USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Discussion 1
Review Case 8 Dr. Pepper Snapple Group 2011: Fighting to Prosper in Highly Competitive Market
“Dr Pepper Snapple Group 2011: Fighting to Prosper in a Highly Competitive Market” Please respond to the following:
· The case study outlines six specific strategies that the firm has chosen to support its strategic direction. Determine which strategy is most likely to benefit the firm. Explain your rationale.
· Briefly outline at least one other strategy the firm could take to support its strategic direction. Illustrate why this new strategy would be successful.
Discussion 2
“Legal Structures” Please respond to the following:
· From the first e-Activity, select the legal structure for a business you would like to start. Provide a rationale for your selection.
· Assume that your best friend is starting a business and wants you to invest. Speculate on which legal structure would make you most comfortable as an investor. Support your response.
Week 6 e-Activities
Visit the IRS Website located at
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Business-Structures
. Take a note on the IRS view about the advantages and disadvantages of various business structures. Then visit the Small Business Administration’s information page on the advantages of different business structures located at
http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/starting-managing-business/starting-business/establishing-business/business-types
. Be prepared to discuss.
Discussion 3
“Ben and Jerry as Social Engineers” Please respond to the following:
· From the second e-Activity, evaluate Ben and Jerry’s strategies and efforts to address its ethics and social responsibilities to the environment. Speculate on why many businesses do not follow Ben and Jerry’s example regarding their responsibilities to the environment. Support your answer.
· Companies have conflicting responsibilities to multiple stakeholders. They need to satisfy shareholders, employees, customers, and the community. Analyze the conflict created when managers are paid bonuses that reflect only bottom-line profit. Propose alternative compensation schemes and support your proposition.
Week 6 e-Activities
·
Watch the video Chapter 11, titled “Ben & Jerry’s” (7 min 39 s), located below. Be prepared to discuss.
http://www.cengage.com/management/webtutor/allen_lnv/video/ch11.html
Universityof Richmond
Robins Case Network Robins School of Business
6-2011
Dr Pepper Snapple Group: Fighting to Prosper In a
Highly Competitive Market
Joseph S. Harrison
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/robins-case-network
Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Economics
Commons, and the Marketing Commons
This Case Study is brought to you for free and open access by the Robins School of Business at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Robins Case Network by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact
scholarshiprepository@richmond.edu.
Recommended Citation
Harrison, Joseph S.
. Case Study. University of Richmond:
Robins School of Business, 2011.
http://robins.richmond.edu/?utm_source=scholarship.richmond.edu%2Frobins-case-network%2F10&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://robins.richmond.edu/?utm_source=scholarship.richmond.edu%2Frobins-case-network%2F10&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://scholarship.richmond.edu?utm_source=scholarship.richmond.edu%2Frobins-case-network%2F10&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://scholarship.richmond.edu/robins-case-network?utm_source=scholarship.richmond.edu%2Frobins-case-network%2F10&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://scholarship.richmond.edu/business?utm_source=scholarship.richmond.edu%2Frobins-case-network%2F10&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://scholarship.richmond.edu/robins-case-network?utm_source=scholarship.richmond.edu%2Frobins-case-network%2F10&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/623?utm_source=scholarship.richmond.edu%2Frobins-case-network%2F10&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/340?utm_source=scholarship.richmond.edu%2Frobins-case-network%2F10&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/340?utm_source=scholarship.richmond.edu%2Frobins-case-network%2F10&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/638?utm_source=scholarship.richmond.edu%2Frobins-case-network%2F10&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
mailto:scholarshiprepository@richmond.edu
Dr
Pepper
Snapple
Group:
Fighting
to
Prosper
In
a
Highly
Competitive
Market
June
2011
Written
by
Joseph
S.
Harrison
under
the
direction
of
Jeffrey
S.
Harrison
at
the
Robins
School
of
Business,
University
of
Richmond.
Copyright
©
Jeffrey
S.
Harrison.
This
case
was
written
for
the
purpose
of
classroom
discussion.
It
is
not
to
be
duplicated
or
cited
in
any
form
without
the
copyright
holder’s
express
permission.
For
permission
to
reproduce
or
cite
this
case,
contact
Jeff
Harrison
at
RCNcases@richmond.edu.
In
your
message,
state
your
name,
affiliation
and
the
intended
use
of
the
case.
Permission
for
classroom
use
will
be
granted
free
of
charge.
Other
cases
are
available
at:
http://robins.richmond.edu/centers/case-‐network.html
1
Larry Young, President and CEO of Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (DPS) seemed to be on a
roll. Named 2010 Beverage Executive of the Year by Beverage Industry Magazine, he led the
company through three very difficult economic years since it separated from the London-based
food and beverage giant Cadbury Schweppes. Reflecting on that time, he chuckled, “There
couldn’t have been a worse year to go public.”1 Triggered by the collapse of mortgage-backed
securities, the recession froze the credit markets and led to unprecedented commodities prices. In
spite of adverse economic conditions and fierce competition, the company managed to obtain
modest growth in sales in 2010.
Perhaps most satisfying of all was the recent turnaround of the Snapple Brand, which had been
struggling for many years.2 Sales volume for the brand grew 10 percent in 2010, fueled by new
products, packages and distribution. In addition, Dr Pepper, Canada Dry, Crush, Mott’s and
Hawaiian Punch all experienced increases in demand. A healthy cash flow allowed the company
to pay down its debt, increase dividends and repurchase shares.
A question remained as to whether the company was simply taking advantage of some fairly
obvious opportunities that it could not pursue when it was under Cadbury Schweppes ownership,
or whether this number three firm could actually begin to prosper in an industry dominated by
two of the strongest brands in the world. After all, although DPS sales were up almost 2 percent
in 2010, profits were lower than in 2009. In comparison, Coca Cola Company experienced
growth in revenues of 13.3 percent in 2010, with operating income increasing by 2.7 percent.
During the same time period, PepsiCo had revenue growth of 33.8 percent and growth in
operating profit of 3.6 percent.
THE DR PEPPER SNAPPLE STORY
The original Dr Pepper soft drink was invented in 1885 by a young pharmacist named Charles
Alderton. At the time, Alderton was working at Morrison’s Old Corner Drug Store in Waco
Texas, which served carbonated soft drinks from a soda fountain. Using that resource, Alderton
began to experiment with his own recipes and soon discovered that one particular drink, referred
to as “the Waco,” was gaining popularity among his customers. As demand grew, Alderton and
Morrison brought in a third partner to help with the manufacture and bottling of the soft drink.
