Hacker News Reader

Comment by panarky | Hacker News Reader

Coke is huge in this part of Chiapas, especially in indigenous areas.

I was there last spring, and my guide said Coca-Cola bribed the village curanderos (spiritual healers) to increase the consumption of Coke, so they incorporated it into religious rituals [0].

The water isn't safe to drink, and Coke can be cheaper than milk or formula, so many moms feed their babies Coke instead [1].

The point is, when the megacorp has subverted democracy from the national leaders [1] to the regional leaders all the way down to the village healers, how can you not hold the megacorp accountable?

[0] https://costumbresporelmundo.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/tum...

[1] http://robinewing.com/2013/09/22/cola-consumption-and-the-ch...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicente_Fox

View on HN

In that article it was locals who got the witch doctor frauds to switch from bootleg alcohol to cola in their cermonies, so no direct link from that plant to them. It's local middlemen screwing over their own people and those criminal "healers" who now make more money from patients because it's easier and cheaper to obtain sodas than it is to make and sell alcohol. For sure a bad situation but if sodas weren't around they'd be drinking booze again and milk would still be too expensive, the water still undrinkable.

If you want to hold somebody accountable start with the guys peddling phony healing for dollars then move up from there to whoever is politically in charge of that region letting it go to shit, not hiring engineers and planners but instead cronies, and pocketing the rest of the federal money transfers. https://growthlab.cid.harvard.edu/publications/why-chiapas-p...

Organized crime networks also like to hide behind shell companies, contractors and legitimate businesses.

Investigators use the concept of cui bono to figure out who is ultimately responsible.

Who benefits?

Just because local distributors are doing the bribing doesn't insulate the megacorp from moral culpability for their actions.

By the way, the bribes often aren't in cash, they're free cases of Coke.

True, but the real problem is obviously the money taken from Coca-Cola having a plant in Chiapas is not reaching the poorest inhabitants through urban planning/economic long term strategy and instead going into somebody's pocket. This is a political problem and nothing Coca-Cola can do will change that. Any attempt at companies getting involved in local activism will just put those people at even more risk. For the water problem they could attempt to fund the building of wells in these communities affected but this will of course be a corrupt money pit, tons will be spent and nothing done so really all they can do is leave the state, then Chiapas is even more poor and desperate.

So at what point does a megacorp, with all of its power and wealth, decide to do something good? Will we ever get to a point where we can we at least try to evolve towards sustainable capitalism?

What kind of extra profits do you think Coke brings in from the excess consumption from religious rituals of Spiritual Healers?

Lets say Chiapas (3.4 million people) has (10% population of Spiritual Healers) = 340,000 Spiritual Leaders.

Each spiritual leader will now purchase a 1 Liter coke for a religious ceremony EVERY DAY that they otherwise would not have. Coke costs .73 pesos per liter in Chiapas. 340,000 x .73 Pesos = 248,200 Pesos per day.

248,200 Pesos coverts to $13,992.88 USD per day.

$13,992.88 x 365 (days in a year) = $5,107,401.20 USD Total extra coke consumption.

So Coke is now possibly selling 5 million USD more dollars per year of coke with this scheme. You must subtract the cost of making coke which we do not know, and the cost of the "bribes", to find Coke's total profit here.

But as someone involved in marketing the potential downside of this scandal doesn't seem worth the extra 5 million in sales from Coke used during religious rituals in Chiapas.

It seems more likely to me that if mothers are feeding their babies Coke instead of the expensive milk, or contaminated water, that the Spiritual Healers are making the same decision as everyone else. That Coke is the safest, most cost effective and pleasant drink available.

Full Disclosure: I am drinking my morning Diet Dr. Pepper as I type this.

Coca Cola has always a parasitic brand that attaches to things to sell product. You are forgetting about the implicit religious endorsement of the spiritual healer using Coke. That endorsement neutralizes negative factors. It's a sugary drink, but it must be good if it is part of religious ritual!

The high level process is: Create need (subvert the healers' credibility), make the product indispensable (attach to healing ritual), link to outcome and provide a sample (feeling better = Coke)

Most infamously, Nestle used techniques like this to sell powdered baby formula in third world countries -- a practice that literally killed thousands of children in the process. In the United States, Coke is co-branded with lots of other things that people like: McDonald's, Movies, Christmas (Santa = Coke), etc. Coke is the master of applying this marketing pattern.

I appreciate the point you are making, and I don't disagree for the most part on Coke's branding process.

But does that type of strategy extend to local communities and Spiritual Healers?

I don't think the math supports that. The team of "expert consultants" who would come up with a plan like this and institute it would charge more in their salaries than the increased consumption in Chiapas is worth. Also, ask yourself why a strategy like that would even be necessary in Chiapas???

You don't need to trick people into buying Coke when they don't have access to clean and affordable water.

I think the idea would be less "sell more Coke" and more "become an integral part of the lives of the voting population of the town our factory is in". When Coke is holy, those who would stand against it are heretics.

Remember that Coke has a franchise bottler model.

