What do you think?
Rate this book
La Guerra de las Colas: Vista Por el Presidente de Pepsi
The inside story of the recent business war from the president of the company that shook the foundations of the way American corporations merchandise their products by forcing Coke into the biggest marketing blunder of the century
- GenresBusinessNonfictionMemoir
361 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1986
12 people are currently reading
485 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
November 27, 2007
Required reading, he was my boss.
Read
August 9, 2011Entretenidísmo recuento de los días de Roger Enrico al frente de Pepsi. Su pelea a codazos con Coca Cola, los anuncios de Michael Jackson y otras estrellas, los secretos de las fórmulas, el "desafío del sabor", la "nueva generación"... Lo mejor es que pone en negro sobre blanco muchos de los mitos que hemos escuchado toda la vida sobre la supremacía de una sobre otra, quién vende más, etc... En teoría es una libro de management empresarial, pero acaba siendo una historia bien novelesca sobre lo que es llevar las riendas de una de las empresas más poderosas del mundo. Creo que Enrico es CEO en la actualidad de DreamWorks. Parece que no le fue tan mal después de todo...
October 26, 2019
Maybe I'll have a surprise, but this surely sounds like bull- and Pepsi is still the second player by far.
April 22, 2025
This book is such a page turner! I have no idea why it’s rated so low. The book is incredibly funny - I find myself laughing out loud every few minutes.
But most importantly - this book taught me a tremendous amount about the soft-drink industry, as well as the branding industry.
In essence, consumer brain real estate is limited. And they’d like to assign one theme with one thing: Coca-Cola has a huge lead upon Pepsi on the soft-drink side. Because Coke is so successful painting itself as the de facto soft drink throughout history that when people think of soft-drink, they think of Coke (never mind that sugar is now linked with obesity, Coca-Cola is still out-selling Diet Coke). Not only that, people assign the original taste they experienced with Coke with the feeling of soft-drink. It’s almost like a habitual thing. The author saw this several times in his own career: when Frito-Lays changed their formula on Funions, the sales tanked right away (then of course, when Coke came up with the New Coke, sales also tanked right away).
It’s easy to think commodity businesses like that of Pepsi and Coke can only differentiate themselves with price and features. But that’s oddly enough, not the case. This is also true in the chocolate industry: just about everyone can make a Chocolate-covered Waffles, but people assign Kit-Kat as that food. Because fundamentally, those commodity businesses sell imagery with a side of food (or clothing, or whatever). The author wrote:
The author’s insight showed - in the recent decades, Pepsi has essentially given its market share all back to Coke precisely because Pepsi could never seem to explain just why it’s not Coke. During the author’s reign over Pepsi, the author explained that Pepsi is young, bold and for the new generation:
Consumers pick products because the product is an extension of the consumer’s inner feelings. The author wrote:
Precisely because Pepsi (used to) have a brand of innovation and “brashness”, Pepsi had to do things differently, constantly (which I’d add that Pepsi haven’t done in a very long time). The author wrote that there are three things American consumers won’t forgive:
How did the author do it? He wrote:
Which brings me back to PepsiCo today. As PepsiCo matures, it itself grew to be as corporate as Coca-Cola. There’s nothing wrong with having a bureaucratic structure - except Coke can afford to do that and won’t get penalized by it, but Pepsi does. The author wrote of bureaucracy:
And in terms of companies afraid to try new things in marketing, the author wrote:
When a brand - let it be Pepsi or any artists - thrived initially on innovation and later on stays stagnant, that’s when the brand dies - unless of course, the brand simply don’t have any marketable replacement and operates in a monopoly (but in that case, they won’t need to brand itself as innovate on the first place). The author wrote:
Now going back to Coke. Pepsi’s “Pepsi challenge”, letting people blind test Pepsi and Coke and pick their favorite (Pepsi usually wins because it’s slightly sweeter) is simply one of Pepsi's marketing poly, an innovative poly that makes people’s dull life more fun and non-threatening. The author wrote (italic author’s):
