Hmm .... come to think of it, it is STILL "ahead of its time".
And probably always will be.
Just like Hillary will.
Posted on 05/22/2019 5:05:32 PM PDT by nickedknack
A lot of new cars today have really ugly grills too, if you ask me. Also, I hate the dark wheels that look dirty even when they're clean. A car can never look good when the wheels/tires are dirty and can never look good if the windows are dirty.
Ford ruined the Explorer, it’s like a glorified Escape now. Ford also stopped selling the Ranger pick up truck in the US a few years ago. Toyota benefited from that decision.
Huh? What about the free Obamaphones that all of us are using today?
I would say that weight loss pill(can’t even think of the name).
Was supposed to be the next best thing, but turned out it only gave people the runs.
Remember Ayds? Came out in the early 80s.
As they say, Timing is Everything.
Hmm .... come to think of it, it is STILL "ahead of its time".
And probably always will be.
Just like Hillary will.
lol. No, I don’t remember that at all.
The program, SafeLink, that gave cellphones to poor people on public assistance actually started under President George Bush. It gained popularity after Obama became president in 2008, but Obama didn't promise it to poor people.
The chocolate part is coming back to me, but I don't remember the name at all. Another big failure was the Olestra chips. It was another product that just gave people the runs.
I never knew Bush started that program. My impression was that Zero touted it as *his* program, but that it never really went anywhere and didn’t give cellphones to people who didn’t have them.
Kind of like how a lot of the programs that FDR got credit for were in fact, started by Hoover.
Similarly, Thalidomide also had problems with their rollout, IIRC. A little bit of bad press can really put a dent in one's Marketing Plan, eh?
And as is often the case, what is 'common knowledge' is wrong in almost every respect. I've told this story before here, but I was working for the market research company that did all the phone surveys for Coca-Cola at the time. Prior to the release of 'New Coke', we did an extensive series of surveys nationwide to quantify attitudes, usage, and other related information useful from a marketing perspective. Once the baseline was established, we did another series asking about subjective taste-related information, like 'would you prefer more or less sweetness', and similar questions about carbonation and other stuff.
Then New Coke was released, and the sh!tstorm hit nationwide. The entire time we were running attitude studies to see what people thought. I know for a fact that there were at least 6 different formulations that were out there in different regions that they were testing. New Coke wasn't the same everywhere. Eventually, as time passed it got to the point that we pretty much knew that there wasn't any Old Coke available nationwide, and the surveys were really interesting. You'd ask what folks thought about New Coke, and how they'd compare it to other soft drinks. The overwhelming response was that folks hated New Coke, yet in those same surveys we were seeing that people were still buying it. The exact same folks panning New Coke still had it in their homes, apparently out of habit more than anything else.
I'll never forget the surveys that they ran when they were ready to reintroduce 'Coca-Cola Classic', (which was a lie btw, since they changed from sugar to HFCS). We had this big, long, and confusing paragraph (which I really wish I'd kept a copy of, in hindsight), asking about what Coke should be called. What was really funny was after you were done with that paragraph, they required you to say "I know that might have been a little confusing, so let me read that again", and then you'd have to go through the entire thing again! If the respondent wouldn't let you do that, it was not considered a completed survey. It was frustrating for interviewers and respondents alike.
So, they eventually brought out Coca-Cola Classic, and most folks were happy. The company reaped billions of dollars in free advertising from all the controversy. Then, after everything was settled down, the bottom line was clear. They ultimately gained a 6% bump in market share from the whole thing. Six percent of the soft drink market is no small chunk of change. I can hardly call something like that a 'failure'. But then again, what do I know? I'm glad I was able to watch the whole thing from the level I did. It was interesting, to say the least.
Thanks, interesting inside info. The question (fact?) remains that the Coca-Cola Company fully intended for New Coke to be a permanent replacement. IIRC, Coke was losing ground in the perpetual market share battle with Pepsi, which triggered the reformulation attempt. I don’t think they had a Dr. Evil plan to purposefully introduce a flop, then bring back the classic and thereby realize a big market share win. That was a happy accident, or as Pee-Wee Herman disingenuously said, “I meant to do that!”
Yes and No. Yes it was butt ugly - but by today's standards - it's rather plain and dull.
And No - it was NOT well built. Full of cheap plastic GM parts; anemic small V6 engine; Dex Cool antifreeze that ate up head gaskets and transmissions that failed prematurely.
Ask me how I know.
No thanks. First hand experience trumps what I know about it. My sympathy to you.
CC
Actually, I think they intended to reintroduce the (more or less) original Coke all along. They were looking for something to up the ante in the battle against Pepsi. The final formulation of New Coke was eventually a sweeter and more carbonated version. As I said, there were at least 6 versions out there in different regions, and what they were looking for was some new ammo for the ‘rock and roller cola wars’. My main point is that ultimately, it wasn’t nearly as catastrophic for Coke as people generally think. What I thought was most fascinating about the whole thing was that people would swear up and down that they hated New Coke, but ended up buying it anyway. Habits are a hard thing to break. It was also a way for them to make a major change to Coke without admitting it, which is essentially what the change from sugar to HFCS was. I’m glad that some soft drink companies are starting to move back to sugar. The Dr. Pepper bottler in Dublin, Tx made quite a name for itself by doing so.
I remember when they came out - instead of a column gear shift, they had push buttons where the horn was, and they cost almost as much as a Cadillac - around $4,000 IIRC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.