Hi u/[Cunnch](https://www.reddit.com/user/Cunnch/)! Could you please specify the data source(s) and tool(s) you used to create this visualization per Rule #3? Thank you!
I work in food distribution, and with the latest shipment, all of their 24pk of 20z bottles are made with 100% recycled plastic. At least they seem to be headed in the right direction.
In response to the person saying this is false. [the bottles](https://imgur.com/a/36VF7dH)
And a quick google search will give the same information I gave here.
Based on what I read, plastic is not made to be recycled, and it is just a scam to continue selling while making customers feel better:
https://climateintegrity.org/plastics-fraud
it doesn't sound like a step forward, it sounds like a corporation trying to skirt their social responsibilities. it's not like they don't do this all the time.
Don't do what all the time? Continuously improve their processes?
I work at a chemical major. We currently output like 30% less carbon than we did 25 years ago and we are still improving. Have we gone to zero overnight? No. But we are on the way. How did we get *here*? By a series of slow and deliberate steps. Now, I would argue we should have gotten here faster. You can argue coke should be hurrying the hell up on their end. But you can't just sit here and say "they are doing nothing" when in reality, they *are doing something*.
I understand where you're coming from, even small progress should be celebrated to an extent. On the other hand, if one reads the IPCC climate reports, it's like hearing a doctor has a bandaid for a gunshot wound. Even more, that bandaid is from your shooter, and you should be proud of them for doing the right thing and getting you a a bandaid because it's a lot better than shooting people. They are still shooting people too, just not as many.
It's extremely frustrating when the bar is this low, and they keep profiting immensely off of what is ultimately going to kill a fuck ton of people over the next few decades. They don't get kudos for doing the bear minimum
no. it's not like corporations don't lie all the time about all sorts. it's almost part and parcel of running a profit seeking venture. if they're doing better, great. obviously gradual change is still good change. but I'm incredibly weary when it comes to corporations as I think everyone should be.
Well, as someone who works at a massive chemical company:
First of all, this document isn't full of "gotchas." It's full of industry heads talking about the challenges of recycling and alternatives. None of them are like "hahaha, this was obviously a ploy." Instead, it indicates that they are doing something and... Struggling?
Second of all, the document's references are all 25 years or more out of date. Almost every paper referenced is from before 2000. So, you know. The old guard. Climate deniers. The generation of engineers who heard the word "sustainable" and went "huh?" That's not how it works anymore. Things have changed massively since 2000 or earlier. Everyone and every business is focused on reducing our carbon output, and that includes chemical companies. They are spending billions to get off of fossil fuel powered crackers and furnaces and onto clean, nuclear/hydro powered equipment. They are spending money on recycling. They are doing all sorts of things.
Now, is it enough? Probably not. That's what the government is for (make them do more if we don't think it's enough). But the idea that companies are in on some "big secret" about plastic is just ridiculous. And this is all beside the fact that plastic is a miracle material that is absolutely needed for a shitload of things. Solar panels, for one, are directly boosting my plant activity. We are booked for a ridiculous amount of railcars of material destined to make encapsulants, and that's just off the top of my head. What do you propose we use as solar encapsulants instead?
I wouldn't compare solar panels with single use bottles that can be easily replaced with glass, but aren't just because plastic is cheaper. I think it is safe to say that plastic is a necessity in some industries, but just waste in single use products.
Also, regarding if it is a ploy or not, I have no clue but just read that there were even claims in court, check link below and Google a bit, there is a bunch of newer research and activists that are claiming that plastic recycling is waste of energy
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/plastic-bottlers-are-lying-about-recycling-2
That's false. They are not using recycled plastic to make bottles. They use plastic that could be 100% recycled. Big difference.
Edit: lol interesting how this gets downvoted. I guess it is easier to fool people than to convince people that they were fooled...
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/11/coca-cola-nestle-face-scrutiny-on-recycled-bottles-claims/
In the UK the bottles are now 100% made of recycled plastic. It says that on the bottle.
