Technically I see the all natural Jones Soda strategy a good marketer. But, remember Izzy brands? Basically the Izzy brands was a small publicly traded company until it wasmacquired by Pepsi . Izzy did not have the funds to market or leverage sales. Jones soda brands is both unique and good. With Pepsi now being in the natural food store shelves, Coca~Cola will also want the benefits of the health food sales sector too. This is were the Natural Jones soda brand come to play. If Pepsis Izzy brands are domination the natural food store shelves, then Coca Cola would want to take an established natural store brands image as an acquisition. Mainly to shake the companys mass production image. This is quite complicated and simple. Now, if Reeds took a majority position in Jones and continued to produce Jone, aided in marketing Jones naturals sodas, then the Jones brands would benefit Reeds on three fronts. Firstly, depending on the Jones soda brands natural foods venture success,, Reeds would benefit from Jones as a contract proction client, secondly, Reeds would benefit from the JSDA holdings, and, thirdly, Reeds would make more complicate for Coca Cola from acquiring either, REED or JSDA. Izzy should cheap to Pepsi, but the brands will fetch hundreds of million. Drop the bias between REED and JSDA.
google it. it reads like the opposite of jones. it reads like a description of reeds. reeds is succeeding for all the reasons jones is failing. plus jones makes labels and reeds actually makes a product.
#$%$? reeds does not benefit in the slightest from getting near jones. look. let's understand what jones makes. jones makes soda for children with funny colors and artificial flavors and coloring. think gummi bears, but vastly less popular. they have poor, poor distribution. they have shrinking sales and lose money consistently. Cue got them to lose less money. but they are still a childrens soda company now trying to timidly launch into a "natural" product. however, their are literally hundreds of brands of soda that have already done this without being stuck with a legacy of blue soda. no one at jones can say there is a growing market for bright blue soda with artificial coloring. and stores like whole foods are so gullible that they rush to stock products from companies needing sales expansion from a "natural" soda. there is no strategy here for growth that is meaningful. you think Ms. Cue sucks down Fufuberry soda every day? do her children drink it?
i doubt it. hence the years of losses and negative sales growth.
no law prevents jones from actually innovating. they just do not seem to have guns. ooh that fiat is making me thirsty.
yes. they want to expand sales of natural. of course, they are 8 years late to the party. google "natural soda". oops. they want to use their reputation for children's sodas to expand into whole foods, etc... of course that is a fantasy that they are innovating something. they are the 1000th company to think, hey a soda without corn syrup.
this is called not knowing what you are doing. chris reed would not purchase jones today at gunpoint. the companies have NOTHING in common. i mean nothing at all.
jones is a joke at this point selling soda to children based on 1990s marketing. a mess. a complete mess without direction. maybe someone figures it out. it does not appear Cue is that person. she is a good cfo. she appears to have no vision beyond a spreadsheet.