Coca-Cola quietly revives 1980s cult classic as rivalry shifts from Pepsi to Dr Pepper
Coca-Cola is bringing back its fan-favorite Diet Cherry Coke, five years after quietly pulling it from shelves.
The relaunch puts Coca-Cola in direct competition with Diet Dr. Pepper Cherry, which has been a staple since 2009.
Coca-Cola bosses increasingly see Dr Pepper as a threat. Dr Pepper's sales have steadily risen in recent years, and last year it overtook Pepsi to become America's No 2 soda behind Coke.
The returning Diet Cherry Coke will feature retro-style packaging inspired by the original 1980s design. It's expected to hit Kroger shelves next month, with Costco stores in Canada also planning to stock it.
Diet Cherry Coke became an instant hit when it launched in 1986 and was popular into the 1990s. But its popularity faded and it was axed in 2020.
Now, nostalgia — and some competitive pressure — is bringing it back.
'It's been years since the OG Diet Cherry Coke has been out so I'm really looking forward to getting it again,' Food blogger Snackolator wrote on their Instagram post.
'Where can I find! This is an emergency!,' a commenter joked on Instagram.
The news comes months after Coca-Cola launched its Orange Cream soda.
The company told DailyMail.com in December that it was developed 'in direct response to consumer demand for the iconic and nostalgic taste of orange cream.'
Social media users were thrilled to learn about the Orange debut, and had 'high hopes' for success.
The beverage is expected to be available on store shelves until next year.
Coca-Cola also sparked a social media frenzy in April by relaunching its fan-favorite 'Share a Coke' campaign.
Besides Dr. Pepper, Coca-Cola is in friendly competition with Olipop and Poppi beverages through its Simply Pop prebiotic soda brand.
The Simply Pop sodas come in five flavors: strawberry, pineapple mango, fruit punch, lime and citrus punch.
The company managed to launch these wide array of beverages before consumers noticed it quietly tweaked its Coke Zero recipe.
Coca-Cola had been making headlines for its relationships with Costco and Subway.
Costco announced plans to replace Pepsi with Coca-Cola products in food courts last year.
The first Coca-Cola machine was seen at a newly-opened California store in March.
But while Coca-Cola gained Costco, it lost Subway.
The sandwich chain entered a 10-year deal with PepsiCo in 2024 to supply all US restaurants with Pepsi products.
Despite pushback from some franchise managers who wanted to keep Coke, Pepsi drinks were in all locations throughout the nation by January 1.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Voters reveal if Trump would have won election without Elon Musk and weigh in on his new political party idea
During their face-off last week, Elon Musk boldly claimed that he was the reason President Donald Trump won the 2024 election. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk claimed on Thursday. 'Such ingratitude,' the billionaire added. The billionaire SpaceX, X and Tesla head contributed around $277 million to Trump and Trump aligned candidates in the 2024 race and Musk personally hit the campaign trail in support of the Republican nominee. But in a Daily Mail poll conducted by JL Partners and released Friday, more registered voters sided with Trump than Musk. The polling found that 45 percent believed that Trump would have won the election without the help of Musk. Another 34 percent said Trump needed Musk to win. Finally 21 percent of respondents said they were unsure. When broken down by party, Republicans were more likely to say that Trump would have won without Musk's help. Among Republicans, 71 percent said Trump won on his own, while just 15 percent said that Trump wouldn't have won the November presidential election without the DOGE leader's help. Fifty-three percent of Democrats credit Musk for Trump's win, while just 24 percent said that Trump did it on his own. Amid their fighting, Musk suggested the idea of starting his own third-party. He floated the idea of forming the 'America Party' to represent the '80 percent' of people he said were in the political middle. When voters were asked what party they'd vote for if candidates in their area were running for office, a party created by Musk received only 4 percent backing among all the poll's respondents. Overall Democrats had an edge - with 42 percent saying the Democratic Party - while Republican candidates received 35 percent. When voters surveyed were broken down by party, Musk's third-party did the best with unaffiliated voters, with 7 percent backing that option. Just 1 percent of Democrats would vote for a Musk-party candidate, while 5 percent of Republicans said they'd make that choice. Democrats and Republicans largely stayed in their camps - with 86 percent of Democrats saying they'd support a Democrat and 84 percent of Republicans saying they'd vote Republican. On Friday, the Daily Mail and JL Partners released the first batch of numbers from the new poll - finding that Republicans overwhelmingly took Trump's side in the fight despite Musk's almost year-long association with the MAGA movement. Among GOP voters, 59 percent sided with the U.S. president, while just 12 percent chose Musk. Another 28 percent said they were unsure. Since April Trump has lost some support with GOP voters, while Musk's has grown - but Trump still has nearly five times as much support. Previous polling found that 70 percent of Republicans backed Trump, while 6 percent selected Musk. 