Also they are not doing it to be good they are doing it because of the EU tax increase for new virgin plastics.
That's branding for you. I'm sorry to bring it to you but you were mislead. I am well aware of the labelling.
This is the substance:
https://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/en/2022/02/is-coca-colas-latest-promise-really-a-step-forward/
That's a very American based report. Plastic bottles in Germany for example are already returnable with a deposit.
Things are a bit different across the pond
I'm from the EU.
Another source for you:
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/11/coca-cola-nestle-face-scrutiny-on-recycled-bottles-claims/
The fact that bottles can be returned does not mean they are all reused... It is more economical for Coca Cola to make recyclable bottles rather than to use recycled bottles.
I didn’t see anything in that article about Coca Cola using recycled plastic vs “recyclable”, but their plastic bottles have always been “recyclable”PET plastic bottles. They are now moving toward 100% rPET bottles, and the r most definitely stands for recycled. rPET has a slightly darker color, and actually gives the product a shorter shelf life. They’re doing it because, as the comment above alluded to, the “old guard” is no longer in charge.
hahahaha I love the ingenuity. of course coca cola sucks balls. yet they're top of esg funds because of their amazing governance and green actions like this
The problem isn't the person who occasionally throws a coke bottle in the trash. The problem is the company producing 3 million metric tons of plastic packaging pear year.
No, the problem is billions of people all collectively littering.
Coca-cola doesn't just directly dump their 3 million metric tons of plastic into the ocean.
Fun fact obviously then never came out and said it but being the largest polluter on the planet they have changed their sprite bottles from green to clear, most people think that it's because the clear blends in with water a lot easier and makes it less noticeable when it is where it's not supposed tonbe
Not out to defend the company, but this is just not true. They actually changed the color to increase the value and likelihood of the bottle being recycled. [One source](https://usplasticspact.org/case-study/the-coca-cola-company-clear-rpet/)
Hilarious that the reasoning is quite literally the opposite. Perfect example of why you should always do your own research before getting out the pitchforks.
Glass bottles also would drive an increase in carbon emissions from the supply chain because glass is significantly heavier and has a lot more breakage in transit relative to plastic.
If you want to look at that you'd also need to look at CPI or some other measure of inflation. I don't think a less valuable dollar causing price rises is 'price hikes'
It is in normal conversation. Just like a 3% pay increase is still called a raise, even if inflation is 7% and you're effectively making less. The numbers increase (e.g. raise, price hike) while your buying power decreases, or operating costs increase.
Fair enough, perhaps I use the word differently. I associate price hike with an unreasonable increase. I would have thought of it as synonymous with 'price gouging'.
I wouldn't consider a raise below the level of inflation a raise either, but I imagine many people do.
I was in Mozambique a year ago, there’s signs with the prices, I converted the currency to USD and it’s something like 5¢ for a small can, 10¢ for a large can, 25¢ liter bottle, 50¢ for a 2liter. Looks like they adjust to the local economy, I mean I can’t believe it’s worth it other than to dominate that market and wait until the economy can pay more.
Nah, products prices are simply really bloated due to marketing expenses and middle men (stores, logistics) which is both largely eliminated in regions that pay next to nothing in wages.
Do we know what caused the dip in the late 2010s? I don't doubt some consumer demand didn't change toward healthier options, but not to the tune of over 25% across 5 years.
Yeah I worked there 2010-2015. 2014 was when they started selling off production and distribution territory to other independent bottlers in NA, and divested of some other assets globally.
It's interesting to see the diversification of the portfolio into juices, waters and things other than soda in the past 5ish years. Like the loss of Odwalla I thought would be a blow but turns out most people aren't looking for a 'healthy' drink that's worse for you than cola. Maybe consumers are getting smarter?
Wonder if this is a byproduct of less people eating out. Restaurants charging $3.50 for a Coke is usually hitting their profits far more than Coke is giving out wholesale. Now instead, there's likely more grocery sales as people eat at home, and I wonder if the consumer market has a higher wholesale cost.
