Talk:New Coke

message: Is there anywhere with a petition to bring back Coke II?  I loved it, and I like it better than classic.  Classic is too acidic for me.  --Splent 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a webboard or chat forum. If there is reliably sourceable information about such a petition, someone can add a mention of it to the article, but WP is not a platform for advocacy, of anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bringing it back

message: It says that Coca-Cola cans still carry "Classic" on them - I have never seen this in the UK.
:Probably a US thing. Article should say so (with sources). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it relatively recently on cans unofficially imported to the UK from the more eastern parts of Europe. It tasted different to the regular stuff too but that may be down to Coke's "local preference" blending. danno 23:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Classic"

message: The article mentions changing the source of glycerine from animal to vegetable sources.  When the original formula was reintroduced did the source of glycerine change back or remain vegetable based?  BartBart (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Glycerine

message: I removed:
this article needs dates - when the new product was withdrawn.
from the article.
--cprompt 23:41, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed comment

message: I have heard that the Coke --> New Coke --> Coke Classic was a massive stunt designed to conceal the switch from sugar to the much cheaper, slightly less tasty corn syrup. Anyone know the truth of this?
:Nothing at Snopes.com, and they've got everything! Although, there's some interesting stuff about Coca-Cola in there.
:--cprompt 21:54, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See Conspiracy theory. Philwelch 03:38, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Conspiracy theories require a conspiracy. A single company pulling a PR stunt does not qualify, since there isn't anyone to conspire with. A vast number of people are convinced that the "New Coke" fiasco was nothing but a PR stunt, and the article should (sourcedly) cover this angle. It presently barely touches on it, and that is a major disservice to our readers who are looking for facts, not Coca-Cola Corp.'s party line. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Since 2004, Snopes has written an article dealing with this theory, which is discounted: Snopes. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Nothing Snopes has can change the fact that "Coke Classic" does not resemble the "original formula" in any way, because the source of sweetener is completely different. High Fructose Corn Syrup is not Cane Sugar, and hence the opening paragraph stating "The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula" is patently false and misleading. 99.6.194.122 (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Until you can introduce a source saying this, the line stays. Coke says it restored the original formula, meaning the elements that provided the taste; even beforehand bottlers the world over were allowed to vary the sweetener. I believe some allegations about this are, or were, in the article (most of the above comments predate my expansion of it years ago). Daniel Case (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Much more likely a "classic" marketing blunder. They are lucky they didn't lose significant market share. Kortoso (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: PR stunt?

message: The article says that New Coke was never released outside the United States. I live in Brazil and there was never any media campaign about changes in Coca-Cola's taste. However, when I was in the USA in the 90's, I found the taste of Coke Classic somewhat "different", and reminded me of my early childhood's Coke (before 1980). After that I have read elsewhere that New Coke had been silently introduced in foreign markets, where it faced little opposition. Unfortunately I could not find any further reference about that. But even if the New Coke "as such" wasn't introduced worldwide, there may have been at least some changes in the formula. By the way, European Coke taste just like the Brazilian. Rsnetto74 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  International markets 

message: This article is in a bit of a state. Information shouldn't be presented in one-line paragraphs, and I believe the article should be rearranged so that the facts appear more chronologically. Hopefully someone with more energy than I could attack this. mat_x 18:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A minor mess 

message: if it is now Coke II should the article be moved? I know most people would probably still call it New Coke but apparently that name has not been used for 15 yearsSmith03 16:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: =Should the title be changed?

message: The section on Malcolm Gladwell's flawed-taste-test theory sounds to me like it was copied directly from the book.  I don't have the book on hand at the moment; could someone check this? Urocyon 21:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind; I checked and it wasn't.  The use of the unusual word "cloying" triggered a false alarm. Urocyon 21:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Copyvio?
 

message: I'm changing the cleanup tag to "Innapropriate Tone," since that's what most of the discrepency is all about.--ikiroid | (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag change 

message: I have removed the following, as it is such a serious charge that it cannot be allowed to stand without substantiation:
:New coke caused many people to develop brain tumors. 
Tyrenius 12:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brain tumours

message: Hello, everyone. I'm giving you a reprieve by putting this article on hold for a week instead of failing it outright, because I really believe that you can make this into a GA.
The basic problem is this: the style of writing is prosaic, not encyclopedic. It reads like it should be entitled "The Saga of New Coke," not "New Coke (from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)."I absolutely love it, but it isn't really right for Wikipedia.
If someone or everyone puts a lot of work into this article, it can be a GA by the time the week is over. I'm giving you seven days, and that's a lot of time, so you'd better get going! Or else I WILL fail you the next time around XD. (I'm serious.) Eilicea 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, I'm inclined to pass it right now. It seems to meet all of the criteria to me, and what you are saying sounds like a very minor quibble and not evidence that it fails the criteria. - Mike 02:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm passing it. This is one of the best GA noms I've ever seen. Kafziel 19:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray!! Bwithh 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On hold! 

message: Ooh, I didn't realise that this was the article I tagged as cleanup! I think I meant to tag another. Sigh, the perils of tabbing in Epiphany. OK, I read the article and it's actually quite good. Just these:
* Heading titles should be fixed. I'm not very good at that.
* Citations! There are zillions of s all over the joint.
That's about all I can fault with it. Sorry for incorrectly tagging it! Now to find a real victim of an article...MUAHAHA! — JeremyTalk 01:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I'm delisting this from Good Article status due to what I believe is a lack of a neutral point of view (criteria #4) in addition to some key assertions being unverifiable (criteria #2).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.135.161 (talk • contribs) 
:And you didn't even do that right. I restored the listing since all you did was change the template on the page. Anons, least of anons who forget to sign posts, aren't allowed to promote articles to GA and in my opinion shouldn't get to delist them either.
:Really, if you can phrase your objections in a calm and reasonable manner, take them to review.
Daniel Case 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all based on contemporary sources. The past isn't as we remember it. And it's a bit more complex than a "conspiratorial whisper campaign"; it's pretty clear you read what you needed to read to come here and post some self-aggrandizing mini-rant. If you read the whole thing, you'd understand that the bad decision Coke made was not realizing from marketing data they had just how much opposition to it would play out in a public context. Also, it was probably (again as should be clear from rereading the whole article) not a good idea to do this when you're in the middle of a lawsuit from your bottlers. (If you want a real failure, consider Crystal Pepsi (which cost more money to develop and was yanked from the market after less time). Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA delisting

