百事 (PEP) 2018 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Good morning, and welcome to PepsiCo's First Quarter 2018 Earnings Conference Call. (Operator Instructions) Today's call is being recorded and will be archived at www.pepsico.com.

早安，歡迎參加百事公司 2018 年第一季財報電話會議。(接線員指示) 今天的電話會議將被錄音，並會存檔於 www.pepsico.com。

It is now my pleasure to introduce Mr. Jamie Caulfield, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Caulfield, you may begin.

現在我很榮幸介紹投資人關係資深副總裁 Jamie Caulfield 先生。Caulfield 先生，您可以開始了。

Thank you, operator. With me today are Indra Nooyi, PepsiCo's Chairman and CEO; and Hugh Johnston, PepsiCo's CFO. We'll lead off today's call with a review of our first quarter performance and full year 2018 outlook, and then we'll move on to Q&A.

謝謝，接線員。今天與我一同出席的有百事公司董事長暨執行長 Indra Nooyi，以及百事公司財務長 Hugh Johnston。我們將先回顧第一季表現與 2018 全年展望，接著進入問答。

Before we begin, please take note of our cautionary statement. This conference call includes forward-looking statements, including statements regarding 2018 guidance based on currently available information. Forward-looking statements inherently involve risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those predicted. Statements made on this conference call should be considered together with cautionary statements and other information contained in today's earnings release and in our most recent periodic reports filed with the SEC.

在開始之前，請留意我們的警示聲明。本次電話會議包含前瞻性陳述，包括基於目前可得資訊所作之 2018 年指引相關陳述。前瞻性陳述本質上涉及風險與不確定性，可能導致實際結果與預測有重大差異。本次電話會議中的陳述，應與今日財報新聞稿以及我們最近向美國證券交易委員會（SEC）提交之定期報告中所載的警示聲明與其他資訊一併考量。

When discussing our financial results on today's call, we will refer to certain non-GAAP measures, which exclude certain items, such as the impact of foreign exchange translation from our reported results. You should refer to the glossary and other attachments to this morning's earnings release and to the Investors section of PepsiCo's website under the Events and Presentations tab to find full explanations and reconciliations of these non-GAAP measures.

在今天的電話會議中討論財務結果時，我們將提及若干非 GAAP 指標，該等指標排除某些項目，例如外匯換算對已報告結果的影響。請參閱今早財報新聞稿中的詞彙表與其他附件，以及百事公司網站投資人專區「活動與簡報」分頁，以取得這些非 GAAP 指標的完整說明與調節表。

And now it's my pleasure to introduce Indra Nooyi.

現在我很榮幸介紹 Indra Nooyi。

Thank you, Jamie, and good morning, everyone. Thank you all for joining us this morning. We will start off with an overview of the first quarter and a discussion of each of the operating sectors' performance in a little more detail. And then Hugh will cover the full year outlook.

謝謝你，Jamie，各位早安。感謝各位今天早上加入我們。我們將先概述第一季情況，並更詳細地討論各營運部門的表現。接著 Hugh 將說明全年展望。

For the quarter, we delivered $12.6 billion of net revenue and core earnings of $0.96 per share. Within the P&L, gross margin was impacted by input cost inflation. Operating margin was further impacted by the frontline bonus we announced earlier this year. Foreign exchange translation had a positive impact of approximately 2 percentage points to both [net] and reported EPS. And below the operating profit line, we benefited from a lower core effective tax rate.

本季我們實現 126 億美元的淨營收，以及每股 0.96 美元的核心盈餘。在損益表方面，毛利率受到投入成本通膨的影響。營業利益率則進一步受到我們今年稍早宣布的一線員工獎金影響。外匯換算對淨營收與已報告每股盈餘（EPS）均帶來約 2 個百分點的正面影響。在營業利益線以下，我們受惠於較低的核心有效稅率。

The majority of our businesses performed very well in the quarter, excluding our North American Beverage division. In fact, excluding NAB, the company generated 4.6% organic revenue growth and 7% core operating profit growth when excluding the one-time frontline bonus. However, our North American Beverages sector continues to work through some challenges.