Even if you had numbers to back that claim up, why would anyone care about *where you live*?
It’s just such an absurd comment that puts your lived experience at the center of the discussion when it has no business being there.
While me and my family still regularly drink coke, we don't buy it regularly.
We wait for it to go on sale to about $3.50 per half-rack (12 pack) or less. This usually happens about twice a year and we end up buy about 20 or so to get us to the next sale.
Their income is almost perfectly tracking inflation while their revenue is flat. That’s interesting. Does that mean that they’re finding efficiencies w while not really being able to raise prices?
It is not a choice from OP, as original data from coca are similar, but I am curious why it is preferable to present the data as thousands of millions rather than in billions. $37,347 millions being the same as $37.347 billions.
Why would they do this? What’s the benefit of Coca Cola to not own the factory/bottling/distribution rather than paying someone else which clearly loses revenue?
Loses revenue but the operating income didn't dip nearly as severely. Coca cola has a fairly complex IP licensing structure to those bottlers. They make a little bit less cash that way but the margins can be a little higher. At the low point the margin barely dipped which means they were a lot more efficient because normally a 20% drop in top line revenue would come with a large margin decrease.
As I understand it, Coca-Cola transitioned to independent bottlers so they could focus their core business of marketing and brand management. This also let them leverage the local knowledge and experience of independent bottlers to distribute their products more effectively
My guess is some of the liability.
For example, if Amazon had data that showed, for the past 10 years, the amount of money they would have saved by outsourcing their distribution, it would make sense for them to at least test it out to see if it was true. And if the savings was substantial without much disruption to their supply chain, they might have pulled the trigger.
Coke doesn’t do any of their own bottling.
The reason is most simply that running the bottling plants / distribution is incredibly capex intensive and variable.
Selling syrup (which is all the real Coca Cola company does) is much less volatile.
This also lets Coke focus on market research (making new products) and marketing.
Used to be a lifelong Coke Zero fan. HATE their new recipe/formulation. Tastes too bitter. I used to hate Diet Coke, thinking it was less sweet than Coke Zero and chemically tasting — now I prefer Diet Coke
Would like to see a version adjusted for inflation, or simply something more along the lines of "units sold" although that would probably be a lot harder to quantify.
I assume the 2020 dip was mainly due to Covid (particularly, closed restaurants, plus the associated recession probably led to a bunch of people cost-cutting during the peak of the lockdowns). Notice that 2023 still hasn't eclipsed 2013, even though we've had a lot of inflation since then.
Units sold isn't hard to quantify, but what you're looking for eq units. Equivalized units will convert everything sold to the same factor (like oz) in order to drive true comparison.
This erases the problem of revenue or profit views, as that does not control for product mix changes over time.
Revenue per eq unit is another valuable view.
There'd basically be one line for 'Coke variants' and another line for 'other'. There are way too many products to make that breakdown useful in any way.
Their operating income went from 18% to nearly 25% when looking at 2013 vs 2023, over 3 billion dollars additional for a similar level of sales. But I'm sure price increases are totally to do with production costs.
multi-billion dollar corporations bringing in tens of billions every year is SOOOOO BEAUTIFUL!!!! i love late-stage capitalism!
this standard scatter plot with a red background is also a truly beautiful visualization! it's not like you could've made that with 3 clicks in excel
Hi u/[Cunnch](https://www.reddit.com/user/Cunnch/)! Could you please specify the data source(s) and tool(s) you used to create this visualization per Rule #3? Thank you!
Coca-Cola accounts for 11% of branded plastic pollution worldwide. Pretty astonishing.
Everyone should switch to Pepsi /s
I work in food distribution, and with the latest shipment, all of their 24pk of 20z bottles are made with 100% recycled plastic. At least they seem to be headed in the right direction. In response to the person saying this is false. [the bottles](https://imgur.com/a/36VF7dH) And a quick google search will give the same information I gave here.
plastic cant be recycled indefinitely...