So Coca Cola FEMSA's marketing people develop and execute their marketing strategy. Just because Mexico is a relatively poorer country doesn't mean that the business people are a bunch of bumpkins.

People in Chiapas may not be drinking Coke by the gallon, but it's a product with drug-like margins. They have a positive customer value, or Coke wouldn't be doing it.

Just because something makes economic sense doesn't make it good. "Your wells are dry so we're leaving, but I assure you we all profited heavily during the process!"

>> But as someone involved in marketing the potential downside of this scandal doesn't seem worth the extra 5 million in sales from Coke used during religious rituals in Chiapas.

What scandal? Envelopes full of cash at night by a local manager and be done. Both sides will deny it.

$5 Mil in sales is nothing, but $5 mil here and $5 mil there...Surely Coca Cola want everyone consuming their products.

They wouldn't be targeting spiritual healers as consumers -- the number would be far lower than you suggest -- they would be targeting them as the "brand ambassadors" and "thought leaders" within their community. Which is eminently sensible. Evil, but sensible.

When the doctor prescribes Coca Cola to heal you and your family, Coca Cola is no longer just a refreshing but unhealthy treat.

Now it's medicine. Now it's essential for life itself.

So you drink it at breakfast to fortify you for the day ahead. You feed gallons of it to your kids because you love them and want them to be healthy.

> The water isn't safe to drink, and Coke can be cheaper than milk or formula, so many moms feed their babies Coke instead [1].

So, the unsafe water, gets treated, margin added and still cheaper as coke than local drinkable water.

Not sure what to say at this.

On its face, it seems like it cannot be true.

The main ingredient in Coca-Cola is filtered water. If Coke is cheaper than water in these communities, then why isn't the company selling bottled water for the same price? Their bottling and distribution costs would be the same, while the cost of ingredients would decrease.

It makes no economic sense for Coca-Cola to not sell bottled water in this context. Lacking an economic motive, what's left? Is the assertion that Coca-Cola is actively malevolent and is using their economic power to harm people on purpose at their own expense?

Maybe it's because it's harder for companies to compete with Coke than with bottled water?

If Coca-Cola is selling bottled water, then another company could come in and start selling bottled water as well, and there's really nothing interesting to differentiate them. But while another company can sell soda, they can't sell Coke. So getting people used to Coke means they'll always instinctively reach for Coke when they're thirsty.

If that's that case, what's stopping another company from selling bottled water today?

Um, the fact they would have to have deep wells to get any out of the ground, and that the water authority doesn't have any to extra water reserves to sell them. So, yea, it seems like there is quite a lot keeping competitors from selling products.

Sure, for now at least. Perhaps Coca-Cola is thinking longer term, or perhaps they are just doing what has worked for them elsewhere.

But if something changes the water shortage, either environmental or technological, then Coca-Cola is still in a good position.

Coca-cola is selling bottled water in Mexico. They sell it under the brand Agua Ciel. It's the biggest bottled water provider in Mexico. Keep in mind that everyone in Mexico uses bottled water. The tap water is not safe to drink.

I live in California, and I travel to Mexico occasionally. It is not uncommon, in my experience, to find vendors selling bottles of water that are simply bottles fished out of the trash and filled with tap water. As a tourist, I try to avoid this scam by drinking liquids that are easier to recognize as genuine. I'm not sure how much this contributes to a general societal influence towards non-water beverages though.

> The water isn't safe to drink, and Coke can be cheaper than milk or formula, so some moms feed their babies Coke instead.

Fucking hell that's awful.

idiocy playing out in real life

It's not idiocy, it's lack of health education which is a luxury that many talk for granted.

Does coca-cola charge for breast milk over there?

Breast feeding is preferred but not always possible for a variety of reasons. Having to fall back on fucking Coke is a pretty grim reality to contemplate.

I agree. I once saw a woman feeding a chocolate hostess cake to her <6 month old baby on the subway in NYC and it made me feel sick. This was while I myself had a similarly aged baby.

You probably haven't lactated. It's not that simple -- once a baby accepts formula, it's nearly impossible to breast feed.

That's a big reason why breastmilk companies are ready, willing and eager to "help" with sample product. Hell, somehow two of those companies were able to estimate the birthdate that our child would have likely had if my wife hadn't miscarried early. They go to the expense of mailing 10 lb boxes of product with a retail value of around $75 to people -- it's almost an "addictive" product with ROI high enough to justify that large marketing expense.

In third world countries, they go so far as to send people dressed like nurses to provide samples and "help".

> once a baby accepts formula, it's nearly impossible to breast feed.

I'm male, but I'm a parent and remember dealing with this stuff.

In addition to difficulty getting the baby to latch after feeding formula very early, there's also the issue of building and maintaining supply. The first few days of life are important for both mother and baby - there isn't a lot of milk being produced at first, and the child's attempts at nursing encourage milk production to begin in earnest. The natural course is that the mother's milk comes in to meet the baby's growing need. If you "skip" a day or two in the beginning, even if you get the kid to latch there isn't going to be enough milk to satisfy them. This leads to supplementing with formula, which in turn solidifies difficulty latching and further delays milk production.

