Name:Roll No. _________________
Question 1) Based on the Hypercompetition: Pepsi Vs Coke story, Do you agree with Pepsi’s allegations that Coke tried to destroy their business by poaching the executives, independent bottlers, brand ambassadors, distribution partners and institutional clients through unlawful means? Justify your reasons.
I agree with the allegations by Pepsi that Coke has tried to destroy their business by poaching the executives, independent bottlers, brand ambassadors, distribution partners and institutional clients through unlawful means. Competition is lawful till the point it carries no malafied intentions to hamper the other competitior’s business. The allegations by Pepsi can be justified by the following points:
1. Coke purposedly targeted the entire sales team of Pepsi to work for Coke with increased salary and emoluments so that they would be lured to breach their contract with Pepsi and join hands with Coke. In this way Coke would be successful in hampering its competitor’s business and get hold of a larger market share by the mean time Pepsi hires a proper sales team in place. Coke would also have the advantage of knowing Pepsi’s trade secrets and other operational and distribuition data. Coke was so strong in its targeting that they had appointed a person specifically to contact employees and offer them blank cheques to terminate their contract with Pepsi and join Coke.
2. Coke left no stone unturned to give a set back to current position of Pepsi. Coke was successful in influencing the employees of Goa Bottling Private Ltd. to terminate their contract with Goa Bottling and join Coke as there was a switch in franchise of the company from Coke to Pepsi. Then also Coke has eyed the sales team so that it could indirectly slow down Pepsi’s business by destroying its bottler’s sales team.
3. Even till poaching of employees and employees of independent...