PDA

View Full Version : C'mon BevReview, only 2/5 stars for BCV?



SodaAddict
01-29-2006, 06:54 AM
I really think BevNet "tasters" need to grow up on Coke. I actually like Pepsi more now, but I think the black cherry vanilla grows on you and now it is one of my favorite sodas (Right up there with MDX and mountain dew). Why do they only give it a 2 star? Beats me. All I know is they don't like coke. It isn't fair to have to be this biased. Coke is still above pepsi in sales, I mean. anyone else agree?

MATHA531
01-29-2006, 07:18 AM
2*'s? They badly overrated this garbage...and to think they got rid of a 4* like vc and dvc for this garbage. What kind of morons are they?

Mr Zabe
01-29-2006, 07:24 AM
It's sorta of like when Xerox photo copiers were first on the market. They were the Big Daddy,they the only copiers on the market. Soon as a few years past other copies slowly competed with Xerox.

Xerox still makes some of the best photo copiers but not that much better than it's competitors.
Some companies will not even consider Xerox products because they feel Xerox is an old bran.
Granted this view of Xerox based on ignorance.

Maybe there are similarities with Coke reviews?

Mr Nethead
01-29-2006, 11:09 AM
Bevnet tends to not like mainstream beverages. The only 4 star review I noticed for a mainstream soda is Josta. And that soda has been discontinued! While I admit that I could've missed some reviews, when I sorted them by rating I didn't see a single Coke or Pepsi product rated 4 or 5 stars. (except Josta)

stonedwookie
01-29-2006, 03:19 PM
well i can say i grew up on coke it only makes you more sick of it.

Bevorama
01-29-2006, 04:55 PM
The bevnet reviewers are analagous to a too-hip-for-the-room music reviewer. That is, if it is popular band, it must be bad. Similarly, the bevnet reviewers view any "popular" beverage brands as mere fodder for the masses.

Another question: the reviews always say "we this" and "we that." Are there really multiple reviewers who all simultaneously try these different beverages. I find it hard to believe that they would all share such similar tastes as to come to a star agreement on each one.

Seems more likely that "we" is meant in a Unabomer sort of way.

Robot
01-29-2006, 05:04 PM
bevnet is consistently against coke/pepsi products; well,.. mostly that is.

if you give me a new coke product or pepsi product; i can with 75% accuracy predict the coke product is bland, and the pepsi product is a copy or too sweet or something.

ramonazo
01-29-2006, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Jimmy O'Sullivan:
bevnet is consistently against coke/pepsi products; well,.. mostly that is.

if you give me a new coke product or pepsi product; i can with 75% accuracy predict the coke product is bland, and the pepsi product is a copy or too sweet or something. I support your theory...

DJ HawaiianShirt
01-29-2006, 11:21 PM
One of the few times I agree with BevNET.


Most of the BevNET criticisms in this thread are correct, I believe, especially the one asserted by Bevorama, which I've been trying to push here for a while now.

And I've noticed that BevNET has become so anti-HFCS(even though 99% of full calorie soda uses it), that they've now started to rate diet versions of drinks better than the normal counterparts.

I'll quote BevNet's DBCV Coke review: "The diet variety is lighter and doesn't have the syrupy body of the original..." This is BevNET speak for "Sorry Coke, but you again chose HFCS over the more expensive and less available cane or rock sugar, sweeteners that most consumers wouldn't be able to differentiate. But it doesn't suit our tastes. So here's your low score. Again."

Btw, they say "we" because, thank God, BevNET is not one person. They're a body of industry specialists.


SEV redface.gif

Robot
01-30-2006, 09:38 AM
mind you also; its smart to rate pepsi/coke products lower for their business.. small beverage companies rely on their information, data, expertise, etc... if they were seen sucking up and loving coke/pepsi, it might drive away business.. by constantly bashing them, it leaves the door open for all these new/upstars/smaller beverage companies and creates a more niche/indie feel for their website/consulting/magazine... its just simply good for business.