The partner was Robert S Lazenby, owner of the Circle “A” Ginger Ale Company. Alderton left
the business shortly thereafter, but Morrison and Lazenby continued on to form what would
come to be known as the Dr Pepper Company, named after a friend of Morrison. The company
was introduced to the general public in 1904 at the World’s Fair Exposition in St. Louis.
3
From its humble beginnings in Morrison’s Old Corner Drug Store, the company Alderton and
Morrison started has become one of the largest beverage manufacturers in North America. The
current product portfolio of DPS is closely tied to the history of mergers and acquisitions of its
one time parent company, Cadbury Schweppes plc (Cadbury Schweppes). Cadbury Schweppes
emerged in 1969 from the merger of Cadbury plc, a British confectionary and soft drink
company, and Schweppes, an international beverage brand. In the three decades that followed,
Cadbury Schweppes gained the third largest share of the beverage market in North America
through strategic acquisitions. Some notable acquisitions included the Duffy-Mott Company
(later known as Mott’s), Canada Dry, Sunkist, Crush and Sun Drop in the 1980s. In 1993 the
company bought the A&W Brands Squirt and Vernors as well as its signature root beer and
cream soda flavors. Cadbury finally purchased Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc in 1995, in an
2
acquisition that brought Dr Pepper, 7UP, IBC Root Beer and the Welch’s soft drink line into the
company portfolio.
4
In 2000, Cadbury Schweppes acquired the Snapple Beverage Group (Snapple). Snapple had
previously been part of a failed acquisition by Quaker in 1994. The acquisition had been
intended to help Quaker strengthen its beverage division, which included Gatorade at the time.
However, after a failure to successfully integrate the contrasting corporate cultures, Snapple was
acquired by Triarc Companies in 1997, an investment company with a history of purchasing
struggling assets.5 It was from Triarc that Cadbury Schweppes ultimately acquired Snapple.
Three years after the acquisition of Snapple, Cadbury Schweppes combined its four North
American beverage companies—Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Snapple, Mott’s, and Bebidas Mexico—
into Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages (CSAB). By 2006, CSAB had developed a
common vision, business strategy and management structure, as well as establishing its own
bottling and distribution network. Finally in May 2008, under the direction of Larry Young,
CSAB officially spun-off from Cadbury’s confectionary manufacturing division and became
known as Dr Pepper/Snapple Group, Inc (NYSE=DPS).
6
Today, DPS manufactures, markets, and distributes over 50 brands of carbonated soft drinks,
juices, mixers, teas, and other beverages. In addition to Dr Pepper and Snapple brand drinks,
DPS products include Mott’s juices, 7UP, A&W, RC Cola, Squirt, Sunkist soda, Canada Dry,
Schweppes, Hawaiian Punch, Yoo-hoo, and other well-known beverages.7 It has market share of
over 40 percent in the non-cola carbonated soft drink category.
THE COMPANY
Dr Pepper/Snapple Group, Inc (DPS) is a major beverage company with an integrated business
model including brand ownership, bottling, and distribution of nonalcoholic beverages in the US,
Canada and Mexico. The company’s portfolio includes dozens of brands of flavored (non-cola)
carbonated soft drinks and noncarbonated beverages like mixers, juice drinks, and ready-to-drink
teas and juices. Since the spinoff of Cadbury in May 2008 the company has established itself as
the top non-cola carbonated soft drink company in the US, and has maintained the number three
spot in the broader beverage industry in North America.
8
The Management Team
Current DPS management includes seasoned professionals with decades of experience in the
food and beverage industry. Most notable in the organization are president and CEO Larry
Young, chief financial officer Martin Ellen, and President of Packaged Beverages Rodger L.
Collins.9
President and CEO: Larry Young.
Larry Young has been president and CEO of the company since October 2007 and led the
separation of DPS from Cadbury in 2008. Before coming to the company, Young had worked for
more than 25 years in the Pepsi system, where he began as a truck driver and worked his way up
to president and CEO of Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers. In 2005, he joined the Dr Pepper/Seven Up
Bottling Group, again as president and CEO. Young finally joined Cadbury Schweppes in April
2006 when it acquired Dr Pepper/Seven Up.
3
Chief Financial Officer: Martin Ellen.
Martin Ellen joined DPS in April 2010. He has 25 years of experience as chief financial officer
in companies in manufacturing, franchising, distribution and service industries. His previous
appointment was at Snap-on Inc., a manufacturer and marketer of professional tools, equipment
and software. His beverage-industry experience was obtained at Whitman Corporation, owner of
Pepsi Cola General Bottlers, where he helped realign and expand Pepsi bottling territories in the
U.S. and Europe.
President of Packaged Beverages: Rodger L. Collins.
Rodger Collins has been affiliated with the bottling group of Dr Pepper Snapple or its
predecessors for more than 30 years, having survived numerous acquisitions, restructurings and
the spin off of DPS from Cadbury Schweppes. In his current role, he manages a coast-to-coast
sales force and fleet with responsibility for direct-to-store delivery and warehouse distribution.
Board of Directors
As a publicly traded company, DPS management is directed by a Board of Directors chaired by
Wayne Sanders, who served as Chairman and CEO of Kimberly-Clark Corporation until retiring
in 2003.10 As stated in the company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, the responsibility of the
board is to manage the business affairs of the company, including regular evaluation of strategic
direction, policies and procedures, and top management. They must ensure that the company’s
managers act in the best interests of the company and its stockholders and maintain a high level
of ethical conduct.11 In addition to Chairman Sanders, the Board of Directors has eight other
directors, including John Adams formerly of Trinity Industries and Texas Commercial Bank,
Terence Martin former senior vice president and CFO of Quaker Oats, and DPS CEO Larry
Young. 12 (For full information on directors, see Exhibit 1).
Company Strategies
Since it was spun off from Cadbury Schweppes, DPS management has concentrated a great deal
of time and attention on strategy development and implementation. Through focused strategic
development, management has sought to establish itself as a leader in the higher margin
segments of the nonalcoholic beverage industry.
Consistent with this strategic direction, management has established six specific strategies:
• Build and enhance leading brands.
• Focus on opportunities in high growth and high margin categories.
• Increase presence in high margin channels and packages.
• Leverage its integrated business model.
• Strengthen its distribution channels through acquisitions.
• Improve operating efficiency
While most of the strategies are centered on internal development, management is attempting to
broaden its market through continued acquisition activity and contractual agreements with other
organizations.13 Whether internally or externally focused, however, the key to implementing
4
each of these strategies has been a focus on marketing. (For a detailed explanation of DPS
strategies, see Exhibit 2).
