Talk:Coca-Cola Zero/Archive 1

Product ingredients: useful, marketing copy: less useful.

First of all, I am not a "pro-Coke henchman" (aka: 66.65.121.140)--I simply like the drink. Secondly, I did not delete the "ingredients"; I just re-worded them to what is printed on the (US) packaging. I'm not sure if the labeling laws are different in Australia or not, but someone keeps posting ingredients that sound like a chemical weapon, not a soft drink. That seemed unduly negative, since the articles on other beverages (Coke, Pepsi, Diet Coke, etc.), which all use similar ingredients, are not so biased/negative. Also, the same person insists on putting a negative "spin" on everything about the product--misusing words like "fraudulent" and "backlash." Clearly, there isn't that much of a backlash if Coke Zero is selling so well. And, also, "fraudulent" is a legal term; and, while Coke Zero's faux web blog (in the Australian market only) may have been "shady" or misleading, it wasn't fraudulent or a crime against humanity--it's only soda pop afterall. I mean, I don't mind someone mentioning that Coke used a fake web blog (in one, limited market); however, one shouldn't deny Coke Zero's commercial success either (so long as it's cited). It just reeks of sour grapes over at Pepsi--not some concerned consumer. --66.65.121.140 12:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is taking a hit from whoever is at 66.65.121.140. In this change the user has attempted to replace Coke Zero's ingredients and a section named "Controversy over ingredients" with what appears to be Coca-Cola sales copy.

Considering this page relates to a beverage, the ingredients would be considered by many the most important information on the page. Who would delete a products ingredients from a Wikipedia page? Seems a little odd.

A traceroute search reveals that 66.65.121.140 is an IP based in New York. I was expecting Atlanta, but I image there would be a few PR companies based in NYC keen to 'restore the balance' and remove information that might be damaging to a product's reputation. Information such as a list of ingredients, perhaps? Not-a-coke-henchman 14:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a bit confused about the removal of the sweeteners from the summary of the article. It would seem that is the single most important part of the article. --Steven Fisher 00:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the opening paragraph as it stands now. -- Steven Fisher 18:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a supposed Coke troll, you're making good edits. Just keep documenting what you're doing and why. :) -- Steven Fisher 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sources?

The first paragraph has "other sources quote a campaign cost of AUD $18 million". These "other sources" should be identified, or the claim removed. Direvus 17:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coca Cola Light

Is this basically the same soft drink as the Coca Cola Light I drank when I lived in England in 2000? youngamerican (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are correct, Coke Zero is exactly the same formulation as Diet Coke in the UK.

So Coca Cola Zero = Coca Cola ligt, Diet Coke ?--201.137.196.245 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Diet Coke is different from Coca Cola Zero -- Tflynn17 15:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And no product called Coke Light has ever been officially sold in the UK, cans badged as such are imported from continental europe "on the cheap". Coke Zero is VERY different to Diet Coke. Duds 2k 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date

Somehow, it has occured to me that launching Coke Zero in July of 2006 would be slightly odd...seeing as it is...like, you know, April and all. Highconclave 10:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, your living in the past man JayKeaton 22:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also about dates: I changed the the introduction date from 2004 to 2005 as it was before this edit. The introduction in 2005 is also in line with the http://heritage.coca-cola.com/ and this archived press release.

Furthermore I find the article a bit unclear; the sentence "The launch started in Spain, on Wednesday 21 June 2006." sounds like the product was launched in Spain, while in this list it says the beverage is sold in the USA since 2005, I think "The launch in Spain started on Wednesday..." would be less confusing (except, of course, Coke zero was indeed launched in Spain before it was launched in other countries), but I might be wrong, after all I don't speak English natively. And all the marketing section seems to be quite unstructured, maybe someone shares this perception and feels more comfortable with writing in English--92.234.17.148 (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sweetner information

The Diet Coke entry states that is it currently sweetened with an Aspartame and Saccharin blend. However this article seems to contradict that. Which is correct?

