Should Coke Be Back In The SU Shops?

Nietzschean

Well?

Nice. Will be interesting to see how this fans out...

ApeXaviour

atari jaguar

No, that would be a step backwards. I don't care wot ya say just get used to pepsi. Drink it enough and it does actually get nicer.

Nietzschean

No

backwards? the coke we drink is manufactured and bottled in ireland.

Saw something before: in the 80s, coke did a study and found more people preferred the taste of pepsi. So then coke changed the formula, and new coke was born. Everyone hated the new taste of new coke, so after a few months of new coke, dwindling sales, and mass public uproar, they brought back "classic coke", and then got rid of new coke.

Since then, coke has pretty much kicked pepsi's ass.

ApeXaviour

atari jaguar

SkyLynx wrote:

backwards? the coke we drink is manufactured and bottled in ireland.

How is that relevant? It's the company we're boycotting.

Ace_Rimmer wrote:

Since then, coke has pretty much kicked pepsi's ass.

Aye.. it's all logo's and subliminal messaging IMO

Nietzschean

No

yes but are we damaging the operations which we find fault with or irish jobs here at home?

sleepingbeauty

atari jaguar

hrm i dont think coke should come back...like apex said the whole point is to make a stand against the company, tis not about whether ya like the drink or not..and its not exactly a MASSIVE walk to the nearest spar, etc...imo opinion anyway

Nietzschean

No

yes but are we hurting the company or just irish jobs?

Agent Smith

atari Jaguar....


altho I like them 750ml bottles pepsi have brought out

sleepingbeauty

atari jaguar

SkyLynx wrote:

yes but are we hurting the company or just irish jobs?

hrm do a think a few su shops would really effect jobs that much? i dunno..meh...

(lately i have had a very short attention span!!)

Nietzschean

No

do you think it will affect their polices on the opposite side of the world?
if you want to target someone how about nike, at least there you know the product has been made by a child and well thats as bad as anything else imo.

ApeXaviour

atari jaguar

SkyLynx wrote:

yes but are we hurting the company or just irish jobs?

Neither.. How much does our university really contribute fiscally? It's the statement made rather than the business taken that is the point IMO.

Also

It's not like people are buying less soft drinks.. any loss by coke will result in a gain by pepsico ireland etc.

Woden

i believe the individuals should have the choice to boycott or not and that the SU's should stock the stuff and the person can decide

Nietzschean

No

well not in my experence, since the ban i've been in the su shop once. So coke are still getting the income from me, its just the SU shop arn't getting anything.


And as a statement, would it not be better to target some product where its actually manufactured in a plant which we find disagreeable to our moral values?

ApeXaviour

atari jaguar

SkyLynx wrote:

do you think it will affect their polices on the opposite side of the world?

Not by itself no, but along with other public outcry yes it should. We're just doing our part..

SkyLynx wrote:

if you want to target someone how about nike, at least there you know the product has been made by a child and well thats as bad as anything else imo.

I like it, ban the sale of nike runners on campus..

Nietzschean

No

ApeXaviour wrote:

Not by itself no, but along with other public outcry yes it should. We're just doing our part..

Public outcry? i dunno about you but all coke drinkers i know are still drinking it...

I like it, ban the sale of nike runners on campus..

Who said it had to be a ban on campus, as you pointed out the who financial thing of an su shop is negligble, if all students stopped buying nike gear in town it would have a much bigger impact imo.

flangeman

atari jaguar

Oh please,

check this out

sleepingbeauty

atari jaguar

ApeXaviour wrote:

Neither.. How much does our university really contribute fiscally? It's the statement made rather than the business taken that is the point IMO.

i agree, i knew i was trying to say something like that- i just couldnt get the words out

SkyLynx wrote:

if you want to target someone how about nike, at least there you know the product has been made by a child and well thats as bad as anything else imo.

but they have such comfy yoga shoes! (im joking....i dont actually support that...)

Nietzschean

No

flangeman wrote:

Oh please,

check this out

uh-huh and these are alleged crimes, which your pointing to even a poorly written website. If i believed everything on the web i'd be out shooting random people claiming a website made me do it. Not thing its prudent to wait on a court ruling?

flangeman

atari jaguar

It was the quickest search I found, didnt' want to just post a reply but something a little more substantial.

Social awareness people, for fecks sake everything you buy comes from somewhere, and somebody made a buck out of it. Ye have to be aware of who/what got it from the ground into that nice package in front of you.

Anything else is nothing less than ignorant and a little 'Western' I might add.

