
The New Faces of Coke - newtonapple
https://medium.com/the-death-of-the-sugar-industry/the-new-faces-of-coke-62314047160f
======
jobu
There definitely are some shady endorsements happening here, but I really
don't see a problem with this one:

 _“Sometimes only the real thing will do when it comes to soda, so I am a big
fan of the new Coke mini can! It is real soda classic, but it’s in a cute
portion-controlled can that keeps my bubbly treat to only 90 calories!”_ \-
Sarah Bedwell

I would argue that this is actually the kind of endorsement we should be
encouraging. It re-frames a soda as a treat that should be consumed in
moderation instead of guzzled from a supersized bucket. Ice cream is worse
than soda, but it doesn't get nearly the negative attention because everyone
knows it's an unhealthy treat.

~~~
CyberDildonics
The thing is that isn't what happens and Coke knows that.

First they can sell the smaller cans for more money for the same amount, which
doesn't matter from cost of making it, but does matter to the amount someone
will consume.

It's the same rationale behind 99% payouts of slot machines in the casino. It
just allows someone to play longer.

Soda is loaded with sugar and nothing else. It has to be extreme moderation to
not have an effect on someone's health (relative to what we think of as normal
now). Coke is trying to reframe soda as somehow ok.

One way to do that is to have small cans and say 'no problem they cans are
obviously tiny'. Someone will buy them and drink as much as they want anyway
because what they want isn't to take a long term view of their health, they
want a rationalization. That is what Coke is offering and it does happen to be
what people want.

~~~
Elepsis
It seems like you're suggesting that people are buying the small cans of Coke
based on endorsements like this one, and then chugging three cans in one go to
make up for the super-sized drink they'd otherwise have gotten.

What exactly is that assumption based on?

It's been abundantly demonstrated that smaller servings do help people follow
through on efforts to reduce their food intake. I don't see any reason Coke
should be different.

------
joe5150
"When you’re watching your favorite Food Network show and Coca-Cola is used as
an ingredient, do you know that Coke is paying the chef? It never occurred to
me."

Why wouldn't it occur to someone that a brand-name product used on television
has been paid for? Especially when every other product used has been
conspicuously genericized, labels covered up and whatnot.

Also Coca-Cola as a glaze for food doesn't strike me as particularly better or
worse than using barbecue sauce or ketchup or anything of the other sugary
things we eat every day.

~~~
batbomb
The striking thing is this:

    
    
        virginia willis and 9 others recommended
    

The author actually misspelled the name in the article (it's Willis, not
Wills, as it appears in the article)

Also, Coke has been around as an ingredient for a long time in BBQ because BBQ
sauce has to have... sugar.

~~~
snappy173
"Also, Coke has been around as an ingredient for a long time in BBQ because
BBQ sauce has to have... sugar."

and acidity. it's kind of perfect.

~~~
wonkaWonka
From now on, I shall think of coca-cola forever as a BBQ precursor substance.

~~~
zappo2938
They have been marinating ribs in coke overnight in places like the Caribbean
now for decades. We were doing it in the mid nineties and I always thought it
was a traditional recipe. One night in coke, then another night in a Jack
Daniels BBQ sauce, makes for some good ribs.

~~~
btgeekboy
I wonder, does the acid in the soda help tenderize the meat? Or is it purely
for the flavor.

------
AdmiralAsshat
One cannot help but wonder if the Soda industry is/will become the Tobacco
industry of 50 years ago.

~~~
prsimp
While not limited to the Soda industry, this sentiment is expressed pretty
vividly (even comparing testimony, marketing etc.) in the documentary Fed
Up[1]. Worth a watch if this sort of thing is interesting to you and currently
available on Netflix.

[1]
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381335/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381335/)

------
neprune
When there's strong suspicion you once hired militias to attack and intimidate
unions [0] [1], paying off health experts feels a bit tame. It's still
interesting to see how they went about it though, pushing the idea that
exercise is more important in weight loss than your diet is pretty sneaky (and
a patent lie).

[0]
[http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr....](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr.colombia)

[1]
[http://colombiajournal.org/colombia73.htm](http://colombiajournal.org/colombia73.htm)

------
ecdavis
> [...] making herself available as an expert for news outlets. If a story
> says something negative about artificial sweeteners, Flipse said she might
> contact the PR agency and ask, “Do you want me to do something about that?”

What does "do something" mean? That statement reads like a fairly blatant
request for a bribe.

------
Nadya
First, a quick aside. I was surprised to see this, way to go Medium!
[http://i.imgur.com/XwJRGKV.png](http://i.imgur.com/XwJRGKV.png)

Now onto an actual on-topic comment:

This comes at no real surprise to me. I'm certain Coke isn't the only soda
company to be paying people off. Let alone the only company. It's nice the
author researched enough into the people and the not-so-subtle advertising
going on; but really... anyone with public outreach is a potential advertiser
and if they're mentioning a name-brand product, you'd likely win a bet that
they received a donation in some form or another.

The problem should be that these sorts of implicit bribes are legal in the
first place.

------
knorby
I drink a fair amount of diet coke/coke zero, so I've looked into aspartame
more than a few times, and I have never come back concerned. I haven't seen a
study that points a serious health risk to consuming aspartame found in a
consumable amount of diet soda, yet it remains controversial, scary, and evil,
as this article indirectly implies. This is a common belief too.

So, if the science refutes claims of danger, yet the belief persists, why
shouldn't Coke promote its safety? It is one thing if a company is promoting
bunk research to get away with something, but I really don't see the problem
here.

~~~
wodenokoto
Yeah, the aspen tame thing really got me wondering about the ethics here. It
is one of the most attacked substances, yet it appears basically harmless.

If we assume it is in fact harmless, then it is actually quite ethical of Coca
Cola to spend money defending it.

------
powera
This article is basically an ad for a company that makes anti-tobacco and
anti-sugar ads as a service. And _somebody_ is paying them for that. Why won't
they reveal the truth behind their anti-Coke propaganda?

Seriously, there's a difference between lying and product placement. Using
Coke as an ingredient in barbecue sauce is completely different than saying
"sugar helps me lose weight", and this article doesn't care. It's lazy at
best.

------
pauldw
Breaking News: The Suit is Back!

[http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

------
bennettfeely
Reading this article made me want to get a glass of Coke from the fridge.

------
ninjasforhealth
Great convo ya'll, thanks for sharing the article.