'Republicans are clear: Donald Trump is their man. As our polling showed before, Trump voters are sticking by the person they backed in November over Elon Musk,' said J.L. Partners pollster James Johnson. The fresh poll was conducted Friday with a sample of 1,006 registered voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
President Donald Trump 's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food aid program, by the numbers: Year: 2008 The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. Number: 42 million A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the county. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. Dollars: $295 billion Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. Ages: 7 and 55-64 To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents would need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. Percentages: 5%-25% The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. Margin: 1 House Resolution 1, containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts, passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it.
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Major airline offering 'all you can fly' pass for less than $600 per year
A US-based airline is offering its customers an annual 'all you can fly' pass for less than $600. For those dreaming of limitless journeys in 2025, Frontier Airlines is on hand to assist would-be jetsetters with a limited-time deal on its GoWild! Pass. For just $599, savvy adventurers can enjoy an unlimited number of flights across Frontier's domestic and international destinations, including the U.S., Caribbean, Mexico, and Latin America. The pass is valid for travel between 1 May, 2025 and 30 April, 2026, where it then automatically renews at $699 a year. Pass holders are granted access to a range of benefits, including the opportunity to book domestic flights a day before departure, and ten days before departure for international travel. Organised travellers can also plan ahead and select flights early by searching and choosing GoWild! when available - though an Early Booking charge may apply. Pass holders automatically become members of Frontier Miles upon enrollment, giving the opportunity to earn miles on all Go Wild! eligible purchases. Plus, passengers can use their Elite Status to secure seats and bring onboard bags free of charge. To enroll themselves or another individual for the GoWild! Pass, purchasers must be 18 years or older and a resident of the United States. The pass holder must also be a resident of the United States and a Frontier Miles member, according to the terms and conditions listed on the airline's site. After purchasing the GoWild! Pass, passengers can book tickets on select flights for just $0.01 in airfare, plus applicable charges, fees and taxes. There are also other limitations worth considering before travellers buy into the scheme. Pass holders are unable to reserve seats, and fares do not include carry-on or checked luggage. All passes are subject to blackout dates as listed by Frontier, restricting passengers from travelling around the holidays and other busy periods. Additionally, purchasers cannot use their GoWild! passes to buy tickets for other travellers. Frontier first launched a monthly GoWild! pass in 2023, and has since been successful enough that the airline has expanded it to include summer and annual options. The major airline operates routes across 100 destinations, from its main hub in Denver, to popular U.S. cities like Miami, Chicago, Las Vegas and Atlanta, to international locations in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Canada. Meanwhile, a former American Airlines boss has revealed the real reason why the firm terminated a passenger's 'lifelong' first-class plane ticket - after the frequent flier cost the company millions. Steven Rothstein, a businessman from Chicago, purchased an exclusive £190,000 AAirpass ticket in 1987, which granted him unlimited first-class flights for life. In addition to the AAirpass, Rothstein also splurged a further £115,000 for a companion pass, allowing him to travel with a guest.
