On Wed, 30 January 2002, "Caio Rossi" wrote:
> It's like Coke and Pepsi: their containers and labels may help sell, Coke
> has even brought back its distinguishable traditional bottle, but you can't
> say Coke is nothing but the shape of the bottles it comes in. People drink
> soda, not bottles, although bottles are important to help sell soda, even
> Coke, THE soda. The way you put it, Bocelli, Church and tutti quanti are
> only the bottles they come in. They're not! They're the soda, Coke or Pepsi,
> people prefer. I don't like either ( I'm referring to both the singers and
> the beverages), but I could never say people prefer Coke or Pepsi just
> because of their different containers. Unless I misunderstood you, that's
> what I think you're doing.
Well, to use the example you've brought up here, I would argue that it's *only*
the packaging that allows a consumer to tell the difference between Coke &
Pepsi. I certainly wouldn't be able to tell the difference otherwise. I would
also argue that somebody packaging the Coke beverage in a champagne bottle would
be dangerously close to marketing in a misleading fashion - particularly if
everybody started calling it champagne anyway, making the assumption that that's
what it was because that's what the distributor told them it was.
Richard
|
|  |