Marketing
Shortly after DPS demerged from Cadbury, the economy in the United States began to struggle
and discretionary spending was constricted. As a result, sales in the industry tanked, leading
many companies within the industry to drastically cut marketing budgets. In contrast to the
mainstream reaction, DPS intensified its focus on marketing and advertising. The decision was
based on an analysis of the recession in the early 1980s, performed by Nielson, a major
marketing research company and a partner of DPS. The analysis looked at brands across multiple
consumer categories from 1983 to 1984, and found that the most successful brands all
participated in one common strategy—continued investment in core brands. Consequently, DPS
dramatically increased its marketing budget for its core brands and focused its marketing money
on brand development, availability, and advertising.
14
Brand Development
Despite slow sales in the overall non-cola carbonated soft drink market, many top managers
within the company believe that flavored soft drinks show room for growth. As Young put it,
they believe that while consumers are growing tired of colas, flavored soft drinks are the “sweet
spot” in the industry. By developing its flavored brands like Dr Pepper, Sunkist, and A&W, DPS
believes it has the potential to gain market share over its rivals.15
DPS has made a number of changes to its soft drink brands, including the addition of a new
Green Tea Ginger Ale to the Canada Dry line, the extension of a 7UP line with added
antioxidants, an updated recipe for A&W Root Beer that includes aged vanilla, and the
development of Dr Pepper Cherry, for consumers who prefer a lighter tasting Dr Pepper.16 In
addition to soft drink development, the company participates in investment and development to
recover lost distribution in healthier flavored water and energy drinks. For example, it invested in
Hydrive Energy LLC, a small energy drink maker, and created Snapple Antioxidant water to
compensate for the loss of Vitaminwater to Coca-Cola.17 Also, DPS created Venom, a new
energy drink to recover losses from two previous brands.
18
More than just adding and investing in new product line extensions, DPS also refocused its
efforts related to existing products. The most dramatic change occurred within its Snapple Brand,
which had been struggling before the separation from Cadbury. For instance, in the third quarter
of 2008, Snapple sales had fallen 10 percent, contributing greatly to the company’s 31 percent
drop in profits for that quarter. 19 In response to the drop in sales in 2008, DPS changed
everything about the product—from its packaging and look, to its taste, to the marketing thrust
associated with the brand. The new Snapple included new formulations for its teas to increase
consumer interest, and began to focus on the health benefits of the product. DPS also began to
distribute Snapple juices and lemonades in sleek 16-ounce glass bottles with labels indicating
their health benefits.20 These and other changes paid off, as sales of Snapple actually increased in
2010, in spite of a poor economic climate.
5
Increasing Advertising and Availability
Despite the company’s strong history of brand development, many of its brands, such as Mott’s,
A&W and Canada Dry, had not received any serious advertising investment since the end of the
1990s.21 Beyond developing the brands, the company recognized the need to increase its efforts
in advertising and distribution. Marketing Chief Jim Trebilcock explained the strategy:
We have, in our portfolio, a host of brands that are very trusted, high-quality brands and
at times like these, we believe if we invest in them…we can make a pretty significant
impact on our business moving forward and actually strengthen and position ourselves
for consistent growth when we come out of this economic downturn.22
Most notable among the changes in advertising was the use of celebrities, a strategy that had
worked for Snapple in the late 80s and early 90s.23 In connection with Dr Pepper, DPS’s most
heavily supported brand, the company launched a television commercial campaign including
celebrities like the rapper/producer Dr Dre and Gene Simmons of the rock band Kiss. In the
commercials, the celebrities endorse Dr Pepper by referring to its superior taste and flavor and
then simply stating, “Trust me, I’m a doctor.”
In addition to television commercials, DPS also began to target specific demographic segments
through online viral marketing. In 2009, for example, the entire budget for Sunkist was to be
allocated to a viral campaign targeted towards teenagers and 20 percent of the budget for Dr
Pepper was allocated to Internet advertising. Although this was a fairly significant change
compared to earlier DPS marketing strategies, management believed that reaching out through
the Internet would help the company connect to its markets in a more relevant way.24
To supplement the increase in advertising, DPS also focused more attention on distribution. One
of the major methods for increasing distribution was by investing in coolers, vending machines,
and fast-food fountains containing DPS products. In 2008, DPS added 31,000 fountain
placements in fast-food restaurants throughout the US. In 2009, the company announced that it
would add its products to 14,000 McDonald’s franchises in order to increase its availability in
that chain from 60 to 100 percent. In that same year, the company also outlined a strategy that
would add 175,000 coolers and vending machines throughout the country over a five-year
period.25 Again, Trebilcock commented on the strategy:
If you have people drinking your products at work, at play, when they go into the grocery
store, they’re going to buy that product and take it home with them. So we put a very
strong focus on what we like to refer to as our lower per-cap markets. We beefed up our
marketing there, we’ve made sure we were closing distribution voids, placing cold drink
equipment. Our fountain/foodservice team has done an excellent job of getting Dr Pepper
and some of the other brands on the fountain equipment.26
Other major investments in distribution came in the form of joint ventures with proven
distributers that significantly increased the availability of particular soft drink brands. For
example, agreements with Pepsi Bottling Group in NY and PepsiAmericas in MN more than
doubled the availability of Crush, making it the second best-selling orange-flavored soft drink
behind Sunkist, which DPS also owns.27 Also, DPS signed a $715 million dollar deal in 20
10
that gives Coke the rights to distribute Dr Pepper and Canada Dry in the U.S.28
6
Operations
DPS is headquartered in Plano, Texas, and employs approximately 20,000 people throughout
North America and the Caribbean. It operates 24 production plants and more than 200
distribution centers in those areas.29 Almost all beverage concentrates are produced in a plant in
St. Louis, Missouri. The business model includes both company-owned direct-store-delivery
(DSD) distribution, as well as third-party distribution. Within the model, approximately 40
percent of the company’s volume is distributed through company-owned networks, another 40
percent through third-party distributers in the Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola and independent bottler
systems, and the remaining portion is split between warehouse direct and foodservice
distributors.30
All of the internal DSD distribution is carried out by railroad and truck, operating on a hub-and-
spoke supply chain system with major distribution centers in key areas. The hub-and-spoke
system is set up to provide manufacturing capabilities in all five major US regions—northeast,
southeast, mid-west, southwest, and western. It allows for orders to be filled closer to customers,
increasing customer service and controlling transportation costs. As stated by Joe Rowland,
senior vice president and business unit general manager for the Central and Southeast regions,
DPS has “the ultimate goal of providing better service to the customer, because that will translate
to sales.” 31
A good example of DPS’s operations is its largest hub, which is based in Northlake, IL and
distributes to Chicago and its surrounding areas. The facility is about one million square feet in
size and employs 1,250 people, 750 of which work on-site and the rest in the field. On-site
operations consist of nine manufacturing lines, including plastic bottle, can, and a hot-fill glass
lines for DSD distribution and a bag-in-box line for soda fountains at foodservice locations. Most
of the lines are versatile, allowing for variations in batches, but some also have unique
capabilities. For example, Line 1 produces cold-fill glass and plastic bottles, while the Snapple
line produces hot-fill products. The Northlake facility produces about 220,000 cases of product a
day, which are stored in the company’s 25-dock warehouse until they are loaded onto one of the
140 to 150 truck fleet owned by the facility. 32 In addition to line manufacturing, the facility
utilizes a quality assurance program to check for both internal specifications and external
requirements. DPS works closely with external auditors, such as the American Institute of
Bakers, to ensure that manufacturing and other processes conform to product requirements.