SkyLynx, 38 Pargraphs and 2108 words, thats quick reading in 6 minutes wouldn't you say? or are you gifted? maybe your little critic analysis is a little short considering the writer is a 'Freelance graduate of the New York University's Graduate School of Journalism', not Trinity College, Columbia. Or maybe you had a problem with the bad colour scheme (which is terrible), the icons rather than is actual content.

I had the pleasure of meeting such a Trade unionist in London at a talk/day session (War on Poverty) hosted my Mary Rob herself. This is all very real.

ixoy

No

How about putting the coke back in the shops and - right beside the coke or above it - placing literature on what's allegedly happening? That way people can make their own choice AND people will be all the more aware of what's happening.

Em, yeah btw Coke is not being sold on campus, apart from the Hamilton, the pav, the buttery, aras an phairsigh, arts block...

ApeXaviour

atari jaguar

Dataisgod wrote:

i believe the individuals should have the choice to boycott or not and that the SU's should stock the stuff and the person can decide

I agree with you on principal, but that's about as effective as voting for Nader. We had a college referendum whether to ban it, it was well advertised. The majority have spoken, it's the next fairest thing IMO. The choice is still there, merely made less convenient.

SkyLynx wrote:

And as a statement, would it not be better to target some product where its actually manufactured in a plant which we find disagreeable to our moral values?

It's coca-cola, it's a unified company. As I said before IMO the "damage" isn't really significant, more the principal and the awareness it causes.. against coke.

SkyLynx wrote:

Public outcry? i dunno about you but all coke drinkers i know are still drinking it...

lol.. Loyal coke drinkers? I knew of none prior to this. The majority of people won't bother their arses going off campus just to get a coke when there are lots of other bottled fizzy drinks available.

SkyLynx wrote:

Who said it had to be a ban on campus, as you pointed out the who financial thing of an su shop is negligble, if all students stopped buying nike gear in town it would have a much bigger impact imo.

I agree, but you must admit it's not very practical to implement.

ApeXaviour

atari jaguar

Ace_Rimmer wrote:

Em, yeah btw Coke is not being sold on campus, apart from the Hamilton, the pav, the buttery, aras an phairsigh, arts block...

Crying shame too... Unfortunately the ban only extends as far as the SU shops. Well at least the spirit is there and we're "advertised" as being coke free. Sends the message..

Im all for another referendum if there is enough support for it, let the college electorate decide..

Nietzschean

No

flangeman wrote:

It was the quickest search I found, didnt' want to just post a reply but something a little more substantial.

Social awareness people, for fecks sake everything you buy comes from somewhere, and somebody made a buck out of it. Ye have to be aware of who/what got it from the ground into that nice package in front of you.

Anything else is nothing less than ignorant and a little 'Western' I might add.

Ummm social awareness, i do believe my point here has been that the coke i drink has nothing to do with columbian bottlers, the syrup is produced in ireland as is the bottleing done here. And as you can gather from that Coke themselves can't be held liable for the actions of their bottlers, which seems reasonable imo, the bottlers are the ones who should be in court. Its like deciding that we have to bring america up on war crimes for september 11 because they originally helped the taliban get into power who were shletering osama bin laden?

SkyLynx, 38 Pargraphs and 2108 words, thats quick reading in 6 minutes wouldn't you say? or are you gifted? maybe your little critic analysis is a little short considering the writer is a 'Freelance graduate of the New York University's Graduate School of Journalism', not Trinity College, Columbia. Or maybe you had a problem with the bad colour scheme (which is terrible), the icons rather than is actual content.

I must say i read most of it, and i would have thought its blatantly biased. Your effectively argue'n here i should believe everything in George W. Bush's ad's on the american election because he has several university graduates working for him?

Nietzschean

No

ApeXaviour wrote:

It's coca-cola, it's a unified company. As I said before IMO the "damage" isn't really significant, more the principal and the awareness it causes.. against coke.

Coca-cola is not a unified company, the bottlers are the one accused of doing this, which are entirely seperate entities(look at yer coke bottles and ye will see em listed as being such). Basically you just have the bottler who buy's the coke syrup, dilutes and bottles it.

lol.. Loyal coke drinkers? I knew of none prior to this. The majority of people won't bother their arses going off campus just to get a coke when there are lots of other bottled fizzy drinks available.

Well we exist , though it might have something to do with our westland row access, the su shop is further...

I agree, but you must admit it's not very practical to implement.

Enough people willing to participate between the colleges in dublin and it would be effective enough. USI are supposed to organise the college SU's as a single body. If you could even get 20,000 possible customers to stop buying nike between all the colleges which should be possible , and quite public.

