A banal on-the-spot product
(www.RemnantNewspaper.com)
Almost thirty years ago now, in April of 1985, the
Coca-Cola company announced its plans to change the
formula of “the world’s most popular soft drink” (www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/cokelore_newcoke.html).
This was done, so the company related later, because
Coke was losing ground to Pepsi in the world market and
in order to make itself more attractive to the taste of
modern society (and therefore more profitable), the
decision was made to change its signature product’s
formula after 99 years of success.
One must state that this was not done without some
forethought. There were taste-tests with over 200,000
consumers who described themselves as Coke drinkers.
While many of these taste-tests brought positive
responses, some 10-12% of Coke drinkers said they would
not buy the new product if it was replacing the
traditional recipe, and may never buy Coke again. Armed
with these overall positive results, Coca-Cola went
ahead and made the switch. No one at the company could
have predicted what went on for the next 79 days.
People began phoning the company at a rate over three
times the norm to register their annoyance and outrage
that the traditional formula was tampered with. Some
Coke drinkers even began to hoard cases of the
traditional Coke in their homes. Letters arrived at
Coca-Cola’s corporate headquarters hurling insults at
the managers who approved this daft idea. All of this
was before Coca-Cola had begun to market the new formula
outside the United States! It is worth noting what the
Coca-Cola corporation now states about the situation and
what it didn’t take into account: “The fabled secret
formula for Coca-Cola was changed, adopting a formula
preferred in taste tests of nearly 200,000 consumers.
What these tests didn't show, of course, was the bond
consumers felt with their Coca-Cola -- something they
didn't want anyone, including The Coca-Cola Company,
tampering with” (www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/cokelore_newcoke.html).
At the end of these 79 very eventful days, Coca-Cola
announced that it would continue to make its traditional
version of Coke. People had spoken and management had
listened. Coca-Cola continued to market the new formula
under the title of “New Coke”, while the traditional
formula would be called “Coke Classic.” By the early
1990s, “New Coke” was off the market and “Coke Classic”
went back to being just plain old “Coke.”
It is also worth noting what Coca-Cola had to say about
lessons learned from this fiasco: “The events of the
spring and summer of '85 -- pundits blasting the
"marketing blunder of the century," consumers hoarding
the "old" Coke, calls of protests by the thousands --
changed forever The Coca-Cola Company's thinking”(www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/cokelore_newcoke.html).
As mentioned above they got the message and would
remember it for a long time.
Another interesting point in this entire event were the
comments passed by Coke drinkers who wanted the
traditional formula restored. Coca-Cola reported:
“Protest groups -- such as the Society for the
Preservation of the Real Thing and Old Cola Drinkers of
America (which claimed to have recruited 100,000 in a
drive to bring back "old" Coke) -- popped up around the
country. Songs were written to honor the old taste.
Protesters at a Coca-Cola event in downtown Atlanta in
May carried signs with "We want the real thing" and "Our
children will never know refreshment” (www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/cokelore_newcoke.html).
Nowadays, although the Coca-Cola company itself tries to
put a different spin on it, most everyone agrees that
this was probably the greatest gaff in corporate and
marketing history. Although Coca-Cola maintains that the
idea of changing the traditional formula was an
“intelligent risk,” most would agree that it was a risk,
but seriously question whether it was intelligent. It is
also most likely that Coca-Cola would never take this
type of risk again.
At this point, you are probably wondering what is the
purpose of relating this tale out of corporate American
history, so I will cut to the chase. The similarities
between the thought and actions of the Coca-Cola company
in the spring and summer of 1985 bear a frighteningly
strong resemblance to the Roman Catholic Church’s change
in its liturgical practice following the Second Vatican
Council.
As many are aware, following the Council, a group of
experts was established to implement the Decree on the
Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum concilium). This group,
called the Concilium, took the liturgy of the Church,
which had remained substantially unchanged for close to
1500 years, and developed a new product (the Novus Ordo
Missae or New Mass) which they believed would better
suit the taste of modern man. They had some
“taste-tests” and found that many in their test groups
liked it – though a rather significant number did not.
In any case, they moved ahead with the change and
introduced, under the authority of Pope Paul VI, the New
Mass in Advent of 1969 and effectively removed the “old”
product from the shelves (though, as Pope Benedict XVI
has reminded us, the “old” Mass was never abrogated).
Following the introduction of the New Mass, there was a
strong storm of protest from many quarters, while many
Catholics were left asking why change in the first
place.
This is, unfortunately, where the similarities between
Coca-Cola and the Church come to an end. While Coca-Cola
realized that they had gone too far in changing the
venerable traditional formula, the Roman Catholic Church
(at least in the words and actions of most of its
hierarchy and clergy) just ignored or tried to suppress
those who complained that they wanted the Traditional
Latin Mass. These folk were often ridiculed for making
comments similar to the Coke protesters: "We want the
real thing" and "Our children will never know
refreshment.”
Over the past 40 or so years, the protests have not
dimmed, but the ridicule and oppression of those seeking
the Traditional Mass has not abated (Pope Benedict’s
Summorum Pontificum not withstanding). This would be
understandable if the New Mass had accomplished what it
was formulated to do: to increase the faith and devotion
of Catholics and make the faith clearer to the modern
Catholic. Unfortunately the opposite has occurred: the
number of Catholics attending the New Mass has steadily
declined, as have vocations to the priesthood and
religious life, not to mention the knowledge of the
faith amongst the vast majority of Catholics who still
attend Mass weekly.
Would you not think that presented with these facts, the
Church’s hierarchy would take a look at the value of the
“new formula” and start asking themselves whether this
experiment was a failure on most every level? Instead,
we are continually told that the problem is not with the
product, but rather with how it is marketed or how it is
consumed (to use corporate images). In terms more
ecclesiastical, we are told that the Novus Ordo Missae
isn’t the problem, but it was implemented badly in the
1970s or that those who regularly ignored the rubrics
have caused the Novus Ordo Missae to not bring about the
expected fruits. There is no way under God’s heavens
that the Novus Ordo Missae is at fault, we are told ad
nauseum.
Please don’t misunderstand, just as “New Coke” was Coke
just like “Coke Classic,” the Novus Ordo Missae is Mass
– it is both valid and legitimate – but also like “New
Coke” there is something missing from the traditional
formula, and that something cannot be ignored and is
desired by many who have now “tasted” the traditional
formula.
It took Coca-Cola executives only 79 days to realize
that they had made a mistake, and this before there was
any appreciable decline in their sales or market share.
Why, oh why, has the hierarchy of the Catholic Church,
after 40 years of declining numbers in almost every
measurable category and appearing, at least in the
United States, more and more like a corporation, not
begun to ask themselves whether the problem might just
be with the product and not the consumer? |