In order to facilitate business operations, DPS makes use of highly integrated information
systems and networks. Prior to 2008, Cadbury Schweppes supplied all IT support and staffing for
DPS. Since the separation, the company has developed completely independent IT operations,
with primary hosting based in Toronto, Canada and two primary vendors for application support
and maintenance outsourced to India.33
Under the leadership of Marty Ellen, CFO, the company has embarked on a program they call
Rapid Continuous Improvement (RPI). According to Marty, “RCI is about excelling at delivering
customer value and improving productivity by eliminating all non-value-adding activities,
thereby enhancing growth opportunities.”34 The company is examining its supply chain,
including innovation, manufacturing, marketing, distribution, and administration, and looking for
ways to increase efficiency, consistent with Six Sigma improvement methods.
7
Financial Performance
Overall, DPS financial performance since the spinoff has exceeded analyst expectations. While
many of the company’s brands experienced moderate-to-high growth in 2010, Sunkist, 7UP and
A&W declined, leading to overall company sales of $5.6 billion, up about 2 percent from 2009.
In spite of the sales increase and measures the company took to increase efficiency, profits were
down approximately 5 percent from the prior year. Nevertheless, the company experienced a
huge loss in 2008, and the economy was very challenging in 2009 and 2010, so financial
performance should be considered in its appropriate context (For detailed financial statements,
see Exhibit 3). The company experienced large increases in cash flows from operations during
2010. The company used the additional cash to increase dividends, pay down debt and buy back
common stock.
THE INDUSTRY
The Dr Pepper/Snapple Group (DPS) competes in the US beverage manufacture and bottling
industry (NAICS: 42119). The industry is made up of about 3,000 companies, including
manufacturers, bottlers and distributers of nonalcoholic beverages. Despite the vast number of
companies in the industry, revenues are highly concentrated. Over 90 percent of the combined
$70 billion in annual revenues are generated by the three largest companies—Coca-Cola,
PepsiCo, and DPS—and their subsidiaries. The major products in the industry are carbonated
soft drinks, including colas and other flavors, bottled waters, juices, and a variety of syrups and
mixes.35
Beverage Consumers and Market Trends
The beverage manufacture and bottling industry is greatly influenced by economic and other
market trends associated with consumers. Factors such as economic stability, consumer tastes
and preferences, commodities prices, and seasonality are of great importance to beverage
company managers, who develop and implement strategies to respond to changes in the industry.
Perhaps the most significant factor influencing food and beverage companies is economic
stability. Since carbonated soft drinks are a discretionary item, sales are considerably impacted
by weakness in the economy. Between 2008 and 2010 the economy was the major problem
facing beverage companies like DPS, Coke and Pepsi. Intensified by the inefficiency and failure
of the securities market, the U.S. found itself in one of the worst recessions in history. As
unemployment rates increased and the credit market froze, consumers significantly reduced
spending. Discretionary spending as a percentage of total consumer spending dropped below
16
percent, lower than it had been for over 50 years.36
As discretionary spending decreased, consumers turned from flavored soft drinks and colas to
less expensive alternatives, including tap water. DPS CEO Larry Young explained the
phenomenon, “Even though the majority of Americans are still working, the fear factor that has
gripped the nation is having a significant impact on consumer psychology” he stated. As a result,
Young suggested that shoppers began to actively seek out good deals, making decisions based on
“product satisfaction and price.”37
8
Along with influencing consumer confidence, the recession significantly increased commodity
prices. Specific to the beverage industry, the prices for aluminum, natural gas, resins, corn, pulp
and other commodities all increased. These types of commodities are used in the production of
beverages, exerting a considerable amount of pressure on industry margins. For instance, the
price of sugar on the U.S. commodity market rose from under 12 cents per pound in 2007 to 37
cents per pound in October of 2010.38
Several other consumer trends influence the beverage manufacture and bottling industry. Factors
such as changes in demographics, health concerns and preferences, changes in lifestyle and
seasonality all influence marketing and distribution methods. One of the most significant trends
affecting the beverage industry is an increased concern about health and wellness. As consumers
reduce caloric intake and look for products richer in vitamins, the less-healthy sectors of the
beverage industry are expected to shrink.39 As soft drink sales decline, however, demand for
healthier alternatives like low or no calorie soft drinks and noncarbonated drinks such as sports
drinks, ready-to-drink teas and flavored and regular bottled water are projected to grow.40
Through 2013, bottled water was projected to grow by 9 percent, ready-to-drink teas by 24
percent, and flavored and functional waters by 71 percent.41
Additional consumer trends of significance to the industry are seasonality and changing
demographics. Relative to seasonality, beverage sales tend to be higher during the summer
months and holidays. Sales are slower during the winter months and fluctuate somewhat with the
weather. With regard to demographics, the most significant changes in the U.S. have to do with
the prevalence of Baby Boomers and growth in the Hispanic population.42
Market Channels
Although the final consumer pulls demand for the beverage industry, beverage companies’ direct
customers are bottlers/distributers and retailers. Building strong relationships with these
customers is an important part of succeeding in the beverage industry.
Bottling and distribution companies buy beverage concentrates from beverage brand companies,
from which they manufacture, bottle, and distribute finished beverages. Additionally, bottlers
manufacture and distribute syrups and mixes used in soda fountains for the foodservice industry.
Major beverage bottling companies include Coca-Cola Enterprises, PepsiAmericas, the Pepsi
Bottling Group, and the Dr Pepper/Snapple Bottling Group. For DPS, a substantial portion of net
sales in beverage concentrates is generated through bottlers not owned by the company. As much
as two-thirds of DPS volume in concentrates is sold to third party bottlers. Some of these are
owned by competitors such as PepsiCo and Coke. In 2010, 71 percent of Dr Pepper volumes
were distributed through Coca-Cola- and PepsiCo-affiliated bottlers.43 Productive relationships
with these bottlers are possible because of the strength and position of the Dr Pepper brand.