I remember having to be very firm with hospital staff to under no circumstances feed our first daughter formula. In the first couple of days they really pushed us to, justifying it by saying "Momma needs her rest!" and "Dad should experience feeding the baby, too." We had a good experience overall with both our children, but in both cases I had to really take command of the situation to ensure that our wishes were followed. In a couple of cases that was even "against medical advice".

I'm male (Father) of three daughters who all breast fed. They also occasionally got formula when it was not possible to breast feed them but it did not change their breast feeding at all.

There is a lot of noise around breast feeding on the Internet but if you've got references to something other than apocryphal about formula preventing breast feeding I'm sure my daughters would like to know about it.

The key is in the first few days to teach mother and child how to latch to the breast.

If your wife and daughters breastfed in the hospital or immediately thereafter and then supplemented, that is different (and lower ROI) scenario.

There’s a ton of published material on the topic.

I think OP may be correct that people do this, but I am not at all convinced with the reasons.

My cousin adopted a kid from near the US Mexican border.

She told me when they first brought him home (he was 5), that he could barely speak, was terrified and kept screaming "oda!".

They thought perhaps Oda was the name of his brother who was sold into slavery by his birth mother.

He was unrelenting in his crys. Finally, exhausted, my cousins husband sat down at 3am and opened a Coke to drink. The boy pointed and screamed "oda!".

He wanted Soda. They gave him some and his entire nervous system relaxed and he could goto sleep.

He was raised in a drug house, spent most of his life locked in a closet with little food and plenty of feces.. and his mother bottle fed him soda.

When they adopted him he was like a feral animal, hiding and picking food out of the trash.

He's now 9 and doing much better (they had to ween him off soda). He's relaxed and is in a loving and safe home.

But fuck sakes, I don't think most of us have any idea the horror that many people are facing on a daily basis.

What you call a "horror" is what most human beings throughout history would call "life". Not only history, but most human beings throughout the world today. We in the developed world enjoy a dream-like existence few in the whole of human history have ever known. Legit the biggest problem some people will have today is that someone forgot they didn't want guacamole on their burrito. Unfortunately, this has a way of completely twisting and corrupting one's view of the world, and it gives most people a very strange set of priorities. Most human beings alive today are living in dangerous shitholes. Some people need to carry an AK-47 to go to the market, but because they have semi-reliable access to food, they're better off than a lot of others. The one thing the infantry taught me is what the reality of life is like for the vast vast majority of human beings not living lucky in the developed world. And really, any history book will teach you that this is and has been the standard throughout our existence. I wake up every single day thanking the stars for the life I have. I think more people in the developed world could stand to be grateful for what they've got.

This.

> We in the developed world enjoy a dream-like existence few in the whole of human history have ever known.

You just have to ask yourself; how many of my ancestors were able to afford a hot shower in the morning and you begin to realize, how mind-fuckingly amazing the life we have actually is.

Thanks for putting it into words.

That's no excuse for locking a child in a closet. Your ancestors may not have had hot showers or supermarkets but the children would either be with their parents or roaming free. A kid helping farm is better off in so many ways than one trapped in a tiny room.

I was surprised to hear people compare being locked in a closet with agrarian life.

>The water isn't safe to drink, and Coke can be cheaper than milk or formula, so many moms feed their babies Coke instead [1].

I find your reasons hard to believe and your reference #1 proves nothing. If water is not contaminated chemically, boiling is the solution like millions of people do daily. I also find it hard to believe milk is more expensive than coke as UHT milk is easy to import in large quantities and cheap.(A fast check shows milk is half the price in Mexico, water is even cheaper). Perhaps people do it anyway, but reasons sound dubious to me.

I don't know about Mexico but in Bolivia Coca-Cola is around half of the price of milk. I've heard that there are mothers giving coke to babies but never seen it. (I lived 4 years in Bolivia).

[0] Photo is specifically from Iglesia de San Juan: http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/iglesia-de-san-juan-chamu... Apparently, Coca Cola is a choice to use alongside alcohol. I can't find mention of other places doing it.

[1] If the water is unsafe to drink, why would they not just boil it? That's how the vast majority of the world makes their water potable (especially tea).

I'm not saying Coca-Cola is free from wrongdoing, but the evidence of malice is very apocryphal. In my experiences in the third world, Coca-Cola was the only soft drink available, and people genuinely seemed to just really like soft drinks.

Heck, we have trouble getting Americans to drink water over soft drinks.

Hate to nitpick, but this is the Internet....

"many moms feed their babies Coke instead"

I see one reference in the article cited about two women feeding Coke to their babies. I'm not sure how the "many moms" conclusion is drawn - is there data on this or just this one anecdote?

Some days ago I watched the movie Idiocracy which is set in a future where Gatorade is used for everything and water is only known as something used to flush the toilet. I didn't realize we're this close.

Going to enjoy looking at the labels on the bottles next time my friends buy a "Mexican" coke instead of a "US" on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com