(2 of 2)
In Baby Bottles? The glassmakers have one economic advantage in the fact that bottles are reusable. Though a bottle initially costs 7¢, it can be refilled an average of 26 times—by which time the cost per filling is negligible. (By contrast, each can costs soft-drink producers from 3½¢ to 4½¢, and can be used only once.) To compete in another way, the glassmakers have taken to producing throw-away bottles—which, to needle their rivals, they have dubbed "glass cans.'' At 3½¢ apiece, throw-away bottles are more expensive than reusable ones, and cost-more to ship than cans. But largely because of their convenience, throw-away bottles last year took 1.3% of the soft-drink container market. Sid F. Davis, vice president of Owens-Illinois Glass, thinks that by 1970 throw-away bottles and cans will each get about 10% of the soft-drink business. How the public feels about bottles v. cans is hard to tell—obscured by the contradictory market surveys rolled out by the steelmakers and glassmakers. Loudest in favor of cans are supermarket operators, who find them easier to stack and are glad to be rid of the bother of taking back "empties." Small soft-drink bottlers, in general, prefer reusable glass—partly because they make less profit on canned drinks, and partly because they fear that the lower shipping costs of cans will make it possible for the major soft-drink brands to get along with fewer local bottlers. As for the major drink producers, they are using cans, "glass cans" and reusable bottles indifferently and happily pocketing their advertising rebates. Says a Coca-Cola spokesman: "We'll put our Coke in baby bottles if that's what people want."