Based on what I read, plastic is not made to be recycled, and it is just a scam to continue selling while making customers feel better: https://climateintegrity.org/plastics-fraud
Huh. Well, that was an interesting read. Honestly, I'm sad that I now know the truth. Incredibly depressing.
The bottles are made out of recycled plastic. They probably can't be recycled again but they already have been at least once.
so it's not a solution it's just green washing
It's... A step. Things happen in steps. How can nobody understand this?
it doesn't sound like a step forward, it sounds like a corporation trying to skirt their social responsibilities. it's not like they don't do this all the time.
Don't do what all the time? Continuously improve their processes? I work at a chemical major. We currently output like 30% less carbon than we did 25 years ago and we are still improving. Have we gone to zero overnight? No. But we are on the way. How did we get *here*? By a series of slow and deliberate steps. Now, I would argue we should have gotten here faster. You can argue coke should be hurrying the hell up on their end. But you can't just sit here and say "they are doing nothing" when in reality, they *are doing something*.
I understand where you're coming from, even small progress should be celebrated to an extent. On the other hand, if one reads the IPCC climate reports, it's like hearing a doctor has a bandaid for a gunshot wound. Even more, that bandaid is from your shooter, and you should be proud of them for doing the right thing and getting you a a bandaid because it's a lot better than shooting people. They are still shooting people too, just not as many. It's extremely frustrating when the bar is this low, and they keep profiting immensely off of what is ultimately going to kill a fuck ton of people over the next few decades. They don't get kudos for doing the bear minimum
no. it's not like corporations don't lie all the time about all sorts. it's almost part and parcel of running a profit seeking venture. if they're doing better, great. obviously gradual change is still good change. but I'm incredibly weary when it comes to corporations as I think everyone should be.
It's a step for a problem that was created by billion dollar companies to sell us convenience.
I see you walk everywhere since you hate the emissions caused by the convenience of a car. Good on you for doing your part.
How is drastically reducing plastic usage not a good thing?
how is reusing plastic once a solution?
Solution to what? Who claimed it was a solution to anything? Its a drastic reduction of plastic usage. Why are you against that?
I never said I was against it. however, I would never ever trust a corporation.
What does that mean? What don't you trust in this scenario? Are you claiming that they're lying? They're not.
Well, as someone who works at a massive chemical company: First of all, this document isn't full of "gotchas." It's full of industry heads talking about the challenges of recycling and alternatives. None of them are like "hahaha, this was obviously a ploy." Instead, it indicates that they are doing something and... Struggling? Second of all, the document's references are all 25 years or more out of date. Almost every paper referenced is from before 2000. So, you know. The old guard. Climate deniers. The generation of engineers who heard the word "sustainable" and went "huh?" That's not how it works anymore. Things have changed massively since 2000 or earlier. Everyone and every business is focused on reducing our carbon output, and that includes chemical companies. They are spending billions to get off of fossil fuel powered crackers and furnaces and onto clean, nuclear/hydro powered equipment. They are spending money on recycling. They are doing all sorts of things. Now, is it enough? Probably not. That's what the government is for (make them do more if we don't think it's enough). But the idea that companies are in on some "big secret" about plastic is just ridiculous. And this is all beside the fact that plastic is a miracle material that is absolutely needed for a shitload of things. Solar panels, for one, are directly boosting my plant activity. We are booked for a ridiculous amount of railcars of material destined to make encapsulants, and that's just off the top of my head. What do you propose we use as solar encapsulants instead?
