Yoshives Belizaire Zhongling Cao Shawn Parker Dave Saucier © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Dr. Pepper was created in 1885 by Charles Alderton at Morrison’s Old Corner Drug Store in Waco, Texas. Nearly a 100 years later, three New York- area food storeowners created a unique addle soda they named Snapple. In 2006, Cadbury Schweppes purchased Dr Pepper and Snapple. In May 2008 Cadbury Schweppes spun off Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages into an independent company, called the Dr Pepper Snapple group. History © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Existing Mission Statement © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Existing Vision Statement © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Company Current Strategy © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Build and enhance leading Brands Focus-on opportunities in high growth and high margin areas Increase presence in high margin channels and packages Leverage our integrated business model Strengthen our route-to-market through acquisitions Improve operating efficiency RCI- Rapid Continuous Improvement Health and Wellness initiative

Vision Statement © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Mission Statement © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK At Dr. Pepper Snapple Group it is our mission to be the domestic leader (3) in the flavored beverage industry (2). Our established and reputable brand (6) allows us to deliver high quality beverages (7) to faithful and potential customers (1). We will achieve this through effective marketing, strong distribution channels, and fruitful partnerships. We will continue to invest in our employees (9) as well as the communities we operate in while remaining environmentally friendly (8). By implementing the best technology (4) we are committed to reducing costs in order to ensure sustained profits (5). 1. Customers4.Technology7. Self-concept 2. Products 5. Survival Growth & Profitability8. Concern for Public Image 3. Markets6. Philosophy9. Concern for Employees

External Audit © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Industry Market Analysis © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Opportunities 1.Pepsi and Coke distribute other brands globally. 2.Americans are looking for more low/no calorie drinks, this market grew 1.2% in Consumers are looking for nutrient enriched beverages. 4.There are over 300 Soft Drink manufactures. 5.Owning bottling distribution networks reduces cost and dependence on other companies. 6. Strategic alliances with restaurants and fast food chains are readily available. 7.The US beverage market to expect grow by 0.9 percent in Growth to international market. 9.Countries such as India and China has over 9% GDP growth in © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Threats 1.New York City is looking to banning sugary drinks. 2.Increasing cost of commodities, especially the volatile sugar industry and sugar tax. 3.Some legislators are proposing tax on sugared soft drinks. 4.U.S consumption of soft drinks in 2011 is the lowest since 1996, The carbonated soft drinks market is expected to decrease 2.2% by Operate in a discretionary item industry, very volatile. 6.Highly competitive market. 7.The health issue with some of their products for example sodas. 8.The Institute of Medicine, a government-chartered organization, which stated that food and beverage companies are using television ads to entice kids into eating and drinking unhealthful quantities. 9.Diet Pepsi experienced an 8% decrease in 2011 in sales according to beverage digest. © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Competitive Profile Matrix © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Dr. Pepper SnappleCoca ColaPepsi Critical Success factorsWeightsRating Weighted Score Rating Weighted Score Rating Weighted Score 0.0 to 1.01 to 4 Advertising Organization Structure Customer Service Global Expansion Financial Position Management Experience Customer Loyalty Market Share Product Quality E-commerce Price Competitiveness Totals

External Factor Evaluation © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK External Opportunities 1. Pepsi and Coke distribute other brands globally Americans are looking for more low/no calorie drinks, this market grew 1.2% in Consumers are looking for nutrient enriched beverages There are over 300 Soft Drink manufactures Strategic alliances with restaurants and fast food chains are readily available Owning bottling distribution networks reduces cost and dependence on other companies The US beverage market grew by 0.9 percent in Growth to international market Countries such as India and China has over 9% GDP growth in External Threats0 1. New York City is looking to banning sugary drinks U.S consumption of soft drinks in 2011 is the lowest since 1996, The carbonated soft drinks market is expected to decrease 2.2% by Some legislators are proposing tax on sugared soft drinks Increasing cost of commodities, especially the volatile sugar industry and sugar tax Operate in a discretionary item industry, very volatile Highly competitive market The health issue with some of their products for example sodas The Institute of Medicine, a government-chartered organization, which stated that food and beverage companies are using television ads to entice kids into eating and drinking unhealthful quantities Diet Pepsi experienced an 8% decrease in 2011 in sales according to beverage digest Totals