Coke Zero and Diet Coke are different drinks, so they may be sweetened differently. Wiki-gardner 03:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure they're different? Perhaps it's the same drink, only with a different label. The Diet Coke page does say the formula for that is different than normal Coca-Cola. Perhaps this is the normal Coca-Cola with artificial sweetener instead of sugar? Someone should find out. --Ssj4android 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the same thing they are? Diet Coke and Coke Zero are not the same (at least, not in North America. Elsewhere may be different; see rest of talk page). -- Steven Fisher 23:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also took cyclamate off of the US ingredients list since it's banned in the US. Is it possibly in the Canadian version? CredoFromStart 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the label. Seems to be fine. No guarantees though. Ginbot86 (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many pictures

Hi guys, It seems to me this entry is becoming a picture book. Until this page has more text content, four pictures is ridicuous. I'm bringing it back to two. Wiki-gardner 03:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Zero Movement

This article links to The Zero Movement, which is a short article that links to the Zero Coke Movement, which itself is only one paragraph long. There isn't a whole lot on the Coke Zero page, and it seems like it would be simpler to put the contents of both these articles on this page. The Zero Movement, The Zero movement, The Zero Coke Movement, and The zero coke movement could all redirect to this page. I would move the content from these pages myself, but the articles aren't entirely clear on the difference between the Zero Movement and the Zero Coke Movement, and which ones are still active, so I'm not sure how to write it. Philbert2.71828 20:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a mistake to merge those articles here. In the long run, the Zero Coke Movement and The Zero Movement are really current events that will be forgotten. However, it would make sense to merge them to each other. -- Steven Fisher 02:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Coke did not think up and implement this concept. It's more likley a creation of its advertisting agency. --Navstar 12:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many links?

I really object to de-linking the ingredients in the second and subsequent lists. Even though they are already linked in the first list, I think this is silly. The most likely scenerio here is that people see that section, skip down to their country's list, and read the ingredient list. If they spot something they want more information on, they then search the previous entries for a link to that ingredient. -- Steven Fisher 23:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia frowns of massive linking. The rule, if I remember correctly, is to make a link only the first time a term appears, not every time. Personally, I find the repetitive linking more confussing than helpful. --Andromeda 23:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia frowns on repetitive linking without purpose. Here, we have a clear purpose. Blindly following a policy is nearly as bad as never following one. -- Steven Fisher 15:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "blindly following a policy". A whole bunch of text, one link after another, is not only repetitive, is hard to read and overhelming too. --Andromeda 16:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed my point yet. Why is it superior to make someone search two previous lists for the link they want, when they start with their country's list? -- Steven Fisher 15:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Reminiscent of Pepsi Max"?

I find this statement to be POV. I added {{fact}}, but for some reason an anonymous user removed it, saying "use fewer templates, it really sucks". Comments? Stannered 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is both POV and OR. Should be removed, IMO. See below: -- Tflynn17 16:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi Max

1) "The taste is very reminiscent of Pepsi Max so it is possible that this is the company's attempt to target its rival on the taste-front."

Coca-Cola Zero's main selling point is that it tastes exactly like Classic Coca-Cola. Billboards proclaim, "Blatant Coke Impersonator" and the website invites visitors to do a blind taste-test of Zero vs. Classic. So I have a hard time believing this drink tastes like Pepsi Max, unless Pepsi Max itself tastes like Coca-Cola, in which case it would be Pepsi who is rivaling on the taste-front, not the other way around.

It certainly reminds me of Max. Duds 2k 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) "With its current targeting of young males Coke Zero seems destined to compete head on with Pepsi Max."

It would seem to me that it is already competing head on with Pepsi One. You know, One vs. Zero? We don't even have Pepsi Max in the US. I guess maybe we're the only place with Pepsi One, though? So I'm thinking this sentence should be changed to "Coca-Cola Zero competes directly with Pepsi One in the United States and Pepsi Max elsewhere." Yes? -- Tflynn17 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tastes like pepsi max my ***! i had pepsi max, and it tastes just like guess who, diet pepsi with just a hint more of caffiene. coke zero tastes like coke almost perfectly, without the sugar. diet coke's formula is in fact the same that NEW COKE used. sorry diet coke drinkers, it is true, as new coke based its formulaon diet coke's recipe, but added real sugar, not nutrasweet or whatever the hell they use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan10 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Calories