BevNET
01-30-2006, 01:54 PM
Wow, what an interesting thread....It's always interesting to hear the viewpoint of the Bevboard user.

Anyway, let's clear up the air a bit. Giving bad reviews to Coke / Pepsi product is in no way part of our (yes, there's more than one person working here) business strategy. See Full Throttle, Aquafina flavor Splash, or Gatorade to see examples of some positive reviews.

As for why these products get poor reviews, here are a couple of factors that constantly play into their product launches:

1. Coke and Pepsi are focused much more on marketing and image than they are the product.

2. Coke and Pepsi do not make the best products in any class of product that they are in.

3. Coke and Pepsi's new products are cannibalistic in nature. They appeal only to existing users of Coke/Pepsi products. This being said, the products do not have a long term positive effect on the bottom line.

You are welcome to agree/disagree...

BevNET
01-30-2006, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Bevorama:
The bevnet reviewers are analagous to a too-hip-for-the-room music reviewer. That is, if it is popular band, it must be bad. Similarly, the bevnet reviewers view any "popular" beverage brands as mere fodder for the masses.You can say that we're the "too-hip-for-the-room music reviewer", but in our opinion this is kind of like being a restaurant reviewer that's forced to review McDonalds, a company that is also focused on image and marketing rather than quality of product.

DJ HawaiianShirt
01-30-2006, 03:00 PM
I disagree with nothing you said, BevNET. It's clear that the big boys spend more on marketing than R&D. It just confuses me that a group like us who frequent the BevBoards, among which are at least several people with good taste in soft drinks, immensely enjoy products that you can't.

I guess we're all victims of Coke's and Pepsi's brainwash.


SEV :confused:

[ 01-30-2006, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: SnappleElementsVenom ]

ramonazo
01-30-2006, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by SnappleElementsVenom:
I guess we're all victims of Coke's ... brainwash.


SEV :confused: I'm a victim!... and I like it! :D LOL

[ 01-30-2006, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Ramón Coca-Colero ]

Mr Nethead
01-30-2006, 05:50 PM
Hi BevNET. You guys are probably a little spoiled. ;) Most of us don't have access to many of the beverages you review. I imagine your taste buds are attuned to the finer wines... err I mean sodas. So I suppose when you try a new Coke or Pepsi product you probably think "what is this swill??"

But then some of us try Black Cherry Vanilla Coke or Vault and bursting with joy we cry out to the heavens "Thank you Lord for giving Coke this manna-like recipe!"

Or maybe that's just me...

ramonazo
01-30-2006, 05:54 PM
About the BevNet staff opinion, I disagree that Coke and Pepsi only focuses on marketing and image... In fact they make exhaustive R&D activities to know the preference of the consumers. As a marketing student, the marketing and image of the product are basic for any company... in that way you show to the people that the product it's there and all the attributes it has, and because of marketing, image and advertising, Coca-Cola is one of the best-known icons in all the world, and Pepsi is identificated as a brand for the youth, plus both brands have a sentimental value for the people around the world... and all the products that BevNet gives a thumbs-up are lacking of these important tools... and they lack also of one tool that Coke and Pepsi intensively use...

DISTRIBUTION

[ 01-30-2006, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Ramón Coca-Colero ]

Mr Zabe
01-30-2006, 06:14 PM
Mr Nethead and MrR,
Bravo and well said. smile.gif
Standing ovation to all our devoted board mates. :D

Zabe

ramonazo
01-30-2006, 06:43 PM
Thanx MrZ! smile.gif

And also we have to remember one thing, when we were complaining about the banner in the left side of the screen, the bevnet staff told us that takes a lot of time and MONEY to run the site... and who places more banners on the BevNet main site?... the products that BevNet gives a thumbs-up, obviously...

BevNET
01-30-2006, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Ramón Coca-Colero:
About the BevNet staff opinion, I disagree that Coke and Pepsi only focuses on marketing and image... In fact they make exhaustive R&D activities to know the preference of the consumers. Right, so they can make the marketing and advertising -- not the quality of the product or its formulation -- in line with the ideals of the target consumer.