message: First of all, "Daniel" (assuming that is even your name), I never resorted to "namecalling" unless you're referring to my use of the word "pal".
:First, please sign your posts.
:By namecalling, I meant your assumption that I was either too young to know the history of it or a mouthpiece for Coke. Neither is true.
:And second, yes it is my name. I have always used my real name here. Again you namecall by implication. Please see WP:NPA.
Second, after I corrected your statement that New Coke wasn't a "misstep", you responded with "I did. And I still do. Wanna make something of it? If they didn't like the taste, why did it beat Pepsi's ass in all the blind taste tests." Then you later said "Really, if you can [sic] phrase your objections in a calm and reasonable manner, take them to review." It seems to me that you're the one with an attitude here and definitely the only one resorting to profanity.
:I asked you to explain your statement. OK, I was a little intemperate. You seem more obsessed with trying to maintain some imagined moral high ground than engaging in a coherent discussion (Contrast the "Good article, really?" section up above).
Anyway, at least I think I understand your frustration over the New Coke fiasco now; you're one of the handful of people on the planet that liked / likes it,
:See what I mean about namecalling by implication? Your original post was full of sneer and snark regardless of the actual choice of words. You're nitpicking.
which also explains why you don't believe it was a fiasco.
:It wasn't, not in the sense that Coke's stock tanked nor in that its sales dropped. The objective historical record shows the contrary (Although, as the article points out, Coke's very good year was probably more due to introducing Cherry Coke than either Old or New Coke).
It may be true that you know more about the procedures used here on Wikipedia, but one thing I'm pretty sure of is that it's supposed to be as much as possible an objective collection of facts and not one person's personal viewpoint.
:Which is why the old article, unresearched and basically reiterating the myth that absolutely no one liked it (if that had been so, Coke would have reintroduced Classic Coke in 7 days, not 77), had to be edited and researched.
P.S. Yes, you provided many references, but none for some of your key assertions which I contend (and which you apparently can't dispute) are mere opinions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.135.161 (talk • contribs) 
:I assume you're referring to the "vocal minority" line. That sentence refers to the sourced line earlier about the prerelease focus groups, in which it was established that the 10-12% didn't like it and were very vocal about it, to the point of changing others' opinions. That, as I said, was Coke's biggest mistake. Contrary to what the original article said, and to what many people believe, they did research whether people would continue to buy it if it were Coke and the old formula was no longer available. They got favorable responses, which is why they went and did it. (Also note the little anecdote reported by Donald Keough (granted, he was one of the company's executives at that time, but anyone reading the article closely knows that)).
:One benefit of liking it was that I was actually curious, in a way that someone who did not would probably not have been, as to why it failed. That's why I've been researching this article on a regular basis.
:My assumption when writing and later, footnoting everything, was that people would remember what they had previously read and, if they wanted a source for it, recheck where the statement was originally made. Obviously I assume too much of some people.
:Anyway, I also consider that other sourced statements about Coke's sales figures and the marketing surveys in close proximity to that line eliminate the need to footnote that line as it is fully supported. Although I could always recheck the Oliver/Hays/Prendergast books to see if anyone actually uses it (I think someone does). Daniel Case 22:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued dispute 

message: These are here until someone can provide a source for them other than something they heard somewhere (Daniel Case 15:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any/all of these are plausible, both as theories that have been advanced, and as actaully valid hypotheses.  They should be sourced and re-added.  This article has hardly a dollop of critical commentary in it, was delisted as a Good Article, and hardly touches upon the very common idea that Coca-Cola introduced this product largely as PR stunt. None of this is "conspiracy theory" (conspiracy with whom? it's one company!), it's simply analysis of (singular, not conspiratorial) corporate motivation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced conspiracy theories

message: I have done more research and checked over my original research in response to recent requests for sources. In doing so I got the opportunity to look through contemporary articles in Business Week and a handful of other periodicals. There's some good stuff which I will be adding to the article in due course. Daniel Case 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More updating imminent 

message: :Image:CokeII.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CokeII.jpg

message: :Image:Newcoke maxheadroom.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Newcoke maxheadroom.jpg

message: I'm delisting due to the following problems, which seem to have been noted numerous times over the last few years:
#Inappropriate tone - as the GA reviewer above (as well as the template on the article) note, the style of this article is not consistant with a properly written formal encyclopedia.  See concerns listed throughout the talkpage.
#Images - multiple images claimed as Fair Use.
#Trivia - pop culture section is lengthy.  Trivial information is discouraged.
No offense to the maintainers, but this article is nowhere near what a GA should be.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was approved somewhat early in the GA process. I do believe that once I spin off the history section, many of these issues can be rectified and it can be relisted. Daniel Case (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there is no objection to asking to be re-reviewed / re-listed in the future.  Good luck!  :-)  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisting

message: I find the Jaleel White reference cited in the New Coke article to be potentially untrue, as the show "Family Matters" did not air until 4 years after the new Coca-Cola formulation was made, thus making it fairly difficult for him to imitate a character that didn't exist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.192.188 (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jaleel White reference 