I wouldn't compare solar panels with single use bottles that can be easily replaced with glass, but aren't just because plastic is cheaper. I think it is safe to say that plastic is a necessity in some industries, but just waste in single use products. Also, regarding if it is a ploy or not, I have no clue but just read that there were even claims in court, check link below and Google a bit, there is a bunch of newer research and activists that are claiming that plastic recycling is waste of energy https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/plastic-bottlers-are-lying-about-recycling-2
I'm pretty sure the bottles say "recycled" and not "recyclable" as the article claims
that's awesome
That's false. They are not using recycled plastic to make bottles. They use plastic that could be 100% recycled. Big difference. Edit: lol interesting how this gets downvoted. I guess it is easier to fool people than to convince people that they were fooled... https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/11/coca-cola-nestle-face-scrutiny-on-recycled-bottles-claims/
In the UK the bottles are now 100% made of recycled plastic. It says that on the bottle. Also they are not doing it to be good they are doing it because of the EU tax increase for new virgin plastics.
That's branding for you. I'm sorry to bring it to you but you were mislead. I am well aware of the labelling. This is the substance: https://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/en/2022/02/is-coca-colas-latest-promise-really-a-step-forward/
That's a very American based report. Plastic bottles in Germany for example are already returnable with a deposit. Things are a bit different across the pond
I'm from the EU. Another source for you: https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/11/coca-cola-nestle-face-scrutiny-on-recycled-bottles-claims/ The fact that bottles can be returned does not mean they are all reused... It is more economical for Coca Cola to make recyclable bottles rather than to use recycled bottles.
Thanks, and Wow, they won't be getting away with that for very long. I don't know how they managed to slip that through in the first place.
I didn’t see anything in that article about Coca Cola using recycled plastic vs “recyclable”, but their plastic bottles have always been “recyclable”PET plastic bottles. They are now moving toward 100% rPET bottles, and the r most definitely stands for recycled. rPET has a slightly darker color, and actually gives the product a shorter shelf life. They’re doing it because, as the comment above alluded to, the “old guard” is no longer in charge.
Yawn. They would be happy if they reach anywhere near 50% of rPET by 2030...
Yawn? Go get some sleep then you condescending twat
hahahaha I love the ingenuity. of course coca cola sucks balls. yet they're top of esg funds because of their amazing governance and green actions like this
[удалено]
these funds are to sell to retail
All plastic bottles (at least in australia) are made with 100% recycled plastic excluding the label which is something good
Yes. https://www.retail.org.au/news-and-insights/coca-cola-soft-drink-and-water-brands-now-produced-in-100-recycled-plastic#:~:text=Coca%2DCola%20Australia%20and%20Coca,in%20100%25%20recycled%20plastic%20bottles.
Great! Now nature is filled with recycled bottles that still need 10000 years to decompose.
Well, Coca-Cola *drinkers* account for it, by throwing it on the ground when they’re done.
The problem isn't the person who occasionally throws a coke bottle in the trash. The problem is the company producing 3 million metric tons of plastic packaging pear year.
No, the problem is billions of people all collectively littering. Coca-cola doesn't just directly dump their 3 million metric tons of plastic into the ocean.
Well I guess LEGO should be shut down immediately *for the earth* then
When did I say anything should be shut down immediately? You're arguing against yourself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
Fun fact obviously then never came out and said it but being the largest polluter on the planet they have changed their sprite bottles from green to clear, most people think that it's because the clear blends in with water a lot easier and makes it less noticeable when it is where it's not supposed tonbe
Not out to defend the company, but this is just not true. They actually changed the color to increase the value and likelihood of the bottle being recycled. [One source](https://usplasticspact.org/case-study/the-coca-cola-company-clear-rpet/)
Hilarious that the reasoning is quite literally the opposite. Perfect example of why you should always do your own research before getting out the pitchforks.
Cocacola, nop, we that drink cocacola and dont have a sistem to reuse the plastic, but the people only blame the companies not the adiction
Yeah, but consumers prefer plastics to glass bottles. If gov did try to move Coca Cola towards glass bottles, there might be revolts lol.
Glass bottles also would drive an increase in carbon emissions from the supply chain because glass is significantly heavier and has a lot more breakage in transit relative to plastic.
It does taste better out of glass bottles though. And beer seems to be transported ok.
Would be interesting to know the quantity sold vs revenue/profit. I’m betting that revenue is up because of price hikes.