Retail companies buy finished beverages from distributers for mass merchandise and sale to the
final consumer. Recent trends in the industry have caused many retailers to consolidate, resulting
in a smaller number of large, sophisticated retailers with more buying power. Major retailers
associated with the beverage industry include Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, SuperValu and
Safeway. In addition to these retailers, beverage manufacturers also depend greatly on
foodservice customers, which buy syrups for fountain drinks. Major foodservice companies
include McDonalds, Burger King, and Yum! Brands like KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell.44
9
The Competition
The beverage manufacture and bottling industry is highly competitive and constantly shifting to
respond to changes in consumer tastes and preferences. Competitive position is most effectively
attained through brand recognition, based on factors such as price, quality, taste, selection, and
availability. Major competitors in the manufacturing segment include the Coca-Cola Company
(Coke), PepsiCo, Inc. (Pepsi), Nestlé, S.A., and Kraft Foods, Inc. Major competitors in the
bottling and distribution segment include Coca-Cola Enterprises, Pepsi Bottling Group, and
numerous smaller bottlers and distributors.45
Relative to the competition, DPS is the third largest beverage business in North America, behind
Coke and Pepsi, who collectively account for 63 percent of the sales in the industry.46 According
to analysts, part of the reason that DPS is so much smaller than its competitors in the U.S. can be
attributed to the spinoff of DPS from Cadbury in 2008. Taking advantage of the company’s
position post spinoff, Coke and Pepsi had a significant head start on acquiring healthier juices,
teas, and enhanced waters. Analysts suggest that DPS had insufficient resources at the time to
keep up with competing acquisitions.47
Besides problems gaining overall market share in the U.S., DPS has also had difficulty
competing internationally. The company generates about 89 percent of its revenues in the U.S.
market, 80 percent of which comes from carbonated soft drinks. In comparison, Coke collects
about 74 percent of its sales outside of North America, and Pepsi generates over 40 percent of its
sales internationally. Still, DPS management has expressed an intention to maintain its focus on
North America.48
In general, while DPS has strong brands and distribution, the company has struggled to compete
head-to-head with industry leaders Coke and Pepsi. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, the Coca-Cola
Company (Coke) is the largest manufacturer, distributer, and marketer of nonalcoholic beverage
concentrates and syrups in the world. Coke markets four of the world’s top five carbonated soft
drinks—Coca-Cola, named the world’s most valuable brand, Diet Coke, Fanta and Sprite. Coke
also owns and licenses nearly 500 other brands, including diet and light beverages, enhanced
waters, juice drinks, teas, coffees, and sports and energy drinks. Coke is primarily a brand owner
and manufacturer, selling its concentrates and syrups to bottling and canning companies,
fountain wholesalers and retailers, and distributers.49
As outlined on its company website, the three-phase mission of Coke is “to refresh the world, to
inspire moments of optimism and happiness, and to create value and make a difference.”50
Consistent with its mission statement, Coke maintains an international focus, marketing and
distributing its products in over 200 countries throughout the world.51 To facilitate its
international focus, Coke spends a significant amount of capital on technological development
and marketing. For example, Coke introduced a new fountain beverage machine that used
“micro-dosing” technology to dispense over 120 beverages from one machine. The machine
takes up the same space as the eight-valve machine currently being used by foodservice
businesses.52 The combination between international sales, technology development and
marketing has made Coke one of the most widely recognized and profitable companies in the
world. (For selected financial data on the Coca-Cola Company, see Exhibit 4)
10
PepsiCo, Inc., another huge DPS competitor, is based in North Carolina and is a global leader in
beverage, snack and food manufacture and distribution. Pepsi is divided into three major
business units—PepsiCo Americas Foods, PepsiCo Americas Beverages, and PepsiCo
International. These business units manufacture, market and sell a variety of convenient, salty,
sweet and grain-based snacks, carbonated soft drinks and noncarbonated beverages, and other
foods in approximately 200 countries throughout the world. Some of the company’s key brands
include its flagship Pepsi, Pepsi One and Diet Pepsi, Mug, Mountain Dew, Sierra Mist, Frito-
Lay, Doritos, Cheetos, Tostitos, Sunchips, SoBe and SoBe Lifewater, Propel, Quaker, and
Tropicana. Pepsi also holds licenses to use trademarks for many valuable products, including
Lipton, Starbucks, Dole and Ocean Spray.53
Pepsi’s goal is to be the world’s best consumer products company in convenient foods and
beverages. The company seeks to accomplish its goal by producing “financial rewards to
investors as we provide opportunities for growth and enrichment to our employees, our business
partners and the communities in which we operate.” An important part of Pepsi’s mission
statement is its socially responsible approach, concentrating on improving all aspects of the
world in which it operates—the environment, societies, and economies.54 The company puts its
vision into action through meeting consumer needs, environmental stewardship initiatives,
society benefits, employee support and organizational programs, and operations that increase
shareholder value.55
Like Coke, Pepsi strategies maintain an international focus and include improvements in product
development and marketing. The company has recently made significant changes to packaging,
redesigning Pepsi brand products, Sierra Mist and others. Additionally, Pepsi introduced a new
advertising campaign that put a modern twist on the “Pepsi Generation” campaign used in the
60s. The campaign combined footage from the old advertisements with current images to express
the new tagline “Every Generation Refreshes the World.” 56 By focusing on social responsibility
and diversifying its brand and product portfolio, Pepsi has become one of the most successful
global food and beverage companies in history. (For selected financial data on the PepsiCo, Inc.,
see Exhibit 4)
NEXT MOVES
Moving into 2011, Larry Young had many decisions to make. While he was pleased by the
performance of many of the company’s individual brands, Young knew that he needed to cut
costs in order to improve profit margins. However, DPS could not afford to make any cuts that
would damage its strong brands or push away consumers. Furthermore, his rivals, Coke and
PepsiCo, were experiencing much higher performance levels than DPS and were not going to
stand still. How can the company continue to grow at levels that will satisfy shareholders? To
what extent should acquisitions, joint ventures, licensing agreements, and/or internal growth
tactics be pursued? Should DPS diversify into other product markets? What other growth options
are available to the company? Should any products or brands be divested? Young had a lot to
think about.