Anyone else notice that the main selling point of the drink is mentioned only once in a link? Mythi 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned it now (although from what I gathered the last time I read the nutritional information, in the UK at least, a can of the drink contains about 2 calories, not zero. Stannered 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "zero-calorie" back to "low-calorie". The drink does not have zero calories - in the UK (and presumably the US as they appear to be virtually the same formula) 100ml of the drink contains 0.5kcal. That means that in your typical 330ml can, you will have 1.65 kcal and in a 500ml bottle you will get 2.5kcal. That is not zero. Stannered 17:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. I read that in the wrong mindset, my mistake. --Attilitus 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article says it is zero calories in the US ("is not a zero-calorie drink, except of course in the United States"). Is it zero-calorie or not? 81.187.211.188 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would investigate, but I'm not in the US. Stannered 09:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to nutrition information from the US and UK (now cited in the article), Coke Zero does not strictly have zero calories. A can of Coke Zero from the US may well say it has zero calories because of certain rounding rules imposed by the FDA (but I haven't looked at a can lately), but Coke's US web site says it has 0.7 kcal per 240 mL, which is .3 kcal per 100 mL, slightly less than Coke Zero has in England. Philbert^2.71828 15:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the bottles do say "Calorie Free", which to me seems stronger than just rounding the listed calories to 0. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.152.179.60 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the FDA has certain rules for what products can be called "calorie free", "low calorie", etc. A drink can legally be branded (in the US) as being calorie free when it does in fact have a very small number of calories. I looked on Coca-Cola's web site just now and found a press release announcing "Coca-Cola Zero, a new zero-calorie cola, in the United States in June [2005]." It seems that the Zero does in fact designate zero calories, notwithstanding the tiny amount of calories actually present in the drink. I don't know how the drink is marketed in other countries. I propose that we represent Coke Zero as a drink that is branded as a zero-calorie version of Coca-Cola, while mentioning somewhere that the drink does indeed have about one calorie per can. This minor detail doesn't necessarily need to be in the lead paragraph of the article. I'll update the article with the source I just found and see what everyone thinks of it. Philbert^2.71828 18:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the new wording misleading; in the UK the drink is clearly marketed as zero sugar, with the calorie count not being mentioned except in the nutritional information. See http://www.cokecce.co.uk/cce/news_art.jsp?aid=267 for a coutner-citation on the UK's "Zero Sugar" rather than "Zero-Calorie" branding. Only in the US from what I can tell is the drink branded as zero-calorie. Stannered 22:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. I was looking for a reference like earlier that but couldn't find one. I modified the opening paragraph again, and hopefully it's more clear now. Before today, we had no sources cited on this subject, so claims about what the Zero meant looked to me like opinions or original research. Hopefully the paragraph is more clear now. Of course, feel free to rewrite it again if you can improve it. Philbert^2.71828 22:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well FWIW, I'm happy with the latest revision :-) Stannered 23:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here I have two cans: one from Belgium and one from the UK. They both bear the same barcode (5449000131805) yet the nutrition information differs. The UK can claims to have 1.5kJ / 0.5 kcal and 2 calories (kcal) per 330ml pack, whereas the Belgium can claims 1.3 kJ / 0.3 kcal and just 1 kcal per 330 ml.
(Eventhough the cans look dead on identical apart from the blurb which is either in English or Dutch and French, they do seem to come from different plants, judging by the inkjet printing on the bottom and the shape of the tab on top of the can. So much for idential barcodes eh)

Why does the table of ingredients say 0 calories for each region? This is false. In Australia for example, the nutritional information panel clearly states 0.3 calories / 1.4 kJ per 100 mL. If you have access to a can / bottle in another listed region, you should change the data in the ingredient table to reflect the true information. I have now changed the information for Australia. Blamesociety (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonation

One of the most common complaints I've seen about Coca Cola Zero is that is seems to go flat very quickly, far moreso than regular Coca Cola or Pepsi Max [1], [2]. Does this merit a mention? DWaterson 22:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think so, though I wasn't sure where it could be added. Do we need a section entitled 'Opinions'? --jazzle 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Criticisms' would probably be a more suitable title, because that generally relates to a major opinion, not just of an individual. Make sure to cite it. --Mambo Jambo 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Zero

