0

Why both Pepsi and Coca Cola beverages are now opting for the Paper Cup and Plastic Lid over the glass within the food industry

The service of the carbonated beverage, or the soft drink or pop to most people, within networks of food suppliers and restaurants has become somewhat of a confusing subject matter. This issue has occurred due to two main forms of purchasing drink.

The first kind is if one individual purchases a sit-in cuisine of high reputation, it is then expectant to waiter the accompanied soft drink within a hardened chilled glass. That is not confusing at all you might say. Wait…

In order to make the eating experience that bit more exclusive and special for the customer the glass is commonly branded with an inscribed logotype. This form of moveable advertising benefits not only the corporation involved but the restaurant selling. It has been proven that personalisation of this kind psychologically improves the taste of the drink and in turn the food.

As for the second case, the more family orientated food chains of Nandos and Brewers Fayre prefer to provide people with the allowance of the refill for one set menu price. Confusion sets in when the persons can choose from all of the same beverages as the previous case, most likely Sprite, Tango, Fanta etc., but instead with an unbranded pint sized (or 570 ml) glass. A blank face as to make the beverage neutral.

This could be considered a hidden insulting signifier from those Global carbonated corporations mentioned above. Such a discrimination comes with the message that if the standards of food produce have lowered then the target market and social class must have also, thus the customers involved are not worthy of drinking from a personalised branded cup.

A form of commercial snobbery one might say.

A comparison of a carbonated beverage served in a branded glass to one in a blank glass.

Images curtesy of blocker.be & my-weight-loss-advisor.com

A pair to be named out of those dozens of soft drink distributors are the might of the Pepsi Co. and Coca Cola franchises.

Unlike their fellow suppliers however is the fact that Pepsi and Coca Cola want to wane away from all the confusion and stigma associated with differential social class means differential packaging service, and go back to the egalitarian basics and ethics of the ‘same for everyone’.

The two major labels are considered the worst culprits for the ideologies of unfairness between the two cases, as both distribute their product also in glass bottles to the niches and plastic to the masses, but both want to change that not only for the benefit of one’s reputation and cost but also the environment.

 

The soft drink of Pepsi carbonated in both a glass (for the niches) and plastic (for the masses) bottles.

Images taken from jamaicaobserver.com & americansweets.co.uk

 

It has to be said first and foremost that the materialism of glass is a technical gem in compressing carbonates, but there have been rare occasions of mishap. Those reported include carbons that contain too much fizz thus increase in pressure to encourage the glass to explode.  

Their dangers continue through self-inflicted injury. As pint glasses and bottles are breakable and endorse bladed edges when broken, this creates a suitable item to have when involved in a dispute. Harm ensues not only towards people but with surrounding nature. The fragile state and sharp sherds of glass often spread across footpaths or littered in grassed areas can cut unaware animal species and endanger their life.  

These problematic issues mentioned may generally appear as if a weak argument for the companies to remove all association with glass, but to environmentalists of whom have an influential voice and following these are headline news. In order to stay on side with the eco-friendly and boost public image, focusing on improving the economy is a priority.

The respective corporations have already removed most glass bottles from eateries, markets and vending machines with dispensed Polyethylene Terephthalate (or Polyester to you and me) to welfare purchasers through the improved degrees of resistance and gas moisture.

It is however the replacement of the pint glass that is the main objective. The distributors have experimented during the mission by adapting their product with the Polystyrene cup and plastic lid to retain stiffness of mould. Problems emerged with the material as Polystyrene is upright in stature but fragile and exhibits poor impact resistance. In places such as McDonalds and KFC that adopt customers of all age groups, strength of cup is a requirement.

This decision pleased the shareholder Advocacy Group of whom noted that Polystyrene foam was ‘environmentally destructive’.

To meet the need Pepsi and Coca Cola started to opt for the material properties of the paper cup still with plastic lid. A property that the same shareholder regarded a ‘more environmentally beneficial beverage container’. It is hard to disagree with this point.

The paper cup firstly is stably strong to hold the weight of the beverage, whilst being more protective from the contamination of harmful bacteria. The material is also both recyclable for recycled series and biodegradable if littered, thus with no doubt more of a benefit to the environment.

As for the comforts of the businesses, the paper cup can be ink dyed so that the commercial logotype can be applied with authenticity and professionalism to broadcast brand confidence. The inked image and corporate colours is far more impressionable and readable from close and far distances that scribed letter on glass.

The easier mass produced entity can also deliver the product of the carbonated drink in sizes 9oz, 12oz, 16oz and 22oz opposed to the restricted half pint (290 ml) and pint glass sizes.

In terms of the paper cups and plastic lids being exclusive to both food industry and the general public, both Global labels can ship and deliver stacks up to 2000 in numbers, whereas the deliverance of glasses is minimised to prevent breakages.

As the point of argument showcases above, it is evident why both Pepsi and Coca Cola are opting to choose the paper cup and additional plastic lid for straw over the traditional glass. 

 

 

 

The double Poly-Coated paper cup.

Image from R + R Packaging


0 Comments



Post a Comment


Please sign in or create an account to post a comment

Why both Pepsi and Coca Cola beverages are now opting for the Paper Cup and Plastic Lid over the glass within the food industry

The service of the carbonated beverage, or the soft drink or pop to most people, within networks of food suppliers and restaurants has become somewhat of a confusing subject matter. This issue has occurred due to two main forms of purchasing drink.

The first kind is if one individual purchases a sit-in cuisine of high reputation, it is then expectant to waiter the accompanied soft drink within a hardened chilled glass. That is not confusing at all you might say. Wait…

In order to make the eating experience that bit more exclusive and special for the customer the glass is commonly branded with an inscribed logotype. This form of moveable advertising benefits not only the corporation involved but the restaurant selling. It has been proven that personalisation of this kind psychologically improves the taste of the drink and in turn the food.

As for the second case, the more family orientated food chains of Nandos and Brewers Fayre prefer to provide people with the allowance of the refill for one set menu price. Confusion sets in when the persons can choose from all of the same beverages as the previous case, most likely Sprite, Tango, Fanta etc., but instead with an unbranded pint sized (or 570 ml) glass. A blank face as to make the beverage neutral.

This could be considered a hidden insulting signifier from those Global carbonated corporations mentioned above. Such a discrimination comes with the message that if the standards of food produce have lowered then the target market and social class must have also, thus the customers involved are not worthy of drinking from a personalised branded cup.

A form of commercial snobbery one might say.

A comparison of a carbonated beverage served in a branded glass to one in a blank glass.

Images curtesy of blocker.be & my-weight-loss-advisor.com

A pair to be named out of those dozens of soft drink distributors are the might of the Pepsi Co. and Coca Cola franchises.

Unlike their fellow suppliers however is the fact that Pepsi and Coca Cola want to wane away from all the confusion and stigma associated with differential social class means differential packaging service, and go back to the egalitarian basics and ethics of the ‘same for everyone’.

The two major labels are considered the worst culprits for the ideologies of unfairness between the two cases, as both distribute their product also in glass bottles to the niches and plastic to the masses, but both want to change that not only for the benefit of one’s reputation and cost but also the environment.

 

The soft drink of Pepsi carbonated in both a glass (for the niches) and plastic (for the masses) bottles.

Images taken from jamaicaobserver.com & americansweets.co.uk

 

It has to be said first and foremost that the materialism of glass is a technical gem in compressing carbonates, but there have been rare occasions of mishap. Those reported include carbons that contain too much fizz thus increase in pressure to encourage the glass to explode.  

Their dangers continue through self-inflicted injury. As pint glasses and bottles are breakable and endorse bladed edges when broken, this creates a suitable item to have when involved in a dispute. Harm ensues not only towards people but with surrounding nature. The fragile state and sharp sherds of glass often spread across footpaths or littered in grassed areas can cut unaware animal species and endanger their life.  

These problematic issues mentioned may generally appear as if a weak argument for the companies to remove all association with glass, but to environmentalists of whom have an influential voice and following these are headline news. In order to stay on side with the eco-friendly and boost public image, focusing on improving the economy is a priority.

The respective corporations have already removed most glass bottles from eateries, markets and vending machines with dispensed Polyethylene Terephthalate (or Polyester to you and me) to welfare purchasers through the improved degrees of resistance and gas moisture.

It is however the replacement of the pint glass that is the main objective. The distributors have experimented during the mission by adapting their product with the Polystyrene cup and plastic lid to retain stiffness of mould. Problems emerged with the material as Polystyrene is upright in stature but fragile and exhibits poor impact resistance. In places such as McDonalds and KFC that adopt customers of all age groups, strength of cup is a requirement.

This decision pleased the shareholder Advocacy Group of whom noted that Polystyrene foam was ‘environmentally destructive’.

To meet the need Pepsi and Coca Cola started to opt for the material properties of the paper cup still with plastic lid. A property that the same shareholder regarded a ‘more environmentally beneficial beverage container’. It is hard to disagree with this point.

The paper cup firstly is stably strong to hold the weight of the beverage, whilst being more protective from the contamination of harmful bacteria. The material is also both recyclable for recycled series and biodegradable if littered, thus with no doubt more of a benefit to the environment.

As for the comforts of the businesses, the paper cup can be ink dyed so that the commercial logotype can be applied with authenticity and professionalism to broadcast brand confidence. The inked image and corporate colours is far more impressionable and readable from close and far distances that scribed letter on glass.

The easier mass produced entity can also deliver the product of the carbonated drink in sizes 9oz, 12oz, 16oz and 22oz opposed to the restricted half pint (290 ml) and pint glass sizes.

In terms of the paper cups and plastic lids being exclusive to both food industry and the general public, both Global labels can ship and deliver stacks up to 2000 in numbers, whereas the deliverance of glasses is minimised to prevent breakages.

As the point of argument showcases above, it is evident why both Pepsi and Coca Cola are opting to choose the paper cup and additional plastic lid for straw over the traditional glass. 

 

 

 

The double Poly-Coated paper cup.

Image from R + R Packaging


0 Comments



Post a Comment


Please sign in or create an account to post a comment
Blog Categories
Blog Archive
Blog Categories
Blog Archive