Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Product & Design · Product decision · 2004–2007

Coca-Cola launched C2 just as the low-carb diet faded, and priced it above Coke

Coca-Cola spent heavily launching C2, a mid-carb cola, as the low-carb trend was already waning — and priced it above regular Coke. Buyers stayed away.

Coca-Cola · 2004-06-07

What happened

In 2004, at the height of the low-carbohydrate dieting fad, Coca-Cola rushed out C2, a cola with about half the carbs of the original. The idea was to grab the dieter who wanted a middle ground.

The launch was called 'disastrous.' C2 posted poor sales almost immediately, and its higher price proved an obstacle on top of a product most shoppers saw as a compromise with no clear reason to switch.

The decision was badly timed: C2 arrived just as the low-carb diet phenomenon was waning, so the demand it was built around was evaporating. Coca-Cola tied C2's weak showing to a 3% drop in North American volume in the quarter.

The product was quietly discontinued, with C2 withdrawn from Japan in 2006 and phased out globally by 2007 — a fast, expensive lesson in timing a launch to a fad that is already peaking.

Why it happened

  • C2 launched as the low-carb trend it was built for was already fading, so the target consumer was leaving just as the product hit the shelf
  • Pricing it above regular Coke gave a compromise product a premium price, so it lost to Coke on value and to Diet Coke on low-carb purity
  • A me-too middle ground pleased nobody: carb-conscious buyers chose Diet Coke, and loyal Coke drinkers saw no reason to switch
What it cost'Disastrous' US launch; quietly discontinued by 2007embarrassing

The lesson

A product built on a trend must launch before the trend peaks, not after. C2 arrived as the low-carb diet was ending, priced itself awkwardly, and had no reason to exist for either side of the market.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →