Pepsi Sinks to a New Low

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Not a matter of opinion, a matter of fact.

 

I suggest you start your education by reading Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression

hmm yes why would a conservative economist and author blame liberal economic policies.

 

how about instead of going back and forth with "well the conservative economist's book that i read said such and such"

"no the liberal economist's book that i read said such and such to rebut that"

"no, you see, " we just call it a day since that'll get tired quick

[Jeff]

we just call it a day since that'll get tired quick

I like that idea.

[Darth Avlectus]

Seriously though, making morally questionable business descions has been a valid business tactics from decades. For example, in the 1920's, there were bottles of irradiated water that were sold to people crazy enough to buy it.

 

Yes, they gave out real life Nuka-Cola.

Now that's crazy.

 

Because the company made morally questionable descions, and whatnot, someone died, and ruined their business. However, before the guy died, they made a metric s**tload of money off of it.

And what happened to the money after that? --or did he spend it all in a mad rush when he knew he was going to die?

 

Just because something is morally questionable, doesn't mean it can't and won't be done.

Precisely. All I'm saying, though, is that such actions reflect poorly upon you which may make all the differences in the world when someone else has you and your company by the jugular.

 

And I'm not the Kavar's mod. I'm the SWTOR mod. As of this week, I'm not going to touch Kavars again for a long time, thus why I banned myself from it.

 

It is dead as far as I'm concerned.

Huh? I've been in and out of Kavar's lately but I hadn't been paying attention to what is going on. Care to fill me in via PM?

 

 

 

I'm merely pointing out that there are far more rotten lies than changing a logo. If anything, its probably the tail end of things to be ticked at them about.

Indeed there are--just making sure we connected on that point.

 

And a logo isn't entirely a lie either. Its just a clever advertising tool that they are using to take advantage of the general public's obsession with Obama, if that is the case. But, as I pointed out, they seemed to be using other symbolism in their last logo as well.

True, true. Good point.

 

However, I'm still in the fog for why exactly this is dishonest.

Uhh, no no. I was simply picking up on Doctor's sentiment of corporate ethics and expanding upon it. It was just in general.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

 

Supply manipulating?

 

I'm lost. Isn't this implying that Pepsi is artificially boosting the price to gain more money?

 

Maybe they are or are not. But I am not entirely with you on how this concerns using the Public's like to sell more by doing something as simple as using a different logo.

Sorry, I was still kind of going off on the ethics spiel. Not completely relevant here in this thread. So sorry...

 

Though on a side note of interest: I guess I had in mind back when there was the whole Brittney Spears bit going on, what Pepsi did was perfect example of supply manipulation...it was to make things happen on a limited budget. They spent such that they made less quantity of sodas, spent more on advertising (Brittney commercials), and charged more to slightly more than compensate.

Supply down, charging price up. I think they made a nickel or two more than normal as projected. --Too bad for them it was cut short. This was where it was purely straegy but it was supply manipulation.

 

However when compared to other companies it does pale in comparison.

 

Like making faulty products designed to fail so that people will have to come back and keep spending money.

 

While it's all initially harmless and honest, the deception can escalate, detrimentally so. Especially depending on the whats and hows.

 

Like software companies (not naming names here) who make back-doors in their products made to circumvent and undermine security to "update" into obsolescence. And conveniently have another new product while production of the old has stopped.

 

While it's slimy and I abhor it to no end, to me it would make perfect sense if you want to keep customers coming back and business going.

 

Not all the time, no.

 

It is not the Indian people's fault that Pepsi basically poison's their Soda Supply. They bought it without this knowledge.

 

Glad to see we agree here, too.

 

Basically proving that both are to blame for their roles in it, wittingly or not.

 

Pepsi for poisoning their supply behind closed doors.

 

You could say the people for buying without researching...however, most people don't presume poisoning. Researching all the time for every time you buy something gets to be a bit ridiculous and most folks aren't cut out for it....even if the info is available, which in this case I suspect it wasn't if it was done behind closed doors.

 

The rest, okay, you got me... I'm sorry if I steered the thread off course. I just wanted to interject that bit about ethics in business. That's all.

 

So I'll try to steer it back on:

The topic of this thread is bashing them for using a new logo that slighty resembles the Obama logo, but also resembles many other symbols.

 

Can't see too much unethical about it, though it is rather disrespectful to those associated with the original logo. Or at least it *can* be.

 

Barry O. didn't seem to mind.

 

They are obviously doing this to try and boost sales, as they are being affected by this recession as well. If it is successful, they can make a better profit, money goes back into the economy, etc.

 

All for the price of 100 million and a slightly switched up logo.

 

I agree. What was done and how, in this case, was pretty harmless.

 

However, exploiting the people's naivety or gullibility has practically a viral potential for atrocious misdoings. As you graciously pointed out with the poisining. You acknowledged me quite well on that point--thank you.

 

Outright lies, yeah. Harmful. Distasteful. Our government would have things to say about that.

 

 

Its all about the money. Ignorant people have money, and harmless ploys to get their money is hardly the most questionable thing the market has done.

 

Yes, as the old saying goes in my family:

A fool and his money soon part ways.

 

When it crosses that line of harmless, then it's no longer acceptable. No?

 

Lastly to clarify: When ripoff becomes blatantly obvious that's what it is, only then is it considered as such...unless prior to becoming blatantly obvious, it can be 'proven'. Even so, that does not necessarily reveal intent. On the flipside, good people get thrown out of universities all the time for plagiarism, even if it wasn't intended.

 

Damn those ambulance-chasing-lawsuit-happy-money-grubbing Gannifs, and Damn those snooty-ivory-tower-dwelling-arrogant-dust-gathering weasels.

The die hard and I hope they burn in hell.

[Rabish Bini]

Fix't.

You can't fix what isn't broken.

 

Let's all agree that Mountain Dew is the ultimate soft drink, and always will be.

 

Mountain Dew > Every other soft drink

[Tommycat]

Funny... I thought the Obama logo was ripping off the old Pepsi Logo until Pepsi re-ripped theirs off from Obama....