Cola Wars or Sweetener Preferences

Headline on CNN.com this morning: “Coca-Cola, Pepsi in Calorie Battle; Arch rivals Plan Salvos of New Diet Colas, Pepsi ONE and Coca-Cola Zero.”

Welcome new Coke Zero, a zero-calorie Coke cola officially launching this June, and a reformulated Pepsi One (1-calorie cola) to be available sometime this spring. Coke Zero will be sweetened with a blend of aspartame and acesulfame-potassium. Pepsi One will be sweetened with sucralose. But don’t be confused fellow diet drinking aficionados. As of this summer, the Coke Co. will have Diet Coke (as well as it’s other Diet Coke flavors – lime, vanilla, etc.) sweetened with aspartame, Coke Zero sweetened with aspartame and acesulfame-K, as well as a Diet Coke with Splenda version – all of which have negligible or no calories. Then there’s also the “mid-calorie” C2 (70 cals/12 oz. can) sweetened with a blend of aspartame, sucralose and acesulfame-K. And Pepsi-Co will have its flagship Diet Pepsi sweetened with aspartame and Pepsi One sweetened with Splenda – both with one or less calories. In addition they’ll have Pepsi Edge, their version of a mid-calorie cola (75 cals/12 oz can), sweetened with Splenda.

I know there is extreme competition between Pepsi and Coke, and that there has been for quite some time. But children, children… there’s enough room for everyone! Naysayers are busy clucking about how crowded the diet drink shelves will soon be. I on the other hand say variety is the spice of life. Everyone has different taste preferences. Not to mention, we have so many options out there for people who drink regular drinks, but not nearly as many low-calorie drinks. For me, it’s preference and convenience. But what about diabetics, or people who really need to watch their blood sugar? I think they deserve options and choices too.

I do however think it will be very interesting to see how each of the new products performs in the cutthroat world of diet drinkers’ brand loyalty. In games of winners and losers, battles can get ugly, but at least the spectators will have plenty of refreshment.

Battle of the Sexes - Diet Version

I am a firm believer that full-time jobs exist for two reasons. First, it offers a paycheck that provides a livelihood and financial support. Secondly, it makes us appreciate the time which we can afford to spend in idleness and vacation. Yes of course there are a million other less important reasons that one should appreciate a full-time job... pride in accomplishments, independence, security, being able to relate to Dilbert, blah, blah, etc, etc. But how can you truly enjoy and appreciate a vacation - the majestic sight of the ocean and beautiful coastal sunrises - unless you can compare them to the less than stellar view of your cubicle and the morning glare of a freshly booted computer screen?

So after a terrific long weekend on Hilton Head Island, I find myself back at work, sans fresh salt air and jogs on sandy beaches. However all is not lost... I can still cradle my morning diet soda, despite locale.

But in the vein of ignoring my inbox and focusing my lunch hour on fun things, I found an article worth mentioning from a recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution edition. The article (also printed in the Arizona Republic) allows me to expand on the issue of men consuming "diet drinks" that I briefly mentioned in an earlier post. The article begins with the tag line, "Men get fat, too." Take that you post-modern pop culture runway model female icon.

Basically the article points out that drinking diet drinks has become more and more popular among men as they realize that creeping pounds can find them too. According to a study cited in the article, in 1994, 39 percent of men were regular buyers of diet drinks. By 2004, that number had increased to 53 percent. And apparently soft drink companies are taking notice and gearing diet soft drink brands, or at least the marketing of them, towards men. I find this truly fascinating.

For instance, Pepsi has their Diet Pepsi product, but they are gearing another product, Pepsi One toward the male crowd. Is it semantics that separates the sexes? Perhaps women are more likely to buy a low-calorie drink if it is called "Diet" and men are more likely to buy a low-calorie drink if it distinctly removes that "d" word.

An interesting point brought up by the columnist is that, "this might help change the perception of diets" among men and women. The article goes on to point out that guys who do drink "diet" drinks are the same guys we associate with the metrosexual phenomenon. To many, it's just another way that guys show concern for their aesthetic appearance. But no burping, burly, football crazed "man's man" would be caught dead drinking a "diet" beverage. No-cal, low-cal, all you want... but that "diet" seems to be a man's 4-letter word.