Because fundamentally, soft drink companies sell imagery of happiness: Coke’s recent advertising campaign tagline is literally, “open happiness”. Yet, the Coke management at the time made a major mistake of taking “fun” out of things by introducing the (widely loathed) New Coke. The author believes it’s due to Coke not understanding the fun aspect of it:
Spoiler alert: after Coke pulled the Old Coke out and replaced it with the New Coke, Coke’s sales tanked. The author wrote of what Coke’s management:
To sum up my main takeaways from this book: if you’re selling a commodity product, then make sure you’re making your product as good as you can make it. Then make sure you understand why your customers buy your product. It has nothing to do with you nor your product, but rather the imagery you conjured up in their heads. No - Starbucks don’t just sell coffee, Apple don’t just sell gadgets, McDonald’s don’t just sell hamburgers, Ben & Jerry don’t just sell ice creams and Pepsi don’t just sell soft-drinks. They all sell imagr-ies. Understand the imagery of your consumer well and stick with it. If your consumers are daredevils (like that of Red Bull), stick with your daredevil imagery. If your consumers are boring (like that of Coca-Cola), stick with the original Coke formula and advertise, boringly. Fundamentally, it’s not a commodity product marketer’s job to educate consumers. It’s a commodity product marketer’s job to celebrate their end consumers.
But most importantly - this book taught me a tremendous amount about the soft-drink industry, as well as the branding industry.
In essence, consumer brain real estate is limited. And they’d like to assign one theme with one thing: Coca-Cola has a huge lead upon Pepsi on the soft-drink side. Because Coke is so successful painting itself as the de facto soft drink throughout history that when people think of soft-drink, they think of Coke (never mind that sugar is now linked with obesity, Coca-Cola is still out-selling Diet Coke). Not only that, people assign the original taste they experienced with Coke with the feeling of soft-drink. It’s almost like a habitual thing. The author saw this several times in his own career: when Frito-Lays changed their formula on Funions, the sales tanked right away (then of course, when Coke came up with the New Coke, sales also tanked right away).
It’s easy to think commodity businesses like that of Pepsi and Coke can only differentiate themselves with price and features. But that’s oddly enough, not the case. This is also true in the chocolate industry: just about everyone can make a Chocolate-covered Waffles, but people assign Kit-Kat as that food. Because fundamentally, those commodity businesses sell imagery with a side of food (or clothing, or whatever). The author wrote:
Pepsi is a company that creates advertising, and oh, by the way, we make soft drinks too.
There’s a reason for that. It’s not that advertising - the show business side of soft drinks - is glamorous fizz and all the other elements of the business are, by contrast, flat.
It’s that imagery is critical to our success.
Imagery is how we define ourselves - and then how we present ourselves to you. After making sure that our products are as good as we know how to make them, sharpening our image is the most important thing we do.
In other businesses, imagery isn’t always so important. But the distinctions between soft drinks - between different varieties of carbonated flavored waters - are not universally appreciated. Pepsi may, as we claim, taste better than Coke, but millions of Americans seem to find other things in their lives a lot more pressing than choosing a favorite soft drinks.
That’s why it’s so important for us to give Pepsi an image that could never be confused with Coke.
The author’s insight showed - in the recent decades, Pepsi has essentially given its market share all back to Coke precisely because Pepsi could never seem to explain just why it’s not Coke. During the author’s reign over Pepsi, the author explained that Pepsi is young, bold and for the new generation:
There was a clear perception that Pepsi was a young company with new ideas. We were exciting, innovative. We were perceived as growing faster, with a good shot at becoming the number one soft drink company. Our negatives were that we were brash and maybe a little pushy.
The positives on Coke were all about Americana. Coke was “the real thing.” They owned what I call the “wann fuzzies”, the Norman Rockwell imagery of family and flag. On the minus side, Coke was old, stodgy, arrogant and a bit corporate.
