Good question.

It will depend on how Coca Cola manages the brand.

My experience with “bigger” or falling under a bigger flag is a mixed blessing. At the one hand there is more money available and in negotiations a bigger party is usually stronger and therefore getting a better deal.

The disadvantages of bigger are for example a larger distance to the top, who can have totally different priorities: money, prestige, (political) power, another part of the group is more important etc.

So in the end it all depends how things are managed, play out etc

I wrote a book on this subject. Honestly I did. And the answer is yes, they are different. It’s very rare that a purchase like this does not incrementally change the takeover target until it is unrecognisable and just another outpost of their masters.

@thedevotea a book? Where can I find it?

This one: http://www.amazon.com/Nights-Trans-Arabian-Corporations-Boardrorom-ebook/dp/B0038HEOMW/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1362295198&sr=8-10&keywords=robert+godden

In the first three chapters The Vampires represent Coca-Cola and Giselle represents Honest tea. Not very subtle

Darn, Kindle only?

No Bram, it is available as an actual book. I have some left .

I think if a brand wanted to stay firm to its core ideology and at the same time have a desire to play in the big leagues … they should do something like Steven Smith. Create a signature brand that you are the artisan (Smith Tea Maker) will have complete control over. Then to satiate the desire to make the big bucks create other brands (Stash / TAZO) — Reading the history of Honest Tea and the why and how clearly points to their desire to want to create something different and that had a higher level of quality from what was available. With the COCA COLA investment, there is no way to keep with original plan…

There is a way but it will only happen if Coca-Cola gives free reigns to the original team (not really likely but it can happen).