There's nothing wrong with this from a business point of view. The point is that Coke and Pepsi are marketing companies, not companies that make gourmet products.

Again, it's like comparing McDonalds -- which obviously has many merits as a business -- with a non-fast food restaurant.

BevNET
01-30-2006, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Ramón Coca-Colero:
...and who places more banners on the BevNet main site?... the products that BevNet gives a thumbs-up, obviously... Wrong. 75%+ of the advertising on the site comes from companies that do not make beverages.

BevNET
01-30-2006, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Mr Nethead:
Hi BevNET. You guys are probably a little spoiled. ;) Most of us don't have access to many of the beverages you review. I imagine your taste buds are attuned to the finer wines... err I mean sodas. So I suppose when you try a new Coke or Pepsi product you probably think "what is this swill??" No, not at all. The reviews are not because the products are "swill"...some of us are, in fact, Coke, Pepsi, and Dr Pepper drinkers...so it's not an issue of being "too good" for their products or believing that they are toxic swill.

As we have tried to convey through the reviews and other editorial content on the web site and in our magazine, we are assessing these products on their marketability.

In this case, Black Cherry Vanilla Coke was given the rating that it was for several reasons: 1) that this is not the first extension to their Cola brand in the past year...the concept is played out, 2) it recycles old flavors and lacks originality and innovative qualities and 3) it will only appeal to existing users of the Coke brand's flavor extensions AND those consumers purchasing out of curiousity and 4) it has no long term viability as a permanent part of the Coca-Cola portfolio.

Again, you can agree or disagree, but you will not find many people in the industry who say that Coke's strategy of cola extensions is providing anything more than a quick, short-term boost. In the long-term, this is going to have a damaging effect on the brand -- especially when you consider that there are only a limited number of flavors that Coke can successfully combine with cola and end up with a marketable product.

DJ HawaiianShirt
01-30-2006, 10:22 PM
It's great having you around for discussion, BevNET. I'm sorry you can't join in more often.


SEV smile.gif


PS- (on topic) The best part about all of this is that Pepsi, too, will have a Black Cherry Vanilla flavor. :D

[ 01-30-2006, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: SnappleElementsVenom ]

Bevorama
01-30-2006, 10:41 PM
In this case, Black Cherry Vanilla Coke was given the rating that it was for several reasons: 1) that this is not the first extension to their Cola brand in the past year...the concept is played out, 2) it recycles old flavors and lacks originality and innovative qualities and 3) it will only appeal to existing users of the Coke brand's flavor extensions AND those consumers purchasing out of curiousity and 4) it has no long term viability as a permanent part of the Coca-Cola portfolio.I know you guys base your rankings on things other than flavor, but when you spend so much time in your review attacking a product for who it will appeal to or how many sodas a company has released in a year or how the product has no long term viability, it sometimes comes across as having an axe to grind. This is your site and your reviews, but I would proposition that the majority of any review should have to do with the flavor (good or bad), and the other stuff, while fun to mention, should be secondary.

In other news, do any of you think, with all of these product extensions by Coke (Diet Coke with Splenda, Coke with lime, Coke with lemon, Coke with this that and the other thing), that a Coke with Real Cane Sugar might not be that far behind? It would be nice to let the market decide whether it can handle the higher cost with the resultant presumed benefit of improved quality.

gecko
01-30-2006, 10:47 PM
i think you are all ridiculous with your militant brand name loyalty. cherry vanilla coke is a very stupid product. if you like the taste, thats fine, but its made just to make a quick surge of sales. bevnets reviews are usually pretty sharp as far as major brands go. when coke or pepsi makes an original, good tasting marketable product theyll give it a good review.

one thing i do dissagree with though is bevnets obsession with "mouth feel". they HATE syrupy and LOVE light. the problem is, things get positive reviews, like white tea, for having practically no flavor at all, just because of their consistency. its just sugar water... being real cane sugar water makes little difference.. things that are bold and very flavorful are typically "syrupy"... but that happens to be what i like. a drink that i dont have to roll around on every part of my tongue to get a flavor out of. this is an extension of their HFCS bias going way to far. i havent seen a review for years that doesnt mention sugar/HFCS and judge partially based on it.