Does anyone know what the difference is, if any, between this and Coke Light? Here in Germany the two drinks are being sold side-by-side, and as far as I can tell from comparing the ingredients lists, they're the same thing. My guess is that Coke is trying to introduce Zero here (and later elsewhere) with the eventual intention of replacing Light, so as to harmonize their international brand names. Anyone know exactly? Kairos 19:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the primary (only?) difference between German Coke Zero and Coke Light is that the citric acid in Coke Light is replaced with sodium citrate. Kairos 21:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there is a different taste between them, where the zero tastes more the original one. me sometimes drink coke with rum: with light you can't go, zero is acceptable. but i think in further future (and when zero is established in germany) with some advertisment zero will replace light.--85.183.212.165 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know in Germany, but here in Spain Coke Light and Coke Zero are two completely different beverages with very different taste. Zero tastes almost as regular Coke, with Diet does not. --Andromeda 07:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Finland, Coca-Cola Light uses Sucralose while Zero uses asparthame. In my personal opinion, Zero tastes just like Coca-Cola Light tasted when it used asparthame. 128.214.205.4 11:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Diet Coke and Coke Zero

Recent edit: "The only difference between Diet Coke and Coke zero is that the citric acid found in Diet Coke has been removed and replaced with more phosphoric acid - and of course the marketing." (posted by 86.30.66.254)

In the UK and US, Diet Coke is sweetened with Aspartame, whereas Coke Zero uses a blend of Aspartame and Acesulfame Potassium. According to the above discussion, in Germany, Coke Zero is almost the same formulation, but with sodium citrate instead of citric acid (rather than phosphoric acid instead of citric acid as mentioned in the edit), and in Spain the drinks are completely different. Stannered 19:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have e-mail Coca-Cola about this and this was Coca-Cola Great Britain's reply:

Original Message-----

From: ccgb_cic_auto-response@eur.ko.com [3] To: *********** * Mr (School of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences) Subject: Coca-Cola Response Importance: High

Dear Mr **********,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Diet Coke' and 'Coca-Cola' Zero.

It is always a pleasure to hear from our consumers and we appreciate you taking the time to contact us.

I can confirm that we have not launched 'Coca-Cola' Zero to replace any other 'Coke' or 'diet Coke' brands available in the UK. The key differences between 'Coca-Cola' Zero and 'diet Coke', is the taste and the brand personality. 'Coca-Cola' Zero has the same sweetener blends that are in 'diet Coke' but it has a totally different flavour base that is more similar to that of regular 'Coke'.

I hope the above information is helpful and thank you once again for your interest in our Company.

Yours sincerely,

Maria Vaughan Consumer Information Centre Coca-Cola Great Britain

End Original Message-----

Hope it helps. Scubafish 08:11, 22 September 2006 (GMT)

This would fit with my experience of Coke Zero and Diet Coke in New Zealand. Having previously been a big Coke drinker, and not so fond of Diet Coke for it's 'sickly sweet' taste (my personal description), I found Coke Zero to have a totally satisfying flavour that has totally replace regular Coke for me (which would be Coke Classic to Americans). The taste differences between Diet Coke and Coke Zero are day and night. While the ingredients list may look similar, I suspect the unknown items that make up the 'Flavour' in the ingredients list is pretty different.

not sure if this is the case, but i've heard it argued that diet coke = coke zero (maybe not in the precise formulation, but in general taste) in most of the world, but that diet coke != coke zero in North America because diet coke is an aspartame-sweetened version of 'new' coke, while coke zero is an aspartame-sweetened version of coke classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.19.84 (talk • contribs) 1 June 2007, 13:41 (GMT)

Either way, it'd be nice to see some discussion of the differences between them mentioned in the article, either in the lead or as the first section. Right now, the only mention Diet Coke has to do with their logos.

Black Can

What is the story behind the black can? In America, it's white.

