.png)
This case study explores the strategic differences between Coca-Cola Classic and Coca-Cola Zero, analyzing their composition, marketing approaches, and impact in the Swiss market. It also examines health considerations, including EFSA's stance on artificial sweeteners.
The Coca-Cola Company is one of the most iconic brands in the world. Over the years, it has diversified its portfolio to adapt to changing consumer preferences and growing health concerns. Two of its most popular variants are Coca-Cola Classic and Coca-Cola Zero Sugar. But what really sets them apart?
Coca-Cola Classic
The original version, launched in 1886. It contains sugar and has a rich, sweet flavor, becoming the symbol of "cola" worldwide.
Coca-Cola Zero Sugar
Introduced in 2005, it’s a zero-sugar, zero-calorie version designed to offer a taste closer to the original Coca-Cola, unlike Diet Coke, which was developed with a different flavor profile.
Diet Coke was introduced in 1982 as Coca-Cola's initial response to the growing demand for low-calorie beverages. However, it was intentionally crafted with a different taste from the Classic version.
Coca-Cola Zero was launched in 2005 with a clear strategic goal: to attract a younger demographic, particularly men aged 18 to 35, who often viewed Diet Coke as a "feminine" product or not faithful to the original flavor.
From a brand management perspective, Coca-Cola chose to diversify its offering while maintaining brand consistency, leveraging modern packaging, bold marketing, and the promise of being able to “drink Coke without the guilt.”
Although there is no publicly available data detailing Coca-Cola’s advertising expenditure in Switzerland, it is reasonable to assume that substantial investments are made to sustain brand visibility and market presence.
In summary, while exact figures for Switzerland are not disclosed, Coca-Cola’s branding efforts are clearly visible, and its market presence is actively supported by robust communication strategies.
If we look solely at calories and sugar content, Coca-Cola Zero is clearly a "lighter" option. However, the use of artificial sweeteners like aspartame and acesulfame K continues to raise concerns in some scientific circles. While most research shows they are safe when consumed within recommended limits, debates persist about potential long-term metabolic or behavioral effects.
Some theories suggest that frequent consumption of artificial sweeteners may alter how our brain perceives sweetness, potentially leading to an increased craving for sugar.
The EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) has conducted thorough assessments of the artificial sweeteners used in Coca-Cola Zero, particularly aspartame and acesulfame K.
EFSA emphasizes that there is no convincing evidence linking these sweeteners to cancer, neurological, or metabolic disorders when consumed within recommended limits. However, it continues to closely monitor their widespread use to evaluate possible effects on eating behavior and gut microbiota.
🔎 In conclusion, Coca-Cola Zero can be considered safe, but the principle of moderation still applies, as with all processed beverages.
The choice between Coca-Cola Classic and Coca-Cola Zero is not just a matter of calories, but also one of strategic positioning, personal taste, and nutritional awareness. Coca-Cola has skillfully addressed the needs of different market segments with distinct products, maintaining its global dominance. But in the end, the real question is:
How often should we consume soft drinks, regardless of their calorie content?
-3.png)