Mr Nethead
01-30-2006, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by BevNET:

In this case, Black Cherry Vanilla Coke was given the rating that it was for several reasons: 1) that this is not the first extension to their Cola brand in the past year...the concept is played out, 2) it recycles old flavors and lacks originality and innovative qualities and 3) it will only appeal to existing users of the Coke brand's flavor extensions AND those consumers purchasing out of curiousity and 4) it has no long term viability as a permanent part of the Coca-Cola portfolio.

Again, you can agree or disagree, but you will not find many people in the industry who say that Coke's strategy of cola extensions is providing anything more than a quick, short-term boost. In the long-term, this is going to have a damaging effect on the brand...[/QB]I suspect a factor in Coke's decision to mix Cherry and Vanilla flavours had something to do with Dr Pepper's decision to do it first. I definitely don't think it was an original decision, but I do enjoy the product.

I will say that if Coke came up with some completely new, non-derivative sodas I wouldn't mind a bit.

ramonazo
01-31-2006, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by BevNET:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ramón Coca-Colero:
...and who places more banners on the BevNet main site?... the products that BevNet gives a thumbs-up, obviously... Wrong. 75%+ of the advertising on the site comes from companies that do not make beverages. </font>[/QUOTE]That's Ok, but you can't deny that the products that are announced in your main page have an obvious preference with positive reviews in the BevReviews compared with your negative reviews about Coke or Pepsi products, examples?: XO, Hi-Ball and Energy 69.

So please... be partial... smile.gif

sirslash
01-31-2006, 04:38 AM
well the thing that makes me wonder about your reviews is for example VAULT vs SURGE
SURGE 1 out of 5
Vault 2 out of 5
Surge
It was very difficult to consume even even half of a 12oz can of this product. The flavor is so ridiculously sweet and plagued with caffeine aftertaste that we were unable to enjoy Surge. then you turn around with vault and say
VAULT

is defined as "tastes a lot like Surge." The flavor is actually pretty pleasant -- it's kind of like a cross between Mountain Dew and Surge, Overall, there's not a whole heck of a lot to praise about this product beyond the fact that Coke isn't going down without a fight. Unfortunately, this product's execution is no better than it's previous efforts (we'd have stuck with Surge). i mean why would you stick with surge when its suppose to be a inferior product.... of course according to you guys? Not that i disagree with all your reviews... but sometimes they do seem somewhat biased at times... Your dr.pepper/7up reviews are quite on par IMO

[ 01-31-2006, 04:53 AM: Message edited by: sirslash ]

ramonazo
01-31-2006, 10:32 AM
I just read the reviews of Vault and Surge, and the things that the Bevnet staff say about the packaging and the flavor of these amazing products are horrible!, but they say positive things about the meaningless packaging of their ANNOUNCER Hi-Ball, like if that product was the 8th wonder of the world... this is not fair! :mad:

[ 01-31-2006, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Ramón Coca-Colero ]

Mr Zabe
01-31-2006, 10:35 AM
Maybe if there was a way to review the big three soda pop companies in their own catagory. So these products can be reviewed and appreciated for what the common consumer (this board) thinks.

How about the Common Pop Review---CPR Index

Zabe

[ 01-31-2006, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Mr Zabe ]

ramonazo
01-31-2006, 10:38 AM
I think it's a good idea!

DJ HawaiianShirt
01-31-2006, 05:02 PM
Maybe a better idea is to have a seperate review column for the formulae and taste of the products, regardless of brand, business decisions, what the sweetener COULD have been, similarities to other products, marketing, packaging, market segment saturation, etc.(I could go on)

I guess it's just dissatisfying to look forward to a BevNET review of a product that I like or dislike, and instead get commentary on everything but its taste.