Internal Audit © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Organization Structure © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Financial-Income Statement © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Financial – Balance Sheet © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Financial – Balance Sheet © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Net Worth Analysis © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Stockholders' Equity $2,459 Net Income x 5 2,640 (Share Price/EPS) x Net Income 7,886 Number of Shares Outstanding x Share Price 7,863 Method Average $5,212 In millions

Ratio Analysis © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Liquidity Ratios DPSPEPKO Current Ratio Quick Ratio Leverage Ratios Debt-to-Total Assets Ratio Debt-to-Equity Ratio Long-Term Debt-to-Equity Ratio Times-Interest-Earned Ratio Activity Ratios Inventory Turns Fixed Assets Turnover Total Assets Turnover Accounts Receivable Turnover Average Collection Period Profitability Ratios Gross Profit Margin Operating Profit Margin18.19%14.41%24.06% Net Profit Margin9.37%10.96%34.65% Return on Total Assets5.96%9.30%16.19% Return on Stockholders equity21.47%29.79%37.71% Earning per Share Price-Earnings Ratio Growth Rations (yearly) Sales1.90%33.79%13.32% Net Income-4.86%6.00%73.05% Earnings per Share0.46%4.20%73.56% Dividends per Share500.00%6.78%7.32%

Strengths 1.Owns 6 of the top 10 non-cola drinks. 2.9 of their top 12 brands are number 1 in their flavor category. 3.Snapple brand grew 10% in Pay above average dividends, raising 500% in 2010 to $ Has 21 manufacturing / bottle facilities located in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean’s. 6.Overall Dr. Pepper Snapple group is the #1 company in the flavored CSD market. Dr. Pepper is the #2 flavored CSD and Snapple is the leading ready-to-drink tea. 7.The Company’s combination of brand ownership, bottling and distribution gives it inherently more control over the value chain and thus a competitive advantage. 8.Has more than 50 brands under Dr. Pepper Snapple group. 9.Dr. Pepper’s brand is spanning more than 125 years % increase on EPS © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Weaknesses 1.Low market share in Carbonated Beverage industry. 2.Does not have low calorie or sports drinks. 3.Does not have a strong water brand. 4.71% of its volume is distributed by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. 5.We are not a global company like Pepsi and Coca Cola, only operating in North America and the Caribbean. 6.Is considered the third top brand for soft drinks. 7.Only rank #20 in beverage industry worldwide. 8.Too focused on every drink production. 9.Dr. Pepper wasn't list in top 20 most nutrition beverage company. 10.Revenues increased 1.8% in 2010 while net income decreased 5%. © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Internal Factor Evaluation Internal Strengths 3 or 4 1.Owns 6 of the top 10 non-cola drinks of their top 12 brands are number 1 in their flavor category Snapple brand grew 10% in Pay above average dividends, raising 500% in 2010 to $ Has 21 manufacturing / bottle facilities located in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean’s Overall Dr. Pepper Snapple group is the #1 company in the flavored CSD market. Dr. Pepper is the #2 flavored CSD and Snapple is the leading ready-to-drink tea The Company’s combination of brand ownership, bottling and distribution gives it inherently more control over the value chain and thus a competitive advantage Has more than 50 brands under Dr. Pepper Snapple group Dr. Pepper Snapple group's brand is spanning more than 200 years % increase on EPS Internal Weaknesses 1 or 2 1.Low market share in Carbonated Beverage industry Does not have low calorie or sports drinks Does not have a strong water brand % of its volume is distributed by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo We are not a global company like Pepsi and Coca Cola, only operating in North America and the Caribbean Is considered the third top brand for soft drinks Only rank #20 in beverage industry worldwide Too focused on every drink production Wasn't list in top 20 most nutrition beverage company? Revenues increased 1.8% in 2010 while net income decreased 5% Totals Key Internal Factor Weights Rating Weighted Score © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Strategy Formulation © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

