PDA

View Full Version : Dr Pepper Lawsuit against Dublin Dr Pepper



Themaster73
08-03-2011, 12:13 AM
Dublin down on Dr Pepper | Loren Steffy | a Chron.com blog (http://blog.chron.com/lorensteffy/2011/07/dublin-down-on-dr-pepper/)

Dr. Pepper Sues Dr. Pepper Bottler Over Cane Sugar "Dublin Dr. Pepper" - The Consumerist (http://consumerist.com/2011/06/dr-pepper-sues-dr-pepper-bottler-over-real-sugar-dublin-dr-pepper.html)

Boycott Dr.Pepper | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=6278093869&topic=18571)

I Support Dublin Dr. Pepper - Wall | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Support-Dublin-Dr-Pepper/141195079289346?sk=wall&filter=12)

Anyone here want to boycott Dr Pepper like some others plan on doing?

SodaFan16
08-03-2011, 02:56 AM
Nah, I'll keep on drinking my Dr. Pepper. :)

CitrusCola
08-03-2011, 06:47 AM
Dr Pepper Bottling of West Jefferson, NC also bottles Dr Pepper with cane sugar and sells it outside of its distribution area. Will DPSG sue them as well?

I think this is a foolish move on the part of DPSG. They're just going to tick off a portion of their customers.

drpep
08-03-2011, 09:11 PM
If Coca-Cola can allow it's franchises to sell Mexican Coke then Dr Pepper should allow it's franchises to import Dublin Dr Pepper from the Dublin bottler. I do agree Dublin Dr Pepper should stay in its own territory.

fusion
08-04-2011, 01:23 AM
Here's what I say. Let the local bottlers/distributors buy it from Dublin and sell it to their customers. People will be willing to pay the premium price. This is what WJDP is doing.

Nostalgia/retro is HUGE right now. DPS would be foolish to cut Dublin off at the knees and refuse to let them use the retro logo and bottles.

This is a heartbreaking story for us PCS fans out there.

On a related but unrelated note, I noticed that the Sundrop bottlers who used to sell over the internet, like the ones in Tullahoma TN and Pulaski TN, no longer do. A real shame for us who want cherry lemon, caffeine free, or caffeine free diet, since all the new distribution areas just carry regular and diet.

Tannerman
08-04-2011, 12:31 PM
I was going to say to check out Sun Drop's official online sales site, but looks like with the national rollout, they pulled the plug on that: BuySunDrop.com (http://buysundrop.com/)

That was a shortlived experiment.

fusion
08-04-2011, 11:58 PM
No, that was Choice USA of Gastonia NC's site. Forgot about that one.

hitokage
08-05-2011, 02:33 AM
Personally I think the way soda distribution is done is dumb - it's a hold over from another time and needs to be modernized. It causes the availability of flavors to not necessarily depend on customer demand, but on who has bottling rights and issues with competing flavors from two different companies not being able to be produced by the same bottler.

On topic:
It appears that part of the problem is Dublin Dr Pepper modifying the logo to include their name, which is a legitimate concern, as they are modifying a trademark.

fusion
08-05-2011, 03:42 PM
A contract is a contract. There are plenty of other businesses that have protected sales territories. What sense would it make to have two or more companies selling/distributing the same exact product competing against each other in the same accounts and geographical area?

Let's say you own the franchise rights to a certain territory for McDonald's, Subway, what have you, and someone decides to build a McDonald's right next to yours.

Specific territorial boundaries and exclusivity within those boundaries has been a basis of the franchise model. I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.

Nobody's forcing you to purchase only from the stores in your area. You have the freedom to jump in a car, on a bus, a train, etc and go to a place that sells the product you're looking for. Or you can hit up ebay, or one of the small reseller sites on the Internet, like Sodafinder or Soda Emporium.