Because when you lean back in your chair and crack open a can of a company's new product to enjoy with family or friends, who really cares if their last product bombed or if the can looks too similar to something else?

Maybe it's just me.


SEV smile.gif

Mr Zabe
01-31-2006, 06:01 PM
SEV
I like your idea much more than I like mine.
Yours makes good sense. smile.gif

pepsidew
01-31-2006, 07:15 PM
i'd say i'd give black cherry vanilla coke 3 1/2 out of 5 - its good but didn't blow me away - i like the ideas though

Mr Nethead
01-31-2006, 07:34 PM
I guess the reviews on BevNET are geared more towards those in the beverage industry. The average consumer would rate a beverage on taste rather than all that other stuff.

BevNET
01-31-2006, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by SnappleElementsVenom:
Maybe a better idea is to have a seperate review column for the formulae and taste of the products, regardless of brand, business decisions, what the sweetener COULD have been, similarities to other products, marketing, packaging, market segment saturation, etc.(I could go on)Really though, what purpose would that serve? As someone else pointed out, this isn't wine. These are products that are driven by marketing, image, price, etc.


Originally posted by SnappleElementsVenom:

I guess it's just dissatisfying to look forward to a BevNET review of a product that I like or dislike, and instead get commentary on everything but its taste.That's the beauty of a review -- it's subjective and not everyone agrees.

BevNET
01-31-2006, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Mr Nethead:
I guess the reviews on BevNET are geared more towards those in the beverage industry. The average consumer would rate a beverage on taste rather than all that other stuff. Yes, they are written with only the industry in mind. The consumer is not the intended audience, but is -- for better or worse depending on who you ask -- a reality on the site.

[ 01-31-2006, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: BevNET ]

BevNET
01-31-2006, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Ramón Coca-Colero:
That's Ok, but you can't deny that the products that are announced in your main page have an obvious preference with positive reviews in the BevReviews compared with your negative reviews about Coke or Pepsi products, examples?: XO, Hi-Ball and Energy 69. We will deny that as it's simply not true. The reality of our business is that some companies do choose to dangle the carrot of advertising if they get a good review. Fortunately, the people in our organization that handle the ad sales have no visibility into the review process. It's painful for them, but we have lost and are willing to lose advertising from these types of companies.

In reality -- and the proof is in the pudding with past beverage companies that does this -- the type of company that attempts to buy a good review is one that has no future in this industry as their ethical issues generally get them into bigger troubles. Beverage companies that do advertise -- small, medium, or large -- know what they are getting into. They realize that our opinions are just that -- not the bible of the industry. They, not our reviews, will determine the success of their brand.

Furthermore, most of the advertisers on the Bevnet web site are suppliers to the industry. Flavor companies, trade shows, consultants, etc...companies that have much lower turnover than beverage companies.

Anyway, that's all the defending we are going to do. It's probably easy for someone who has obvious affiliation with Coke to see it under some different light...but everyone else here is probably intelligent enought to see right through that.

Mr Zabe
01-31-2006, 10:13 PM
MrR, I agree.
The thing is that the "industry" by and large caters to the mass market and the gourmet soda pop enthusiast.

I can see both sides to this issue. My thought is that most of the soda pops reviewed on Bevnet are so far out on the mass market fringes, that I Mr Joe average soda pop lover will never be able to purchase them. A great majority on the message board are the "meat and potato" variety soda pop lovers. That's not a bad thing, it just means that we are devoted to the mass market soda pops. We buy them weekly and we drink them daily.

It's all cool. I just would be nice to allow a more even review of the mass market soda pops.

[ 01-31-2006, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Mr Zabe ]

Inko
01-31-2006, 10:50 PM
Bevnet recently gave one of my sku's three stars and another 3.5.
Does that mean they think of me like Coke and Pepsi? If so, then, should I take three stars as a compliment?

I'm so confused.

