892. • Coca-Cola currently offers nearly 400 brands in over 200 countries or territories and serves 1.5 billion servings each day. • The Coca-Cola company headquarter is in Atlanta, Georgia. • Its current President and CEO is Mukhtar Kent. • With the acquisition of major brands in India, it went on to be known as The Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Market Scenario • Established in 1886, headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia • Based on Interbrand’s best global brand study of 2015, Coca-Cola was the world's third most valuable brand. • Gained an advantage over pepsi when it took over Parle in 1994 • Coca Cola focuses on a diversified product portfolio, both within the beverage industry and has few products outside of that industry Model of Brand Selection Customer buys on value Value equals quality relative price Quality includes all non-price attributes that count in the purchase decisions Product Quality Value Customer Services Price Market Scenario Headings Value Market Shares in % figures(2012-2013) Revenue US$ 44.294 billion (2015) Operating Income US$ 8.728 billion (2015) Coke + Parle Net Income US$ 7.351 billion (2015) Pepsi Total Assets US$ 90.093 billion Pure Drinks (2015) Others Total Equity US$ 25.554 billion (2015) Number of 123,200 (2015) Employees COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS Coke Vs.
    [Show full text]
  • John Sculley in Conversation with David Greelish
    John Sculley: The Truth About Me, Apple, and Steve Jobs Part One Interviewed by: David Greelish Recorded: December 2011 Transcribed by: Julie Kuehl CHM Reference number: X6382.2012 © The Mac Observer, Inc. John Sculley / David Greelish Hi. My name is David Greelish from ClassicComputing.com and I’m a computer historian. I write and produce podcasts about computer history nostalgia. I’m also a huge fan of the Macintosh, Apple Computer, and, of course, Steve Jobs. I am and have been very inspired by Steve. But I’m also a fan of John Sculley and have owned his book for many years. John Sculley has a bad rap. He is blamed for firing Steve Jobs, as well as almost bankrupting Apple. I fell in love with the Mac and Apple in late 1986, while John was at the helm. Thus began my romance with the company, the Mac, and other Apple products, and the culture in being one within the minority of personal computing. A non-DOS, then non- Windows user. A Mac user. It was a few years later that I started studying computer history. I’ve been learning more about the two Steves, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. In recent years, and now after Steve’s death, John Sculley has been very remorseful for his actions surrounding Steve’s departure from the company. I believe that John has been way too hard on himself about this. As he took his position seriously as CEO, took a stand on the decision about the Apple ][, then was essentially forced by Steve to have the board vote between them.
    [Show full text]
  • Pepsi Paradox.Pdf
    Food Quality and Preference xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Food Quality and Preference journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual The Pepsi Paradox: A review ⁎ George Van Doorn , Beyon Miloyan School of Health Sciences and Psychology, Department of Psychology, Federation University Australia, Northways Road, Churchill 3842, Australia ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The Pepsi Paradox refers to the observation that Pepsi is preferred to Coke in blind taste tests, despite Coke being Coca-Cola regarded as the more successful brand. We begin by describing the origins of the Pepsi Paradox. We then outline Coke a neural hypothesis for why it occurs. Next, we carefully assess the published behavioural studies related to the fi Identi cation Pepsi Paradox, and on people’s ability to distinguish colas by taste. We conclude that the existing research has Preference failed to provide sufficient evidence for the existence of the Pepsi Paradox. In fact, there does not even seem to be Taste a consistent taste preference for either beverage in the reviewed studies. Choice Consumer Brand 1. Introduction Pepsi (i.e., the preferred product). In other words, people with lesions to the vmPFC should demonstrate a preference for Pepsi despite the In 1975, PepsiCo launched the Pepsi® Challenge (PepsiCo, 2005). availability of brand information, whereas brand information typically Two unlabelled glasses of cola were presented side-by-side (one con- overrides taste information. taining Pepsi and one containing Coke®), and people were asked to indicate their preferences for each cola following a taste test. PepsiCo 3. Experimental work assessing the Pepsi Paradox noted that people tended to choose Pepsi as the preferred cola.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of Customer Satisfaction Towards the Soft Drink with Special Reference to Pepsi and Coca-Cola