It's a British can. British cans are black, as are the labels on the bottles. Stannered 08:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Around Christmas 2006, though, black cans started turning up with Santa on them. Since then they have gone to regular black. However, the 20-ounce bottles remain white.

Is the U.S. the only place where white has been used as a background color for the packaging? Daniel Case 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been all-white in Canada since its introduction, but I noticed the black label products appearing here sometime in January. I haven't seen a white Coke Zero product since then. --Silvaran 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subliminal September 11 pictures!?

I removed the following:

* The Spanish package of Coke Zero has been criticised for including supposed subliminal pictures of the September 11, 2001 attacks .

The source cited is [4]. From what I can surmise without knowing Spanish, this is an online men's sex magazine ("Anal sex" explicit ads) of the kind that would indiscriminately print totally unsourced conspiracy theories and sensationalist stories. If someone disagrees feel free to reinstate the text if a better source can be produced. TH 15:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Coke Zero - acids

I've just added the ingredientlist of belgium to the table, but on the can it says, roughly translated "nutritional acids". I don't know to what acids or other ingredients listed this translates, so if someone who knows this stuff can do that, great :)

the difference between this and diet coke?

can someone please enlighten me as to the difference between coke zero and diet coke? in the uk coke zero is advertised as having 'no sugar' and 'sugar free' but diet coke is advertised as 'sugar free'. whats the difference?

It's been posted elsewhere on this page. Coke Zero is based on the same set of flavourings as regular Coke, and uses acesulfame-potassium in addition to aspartame as a sweetener. (Hence tastes more like regular Coke and doesn't has as much of an aspartame aftertaste.) Diet Coke has a rather different set of flavourings to regular Coke and only uses aspartame. (Hence tastes nasty.) HTH! Stannered 21:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that Diet Coke/Coke Light has at least two different formulas, with the continental European version tasting noticeably different from that in the UK/US/Ireland/Canada, which are all similar if not identical. When Zero was introduced in the US, it was initially said to be the European formula adapted to work without cyclamates (which are still banned in the US). I'm not privy to CC's internal strategy, but Diet Coke was a big seller from the beginning in most of the English-speaking countries, whereas it was slow to catch on in Europe, where it went through at least two reformulations (advertised on the product in 1994 and, I think, 2000, although the latter was a very minor change in taste). It was presumably left well alone in the countries where it was already successful; and again, the legality of sweeteners in various markets and similar issues probably played a part as well. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calories

How can it be .3 to .5 kcal for every 100mL?

.3kcal = 300cal

100mL = 3 oz

That means 300 calories for every three ounces, or 100 calories per ounce. In a twelve ounce can, that's 1200 calories. That's worse than regular Coke. Assuming that 1kcal actually equals 1cal, we have this.

.5cal per 3 oz

.166cal per oz

2 cal per can

That's more like Pepsi One.

67.188.172.165 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie. "kcal" on packaging is read as "calories" for the purposes of calorie-counting. Stannered 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coke-Cola Cherry Zero Launch?

Coke Cherry Zero has been pretty readily available in the Chicago market for the last week or so. I have two 12 packs at my house right now which I got from Walgreens. That being said, I also was able to find Coke Zero here in May of 2006 so perhaps it's test marketed here before the official launch? I must say, it's much better then Diet Coke with Cherry.

Just noticed that it says "will be launched", if it has been launched in chicago should it be "was launched"? I am not in the US so I dunno about it's launch or anything.

Diarrhea complaints?

I had written up a blog post about my experience with Coke Zero and I'm not alone. Ignoring a few junk comments, other people have commented and followed up with me personally acknowledging they have had similar problems. Note: this is specific to Coke Zero (& in the US). CoreyH.com blog post. Would this fit under "criticisms"? Clearly this is anecdotal, but repeatable and not unique. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.7.70.10 (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

We don't consider people's blog posts to be reliable sources, except for articles about the bloggers themselves, or if the person is a recognized expert in a particular field. Daniel Case 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I've been drinking it for two years without any ill effects. Daniel Case 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero on-tap at Wendys

It should mention somewhere that Coke Zero can be found on-tap at Wendys resturants. This could denote that Coke Zero could in fact be permanant when compared to others such as Coke Lime and Vanilla Coke (which at one point was discontinued and then reinstated).

