Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.5 $; site sysvis
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!sysvis!george
From: george@sysvis
Newsgroups: net.consumers
Subject: Re: AN ALTERNATIVE TO COKE & PEPSI
Message-ID: <-121491517@sysvis>
Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 11:45:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sysvis.-121491517
Posted: Wed Jul 10 11:45:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 08:40:24 EDT
References: <317@bdmrrr.UUCP>
Lines: 20
Nf-ID: #R:bdmrrr.UUCP:-31700:sysvis:-121491517:000:1196
Nf-From: sysvis!george    Jul 10 10:45:00 1985


<...The continuing saga of Alice in Wonderland...Drink Me!...>

As for taste on Pepsi, Coke (old or new), RC, Shasta, etc. they are all lesser
beverages than Dr. Pepper (sugar or nutrasweet, caffeine or not).  Those of
you who have never had the pleasure should drink it and then post your more
educated replies.  Since the word "cola" does not appear in the name, it seems
that there is some perceptual difficulty here.  Dr. Pepper is celebrating its
100th anniversary this year and certainly has never attempted to trade on the
"cola" name in any way (product differentiation?) even though it technically
is a "cola" beverage (secret formulas notwithstanding).

Elsewhere, on pg 447 (sic) of Consumer Reports magazine in the August 1985
issue, there is an interesting article on Coke (old + new) vs. Pepsi.  Their
conclusion is that any discussions may possibly be claptrap since the formulas
are amazingly similar (x.x% - y.y% corn syrup, carbonated water 9w.w%) and
the "trace" cola ingredients are almost negligible in taste modification.

I guess that myself and others are still guided by the adage that our own
individual perceptual biases are much more important than facts and reality.