Consumers pick products because the product is an extension of the consumer’s inner feelings. The author wrote:
… don’t extol the virtues of your product. Extol the virtues of the consumer who selects your product. Find out who he is; then praise him for being himself.
Precisely because Pepsi (used to) have a brand of innovation and “brashness”, Pepsi had to do things differently, constantly (which I’d add that Pepsi haven’t done in a very long time). The author wrote that there are three things American consumers won’t forgive:
… product quality that doesn’t measure up, untruthful advertising - and being bored.
How did the author do it? He wrote:
Sign celebrities who are unique, and whose uniqueness stands in sharp contrasts to everyone who came before.
Which brings me back to PepsiCo today. As PepsiCo matures, it itself grew to be as corporate as Coca-Cola. There’s nothing wrong with having a bureaucratic structure - except Coke can afford to do that and won’t get penalized by it, but Pepsi does. The author wrote of bureaucracy:
You just have to remind yourself that the bureaucracy doesn’t want to do anything. It’s just sitting there, administering. It is, quite literally, waiting…
And in terms of companies afraid to try new things in marketing, the author wrote:
… marketers are afraid to move away from a tried-and-true advertising formula - which is to say, when creativity is feared instead of being encouraged and embraced.
When a brand - let it be Pepsi or any artists - thrived initially on innovation and later on stays stagnant, that’s when the brand dies - unless of course, the brand simply don’t have any marketable replacement and operates in a monopoly (but in that case, they won’t need to brand itself as innovate on the first place). The author wrote:
… in large companies the most difficult job for a president is getting employees to consistently think and act creatively.
The fact is, every individual has immense creative potential. The hard part is finding the courage to use it.
Now going back to Coke. Pepsi’s “Pepsi challenge”, letting people blind test Pepsi and Coke and pick their favorite (Pepsi usually wins because it’s slightly sweeter) is simply one of Pepsi's marketing poly, an innovative poly that makes people’s dull life more fun and non-threatening. The author wrote (italic author’s):
… when the public gets interested in the Pepsi-Coke competition, often Pepsi doesn’t win at Coke’s expense and Coke doesn’t win at Pepsi’s.
Everybody in the business wins.
Consumer interest swells the market, the more fun we provide, the more people buy our products - all our products.
The catch is, the Cola Wars must be fun. If it ever looks as if one company is on the ropes - as if it’s been dealt such a run of bad fortune that it won’t recover - the air will go out of the game faster than the fizz leaves an open can of soda.
Because fundamentally, soft drink companies sell imagery of happiness: Coke’s recent advertising campaign tagline is literally, “open happiness”. Yet, the Coke management at the time made a major mistake of taking “fun” out of things by introducing the (widely loathed) New Coke. The author believes it’s due to Coke not understanding the fun aspect of it:
… when Coca-Cola asked people to judge Cokes A and B in all those blind sip tests, they never told consumers that voting for New Coke was a vote for killing Old Coke.
Spoiler alert: after Coke pulled the Old Coke out and replaced it with the New Coke, Coke’s sales tanked. The author wrote of what Coke’s management:
Painful as it was… I think, by the end of their nightmare, they figured out who they really are. Curetakers[sic].
They can’t change the taste of their flagship brand.
They can’t change its imagery.
All they can do is defend the heritage they nearly abandoned in 1985.
The wheel, for them, has come full circle. However much they resent it, they are Robert Woodruff’s children.
To sum up my main takeaways from this book: if you’re selling a commodity product, then make sure you’re making your product as good as you can make it. Then make sure you understand why your customers buy your product. It has nothing to do with you nor your product, but rather the imagery you conjured up in their heads. No - Starbucks don’t just sell coffee, Apple don’t just sell gadgets, McDonald’s don’t just sell hamburgers, Ben & Jerry don’t just sell ice creams and Pepsi don’t just sell soft-drinks. They all sell imagr-ies. Understand the imagery of your consumer well and stick with it. If your consumers are daredevils (like that of Red Bull), stick with your daredevil imagery. If your consumers are boring (like that of Coca-Cola), stick with the original Coke formula and advertise, boringly. Fundamentally, it’s not a commodity product marketer’s job to educate consumers. It’s a commodity product marketer’s job to celebrate their end consumers.