11
EXHIBIT 1: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Wayne R. Sanders
Chairman
Mr. Sanders has served as a director since May 2008 and is Chairman of the Board of Directors and chairman of the
nominating and corporate governance committee. Mr. Sanders served as the Chairman and the Chief Executive
Officer of Kimberly-Clark Corporation from 1992 until his retirement in 2003. Mr. Sanders currently serves on the
boards of directors of Texas Instruments Incorporated and Belo Corp. He previously served on the board of directors
of Adolph Coors Company. Mr. Sanders is also a National Trustee and Governor of the Boys & Girls Club of
America and was a member of the Marquette University Board of Trustees from 1992 to 2007, serving as Chairman
from 2001 to 2003.
Larry D. Young
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Larry Young is president and chief executive officer for Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (NYSE: DPS), one of the
world’s leading beverage companies. Larry was named president and chief executive officer in October 2007 after
serving as president and chief operating officer for the company’s Bottling Group division and led the spinoff of Dr
Pepper Snapple Group from Cadbury Schweppes plc in May 2008. Larry joined the company in April 2006 through
its full acquisition of Dr Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Group, where he had been president and CEO since 2005. As
head of operations, he played a central role in helping to create a new business model for a fully integrated beverage
company. In his 30-year career, Larry has produced and sold virtually every type of beverage in the Americas and
across Europe and Russia. He previously served more than 25 years in the Pepsi system, most recently with
PepsiAmericas and before that with Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers, where he began on a route truck and worked his
way to President and Chief Operating Officer.
John L. Adams
Director
Mr. Adams has served as a director since May 2008. Mr. Adams served as Executive Vice President of Trinity
Industries, Inc. from January 1999 to June 2005 and held the position of Vice Chairman from July 2005 to March
2007. Prior to joining Trinity Industries, Mr. Adams spent 25 years in various positions with Texas Commerce
Bank, N.A. and its successor, Chase Bank of Texas, National Association. From 1997 to 1998, he served as
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Chase Bank of Texas. Mr. Adams currently serves on the boards of
directors of Trinity Industries, Inc. and Group 1 Automotive, Inc., where he has served as chairman since April
2005. He previously served on the boards of directors of American Express Bank Ltd. and Phillips Gas Company.
Terence D. Martin
Director
Mr. Martin has served as a director since May 2008 and serves as chairman of the audit committee. Mr. Martin
served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Quaker Oats Company from 1998 until his retirement
in 2001. From 1995 to 1998, he was Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of General Signal
Corporation. Mr. Martin was Chief Financial Officer and Member of the Executive Committee of American
Cyanamid Company from 1991 to 1995 and served as Treasurer from 1988 to 1991. Since 2002, Mr. Martin has
served on the board of directors of Del Monte Foods Company and currently serves as the chairman of its audit
committee.
12
Pamela H. Patsley
Director
Ms Patsley has served as a director since May 2008. Ms. Patsley served as Senior Executive Vice President of First
Data Corporation from March 2000 to October 2007 and President of First Data International from May 2002 to
October 2007. She retired from those positions in October 2007. From 1991 to 2000, she served as President and
Chief Executive Officer of Paymentech, Inc., prior to its acquisition by First Data. Ms. Patsley also previously
served as Chief Financial Officer of First USA, Inc. Ms. Patsley currently serves on the boards of directors of
Molson Coors Brewing Company and Texas Instruments Incorporated, and she is the chair of the audit committee of
Texas Instruments Incorporated.
Ronald G. Rogers
Director
Mr. Rogers has served as a director since May 2008. Mr. Rogers has served in various positions with Bank of
Montreal between 1972 and 2007. From 2002 to 2007, he served as Deputy Chair, Enterprise Risk & Portfolio
Management, BMO Financial Group and from 1994 to 2002, he served as Vice Chairman, Personal & Commercial
Client Group. Prior to 1994, Mr. Rogers held various executive vice president positions at Bank of Montreal.
Jack L. Stahl
Director
Mr. Stahl has served as a director since May 2008 and serves as chairman of the compensation committee. Mr. Stahl
served as Chief Executive Officer and President of Revlon, Inc. from February 2002 until his retirement in
September 2006. From February 2000 to March 2001, he served as President and Chief Operating Officer of The
Coca-Cola Company and previously served as Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of The Coca-Cola
Company’s North America Group and Senior Vice President of The Coca-Cola Company’s Americas Group. Mr.
Stahl currently serves on the board of directors of Schering-Plough Corporation.
M. Anne Szostak
Director
Ms. Szostak has served as a director since May 2008. Since June 2004, Ms. Szostak has served as President and
Chief Executive Officer of Szostak Partners LLC, a consulting firm that advises executive officers on strategic and
human resource issues. From 1998 until her retirement in 2004, she served as Executive Vice President and
Corporate Director — Human Resources and Diversity of FleetBoston Financial Corporation. She also served as
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Fleet Bank — Rhode Island from 2001 to 2003. Ms. Szostak currently is a
director of Belo Corp., ChoicePoint, Inc., Tupperware Brands Corporation and Spherion Corporation, where she
serves as chair of the compensation committee.
Mike Weinstein
Director
Mr. Weinstein was elected as a director in February 2009. Mr. Weinstein is a co-founder of INOV8, which
specializes in developing and commercializing innovative beverage products such as HYDRIVE energy drink. Mr.
Weinstein served as president and chief operating officer of A&W Brands, Inc., in the early ’90s and later as chief
executive officer of Snapple Beverage Group, which was acquired by Cadbury Schweppes in 2000. During his
career, he also has overseen such brands as RC Cola, Squirt, Mistic, Stewart’s and Vernor’s and has led global
innovation and business development teams. Mr. Weinstein was named to Beverage World magazine’s Hall of Fame
in 2000 and received Beverage Digest’s prestigious “Visionary Award” in 2004.
Source: 2011, Board of directors, http://investor.drpeppersnapple.com/directors.cfm, March 3.
13
EXHIBIT 2: STRATEGY
The key elements of our business strategy are to:
Build and enhance leading brands. We use an on-going process of market and consumer
analysis to identify key brands that we believe have the greatest potential for profitable sales
growth. We intend to continue to invest most heavily in these key brands to drive profitable and
sustainable growth by strengthening consumer awareness, developing innovative products and
brand extensions to take advantage of evolving consumer trends, improving distribution and
increasing promotional effectiveness.
Focus on opportunities in high growth and high margin categories. We are focused on
driving growth in our business in selected profitable and emerging categories. These categories
include ready-to-drink teas, energy drinks and other functional beverages. We also intend to
capitalize on opportunities in these categories through brand extensions, new product launches
and selective acquisitions of brand and distribution rights.
Increase presence in high margin channels and packages. We are focused on improving our
product presence in high margin channels, such as convenience stores, vending machines and
small independent retail outlets, through increased selling activity and investments in coolers and
other cold drink equipment. We also intend to increase demand for high margin products like
single-serve packages for many of our key brands through increased promotional activity and
innovation.
