Originally Posted by Marlowe

But Coke and Pepsi have to compete to get the contract, and McMaster will pick the one that makes most fiscal sense to them. Possibly because they get the products for cheaper, so McMaster can make more money on them (which was part of the agreement with Coke for the MSU, iirc) or through direct cash/equipment. So even though there would be no competition for individual consumers, they need to compete for McMaster itself.

Of course, that's all just theory. In reality, it probably looked a lot more like politics, with whoever was making the decision getting bribed with some nice lunches and sports tickets.

I understand that, but the contract itself has nothing to do with how much the bottles are sold for (unless it's actually in the contract), it just has to do with how much Pepsi wants to pay to have a monopoly at McMaster. If McMaster makes money per bottle, then the price of bottle will go up. If McMaster doesn't then the price per bottle will still be high since Pepsi has no one to compete with and they have to pay for the monopoly.

In my opinion, McMaster wouldn't ask "What is the lowest price you can offer per bottle?" and would instead ask "How much are you willing to pay to have a monopoly here?".

Keep in mind McMaster (more specifically Hospitality Services) buys the soda from Pepsi, and then sells them to students. Pepsi sets the price that they sell to Mac for (which is probably set in the contract), and then HS sells them to students, pocketing the difference.

I...like both? Coke Zero and Diet Pepsi ftw.

...I do like Mountain Dew, though. But Spite over 7Up. And Pepsi has better Chips...(does Coke even have chips?)

Now I'm confused.




protip: bring a can from home.


Oh screw it, RC! (Is it in Canada even?)

Originally Posted by Kathy2

I think the point the OP is trying to make is that students voted against "an exclusive contract with Coke". But Mac turned around and signed an exclusive contract with Pepsi, even though it was obvious that the students didn't want an exclusive contract with anyone.

Is that right? If so, that's pretty misleading/sneaky on Mac's part..

The no vote was a load of bullshit though that had very little to do with actually being against a drink company having a monopoly on campus. It was all crap being spread by so called activists defaming Coca Cola and basically saying we don't want them on campus b/c of their evil. If their stupid vote actually had anything to do with what was beneficial to the students (variety, lower prices etc) people might actually take it into consideration. No won because the no side spewed their bs better and appealed to all the wannabe do gooders. Spread unsubstantiated crap convincingly enough and this is what you get.

The referendum should have been more clearly worded and about things that are actual factual and relevant to students. Drinks on campus shouldn't turn into a friggin' platform to spread anti-whoever propaganda.