With the consolidation of the bottling networks by the big three, their product offerings are becoming very homogenous. There are niche products here and there, but all in all, they want things to be very standardized. I recently took a trip to Rhode Island, and it was pretty cool to go into another Coke bottler's territory (Coca Cola of Southeastern New England), and see different things, like 24/30pk cubes, Moxie, Canada Dry Cranberry in DPS bottles (and 12pk cans) year round, and so on. Also, Polar Beverages, who is a DPS distributor, along with a very, very deep lineup of their own, carrying a lot of neat flavors, and seeing the Legacy 20oz DPS bottle for the first time. I'm sure that DPS will push all the bottlers to switch to them eventually, but there are none available around here from Honickman Canada Dry, and nobody I've spoken to from them knows anything about them.

That being said, I do feel lucky to be in an area where there are a few different choices from each of the big three - Davis and Honickman for DPS, ABARTA Coke and CCR from Coca-Cola (can't cound Philadelphia Coke anymore, they're now a part of CCR), and PBC and PBV from Pepsi-Cola.

Unfortunately, there isn't much in the way of 4th tier distribution, Red Bull took over all their distribution around here, and the previous company went bankrupt (Victory Beverage, they carried a lot of neat waters and sodas), and Beverage Network of Maryland has a very limited product line, and keeps losing stuff to others (Skinny Water, for example).

The Coke Freestyle machine is filling some of the demand for unique and different drinks, though availability is still spotty. Firehouse Subs just committed to putting them in every restaurant, although there are none of them even close to me (though one will be opening north of here in the near future). Most of the new Wegmans should have them as well. My only hope is that they are taking the large amount of data collected from the machines on a daily basis, and eventually offering some of those brands in bottle/can format. I'd LOVE to see a MezzoMix/Orange Coke. And more Fanta flavors.

CitrusCola
08-05-2011, 06:00 PM
A contract is a contract. There are plenty of other businesses that have protected sales territories. What sense would it make to have two or more companies selling/distributing the same exact product competing against each other in the same accounts and geographical area?

The flaw with this model is that some products get excluded from given markets. In the area where I live, for example, CCBCC supplies stores with Pibb Xtra and Mello Yello, but has chosen not to supply Pibb Zero and is discontinuing Mello Yello Zero. This decision reduces both competition and the number of available customer choices in the market.

If a company has the rights to a product and opts to not sell that product, then another company ought to be allowed to bring that product to the market.

Mr Zabe
08-06-2011, 01:40 AM
Market demand guides what a seller will sell.
That's the beauty of free market demand.
Or simply put life is not always fair. For the most part
at least in the mass market soda pop business, nitch
demand drinks get lost in the shuffle.
IMHO

hitokage
08-06-2011, 03:14 AM
@fusion - Territories do make sense in some cases and not others - what I meant was centralized manufacturing or area manufacturing controlled by the corporate office for product line consistency. The best example of when trouble comes up is in markets where the Coke bottler bottles Dr Pepper - it doesn't matter what the (potential) demand for Pibb in that territory is since Coke doesn't allow/license anyone else to bottle it (as far as I know anyway), the bottler isn't allowed to bottle both, and another Coke bottler can't sell it there.

CitrusCola
08-06-2011, 08:59 AM
hitokage,

The example with Coke distributors and and Dr Pepper vs. Pibb is a good one.

Distribution rights ought to be on a use-it-or-lose-it basis. If a company decides to not distribute a drink that they have the rights to, then a competitor should be able to pick up the distribution rights to that drink (and pay a portion of the profits to the company that actually owns the drink).

bigrich
08-06-2011, 10:33 AM
I don't believe the problem is with other bottlers that buy Dublin Dr Pepper. It would be OK if another Dr Pepper bottler bought it and distributed it in their own territory. The problem is all the Dublin product that is transhipped that the local bottler has no control over. I believe WJ Dr Pepper sells their product to other bottlers that sell it in their own area. In fact they bottle Pepsi (which they do not even sell in their own territory) for other bottlers. As far as labeling it "Dublin Dr Pepper" they should have to have permission to use it besides perhaps the bottling company information on the side of the can or top of the bottle cap. Of course they have permission to use sugar, so sucrose would be listed in the ingrediants. At one time WJ dr Pepper was selling their product out of their area and other bottlers complained and they stopped.

fusion
08-07-2011, 11:40 PM
I know of two instances where a non-Pepsi bottler bottled/distributed Sierra Mist, because the Pepsi bottler had 7Up still - this is going back a bit. Blue Ridge Beverages in and around Staunton VA / Pepsi Shenandoah, and Pepsi Mid-America and... I can't remember the 3rd tier who had Mist.