Leverage our integrated business model. We believe our integrated brand ownership, bottling
and distribution business model provides us opportunities for net sales and profit growth through
the alignment of the economic interests of our brand ownership and our bottling and distribution
businesses. We intend to leverage our integrated business model to reduce costs by creating
greater geographic manufacturing and distribution coverage and to be more flexible and
responsive to the changing needs of our large retail customers by coordinating sales, service,
distribution, promotions and product launches.
Strengthen our route-to-market through acquisitions. The acquisition and creation of our
Bottling Group is part of our longer-term initiative to strengthen the route-to-market for our
products. We believe additional acquisitions of regional bottling companies will broaden our
geographic coverage and enhance coordination with our large retail customers.
Improve operating efficiency. We believe our recently announced restructuring will reduce our
selling, general and administrative expenses and improve our operating efficiency. In addition,
the integration of recent acquisitions into our Bottling Group has created the opportunity to
improve our manufacturing, warehousing and distribution operations.
Source: 2011, Strategy, http://investor.drpeppersnapple.com/index.cfm?pagesect=strategy, March11.
14
EXHIBIT 3: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP
DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2010 , 2009 and 2008
For the Year Ended December 31,
2010 2009 2008
(In millions, except per share data)
Net sales $ 5,636 $ 5,531 $ 5,710
Cost of sales 2,243 2,234 2,590
Gross profit 3,393 3,297 3,120
Selling, general and administrative expenses 2,233 2,135 2,075
Depreciation and amortization 127 117 113
Impairment of goodwill and intangible assets — — 1,039
Restructuring costs — — 57
Other operating expense (income), net 8 (40) 4
Income (loss) from operations 1,025 1,085 (168)
Interest expense 128 243 257
Interest income (3) (4) (32)
Loss on early extinguishment of debt 100 — —
Other income, net (21) (22) (18)
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes and
equity in earnings of unconsolidated subsidiaries 821 868 (375)
Provision for income taxes 294 315 (61)
Income (loss) before equity in earnings of
unconsolidated subsidiaries 527 553 (314)
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated subsidiaries, net of
tax 1 2 2
Net income (loss) $ 528 $ 555 $ (312)
Earnings (loss) per common share:
Basic 2.19 2.18 (1.23)
Diluted 2.17 2.17 (1.23)
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
Basic 240.4 254.2 254.0
Diluted 242.6 255.2 254.0
Cash dividends declared per common share 0.90 0.15 —
15
DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
As of December 31, 2010 and 2009
December 31, 2010 December 31, 2009
(In millions except share and per share data)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $ 315 $ 280
Accounts receivable:
Trade, net 536 540
Other 35 32
Inventories 244 262
Deferred tax assets 57 53
Prepaid expenses and other current assets 122 112
Total current assets 1,309 1,279
Property, plant and equipment, net 1,168 1,109
Investments in unconsolidated subsidiaries 11 9
Goodwill 2,984 2,983
Other intangible assets, net 2,691 2,702
Other non-current assets 552 543
Non-current deferred tax assets 144 151
Total assets $ 8,859 $ 8,776
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued expenses $ 851 $ 850
Deferred revenue 65 —
Current portion of long-term obligations 404 —
Income taxes payable 18 4
Total current liabilities 1,338 854
Long-term obligations 1,687 2,960
Non-current deferred tax liabilities 1,083 1,038
Non-current deferred revenue 1,515 —
Other non-current liabilities 777 737
Total liabilities 6,400 5,589
Commitments and contingencies
Stockholders’ equity:
Preferred stock, $.01 par value, 15,000,000 shares authorized, no
shares issued — —
Common stock, $.01 par value, 800,000,000 shares authorized,
223,936,156 and 254,109,047 shares issued and outstanding for
2010 and 2009, respectively 2 3
Additional paid-in capital 2,085 3,156
Retained earnings 400 87
Accumulated other comprehensive loss (28) (59)
Total stockholders’ equity 2,459 3,187
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $ 8,859 $ 8,776
16
DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC.
SEGMENT RESULTS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2010 and 2009
For the Year Ended
December 31,
2010 2009
Net sales
Beverage Concentrates $ 1,156 $ 1,063
Packaged Beverages 4,098 4,111
Latin America Beverages 382 357
Net sales $ 5,636 $ 5,531
Segment operating profit (SOP)
Beverage Concentrates $ 745 $ 683
Packaged Beverages 536 573
Latin America Beverages 40 54
Total SOP 1,321 1,310
Unallocated corporate costs 288 265
Other operating expense (income), net 8 (40)
Income from operations $ 1,025 $ 1,085
Interest expense, net 125 239
Loss on early extinguishment of debt 100 —
Other income, net (21) (22)
Income before provision for income taxes and
equity in earnings of unconsolidated subsidiaries $821 $868
Source: Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. 2010 Report 10-K
17
EXHIBIT 4: SELECTED COMPETITOR FINANCIAL DATA (in millions)
Coca-Cola Company and Subsidiaries
Year Ended December 31, 2010 2009 2008
Net Operating Revenues $ 35,119 $ 30,990 $ 31,944
Cost of Goods Sold 12,693 11,088 11,374
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses 13,158 11,358 11,774
Other Operating Charges 819 313 350
Operating Income 8,449 8,231 8,446
Net Income After Taxes 11,809 6,824 5,807
Total Current Assets 21,579 17,551 12,176
Total Assets 72,921 48,671 40,5
19
Total Current Liabilities 18,508 13,721 12,988
Total Long Term Debt and Other Liabilities 23,096 9,604 7,059
Total Equity 31,317 25,346 20,472
Note: Much of the difference between operating income and net income in 2010 is attributable to a gain from
reclassifying the value of the company’s previous investment in a business it acquired during the year. The
acquisition is also reflected by the large increase in total assets in 2010.
PepsiCo, Inc.
Fiscal Years Ended December xx, 26 and 27 2010 2009 2008
Net Operating Revenues $ 57,838 $ 43,232 $ 43,251
Cost of Goods Sold 26,575 20,099 20,351
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses 22,814 15,026 15,877
Amortization of Intangible Assets 117 63 64
Operating Profit 8,332 8,044 6,959
Net Income After Taxes 6,320 5,946 5,142
Total Current Assets 17,569 12,571 10,806
Total Assets 68,153 39,848 35,994
Total Current Liabilities 15,892 8,756 8,787
Total Long Term Debt and Other Liabilities 30,785 13,650 14,625
Total Equity 21,476 17,442 12,582
Sources: Coca-Cola Company 2009 and 2010 Report 10-K; PepsiCo, Inc. 2009 and 2010 Annual Reports.