    A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TOWARDS THE SOFT DRINK WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PEPSI AND COCA-COLA INTRODUCTION Pepsi was founded in New York in 1965. It is Producing Non-alcoholic beverage and Food processing items. Pepsi is a carbonated beverage that is produced and manufactured by PepsiCo. It is sold in retail stores, restaurants cinemas and from vending machines. The drink was first made in the 1890s by pharmacist Caleb Bradham in New Bern, North Carolina. The brand was trademarked on June 16, 1903. Pepsi arrived on the market in India in 1988.PepsiCo gained entry to India in 1988 by creating a joint venture with the Punjab government-owned Punjab Agro Industrial Corporation (PAIC) and Volta’s India Limited. This joint venture marketed and sold Lehar Pepsi until 1991, when the use of foreign brands was allowed; PepsiCo bought out its partners and ended the joint venture in 1994. Others claim that firstly Pepsi was banned from import in India, in 1970, for having refused to release the list of its ingredients and in 1993, the ban was lifted, with Pepsi arriving on the market shortly afterwards. These controversies are a reminder of "India’s sometimes acrimonious relationship with huge multinational companies." Indeed, some argue that PepsiCo and The Coca- Cola Company have "been major targets in part because they are well-known foreign companies that draw plenty of attention." Ingredients Pepsi-Cola contains basic ingredients found in most other similar drinks including carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, colorings, phosphoric acid, caffeine, citric acid, and natural flavors.
    [Show full text]
  • New Coke: a Classic Brand Failure
    Ellie Kennedy, Workshop Task: Coke Case Study Inform, 16/07/11 New Coke: A Classic Brand Failure Think of a brand success story, and you may well think of Coca-Cola. Indeed, with nearly 1 billion Coca-Cola drinks sold every single day, it is the world’s most recognized brand. Yet in 1985 the Coca-Cola Company decided to terminate its most popular soft drink and replace it with a formula it would market as New Coke. To understand why this potentially disastrous decision was made, it is necessary to appreciate what was happening in the soft drinks marketplace. In particular, we must take a closer look at the growing competition between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola in the years and even decades prior to the launch of New Coke. The relationship between the arch-rivals had not been a healthy one. Although marketing experts have believed for a long time that the competition between the two companies had made consumers more cola-conscious, the firms themselves rarely saw it like that. Indeed, the Coca-Cola Company had even fought Pepsi-Cola in a legal battle over the use of the word ‘cola’ in its name, and lost. Outside the courts though, Coca-Cola had always been ahead. Shortly after World War II, Time magazine was already celebrating Coke’s ‘peaceful near- conquest of the world.’ In the late 1950s, Coke outsold Pepsi by a ratio of more than five to one. However, during the next decade Pepsi repositioned itself as a youth brand. This strategy was a risky one as it meant sacrificing its older customers to Coca-Cola, but ultimately it proved successful.
    [Show full text]
  • New Coke Marketing Case Study
    New Coke Marketing Case Study The New Coke story in a nutshell In 1985, Coca-Cola completely withdrew their flagship product from the market and replaced it with a “new” Coke in the US and some international markets. This product is often referred to as "New Coke", but the intention of the packaging was to indicate that Coke was new. The product was developed and launched after years of R&D and taste testing and focus groups with consumers. The new flavor outperformed both traditional Coke and Pepsi in market research taste tests. However, within a few days of traditional Coke being withdrawn and replaced by "new" Coke, there was a backlash from consumers and the media, and their brand image was damaged. Many consumers saw Coke as a cultural icon and were angry that it was no longer available. Primarily due to media and consumer lobby group pressure, within 80 days Coke re- introduced “Coke Classic” and offered two Coke variations along with "new" Coke. Today they no longer offer “new” Coke in the US market. The "Traditional" Cola Marketing Environment The Coca-Cola product was the traditional market leader in the cola category. They had achieved success through a strategy of outsourcing manufacturing and logistics to licensed bottlers, strong retailer relationships, and building a very strong brand. In its early years, Pepsi positioned itself as a discounter and sold its product for half the price of Coke in a larger bottle. This positioning had some impact with budget-conscious households and helped Pepsi become the “at-home” drink, while Coke remained the social drink.