July 15, 2019
I really enjoyed this book. Very positive written about all those catchy comercials. It has been written during the 80's economic peak and sea, surfing enjoyng the good life style is eminent from every page. It is typical leader book the same kind like The unatorized biography of Steven Spilberg. Actually I was amazed how many same friends ( characters ) I have met is this two books, because many pepsi creative people went later to Hollywood or many people switched from hollywood to higher payde posts at Pepsi and there is of course one charater thet is in both books ...... Ladies and gentleman drums.....there comes one and only WHOOO UUUUUUUU Michel Jackson !!!!
Micheal was back then personal friend of Steven and pepsi whore. Yes I really loved this books dont worry, make mony - happy
Micheal was back then personal friend of Steven and pepsi whore. Yes I really loved this books dont worry, make mony - happy
April 19, 2019
Para quienes nos gusta el MKT y vivimos los 80s. ,toda una lección
February 7, 2020
A book written 30 years ago, but still has some good business acumen. A inside story of how pepsi won the cola war of 80s.
July 29, 2020
Altho it was a one sided view on the cola wars, it was definitely a good and fun read
Pepsi might have won the war but my heart is still with coca cola
Pepsi might have won the war but my heart is still with coca cola
August 9, 2020
Curioso...
October 18, 2020
Enjoyed the book. Great read.
March 30, 2022
一則可樂的商業歷史故事。
Read
December 20, 2025book for work
June 4, 2016
What a great marketing genius Roger Enrico is! Sadly enough, during reading my last chapter of this book, Roger Enrico died at age 71 June 2, 2016. How ironic that I would find myself reading his book during this time. It was fascinating seeing how on top of it the Pepsi company was and still is today in leading us into the next generation and Coke always trying to play catch up and not quite succeeding. Case in point: the 'Pepsi taste test' proved everyone loves the taste of Pepsi over Coke so Coke comes out with New Coke almost destroying their company and loosing millions before they quickly changed it back to the classic version.
August 29, 2015
La guerra de las colas...en los 80's, es genial como Pepsi hizo tambalear a Coke con grandes decisiones empresariales y marketineras y desde un punto de vista mas juvenil y menos formal, creo que va a pasar un largo tiempo hasta que esto vuelva a pasar. Al final Coke siempre va terminar sido elegida por la mayoria de la gente y han implementado algo sumamente importante que todas las marcas sea cual fuere el producto que es nombrar a la marca como sinonimo del producto como por ejemplo...diciendo coca para referirse a cualquier gaseosa.
February 14, 2016
I enjoyed this book more than I thought I would. It's true that history is usually written by the victor, but in the war between Coke and Pepsi, a win meant different things to each side. A win for Coke would mean wiping Pepsi off the earth, and a win for Pepsi meant staying in the game. At times I have trouble believing this guy was as magnanimous as he made himself out to be, but what do I know. Also, he had an amazing recollection of dialogue that borders on the suspect.
November 13, 2017
This business history was more captivating and interesting to me, especially this insider tale of the Pepsi Challenge taste test campaign and the rise of mega-commercials, ala Michael Jackson, etc. The pithy business wisdom, akin to "Don't fix it if it is not broke" from the book that will stay with me is "Don't f**k with Fritos"
September 10, 2008
Diet Coke drinker myself but this is such an interesting look into the "Cola Wars"
March 16, 2009
Not bad, good for my career. Also proves that some things have not changed in our rivalry with Coke and the way Pepsi operates.
March 17, 2009
This book, and the author/CEO of PepsiCo at the time, Roger Enrico, singlehandedly made me switch from Coke to Pepsi. I've never looked back!
April 20, 2012
One of the best books on marketing that I've ever read
April 20, 2012
One of the best books on marketing that I've ever read
Read
September 1, 2013ssdfsd
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews