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.