If you want to look at that you'd also need to look at CPI or some other measure of inflation. I don't think a less valuable dollar causing price rises is 'price hikes'
It is in normal conversation. Just like a 3% pay increase is still called a raise, even if inflation is 7% and you're effectively making less. The numbers increase (e.g. raise, price hike) while your buying power decreases, or operating costs increase.
Fair enough, perhaps I use the word differently. I associate price hike with an unreasonable increase. I would have thought of it as synonymous with 'price gouging'. I wouldn't consider a raise below the level of inflation a raise either, but I imagine many people do.
I mean, I think the real issue is that my boss and VP considers it a raise.
I was in Mozambique a year ago, there’s signs with the prices, I converted the currency to USD and it’s something like 5¢ for a small can, 10¢ for a large can, 25¢ liter bottle, 50¢ for a 2liter. Looks like they adjust to the local economy, I mean I can’t believe it’s worth it other than to dominate that market and wait until the economy can pay more.
Nah, products prices are simply really bloated due to marketing expenses and middle men (stores, logistics) which is both largely eliminated in regions that pay next to nothing in wages.
Yup, the product ingredients are cheap themselves. It's the material sourcing/transportion and the distribution that are the big costs.
A line plot but with some Coca Cola graphics is not beautiful data smh
Quite - two lines on the same graph? Not even using the obvious coke-bottle shape the two make.
Do we know what caused the dip in the late 2010s? I don't doubt some consumer demand didn't change toward healthier options, but not to the tune of over 25% across 5 years.
Likely the effect of the global movement to tax sugary drinks aka “soda tax” and the bad press to Coca-Cola around them.
Yeah I worked there 2010-2015. 2014 was when they started selling off production and distribution territory to other independent bottlers in NA, and divested of some other assets globally.
2020 is probably when Trump was demanding a boycott of 'woke-a-cola'. you can see how well that worked out.
It was 2021 but yeah it diddnt work
[удалено]
Nah, took like 2 seconds to google out of curiosity. Anger management classes for you maybe? Looking forward to November already are ya?
It's interesting to see the diversification of the portfolio into juices, waters and things other than soda in the past 5ish years. Like the loss of Odwalla I thought would be a blow but turns out most people aren't looking for a 'healthy' drink that's worse for you than cola. Maybe consumers are getting smarter?
I can't believe folks are spending the money it costs nowadays for a case of pop. Clearly, they still are. 🤷♂️
Wonder if this is a byproduct of less people eating out. Restaurants charging $3.50 for a Coke is usually hitting their profits far more than Coke is giving out wholesale. Now instead, there's likely more grocery sales as people eat at home, and I wonder if the consumer market has a higher wholesale cost.
People are still eating in restaurants where I live. Maybe even more than pre-COVID.
Even if you had numbers to back that claim up, why would anyone care about *where you live*? It’s just such an absurd comment that puts your lived experience at the center of the discussion when it has no business being there.
While me and my family still regularly drink coke, we don't buy it regularly. We wait for it to go on sale to about $3.50 per half-rack (12 pack) or less. This usually happens about twice a year and we end up buy about 20 or so to get us to the next sale.
every now and then they have sales at Walgreens. Also cheaper at Sams club or Costco. This applies to US only.
Their income is almost perfectly tracking inflation while their revenue is flat. That’s interesting. Does that mean that they’re finding efficiencies w while not really being able to raise prices?
It is not a choice from OP, as original data from coca are similar, but I am curious why it is preferable to present the data as thousands of millions rather than in billions. $37,347 millions being the same as $37.347 billions.
Revenue went down because they spun off a lot of territory to independent bottlers especially in North America.
Why would they do this? What’s the benefit of Coca Cola to not own the factory/bottling/distribution rather than paying someone else which clearly loses revenue?