SWOT Matrix © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK SO StrategiesWO Strategies 1. Develop more non-cola, low calorie drinks. (S1, S6, O2)1. Produce more healthy drink. (W9, O2, O3, O7) 2. Enter new market such as India, China or other Asian countries that has large GDP growth. (S5, O8, O10) 2. Develop sports drink. (W2, O2, O3, O7) 3. Partner with restaurants and fast food chain. (S8,O5)3. Develop water drink. (W3, O2, O3, O7) ST StrategiesWT Strategies 1. Start to brand off more on Snapple than there soft drinks since Snapple brand is growing and soft drinks are decreasing. (S3,T2,T7) 1. Invest more in healthier products like a sports drink, or flavored water.(W2,W3,T2,T7) 2. Us the advantages of other countries manufacturing facilities to produce products to help avoid taxes on sugar. (S5, S7,T3,T4) 2. The company should be more independent and not really so much on there competitors to sell there products (W4,T6) 3. Us brand threw advertisement with celebrities to help sell product like Snapple, and show that there products are healthy and good for you. (S1,S6,T7,T9) 3. Advertise there other brands more like Snapple, Hawaiian Punch, and Mott’s (W6,W7,T8) 4. Purchase vineyards and produce wine (W7, T2)

Space Matrix © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

FP SP CP IP ConservativeAggressive Defensive Competitive Space Matrix

Rapid Growth Market Possible Strategies: 1.Backwards, Forwards, or Horizontal Integration 2.Market Penetration 3.Market Development 4.Product Development 5.Diversification (Related) Slow Growth Market Quadrant II Quadrant I Quadrant III Quadrant IV Grand Strategy Matrix © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Matrix Analysis © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Alternative Strategies © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Forward Integration The company should be more independent and not really so much on their competitors to sell their products (W4,T6) Horizontal Integration Use the advantages of other countries manufacturing facilities to produce products to help avoid taxes on sugar. (S5, S7,T3,T4) Market Penetration Advertise with celebrities to help sell product like Snapple, and show that there products are healthy and good for you. (S1,S6,T7,T9) Advertise their other brands more like Snapple, Hawaiian Punch, and Mott’s (W6,W7,T8) Concentrate marketing efforts on Snapple rather than soft drinks since Snapple brand is growing and soft drinks are decreasing. (S3,T2,T7) Product Development Develop more non-cola, low calorie drinks. (S1, S6, O2) Market Development Enter new market such as India, China or other Asian countries that has large GDP growth. (S5, O8, O10) Related Diversification Develop sports drink. (W2, O2, O3, O7) Produce more healthy drinks. (W9, O2, O3, O7) Develop a luxury water. (W3, O2, O3, O7) Develop a flavored water.(W2,W3,T2,T7) Purchase vineyards and produce wine. (W7, T2)

QSPM © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Develop new products in non CSD Create strategic alliances Purchase vineyards and produce wine Key factors WeightASTASASTASASTAS External 1 to 4 Pepsi and Coke distribute other brands globally Americans are looking for more low/no calorie drinks, this market grew 1.2% in Consumers are looking for nutrient enriched beverages There are over 300 Soft Drink manufactures Strategic alliances with restaurants and fast food chains are readily available Owning bottling distribution networks reduces cost and dependence on other companies The US beverage market grew by 0.9 percent in U.S consumption of soft drinks in 2011 is the lowest since 1996, The carbonated soft drinks market is expected to decrease 2.2% by Increasing cost of commodities, especially the volatile sugar industry and sugar tax Operate in a discretionary item industry, very volatile Highly competitive market The health issue with some of their products for example sodas

QSPM © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Develop new products in non CSD Create Strategic alliances Purchase Vineyards and produce wine Key factors WeightASTASASTASASTAS Internal Owns 6 of the top 10 non-cola drinks of their top 12 brands are number 1 in their flavor category Snapple brand grew 10% in Has 21 manufacturing / bottle facilities located in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean’s Overall Dr. Pepper Snapple group is the #1 company in the flavored CSD market. Dr. Pepper is the #2 flavored CSD and Snapple is the leading ready-to-drink tea Has more than 50 brands under Dr. Pepper Snapple group Low market share in Carbonated Beverage industry Does not have low calorie or sports drinks Does not have a strong water brand % of its volume is distributed by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo Is considered the third top brand for soft drinks Only rank #20 in beverage industry worldwide

