Most people grab a Coke or Pepsi based on taste, habit or whatever is placed more prominently in the cooler. Few stop to ask who trucks or packages the cans.
大多数人选择可乐或百事是基于口味、习惯，或者冰箱里哪个放得更显眼。很少有人会问是谁运输或包装这些罐子。
But in the cola wars, trucks have often mattered as much as fizz. That is why an activist is now pressing PepsiCo to do what Coca-Cola did years ago: unload the distraction of bottling and distributing its beverages.
但在可乐战争中，运输工具的重要性往往不亚于气泡。这就是为什么一位激进投资者现在正敦促百事可乐（PepsiCo）效仿可口可乐（Coca-Cola）多年前的做法：剥离瓶装和分销饮料这一分散精力的业务。
Fifteen years ago, both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo bought back their bottlers to tighten control. Then they split paths. Coca-Cola spun the business back out while PepsiCo kept it in house.
15年前，可口可乐和百事可乐都回购了各自的瓶装厂以加强控制。后来它们分道扬镳：可口可乐将瓶装业务剥离出去，而百事可乐则将其保留在公司内部。
That divergence proved crucial. Coca-Cola, freed from trucks and warehouses, doubled down on brand building and pruning underperforming products. PepsiCo—already more complex because of its giant snacks business—was left managing fleets of trucks and armies of sales reps.
事实证明，这种分歧至关重要。摆脱了卡车和仓库的束缚后，可口可乐加倍专注于品牌建设和精简表现不佳的产品。而百事可乐，因其庞大的零食业务本就更为复杂，还要同时管理大量卡车和销售人员。
The payoff has been clear. Coca-Cola’s discipline shows up in steady share gains from stadium coolers to corner stores. PepsiCo, weighed down by a sprawl of products and bottling baggage, has slipped. And while Coke’s asset-light model has lifted profit margins, margins at PepsiCo’s North American beverage division are down from where they were in the past.
结果显而易见。可口可乐的专注使其从体育场冰箱到街角商店的市场份额稳步增长。而百事可乐因产品繁多和瓶装业务的拖累，市场份额不断下滑。可口可乐的轻资产模式提高了利润率，而百事可乐北美饮料部门的利润率却低于以往水平。
It is all about incentives. Independent operators have one mission: to move product. They aren’t bogged down by corporate layers, and they are highly motivated. What’s more, by taking on the capital-intensive business of distribution, they free up resources for the brand owner. They also act as a check on headquarters when corporate ideas just aren’t practical at the ground level.
这一切都与激励机制有关。独立运营商只有一个目标：销售产品。他们不会被公司层级拖累，积极性很高。更重要的是，通过承担资本密集型的分销业务，他们为品牌所有者释放了资源。当公司的想法在实际操作中不切实际时，他们还能对总部起到制衡作用。
Investors could long ignore slippage in PepsiCo’s beverage business thanks to Frito-Lay, the salty-snacks profit machine behind Doritos and Cheetos. But that cushion is thinning. Rising food prices and shifting health trends have hit nearly every U.S. food maker—and Frito-Lay is no exception, with its volumes in North America down several quarters in a row.
长期以来，得益于多力多滋（Doritos）和奇多（Cheetos）背后的咸味零食利润机器菲多利（Frito-Lay），投资者可以忽视百事饮料业务的下滑。但这种缓冲作用正在减弱。食品价格上涨和健康趋势转变几乎冲击了所有美国食品制造商，菲多利也不例外，其北美销量已连续多个季度下滑。
The earnings disappointments have sent PepsiCo shares down nearly 20% over the past two years, while Coca-Cola is up around 15%. Enter Elliott Investment Management, with a $4 billion stake and a blunt message: PepsiCo’s sprawl is no longer a strength but a liability.
业绩不佳导致百事可乐股价在过去两年下跌近20%，而可口可乐股价则上涨约15%。此时，Elliott Investment Management登场，持有40亿美元股份，并发出直白信息：百事可乐的业务扩张已不再是优势，而是负担。