message: I read that Project Kansas was the world's most expensive market research project.  does anyone have a citation for that? Earthlyreason (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because according to the research I've done, it wasn't. It cost Coke about $25 million, one-tenth of what they spent on researching Diet Coke (Though of course that figure probably includes R&D related to developing the formula, which was not a problem with New Coke). Daniel Case (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Kansas 

message: There was a satire on SNL about the switch too.  It was a drug dealer changing the formulation of cocaine "coke" and the users upset about the switch.  i think it would be a poingnant example of the public backlash.  can someone find a refernce? --MartinezMD (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saturday Night Live 

message: In the section History > Background the following sentence appears:
:Market analysts believed baby boomers were less likely to purchase diet drinks as they aged and remained health- and weight-conscious. Therefore, any future growth in the full-calorie segment had to come from younger drinkers
The first sentence doesn't make sense, especially when accompanied by the second sentence. Wouldn't baby boomers (or any aging demographic) be MORE likely to purchase diet drinks "as they aged and remained health- and weight-conscious"? Captain Quirk (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that one got heavily edited a couple of weeks ago and may have gotten turned around in the process. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like an error 

message: The phrase "and continued to drink it until his own death" makes me think he stopped drinking it shortly after he died lol, does this look right to you guys? 86.31.191.57 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. What does this other edit of yours look like? Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drank it until after his death? 

message: An image used in this article, File:New coke toast.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 21 September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:New coke toast.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I watched this video with a lecture on diet/health/stuff, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM. The professor claims (at 13:40) that the New Coke had more caffeine and salt, which supposedly would cause us to drink more. Can this be confirmed?
188.57.142.175 (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We would have to evaluate the reliability of the source first. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More salt and caffeine? 

message: Georgia Classic--It's not clear whether the method I am undertaking is the correct way to respond to the Daniel Case deletion of 7/30/12.  The President of Pepsi made this statement on the Larry King radio program in the months following the return of Classic Coke.  Sorry to have intruded into one of your prize articles, but it is true.  Heard it with my own ears.  How would I prove it, given that I don't have the King archives from those years?  If you really care that much about the article, you can probably verify the fact that Pepsi was preparing a competitive product.  I'm sure you would agree that if verified, the fact is germane to the history of this incident.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.195.40 (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will respond at your IP talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgia Classic

message: There was a man years ago who owned the semi-famous diner called Nick's Hamburgers in Brookings South Dakota and he became semi-famous for pouring new coke down a storm drain because he was a long time coke fan and collector. Maybe that should have a mention in the article??Ilikeguys21 (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If it got into any national media coverage, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Good. Can you find some examples? Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brookings South Dakota 

message: The content about Guoizueta tweaking Coke's flavor at the Bahamian subsidiary has been in the article since 2006.  However, I just tried to find source material to back up that assertion and could not do so; e.g., it's not mentioned at all in the nearest references.  Can anyone else find any evidence to backup this claim?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.107.39 (talk • contribs) 
:I know it's one of the sources that I used when expanding the article a decade ago ... a lot's been moved around since then. I'll take a look at older revisions when I get the chance (i.e., probably not at the moment). Daniel Case (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for Guoizueta tweaking recipe at Bahamian subsidiary? 

message: I think we (or somebody) should create added information about the 2019 re-release. It seems New Coke is doing better this time around, perhaps because it is a niche brand or for other reasons. 
They should also add that on the first day New Coke was sold online it crashed the website for the next 8 or more hours...too many people were trying to order it at once.
There are plenty of YouTube videos with people doing taste tests with New Coke and old Coke, also reddit seems to have user posting photos of New Coke, especially when it was in pre-release.
Many people paying $20 for only 2 cans of New Coke are going out of their way to try and enjoy this beverage right now. Many are first time drinkers who tried it at an event, others are trying it for the first time, others simply remembered it during 1985-2002 and still like the taste.
So hopefully someone can perhaps add this in the article and find the various sources for citations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenAbyss (talk • contribs) 02:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-Release