Objective © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Continue with the current strategies that the company already has but also: Expand our brands Create more strategic alliances Expand our market share Increase awareness nutritional line of products Look for feasible and equally beneficial mergers and acquisitions

Strategic © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Dr. Pepper Snapple group will invest more in R&D to develop a new sports drink that is high in electrolytes and low in sodium to compete against PowerAde and Gatorade. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group will seek out new technology to create the purest best tasting artesian/luxury water on the market to compete with FIJI and EVIAN also expand market with current water Deja Blue. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group will invest in R&D to create a Snapple drink that helps relieve the symptoms of a mild Hangover. It will have caffeine to energize you, natural vitamins to cure headaches and upset stomachs and taste great. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group will aggressively Market their healthier drinks as the “smart choice” for the refreshment needs. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group will actively seek out mergers and acquisitions like Red Bull, and Hansen Natural which owns Monster plus others carbonated beverages. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group will develop low Calorie Soft Drinks

3 Year Goal and Annual Objective © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Year 1: Develop products and test with focus group. $16 million Increase advertising efforts for our nutritional drinks, campaign with theme “smart choice” with people like Jillian Michaels or Mario Lopez and other celebrities that are physically fit. Develop Social media sites and advertise within and on other sites. Purchase more retail space, create alliances with school districts and universities for the smart choice option for their students. Search out mergers and acquisitions. Year 2 Roll out new products with huge marketing campaign. Finalize merger and acquisitions. At the end of the year evaluate new products and Smart Choice Campaign, refocus. Year 3 Continue to re-evaluate current strategy and adjust for changes to environment. Continue to develop and market new products. Continue to look for mergers and acquisitions

Strategy Selection with Year 1 Cost © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Total funding needed to implement new strategies We are going to double the funding to the R&D department from 16million to 32 million annually. We are going to increase or advertising budget by 50% from 445 million to 671 million to really push our new products as well as our currently “Smart Choice” products. Total Cost for recommended strategy $250 million.

EPS/EBIT © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Recessio nNormalBoom Common Stock Financing EBIT 800 1,000 1,400 Interest 128 EBT ,272 Taxes EAT # Shares EPS RecessionNormalBoom 90% Stock – 10% Debt Financing EBIT 800 1,000 1,400 Interest EBT ,272 Taxes EAT # Shares 247 EPS RecessionNormalBoom Debt Financing EBIT 800 1,000 1,400 Interest 141 EBT ,260 Taxes EAT # Shares EPS RecessionNormalBoom 90% Debet – 10% Stock EBIT 800 1,000 1,400 Interest EBT ,272 Taxes EAT # Share 241 EPS Close Price for Dr Pepper Snapple 12/31/ EPS for Disney on October 11, Initial Shares Outstanding Dividends on Preferred Stock 0.90 Funds Needed % of Funds Needed % of Funds Needed 25 Interest Rate5% Current Tax Rate36% Conclusion The best option for Dr Pepper Snapple is to implement their strategy by financing the entire project. It reflects a higher EPS for the company in all categories with the exception of a boom economy. Given the current economy, we can expect normal earnings.

Projected Income Statement © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK For the Year Ended December 31, Projected 2011 Reasoning (In millions, except per share data) Net sales $ 5,531 $ 5,636 $6,20010% Increase Cost of sales 2,234 2,243 2,480Average % of (10%) Gross profit 3,297 3,393 3,720 Selling, general and administrative expenses2,1352,233 2,483 Increase 250M (Advertising:220M/R&D:30M) Depreciation and amortization % Increase--New Brand Depreciation Impairment of goodwill and intangible assets—— — Restructuring costs — — — Other operating expense (income), net (40) 8 8 Income (loss) from operations 1,085 1,025 1,092 Interest expense Additional Interest from Financing 250M--> 13M Interest income (4) (3) Loss on early extinguishment of debt — 100 — Other income, net (22) (21) Income (loss) before income taxes and equity in earnings Provision for income taxes Average Tax Rate 36% Income (loss) before equity in earnings Equity in earnings, net of tax21 1 Net income (loss) $ 555 $ 528 $625 Earnings (loss) per common share: Basic $ 2.18 $ 2.19 $2.60 Diluted $ 2.17 $2.58 Weighted average common shares outstanding: Basic Diluted Cash dividends declared per common share $ 0.15 $ 0.90

