What do you think?
Rate this book
Roberto Goizueta - El hombre que puso al mundo a tomar Coca-Cola
UN gran libro acerca de la vision de un hombre para hacer grande una gran empresa.
480 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
6 people are currently reading
528 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
June 5, 2023
Outstanding - simply outstanding. One of the best business books I have ever read and it personalizes the man who drove Coke to heights previously never seen with vision, hard work, dedication, and a willingness to work in a different way and yet bring others along on the journey. This is a must read for any future CEO or business leader.
June 8, 2025
First and foremost, I have to say that while the book seems to paint Goizueta in a positive light, the author is incredibly neutral in their delivery. Many of the major flaws Goizueta made are precisely explained and are never brushed over. I highly recommend a read.
There were two main questions I had while reading this book, and I found answers to both.
**Question 1: Why did Coke buy Columbia Pictures, a business that seemingly has no synergies with Coke?**
The decision was mostly due to the ongoing Pepsi-Coke war. As Goizueta saw Coke's market share decline while Pepsi's increased, the mathematical side of him concluded that drastic action was necessary to prevent Coke from becoming a company of the past. Fearing the company's demise, Goizueta decided to diversify while they could. Columbia Pictures seemed like a viable option at the time. They also considered Disney but decided against it because it was a poorly run company, surviving mostly on its legacy copyrights (a situation Warren Buffett capitalized on, making terrific bets on both Disney and Coke, the latter of which still yields him dividends to this date).
**Question 2: Why did Coke change its formula?**
The author portrays Goizueta as an engineer countless times throughout the book, and this episode truly showed it. Here's my understanding of how engineers often think: they approach problems in a highly theoretical, number-driven way.
During Pepsi's blind taste test marketing campaign, people overwhelmingly chose Pepsi over Coke because Pepsi is sweeter. However, the campaign shouldn't be interpreted simply as "people pick Pepsi because it's better." As a former Pepsi CEO explained, it was all about fun. Pepsi's blind tests branded it as a more fun, lighthearted alternative to Coke, which was more established and widely seen as "the taste of America." Extrapolating the results as a purely scientific preference for one product over another is a very engineering-centric way to understand human choice.
New Coke was launched, as the author noted, after rigorous blind tests of various alternative formulas. The goal was to find a new drink that would consistently outperform Pepsi in these tests, and in that, they succeeded. The New Coke did perform better than Pepsi in a statistically significant way; Coke's own internal studies showed that 53% of people preferred New Coke over Pepsi, which stood at 47%. It was a small difference, but it was big enough to convince Goizueta.
But the real question is, how do you truly quantify preference scientifically? People preferred Coke not because it was unabashedly and categorically better than any alternative, but rather out of the comfort of yesterday. On the other hand, Pepsi was succeeding because it branded itself as something new, innovative, and the underdog. The entire product proposition was more symbolic than actual, and people often operate based on symbols, especially when it comes to preferences.
Why do some girls prefer pink? Why do many Asians prefer rice? Why do Americans watch American football while Europeans go nuts over soccer? It would be pointless to use a scientific study to quantify the health benefits of rice or the "watch-ability" of American football versus European soccer in America because, fundamentally, people make these choices out of inertia, norms, and comfort.
New Coke—as we now know—failed spectacularly, not because it tasted bad, but because it wasn't the product Coke buyers wanted. As I am typing this today, with Coke having long reverted to its original formula, Pepsi has seen a steady decline in its market share. (I should add, however, that PepsiCo is vastly more diversified today, so they aren't as worried as one might think.) Meanwhile, Coke has mostly retained its prior lead and continues to be the de facto soft drink choice for most people around the world.
(Overall, this was a very enjoyable read. I also learned more than I expected about Coke's struggles with its bottlers during Goizueta's reign and its many failed adventures outside of the soft drink world that I didn't even know about before.)
There were two main questions I had while reading this book, and I found answers to both.
**Question 1: Why did Coke buy Columbia Pictures, a business that seemingly has no synergies with Coke?**
The decision was mostly due to the ongoing Pepsi-Coke war. As Goizueta saw Coke's market share decline while Pepsi's increased, the mathematical side of him concluded that drastic action was necessary to prevent Coke from becoming a company of the past. Fearing the company's demise, Goizueta decided to diversify while they could. Columbia Pictures seemed like a viable option at the time. They also considered Disney but decided against it because it was a poorly run company, surviving mostly on its legacy copyrights (a situation Warren Buffett capitalized on, making terrific bets on both Disney and Coke, the latter of which still yields him dividends to this date).
**Question 2: Why did Coke change its formula?**
The author portrays Goizueta as an engineer countless times throughout the book, and this episode truly showed it. Here's my understanding of how engineers often think: they approach problems in a highly theoretical, number-driven way.