Pet

atari jaguar

Even if this does have negligible financial impact upon Coca Cola, when students in a college as big and prolific as TCD (and the NUI's too, don't get pissy, non-trinners!) take it upon themselves to organise something like this, it creates awareness. So even if people walk off-campus to get their fix, they'll still know the moral issues surrounding their purchase. And that's really all that matters, isn't it?

I agree that people should be allowed to choose, but really, we're in the middle of the city centre, if you want Coke, there's no problem getting it. It's a gesture for a worthy cause.

Kevin_rc_ie

this is such a 18-24 year old ucd/trinity/insert university conversation that is so unappealing.

can we just say coke tastes good but because its made from the blood of a endangered tarpier we shouldn't drink it?

John

No

Let's make our own clothes and our own cola and live in a squat. Go whole hog or don't do it at all.

Nietzschean

No

Kevin_rc_ie wrote:

this is such a 18-24 year old ucd/trinity

ain't that like most of us?

Kevin_rc_ie

but isnt it annoying to fit so snugly into a demographic.

ApeXaviour

atari jaguar

John2 wrote:

Let's make our own clothes and our own cola and live in a squat. Go whole hog or don't do it at all.

Well that's a load of drivel.. We could also save up, get a plane to columbia/indonesia, hold a sitting protest outside said factories and get shot. There are levels of participation, no need to get ridiculus.

And (sky) did we feel the same (if any of us can remember? or if you've maybe watch reeling in the years) when we began boycotting south african products? The Dunnes girl got fired or suspended for refusing to sell something south-african. So the whole staff went on strike and brought Dunnes to a complete standstill. They had to stop selling south-african goods. This set off a landslide in Ireland that brought the situation into the mainstream. It was very admirable IMO. Now directly, these fruit companies had very little to with the government implemented apartheid. Yet they took immense advantage of it, used it to make themselves some serious profit and hence their **** of a government profited too. Though on a smaller scale this bears many similarities to the current situation.. I'm sorry for these bottle companies, but that's what you get for being a henchman. And hey sure as I said, any loss for them is a gain for other irish bottling companies, do you not agree?
That's the nature of business my friend. If coke tomorrow bring out a bad marketing strategy, irish coke jobs will be lost and irish (lets just say) pepsi jobs will be gained. Coke's (lack of?) action in Columbia could be construed as a bad marketing strategy..


EDIT: Kev. I______don't______care...

Crash

No

ApeXaviour wrote:

I agree with you on principal, but that's about as effective as voting for Nader. We had a college referendum whether to ban it, it was well advertised. The majority have spoken, it's the next fairest thing IMO. The choice is still there, merely made less convenient.

actually iirc the voting student body for that was insanely low, so actually its a case of the minority speaking for the majority....so actually the majority havent spoken at all at all at all.

now i have a quick question - did i miss something or when did blankcanvas and apexaviour and you others become my moral conscience? i seem to have missed the point where we go to a college where people are supported to be free thinking and open-minded - except through the ethical trading comittee's ban on coke (and the ban on nestle which is 6 years old and DEFINITELY long overdue to be removed as the situation that induced the ban is no longer relevant or happens at all) we're dictating to the students how they should think and feel - hell originally the coke thing wasnt even supposed to go to referendum - so i ask you - how the hell do you feel you have the right to act as my moral conscience?

people will vote with their feet, and a lot of people do - a lot of people dont as well and all that ends up doing is making the SU shops lose out more.

ApeXaviour wrote:

I'm sorry for these bottle companies, but that's what you get for being a henchman. And hey sure as I said, any loss for them is a gain for other irish bottling companies, do you not agree?

...interesting, so what your saying is the people who were encouraged msot likely during the celtic tiger boom by the government to set up such factories, provided irish jobs by the barrelfull now deserve to suffer because "we dont like who they bottle for" anymore? so what you'resaying is that if worse comes to worse and irish jobs are lost, you wont think thats at ALL wrong? ...thats a ****ed up attitude to have dec.

ApeXaviour

atari jaguar

crash_000 wrote:

actually iirc the voting student body for that was insanely low, so actually its a case of the minority speaking for the majority....so actually the majority havent spoken at all at all at all.

That's right, turnout was very low BUT it was well advertised, everybody had a chance to vote. Anyone who felt strongly about it had the right to go and make their opinion count. If someone actually gave a crap but were overcome with apathy I have no sympathy for them. They have no right to complain. Now I realise that you in particular were not in the college and thus could not vote for this. Well that's the nature of the undergrad system, it's rotational. If you feel strongly enough, lobby it (you're a class rep right?) and get another referendum going.

crash_000 wrote:

...we're dictating to the students how they should think and feel - hell originally the coke thing wasnt even supposed to go to referendum - so i ask you - how the hell do you feel you have the right to act as my moral conscience?