Dr Pepper is a very valuable brand to have in your stable. Why do you think that Coke and Pepsi paid out those big sums to DPS when the bottlers were acquired? They gave up practically everything else, to keep DP. Pepsi made out a little better, they also got to keep Schweppes and Crush as well. And I saw Pepsi bottled Hawaiian Punch in the Northeast last week. Coke got to keep DP, and Canada Dry, but the latter only in the Northeast. CCNNE also still has Canada Dry, and Polar has Seagram's. They do reg/diet/rasp/diet rasp in 2L, reg only in 12pks.. that's about it. I was happy to find CD Cranberry in 12pks from CCNNE, though.

I don't think it would be smart of Coke to license a brand they own that directly competes with a brand they distribute. Besides, to be honest, Pibb is barely a blip on any radar. I was honestly surprised a few years back when I saw how much it was pushed in Kentucky. Every cooler, multiple packages, even slabs.

Themaster73
08-10-2011, 04:08 AM
Good thing Coke doesn't have Canada Dry in NYC (Honickman has it) otherwise there would likely be no KP Canada Dry at all.

Coke having Dr Pepper meant no Heritage Dr Pepper (some places still make this), means less reasons to even bother with Coke bottlers outside of Passover (at least they bothered to have the 125th Anniversary version with sugar). Too bad Honickman couldn't have had Dr Pepper as well.

CitrusCola
08-10-2011, 07:27 AM
I don't think it would be smart of Coke to license a brand they own that directly competes with a brand they distribute. Besides, to be honest, Pibb is barely a blip on any radar.

The problem with the current distribution setup is that it stifles competition. In the Dr Pepper/Pibb example, Pibb gets excluded from markets where Coke distributes DP, thus creating a monopoly for DP. Monopolies are not good for customers. If a lower-tier bottler thinks that they can make money in those areas by distributing Pibb, then they ought to be able to add Pibb to their lineup. If Coke wanted to prevent this from happening, they could distribute both DP and Pibb.

The FTC is really inconsistent in matters like this. At a company that I used to work for, a competitor was acquired and along with it one product that was very similar to a product that we already had (like the case with DP/Pibb). The FTC forced the company to pick one of the two similar products to keep and made them give up the other one to a competitor in order to preserve competition. Why they don't do that in the soft drink industry baffles me.

Themaster73
08-11-2011, 12:54 AM
I know of two instances where a non-Pepsi bottler bottled/distributed Sierra Mist, because the Pepsi bottler had 7Up still - this is going back a bit. Blue Ridge Beverages in and around Staunton VA / Pepsi Shenandoah, and Pepsi Mid-America and... I can't remember the 3rd tier who had Mist.


The Pepsi bottler could have bottled both 7UP and Sierra Mist, wouldn't have been much of a problem since it is done in the NYC area. Honickman actually has about 2/3 of the major brand sodas in NYC area (PepsiCo/DPS/Coca Cola).

Pepsi / Canada Dry Honickman has several pairs of competing / similar drinks.

7Up and Sierra Mist
Schweppes and Canada Dry
Sunkist, Crush, and Tropicana Twister Soda
Mountain Dew and Sun Drop
Squirt and Citrus Blast
MUG and A&W (previously Cro Pac had A&W [at least the 20 oz]).

Now if only Honickman could get RC Cola from Cro Pac (which has less distribution here than most of the other DPS/DPSU/Cadbury Schweppes brands).

DrPepperIsGood
08-15-2011, 04:11 PM
The bulk of the lawsuit has to do with the name "Dublin DrPepper" being branded on this product, its not something unique to just this dublin bottler, they simply use the original recipe and original ingredients rather than switch to lower cost production... so its not uniquely their product... their bottler license does allow them to use the recipe but that doesn't entitle them to brand their company name on the packaging... thats the bulk of the lawsuit...