18
1 S. Theodore, 2009. DPS puts the flavor back in CSDs. Beverage Industry, July 15, 16-18.
2 K.E. Grace, 2009. Dr Pepper profit rises but Snapple business continues to suffer. The Wall Street Journal, May
14, B10.
3 M. Bellis, 2009. The history of Dr Pepper, About.com, http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bldrpepper.htm,
November 27.
4 2009, Company history, Dr Pepper Snapple Group,
http://investor.drpeppersnapple.com/index.cfm?pagesect=history, November 22.
5 J. Deighton, 2003. Snapple. Boston: Harvard Business Publishing.
6 2009, Company history, Dr Pepper Snapple Group,
http://investor.drpeppersnapple.com/index.cfm?pagesect=history, November 27.
7 Ibid.
8 Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. Annual Report 2010.
9 2011, Leadership team, Dr Pepper Snapple Group, http://investor.drpeppersnapple.com/management.cfm, March 3
10 2009, Board of directors. Dr Pepper Snapple Group, http://investor.drpeppersnapple.com/directors.cfm, March 3.
11 2009, Corporate governance guidelines. Dr Pepper Snapple Group,
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/DPSG/783586250x0x274076/72e046bf-1115-42c0-bcad-
677a33841a9b/DPS_WebDoc_5432 , December 14.
12 2009, Board of Directors, Dr Pepper Snapple Group, http://investor.drpeppersnapple.com/directors.cfm,
November 27.
13 2009, Strategy, Dr Pepper Snapple Group, http://investor.drpeppersnapple.com/index.cfm?pagesect=strategy,
December 14.
14 N. Zmuda, 2009. Dr Pepper ups marketing spend, readies for growth. Advertising Age, 80(16), May 4, 18.
15 P. Ziobro, 2010. Dr Pepper sees sticky prices sweetening profits. Wall Street Journal, December 28, B1.
16 S. Theodore, 2009. DPS puts the flavor back in CSDs. Beverage Industry, 100(7), July 15, 16-18.
17 B. Mckay, 2008. Dr Pepper gets stake in energy drink. The Wall Street Journal, July 25, B11.
18 S. Theodore, 2009. DPS puts the flavor back in CSDs. Beverage Industry, 100(7), July 15, 16-18.
19 2011, A snappier look for Snapple. Progressive Grocer, November 28, 2008,
http://www.progressivegrocer.com/progressivegrocer/content_display/features/beverage/e3i87155f066147ca396666
a26fc9517c42, November 28, April 7.
20 Ibid.
21 N. Zmuda, Dr Pepper ups marketing spend.
22 Ibid, 18.
23 Deighton, Snapple.
24 N. Zmuda, Dr Pepper ups marketing spend.
25 Theodore, DPS puts the flavor back.
26 Ibid, 17.
27 Theodore, DPS puts the flavor back.
28 2010, FTC approves Coke’s bottler deal, Wall Street Journal Online Edition,
http://search.proquest.com/docview/755056266?accountid=14731, September 27.
29 2009, Company history. Dr Pepper Snapple Group,
http://investor.drpeppersnapple.com/index.cfm?pagesect=history, November 27.
30 Theodore, DPS puts the flavor back.
31 S. Scott, 2009. Plant focus: Plant transitions to a DPS hub. Beverage Industry, July 15, 100(7), 20-22.
32 Ibid.
33 Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. 2009 Annual Report
34 Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. 2010 Annual Report,10.
35 2009, Industry profile: Beverage manufacture and bottling. First Research Online,
http://newman.richmond.edu:2541/industry.aspx?chapter=0&pid=164, November 27.
36 B. Mckay & K.E. Grace, 2009. Dr Pepper’s outlook juiced by value drinks. The Wall Street Journal, March 27,
B3.
37 Ibid, B3.
38 T. Graves & E.Y. Kwon, 2009. Industry Surveys: Foods & Nonalcoholic Beverages. New York: Standard &
Poor’s.
39 J. Rivkin, 2009. Refreshingly Healthy. Contract Manufacturing & Packaging. August 24, 12-14.
19
40 Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. 2009 Annual Report
41 Rivkin, Refreshingly healthy.
42 Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. 2009 Annual Report
43 Dr Pepper Snallple Group, Inc. 2010 Annual Report, 6.
44 Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. 2009 Annual Report
45 Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. 2009 Annual Report
46 Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. 2010 Annual Report, 8.
47 E. Ody, 2008. Dr Pepper: Strong Brand, Cheap Stock, Kiplinger.com,
http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/picks/archive/2008/pick0521.htm, December 2009
48 Ibid.
49 Coca-Cola Company 2009 Annual Report
50 2009, Our company: Mission, vision & values, Coca-Cola Company, http://www.thecoca-
colacompany.com/ourcompany/mission_vision_values.html, December 15.
51 S. Theodore, 2009. Category focus: 2009 Soft drink report. Beverage Industry, 100(3), March 15, 16-22.
52 Ibid.
53 PepsiCo, Inc. 2010 Annual Report
54 2009, Company: Our mission and vision, PepsiCo, Inc., http://www.pepsico.com/Company/Our-Mission-and-
Vision.html, December 15.
55 PepsiCo, Inc. 2009 Annual Report
56 Theodore, Category focus, 20.
DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP: FIGHTING TO PROSPER IN A HIGHLY
COMPETITIVE MARKET
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages for a company from
being part of a multinational conglomerate like Cadbury as opposed to being
an independent company?
2. Are there any advantages to being a number 3 firm in an industry?
3. What is Dr Pepper Snapple’s (DPS) business strategy? How well is it
working?
4. What resources does DPS possess that give it a competitive advantage, if any?
What should the company focus on in the future to develop resources that
will lead to a sustainable competitive advantage?
5. Are DPS brands different enough to require a different approach to the
market for each one? What synergies does the company enjoy across its
brands?
6. Based on his background, is Larry Young the right person to be leading DPS
right now? Why or why not? What are the advantages and disadvantages of
having a CEO who has spent his/her whole career in the industry?
7. What are the major trends influencing the beverages industry right now? Is
DPS well positioned to take advantage of these trends?
8. Do you believe DPS will perform better in the future by forming more
cooperative alliances with the top two competitors or by taking them head
on?
9. Should any of the DPS brands be divested? Should DPS diversify into other
products? If so, which ones and why?
- University of Richmond
- DrPepper
- DrPepperDiscuss
UR Scholarship Repository
6-2011
Dr Pepper Snapple Group: Fighting to Prosper In a Highly Competitive Market
Joseph S. Harrison
Recommended Citation