    [Show full text]
  • Cola Wars: Coca-Cola Vs. Pepsico
    031-52.Hartley_mk_10e.Ch03 9/28/05 7:00 PM Page 31 CHAPTER THREE Cola Wars: Coca-Cola vs. PepsiCo Intense competition between Pepsi and Coca-Cola has characterized the soft-drink industry for decades. In this chess game of giant firms, Coca-Cola ruled the soft-drink market throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s. It outsold Pepsi two to one. But this was to change. Then the chess game, or “war,” switched to the international arena, and it became a “world war.” EARLY BATTLES, LEADING TO NEW COKE FIASCO Pepsi Inroads, 1970s and 1980s By the mid-1970s, the Coca-Cola Company was a lumbering giant. Performance reflected this. Between 1976 and 1978, the growth rate of Coca-Cola soft drinks dropped from 13 percent annually to a meager 2 percent. As the giant stumbled, Pepsi Cola was finding heady triumphs. First came the “Pepsi Generation.” This advertising campaign captured the imagination of the baby boomers with its idealism and youth. This association with youth and vitality greatly enhanced the image of Pepsi and firmly associated it with the largest consumer market for soft drinks. Then came another management coup, the “Pepsi Challenge,” in which com- parative taste tests with consumers showed a clear preference for Pepsi. This cam- paign led to a rapid increase in Pepsi’s market share, from 6 to 14 percent of total U.S. soft-drink sales. Coca-Cola, in defense, conducted its own taste tests. Alas, these tests had the same result—people liked the taste of Pepsi better, and market-share changes reflected this.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbonating the WORLD the Marketing and Health Impact of Sugar Drinks in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
    CARBONATINg THE WORLD The Marketing and Health Impact of Sugar Drinks in Low- and Middle-income Countries Carbonating the World The Marketing and Health Impact of Sugar Drinks in Low- and Middle-income Countries By Allyn L. Taylor, J.D., LL.M, JSD, and Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D. II Carbonating the World “ Willie Sutton used to say he robbed banks because that is where the money is. Well, we are increasingly global because 95 percent of the world’s consumers are outside this country. It’s that simple.” 1 Roberto Guzieto, CEO (1971), The Coca-Cola Co. This report was written by Allyn L. Taylor, affiliate professor of law at the University of Washington School of Law, and Michael F. Jacobson, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), founded in 1971, is a non-profit health-advocacy organization. CSPI conducts innovative research and advocacy programs in the area of nutrition and food safety and has been particularly concerned about over-consumption of sugar drinks. CSPI is supported by the subscribers to its Nutrition Action Healthletter and foundation grants. Copyright © 2016 by Center for Science in the Public Interest Center for Science in the Public Interest 1220 L Street, NW, Suite 300 • Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 332-9110 • Fax: (202) 265-4954 E-mail: [email protected] • Internet: www.cspi.net III Carbonating the World Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................VI
    [Show full text]
  • Mini Case Study Coca
    Reinier van der Plank UvA: 10122699 (virtual) Organizations in a dynamic context Individual assignment, adaptive cycle case study 15-11-2013 Abstract This case study looks at the adaptive cycle and applies it in a practical case to see how exactly it relates to an actual change process. For this case study, one of the most interesting and important (organizational/commercial) change (failure) is discussed in the shape of the “new Coke” case that happened at the Coca-Cola Company during the 1980’s. Before discussing and applying the adaptive cycle, it is first discussed and taken apart, showing the inner workings of the model. Focus in this case study is showing how the adaptive cycle can be applied, what causes the different phases and transitions in the case of the “new Coke” occurrence and what the current situation of the Coca-Cola company is according to the adaptive cycle. The case study ends by suggesting an addition to the adaptive cycle by adding the concept of “neutralization” at the centre of the model. 1. Introduction In this case study the adaptive cycle of resilience (sometimes referred to as adaptive cycle of change) is discussed within the context of one of the most famous companies in the world: Coca-Cola. As the name suggests, resilience is a very important concept within this model but also used in different fields like psychology and strategic management: “Although the context of the term may change, across all of these fields the concept of resilience is closely related with the capability and ability of an element to return to a stable state after a disruption.
    [Show full text]