Or it could just say that Wendy's management thinks it will sell well (it does). Daniel Case 14:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it will most likely be permanent, as people really like it. i say though, they should add a chocolate flavor, with another flavor mixed with it, like for example, caramel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan10 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the criticizem section?

There are many things wrong with this product starting with its horrable taist which is nothing like coke. we had one before where did it go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.117.133 (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was original research? We can't have material 'dissing' companies and people unless it's well referenced with reliable sources. Richard001 08:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch "Criticism"

I removed this link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=SsHGyvztXis . I wouldn't be surprised if the video creator was the one that put it here. Its just a video of some guy smashing a can with a red bar, I removed it as it is not criticism at all. All he is trying to put out is that he dislikes the brand, even going as far as hate. Criticism has commentary, this has no commentary, it is just beating an empty carbonated beverage can. Arukan Harless 04:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"availability in US resturants"

the "availability in US resturants" seems a little silly. Even wikipedia cannot maintain something that is accurate and thourough enough to be useful. This will change constantly. I think it should be removed and consider replaceing it with something more general. a statistic would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.228.210 (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction?

Okay, criticism is discussed above (as it was removed from the article due to "original research") but this article DEFINITELY deserves to have a "Public reaction" section, especially because of the gigantic reaction it has provoked. I understand that it's already outselling Diet Coke (here in the States) and that the general consensus seems to be that it DOES taste more like regular Coca-Cola. (Although, here I am with the "original research" again. Can we please have a qualified, Coke-enthusiast Wikipedian create a decent "Reaction" section to detail the acceptance (or lack thereof) of this important drink? (It IS "important" if it's really "Coca-Cola's biggest product launch in 22 years", as the article states.) --Schmendrick (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coke Zero in the Philippines

It said that the launch date is February 17, but last February 16, around 2pm, I have bought a canned Coke Zero, and at around 8pm, I bought a 1.5L bottle. Even SM Hypermarket dudes are puzzled by this. They said that they have the stock already but they were told not to release it until Sunday. Whoa. - 203.76.218.140 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium?

I do not see any info here on the sodium content of Coca-Cola Zero. We might expect many readers to me interested in this information. We should add something on this. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to start adding this information, in Australia, the sodium content is 11.0 mg per 100 mL. Blamesociety (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taste

In the opening portion of the article, the phrase "Coke Zero, unlike the sugar-free Diet Coke, is formulated to taste like Coca-Cola." is marketspeak. As a stalwart supporter of all things Coca-Cola, even I must admit it's untruth. Coke Zero tastes hideous, like aspartame. Granted, it's probably better than a stab-wound, but that's really a matter of perception. At any rate, would anyone object to me modifying the wording as follows: "Coke Zero, unlike the sugar-free Diet Coke, is advertized as tasting like Coca-Cola." CameronB (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't taste like sugar-containing coke at all (and i don't mean that awful corn flavoured muck you get in the usa). Really nasty chemical after-taste almost exactly the same as diet coke - as far as i remember anyway - it's dreadful stuff too. 121.45.183.42 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Perhaps it should be under "Criticisms?" Ginbot86 (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the difference in taste. I find Coca-Cola Zero to be very close to the taste of Coca-Cola, and markedly different from the taste of Diet Coke. So, the marketspeak rings true to me. I'm fine with CameronB's proposal ("... is advertized as..."), but I don't think there's much reason to write a criticism entry about the taste. 82.67.126.180 (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the sentence now. Ginbot86 (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Viral Marketing Reference

On the page it describes the ad-campaign where Coke wants to sue Coke-Zero for "taste infringement" as viral marketing, where it is not viral marketing. It is more of just "crafty" advertising.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauln (talk • contribs) 04:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flatulate means "pass gas"?!

Within the section on Marketing someone has left a sentence that describes "flatulate" followed with the rather insulting parenthetical (pass gas). Are we really in need of help in understanding what that big word means? How come other big words don't also have helper statements? How come ther isn't a pronunciation chart? This is yet another in the long line of example that illustrates Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia. 202.144.185.126 (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]