I mean, I think the Seventh Sign with Demi Moore is one of the best apocalyptic-genre movies ever and that only got 2 stars.

My point?

IT'S AN OPINION! Do I agree? Of course not.
God Bless America.

sirslash
02-01-2006, 02:00 AM
well
"Though I disagree with everything you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it."

heh though i do agree with some its a great quote

ramonazo
02-01-2006, 10:48 AM
Bevnet staff, I take my hat off to your reply, I thought that the advertising on the site influenced the reviews, but now with the explanation you gave me, I see everything more clearly... and like Inko says, maybe we're agree with the review, maybe we're disagree with the review, but anyway, it's just an opinion... smile.gif my apologies...

BTW... I wish I could have affiliation with Coke, but now I'm just a Coke fan. :D

[ 02-01-2006, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Ramón Coca-Colero ]

BottleBoss
02-01-2006, 11:47 AM
I think BevNet was being very generous with there two (2) stars.

BottleBoss
02-01-2006, 11:49 AM
Actually, I liked Vanilla Coke. I don't like the Black Cherry Version very well at all. I have talked to other people who do like it. I don't think it's terrible, just not that great.

CStoreCatMan
02-01-2006, 12:15 PM
[/QUOTE]No, not at all. The reviews are not because the products are "swill"...some of us are, in fact, Coke, Pepsi, and Dr Pepper drinkers...so it's not an issue of being "too good" for their products or believing that they are toxic swill.

As we have tried to convey through the reviews and other editorial content on the web site and in our magazine, we are assessing these products on their marketability.

In this case, Black Cherry Vanilla Coke was given the rating that it was for several reasons: 1) that this is not the first extension to their Cola brand in the past year...the concept is played out, 2) it recycles old flavors and lacks originality and innovative qualities and 3) it will only appeal to existing users of the Coke brand's flavor extensions AND those consumers purchasing out of curiousity and 4) it has no long term viability as a permanent part of the Coca-Cola portfolio.

Again, you can agree or disagree, but you will not find many people in the industry who say that Coke's strategy of cola extensions is providing anything more than a quick, short-term boost. In the long-term, this is going to have a damaging effect on the brand -- especially when you consider that there are only a limited number of flavors that Coke can successfully combine with cola and end up with a marketable product. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I work for one of the Big 3 beverage companies and I agree completely with this post. The most recent "innovation" from Coke, Pepsi, and DP have not been truly innovative. BevNet is right...they are line extensions...and the companies keep on bringing the extensions as opposed to creating something new. Is it a safer bet to do it this way...probably. Can they make a few incremental bucks here and there? Probably. But I agreed wholeheartedly with BevNet's review...mainly because of the points outlined in the post above. Well said BevNet.

ramonazo
02-01-2006, 02:27 PM
That's true... I saw a lot of line extensions during last year and the course of this year... and Mexico is not the exception

Coca-Cola extensions
2002: Manzana Lift Verde (gone in few cities)
2003: Coca-Cola vainilla (gone), Fresca Rosa (gone in few cities).
2004: Manzana Lift Golden (gone in some cities), Fanta Chamoy (gone).
2005: Coca-Cola Citra (gone), Coca-Cola Citra Light, Fresca Roja (gone in few cities), Powerade Citrus Mango, Powerade Gol, the diet versions of Fanta, Fresca and Lift, and Fanta Reven (gone). (Although Coke made innovations too: Ciel Dasani, a water that is good for digestion and skin, and Minute Maid Revita, that has vitamin E and Green Tea).

Pepsi extensions
2002: Pepsi Limon (gone)
2003: Pepsi Blue (gone), Manzanita Sol Verde, Kas Rosa, Mirinda Naramango.
2004: Pepsi Twist (gone), Pepsi Blue (gone again)
2005: Pepsi Fire (gone), Pepsi Clear, Manzanita Sol Tamarindo-Apple, Mirinda Naran-gotica (gone) and 7UP Ice.

[ 02-01-2006, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Ramón Coca-Colero ]