Crash come on.. I expected more from you man. Firstly you realise you're challenging the whole concept of a referendum? When we have an abortion, divorce, nice treaty referendum or vote of any sort do you dispute the outcome of that merely because you disagree with it?
Secondly the moral conscience thing, could you spout any more gibberish please? We are not dictating to students how they should think, that's crazy talk! The reality is quite the opposite. Now listen, and listen carefully: the student's (being members of TCDSU) had a vote on whether the SU should make a statement by banning coca-cola from the SU shops. Plain and simple, there is no infringement on your human rights here man. It's like we are all members of a board, we have a vote on whether or not a motion should pass. We did, and it did. Nobody is telling you how and/or what to think, nobody is acting as your "moral conscience"... christ's sake neil don't be so dramatic.

crash_000 wrote:

people will vote with their feet, and a lot of people do - a lot of people dont as well and all that ends up doing is making the SU shops lose out more.

I don't really get what you're saying? Are you trying to imply that if there was a higher voter turnout that the coke referendum "wouldn't" have passed? How can you possibly know that!? If anything I would have thought the opposite true. Laziness not being something I usually attribute to caffeine/sugar junkies

crash_000 wrote:

...interesting, so what your saying is the people who were encouraged msot likely during the celtic tiger boom by the government to set up such factories, provided irish jobs by the barrelfull now deserve to suffer because "we dont like who they bottle for" anymore? so what you'resaying is that if worse comes to worse and irish jobs are lost, you wont think thats at ALL wrong? ...thats a ****ed up attitude to have dec.

Now hold on..That quote was taken out of context. If you'd read the next paragraph I think I explained myself nicely. Rather than repeat it I'll elaborate. It's not our fault if their profits drop, it's coca-cola's fault. Same if they were to have any other type of "bad marketing strategy" that would lower the sales of their drinks. It's not about attitude neil, I'm just being pragmatic.

John

No

ApeXaviour wrote:

Well that's a load of drivel..

I know

Milo

atari jaguar

Could you people not just drink something else?! If we're talking Irish jobs here why not buy Club?????

As for the whole "the SU shop is losing money" argument...if they're not stocking coke then they don't have any coke over-heads therefore they are not losing "coke money". As far as I can see the fridges are as empty without coke as they were when it was there.

Also, for all those who find, for some unknown reason, they need a coke fix -because they can't think for themselves and so let large corporations and their advertising agencies denote what they think/say/do - why not just go into the many cafes around campus (who will charge you through the nose) for a bottle? But hey - at least there'll be product loyalty!

Lets face it, large multinational corporations like coke and nike (neither of which I would support by buying their s**te) don't, as a rule, treat their workers (in south america or other developing regions) with much respect. This is evident in the amount of money they pay them as compared with what they charge us! It's all about the MONEY!!!!!!!! So lets sell our souls -bring back coke and start selling nike runners in the SU shops aswell and when we see the next channel 4/BBC documentary about slave labour in these countries at least we can say that we helped support the situation.

Enjoy coke!
:mad:

sleepingbeauty

atari jaguar

crash_000 wrote:

now i have a quick question - did i miss something or when did blankcanvas and apexaviour and you others become my moral conscience? i seem to have missed the point where we go to a college where people are supported to be free thinking and open-minded - except through the ethical trading comittee's ban on coke (and the ban on nestle which is 6 years old and DEFINITELY long overdue to be removed as the situation that induced the ban is no longer relevant or happens at all) we're dictating to the students how they should think and feel - hell originally the coke thing wasnt even supposed to go to referendum - so i ask you - how the hell do you feel you have the right to act as my moral conscience?

oh honestly, talk about dramatic hun! everything i said i made the point of saying 'imo' and thats what it was, only my opinion. Im not pointing a gun at ye and telling ye to support my views, of course im not- im a big believer of everybody having their own opinion! sure thats what debating is all about, how boring would life be if everyone thought the same thing! anyway all that drivel was just about letting you know that if i came across as forceful in any way about my opinons (which i dont think i did since half way through this thread i got vry bored and sorta gave up ) then im sorry....
...wow i must be awake today if i was able to write all that, hrm maybe because i had 8 hrs sleep last night for the first time in like 3 weeks...note to self- must go to bed more often

Nietzschean

No

Was away yesterday so a little delay in reply'n to yer rants

ApeXaviour wrote:

And (sky) did we feel the same (if any of us can remember? or if you've maybe watch reeling in the years) when we began boycotting south african products? And hey sure as I said, any loss for them is a gain for other irish bottling companies, do you not agree?

Right firstly, uhhh just about remember that twas yearss ago. And well was the outrage over the actual events in south africia or the fact that an employee was suspended for having a concience? These events were happening for quite some time if i recall, the magic tap of public outrage was only turned on when it actually effected someone here

That's the nature of business my friend. If coke tomorrow bring out a bad marketing strategy, irish coke jobs will be lost and irish (lets just say) pepsi jobs will be gained. Coke's (lack of?) action in Columbia could be construed as a bad marketing strategy.

Uh huh, i see your point, but i'm not sure all coke's employee's here would be such in favour of it. They all have jobs at the moment, do you think pepsi would employ those people if coke did have layoff's?

And thats Coke's bottlers in columbia as i previously pointed out, which Coke itself has no direct control over. Its like dell telling u how to run your life cause you bought one of their pc's, you'd just laugh at them.

Nietzschean

No

Milo wrote:

Could you people not just drink something else?! If we're talking Irish jobs here why not buy Club?????

Freedom of choice? i rather coke than club.

As for the whole "the SU shop is losing money" argument...if they're not stocking coke then they don't have any coke over-heads therefore they are not losing "coke money". As far as I can see the fridges are as empty without coke as they were when it was there.

Ummm for one, coke overheads? coke was by far the highest volume selling product in the hamilton su shop anyway, they never managed to keep it in stock both the 2 times i've been in the su shop in recent months all the shelves have been full. During coke times this would have been rare. You also have to factor in that coke 'lent' the shops fridges aswell which cuts down on capital expenditure.

Also, for all those who find, for some unknown reason, they need a coke fix -because they can't think for themselves and so let large corporations and their advertising agencies denote what they think/say/do -

Thats not debtaing the issue thats just plain insulting some of us, so enough of that. I for one can think for myself, and actually like the flavour of coke. So keep your narrow minded comments to yourself.

why not just go into the many cafes around campus (who will charge you through the nose) for a bottle? But hey - at least there'll be product loyalty!

Why would one pay over the odds in a cafe to buy a product when you are heading somewhere else?

Lets face it, large multinational corporations like coke and nike (neither of which I would support by buying their s**te) don't, as a rule, treat their workers (in south america or other developing regions) with much respect.

Ummm you never bought nike or a coke product? And yes we are aware of this, no need to state the obvious

This is evident in the amount of money they pay them as compared with what they charge us! It's all about the MONEY!!!!!!!!

Umm well nike do make mad profits but you know shops add like 100% margin to products anyway ye?

So lets sell our souls -bring back coke and start selling nike runners in the SU shops aswell and when we see the next channel 4/BBC documentary about slave labour in these countries at least we can say that we helped support the situation.

Not even going to dignify that dribble with an answer.

Nietzschean

No

blankcanvas wrote:

...wow i must be awake today if i was able to write all that, hrm maybe because i had 8 hrs sleep last night for the first time in like 3 weeks...note to self- must go to bed more often

lol, sleep bad...drink good

Crash

No

essay bad - watching everyone get stirred up by the argumentative stance i took - stress relieving

The Shol'va

No

I demand Dr Pepper!

Plunky

No

The Shol'va wrote:

I demand Dr Pepper!

I'd have to agree with ya on that one, the only thing is that Dr Pepper is affiliated with Coke...

The Shol'va

No

Plunky wrote:

I'd have to agree with ya on that one, the only thing is that Dr Pepper is affiliated with Coke...

So? *ignores previous pages* :P

Kevin_rc_ie

ooh the polls are tied 50-50 which way shall i vote.

The Shol'va

No

Kevin_rc_ie wrote:

ooh the polls are tied 50-50 which way shall i vote.

Damn you! I want my sweet sweet Dr Pepper!

Plunky

No

The Shol'va wrote:

So? *ignores previous pages* :P

Okay okay, good call! Bring in Dr Pepper! wooh!

Nietzschean

No

desertcircus wrote:

Surely the principle behind it is that as long as there is strong suspicion about Coke's role, it would be better not to sell the product and so avoid the finances of the union being held up by the possible killing of trade unionists.

no funding goes from coke sales here to those bottling plants, would be a little illogical.

John

No

desertcircus wrote:

People do switch from Coke to Pepsi. I've done it...

Only because you'd get noogies from your colleagues if you didn't

Time Magazine

atari jaguar

John2 wrote:

Only because you'd get noogies from your colleagues if you didn't

Or a Christmas Hedgehog. Speaking of which, is DURNS's room still always completely deserted?