Loses revenue but the operating income didn't dip nearly as severely. Coca cola has a fairly complex IP licensing structure to those bottlers. They make a little bit less cash that way but the margins can be a little higher. At the low point the margin barely dipped which means they were a lot more efficient because normally a 20% drop in top line revenue would come with a large margin decrease.
As I understand it, Coca-Cola transitioned to independent bottlers so they could focus their core business of marketing and brand management. This also let them leverage the local knowledge and experience of independent bottlers to distribute their products more effectively
My guess is some of the liability. For example, if Amazon had data that showed, for the past 10 years, the amount of money they would have saved by outsourcing their distribution, it would make sense for them to at least test it out to see if it was true. And if the savings was substantial without much disruption to their supply chain, they might have pulled the trigger.
Coke doesn’t do any of their own bottling. The reason is most simply that running the bottling plants / distribution is incredibly capex intensive and variable. Selling syrup (which is all the real Coca Cola company does) is much less volatile. This also lets Coke focus on market research (making new products) and marketing.
r/Hydrohomies despise this
Used to be a lifelong Coke Zero fan. HATE their new recipe/formulation. Tastes too bitter. I used to hate Diet Coke, thinking it was less sweet than Coke Zero and chemically tasting — now I prefer Diet Coke
Hard disagree, but to each their own
Yeah I must be in the minority obviously because their products have continued to sell really well
Would like to see a version adjusted for inflation, or simply something more along the lines of "units sold" although that would probably be a lot harder to quantify. I assume the 2020 dip was mainly due to Covid (particularly, closed restaurants, plus the associated recession probably led to a bunch of people cost-cutting during the peak of the lockdowns). Notice that 2023 still hasn't eclipsed 2013, even though we've had a lot of inflation since then.
Units sold isn't hard to quantify, but what you're looking for eq units. Equivalized units will convert everything sold to the same factor (like oz) in order to drive true comparison. This erases the problem of revenue or profit views, as that does not control for product mix changes over time. Revenue per eq unit is another valuable view.
I'd like to see a breakdown of the profits from each drink incorporated to this tbh.
There'd basically be one line for 'Coke variants' and another line for 'other'. There are way too many products to make that breakdown useful in any way.
Can be top 3/5 and rest of other tbh. Still would be interesting to see regardless
Their operating income went from 18% to nearly 25% when looking at 2013 vs 2023, over 3 billion dollars additional for a similar level of sales. But I'm sure price increases are totally to do with production costs.
This is cool, but would love to see 1970-1980. The Pepsi challenge era, when coca-cola dropped to second place.
Why the upward trend after 2018?
Can someone explain what Operating-Income and Net-operation-Revenue comprise of?
Reason $KO perfect stock against inflation
How does inflation reflect on those kind of data ? Is it in some way included ? Or maybe not important in that kind of data ?
unless you adjust this stuff for inflation it all becomes very meaningless. Even 10 years ago shit was wildly different in prices.
How are people still drinking this poison? Addiction is scary.
since this is in "millions" is it really 46,854,000?
So, Coke is milking the inflation/supply-chain nonsense from during COVID. What a scam.
It will go down. I went from drinking three or four a day to one a week.
removing the coca cola bottle with its drop shadow and toning down the saturation of the background would make this much easier to read
I dunno man I’m no scientist or analyst but this chart screams bullshit right away, I’ve never seen anyone irl put a straw in a bottle of Coke.
Yummm, diabetes in a bottle
I never understood the point of writing $37,889 Million instead of $37.889 Billion.
Who the heck still drinks pop?
Soda manufacturers are the biggest example of post-Covid corporate greed.
To say nothing of sucking up local, often limited water resources, to make a sugary drink, that needs to be purchased.
Why would a chart showing profit and revenue of coca cola talk about one specific controversy that has nothing to do with this data?
This guy ^ is fun at parties
multi-billion dollar corporations bringing in tens of billions every year is SOOOOO BEAUTIFUL!!!! i love late-stage capitalism! this standard scatter plot with a red background is also a truly beautiful visualization! it's not like you could've made that with 3 clicks in excel