Projected Balance Sheet © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Projected 2011 ASSETS Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents $ 280 $ Fudge # Accounts receivable: Trade, net Increase 15% (Distribution) Other Increase 10% Inventories Increase 5% - New Products (RCI) Deferred tax assets535760Increase 5% - New Products Prepaid expenses and other current assets Increase 5% - New Products Total current assets $ 1,279 $ 1,309 $ 1,480 Property, plant and equipment, net1,1091, % Increase - Mixing, Bottling, Distribution Space Investments in unconsolidated subsidiaries911 Goodwill2,9832, % increase - New Product Other intangible assets, net2,7022, Other non-current assets % Increase of Prior 2 Years (2%) Non-current deferred tax assets Total assets $ 8,776 $ 8,859 $ 9,126

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued expenses % Increase (Supply) Deferred revenue— 65 Current portion of long-term obligations— Increase by 1/5 of 20M (60 month term financing) Income taxes payable4 18 Total current liabilities $ 854 $ 1,338 $ 1,405 Long-term obligations2,960 1,687 1,887Increase by 4/5 of 20M Non-current deferred tax liabilities1,038 1,083 Non-current deferred revenue— 1,515 Other non-current liabilities Total liabilities $ 5,589 $ 6,400 $ 6,667 Commitments and contingencies Stockholders’ equity: Preferred stock, $.01 par value, 15,000,000 shares authorized, no shares issued— —— Common stock, $.01 par value, 800,000,000 shares authorized, 223,936,156 and 254,109,047 shares issued and outstanding for 2010 and 2009, respectively3 2 2 Additional paid-in capital3,156 2,085 Retained earnings Accumulated other comprehensive loss (59) (28) Total stockholders’ equity $ 3,187 2,459 Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $ 8,776 $ 8,859 $ 9,126 Projected Balance Sheet Projected 2011

Projected Ratios © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Dr Pepper Snapple 2010Projected Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio Quick Ratio Leverage Ratios Debt-to-Total Assets Ratio Debt-to-Equity Ratio Long-Term Debt-to-Equity Ratio Times-Interest-Earned Ratio Profitability Ratios Gross Profit Margin 0.60 Operating Profit Margin 0.18 Return on Total Assets5.96%6.84% Return on Stockholders' Equity21.47%25.38% Earnings per Share Growth Rations (yearly from previous) Sales1.90%10.01% Net Income-4.86%18.18% Earnings per Share0.46%25.11%

Strategic Evaluation © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK How are we going to evaluate or strategy? Through KPI’s -Market share increase in targeted areas of at least 3% annually -Revenue increase of at least 10% annually -Increase in customer satisfaction in taste tests -Social media footprint, increase views and likes 5 fold annually. -Increase of 15% EPS annually -Increase of at least $.02 dividend quarterly to investors. -At least one acquisition bi-annually in distribution and beverage market.

Stock Performance © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK

Update © 2013, Yoshives Belizaire, Zhongling Cao, Shawn Parker, Dave Saucier, UMFK Introduction of Dr. Pepper Ten and other brands, Consistent revenue, EPS and net income gains by increasing store placement and promotions designed at the on-the-go driver DPS has 13 of 14 leading brands are number 1 or 2 in their flavor category Returned 684 million back to shareholders in 2012, 400 million in buyback and 284 in dividends. Increased dividend for the 5 th time since going public. Since 2011 RCI has reduced days sale of inventory by 40%, and closed 10 outside warehouses freeing up resources to grow the business. They also have cut the fleet delivery miles by more than 1 million, removing 3.7 millions pounds of greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere.

Questions??