During Pepsi's blind taste test marketing campaign, people overwhelmingly chose Pepsi over Coke because Pepsi is sweeter. However, the campaign shouldn't be interpreted simply as "people pick Pepsi because it's better." As a former Pepsi CEO explained, it was all about fun. Pepsi's blind tests branded it as a more fun, lighthearted alternative to Coke, which was more established and widely seen as "the taste of America." Extrapolating the results as a purely scientific preference for one product over another is a very engineering-centric way to understand human choice.
New Coke was launched, as the author noted, after rigorous blind tests of various alternative formulas. The goal was to find a new drink that would consistently outperform Pepsi in these tests, and in that, they succeeded. The New Coke did perform better than Pepsi in a statistically significant way; Coke's own internal studies showed that 53% of people preferred New Coke over Pepsi, which stood at 47%. It was a small difference, but it was big enough to convince Goizueta.
But the real question is, how do you truly quantify preference scientifically? People preferred Coke not because it was unabashedly and categorically better than any alternative, but rather out of the comfort of yesterday. On the other hand, Pepsi was succeeding because it branded itself as something new, innovative, and the underdog. The entire product proposition was more symbolic than actual, and people often operate based on symbols, especially when it comes to preferences.
Why do some girls prefer pink? Why do many Asians prefer rice? Why do Americans watch American football while Europeans go nuts over soccer? It would be pointless to use a scientific study to quantify the health benefits of rice or the "watch-ability" of American football versus European soccer in America because, fundamentally, people make these choices out of inertia, norms, and comfort.
New Coke—as we now know—failed spectacularly, not because it tasted bad, but because it wasn't the product Coke buyers wanted. As I am typing this today, with Coke having long reverted to its original formula, Pepsi has seen a steady decline in its market share. (I should add, however, that PepsiCo is vastly more diversified today, so they aren't as worried as one might think.) Meanwhile, Coke has mostly retained its prior lead and continues to be the de facto soft drink choice for most people around the world.
(Overall, this was a very enjoyable read. I also learned more than I expected about Coke's struggles with its bottlers during Goizueta's reign and its many failed adventures outside of the soft drink world that I didn't even know about before.)
December 24, 2024
After a long longgg 2 months, I finally finished this book. I blame it on the start of my first semester of junior year. It's filled with nasty business dilemmas with a touch of drama (conflict over money and power, like any war). But what stood out was Roberto Goizueta's breakthrough as he started as an employee for one of Coca Cola's bottling plants in Cuba, all the way to being the CEO. As someone who has always been obsessed with Diet Coke since I was allowed to drink soda, I realize the company is more than just a company. Their goal is to earn a share of your stomach.
Page 177: Warren Buffet stated (he's a major coke fan fyi) "People are going to drink eight servings of something everyday and history shows that once people are exposed to it, and I'm living proof, they like drinking it. Coca Cola consumption rates grow virtually without limit, unlike Hershey bars. A well known digestible brand name."
With that, Robert Goizueta is quite literally an extension of Coca Cola as a soul as probably the best CEO the world has ever seen.
Page 177: Warren Buffet stated (he's a major coke fan fyi) "People are going to drink eight servings of something everyday and history shows that once people are exposed to it, and I'm living proof, they like drinking it. Coca Cola consumption rates grow virtually without limit, unlike Hershey bars. A well known digestible brand name."
With that, Robert Goizueta is quite literally an extension of Coca Cola as a soul as probably the best CEO the world has ever seen.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 19, 2024
Éste libro lo encontré en una tienda de esas de libros por poco dinero en las que siempre me gustó bucear desde joven, en Av. Corrientes, Buenos Aires, en este caso. Tenía en la tapa el logo de Coca-cola encerrado en un círculo y me apasionó tanto que para esa época me dieron ganas de estudiar marketing. Lo hice años más tarde.
March 17, 2025
Besides Goizueta's personal career accomplishments, this book is a great guide for corporate executives on how to conduct business and follow the trajectories of successful leaders such as the ones at Coca-Cola.
November 29, 2017
An interesting life and a less interesting book. Several times, I felt the author is walking in circles, repeating phrases and life anecdotes.
April 10, 2025
Lo leí cuando era muy joven y le hacía la tarea a mi hermano mayor, recuerdo que tenía su encanto, me gustó.
June 30, 2014
It's a good biography, but says little about Goizueta's last 5 odd years as CEO of Coke. That is when the transformation really took shape...
The power of bottling companies, the Cuban revolution, the New Coke fiasco, diversification, spin offs and sales, and questionable corp governance practices make this book a very good read.
At the end of the book, I felt wanting a lot more.
The power of bottling companies, the Cuban revolution, the New Coke fiasco, diversification, spin offs and sales, and questionable corp governance practices make this book a very good read.
At the end of the book, I felt wanting a lot more.
August 15, 2014
Loved it. Really interesting man.
Read
January 5, 2016I guess they learned their lesson in Atlanta...leave it alone!
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews