Does the Coca-Cola X OREO Collab Fizz Up or Crumble?

Two of the world’s biggest consumer goods giants, Coca-Cola and OREO (Mondelēz International), recently launched a branded friendship celebrating the “magic of teaming up with a bestie”, with the wider venture leading to the co-creation of two new products. It left us thinking — who is best served as the leading brand in this collaboration? And who, then, plays second fiddle to support and elevate the proposition?

Does a creamy, cookie flavored can of Coca-Cola Zero Sugar (as it is now known) get consumers’ tastebuds running, or will it be an OREO-fronted, coke-flavored cookie that better resonates? We tested both concepts among American grocery shoppers to unpack the delicate balancing act of brand collaborations.

Limited-time-offerings (LTOs) by nature generally have very short-term goals, with their key purpose to get people talking, create excitement, and ultimately generate FOMO. But more important than that, they also help engender loyalty and keep the masterbrand top of mind. When analyzing performance through this lens, both mashups could be considered a success. People found both the cookie and soda propositions highly distinctive and differentiated, helping sweep shoppers up in the excitement of the launch and nudging them toward picking each respective product up off shelf.

✅ OREO

"I like the boldness of the idea. Having tried both products separately, I'm convinced the two can mesh well together, creating a new taste."

✅ Coca-Cola

"I like that Coca Cola is always open to trying new things and testing the waters with their products."

‍

But while being fresh and novel is certainly critical to new innovation success, the 80/20 rule — developed by Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto (and also known as the ‘Pareto Principle’) — is key to products which have staying power. That is, being 80% predictable and recognizable, and 20% fresh and novel. Through this lens, the fizzy concoction ultimately jarred with the existing connotations consumers have around cookies and milk (which as a result led to significant feelings of disgust). The idea of a cola-popping candy with crème filling had more widespread appeal and more seamlessly aligned with expectations of the wider OREO brand.

❌ OREO

"Oreos & Coca-Cola may be good as a separate cookie & drink, but combining the two seems gross."

❌ Coca-Cola

"Gimmick gimmick gimmick—and a disgusting blend of flavors to push Coca-Cola Zero, sorry…"

‍

But not just that, the OREO cookie concept retained many more of the parent brand’s familiar design cues, helping to remind and reinforce consumers of the product’s great taste (while simultaneously maintaining its identifiability at shelf). Coca-Cola Zero Sugar’s reversal to an all-black hue instead created a jumbled set of associations in consumers’ minds, with this friction taking away from how quick and easy the proposition was to recognize and process (especially amid a wider product range where Coca-Cola is often switching up color codes).

❌ Coca-Cola

"I did not like the design of the can you have to really focus to realize that it's Coca-Cola I really think it needs red."

‍

So, while people felt the OREO concept would offer a sweet taste and be a better overall quality product than its beverage counterpart, neither concept strongly tapped into shoppers’ most important ‘jobs to be done’ (i.e. the 80% of a proposition which needs to be ‘tried-and-true’). And this is the ultimate hallmark of whether a new launch will endure on shelf. So, was the co-collab beneficial to both parties when all was said and done? With both products undoubtedly shaking things up and getting people talking, the initial reaction from the headquarters of both conglomerates would have been positive.

But in undertaking a co-branded venture, each respective party must ensure they are leveraging the other collaborator’s core strengths to ultimately enhance the proposition and give it the best chance of in-market success — while avoiding causing reputational harm. Putting aside the specific objectives of an LTO, a delicate balance must be struck to not only stand out and create buzz (owing to its novelty value and being unique and differentiated), but to do it in a way that makes both brands better off as a result. And this is the ‘sweet-spot’ of LTOs which leads to incremental sales in the short-term, but — more importantly — strengthened predisposition toward the masterbrand in the long-term.

‍