The cases they do transship is just a minor annoyance I think but I don't think any bottler is crying because its appearing by the pallet in stores, its just individual online sales to people not companies... heck I bought some years ago and would still today if I could, I love the stuff.

I'm sure if they had stripped the "dublin" off the label so they can't in essence say all other drpepper is inferior in some way to our premium brand, this wouldn't have happened... thats my take on the whole subject... even if it is better, its bad for the company to have a perception they are short changing all the other customers with inferior drpepper ya know? it does hurt the company image so its not without merit... I'd love to see drpepper bring glass 6pack original sugar cane recipe to every store across america, and make amends with dublin by having them remove the name and drop the lawsuit...

RunWithDaLilGuy
08-24-2011, 09:01 PM
i've got a couple problems with the discussion on this thread. for one, the pibb/pepper example is NOT a good one. pibb is NOT a focus of coca cola, thus why would they even bother 'licensing' it out to a competing distributor. secondly, the sierra mist/7up example applies differently because pepsi WANTS sierra to do well, will pay for it to be in chain stores/restaurants and if their independent bottlers don't want to carry it, F em, someone else will. sierra is a priority for pepsi, and pibb is not for coke. it isn't a shame, it's just the way it is. thirdly, using honickman's enterprises as an example is flawed because most of the time they are run as separate companies. separate trucks, sales staffs etc... so that compares more to the example of say, dpsu owning multiple versions of the same type of soda...crush, welch's and sunkist...hires and a & w...vernors, canada dry and schweppes...and simply licensing them all out. in the end, dpsu wins.

CitrusCola
08-25-2011, 06:40 AM
i've got a couple problems with the discussion on this thread. for one, the pibb/pepper example is NOT a good one. pibb is NOT a focus of coca cola, thus why would they even bother 'licensing' it out to a competing distributor. secondly, the sierra mist/7up example applies differently because pepsi WANTS sierra to do well, will pay for it to be in chain stores/restaurants and if their independent bottlers don't want to carry it, F em, someone else will. sierra is a priority for pepsi, and pibb is not for coke. it isn't a shame, it's just the way it is. thirdly, using honickman's enterprises as an example is flawed because most of the time they are run as separate companies. separate trucks, sales staffs etc... so that compares more to the example of say, dpsu owning multiple versions of the same type of soda...crush, welch's and sunkist...hires and a & w...vernors, canada dry and schweppes...and simply licensing them all out. in the end, dpsu wins.

The issue is whether you are looking from the customer's perspective or the producer's prospective. I'm talking about what's best for the customers. In a free market, you must have at least 3 choices in order to have real competition. In general, the soft drink industry has that for most sodas with the big 3 (Coke, Pepsi, and DPSG):

Colas: Coke, Pepsi, RC
Lemon-Lime: Sprite, Sierra Mist, 7-Up
Citrus: Mello Yello, Vault, Mountain Dew, Sun Drop
Fruit Flavors: Fanta, Crush, Sunkist
Ginger Ale: Seagram's, Schweppes, Canada Dry
Root Beer: Barq's, Mug, A&W

But in the Spicy Cherry flavor there are only two: Dr Pepper and Pibb

In areas where Coke distributes Dr Pepper, they don't distribute Pibb. That give customers only one choice. My main point is that the big 3 are using the convoluted distribution system to limit competition.

hitokage
08-27-2011, 10:22 AM
No one here knows what Coca-Cola's priorities are. Two years ago did anyone think they would relaunch Mello Yello? One could argue that all of their soft drink line outside Coca-Cola and Diet Coke are lower priorities except whatever they think will be the next big thing at the moment. It obviously sells well enough in the areas it's available, otherwise they'd kill it off, and completely reformulate it or replace it with something else.

Mr Zabe
08-27-2011, 12:40 PM
Let's not forget about Coke Zero. Dr Peper10 IMHO is DPSC's answer to Coke Zero.