本季我們大多數業務表現非常出色，唯獨北美飲料事業部除外。事實上，若排除 NAB，公司有機營收成長 4.6%，且在排除一次性一線員工獎金後，核心營業利益成長 7%。然而，我們的北美飲料部門仍在處理一些挑戰。

So let's start with the discussion of NAB, separating long-term strategy from short-term executional issues. As you know, we have been transforming the business over many years to build a product portfolio that meets consumers' desires through a repertoire of great-tasting beverages, especially beverages with fewer or 0 calories, and in an assortment of packages that satisfies a broad range of occasions, from immediate personal refreshment, to family meal accompaniment, to social gatherings. And our focus and sustained transformation initiatives in NAB have been very successful on multiple dimensions.

因此我們先從 NAB 的討論開始，將長期策略與短期執行問題分開來看。如各位所知，多年來我們一直在轉型該業務，打造能滿足消費者需求的產品組合：透過一系列口感極佳的飲料，尤其是低熱量或零熱量飲料，並提供多樣化包裝以滿足各種情境需求，從即時個人解渴、到家庭用餐搭配、再到社交聚會。我們在 NAB 的聚焦與持續轉型舉措，在多個面向都非常成功。

We have shifted our product mix to faster-growing subcategories and provided more lower and 0 sugar options, including recent innovations under the Mountain Dew, Gatorade, Propel, Lipton Tea House and Starbucks trademarks. Since 2010, we have increased our volume mix of noncarbonated beverages by 7 percentage points.

我們已將產品組合轉向成長更快的子類別，並提供更多低糖與零糖選擇，包括近期在 Mountain Dew、Gatorade、Propel、Lipton Tea House 與 Starbucks 商標下的創新產品。自 2010 年以來，我們將非碳酸飲料的銷量組合占比提高了 7 個百分點。

We have established and maintained strong leadership positions in many of the most attractive noncarbonated beverage categories, including ready-to-drink tea, ready-to-drink coffee and sports hydration and, in the most recent quarter, grew value share in a number of the fastest-growing categories, including tea, enhanced water and sparkling water. We have increased our CSD package variety so that our mix of nontraditional packages, that is everything other than 2-liter and 20-ounce PET and 12-ounce cans, has increased from 14% in 2011 to 21% today.

我們在多個最具吸引力的非碳酸飲料品類中建立並維持強勢領導地位，包括即飲茶、即飲咖啡與運動補水；且在最近一季，我們在多個成長最快的品類中提升了價值市占，包括茶、機能水與氣泡水。我們增加了碳酸飲料（CSD）的包裝多樣性，使我們的非傳統包裝組合（亦即除 2 公升與 20 盎司 PET 以及 12 盎司罐裝以外的所有包裝）占比，從 2011 年的 14% 提升至目前的 21%。

We have reconfigured our supply chain to handle increased complexity and greater product assortment. For example, we have substantially increased flexible can line capacity. We expanded our co-pack network to give us greater packaging flexibility in an asset-light model. And we're approaching having 60% of our route network converted to delivery via our geo box trailers. And we have equipped many of our trucks with chillers to expand our chilled DSD network.

我們已重新配置供應鏈，以因應更高的複雜度與更廣的產品組合。例如，我們大幅提升了可彈性切換的罐裝產線產能。我們擴大了代工包裝（co-pack）網絡，以在輕資產模式下提供更大的包裝彈性。此外，我們的路線配送網絡中，透過地理箱型拖車（geo box trailers）進行配送的比例正接近 60%。我們也為許多卡車配備冷藏設備，以擴大我們的冷藏直送（DSD）網絡。

We have brought equipment innovation to market, providing product customization and convenience with our Spire fountain [device] indiscernible] and made nutritious options more broadly available with our Hello Goodness vending machines.

我們已將設備創新推向市場，透過我們的 Spire 現調飲料[裝置]（聽不清）提供產品客製化與便利性，並透過 Hello Goodness 自動販賣機讓更具營養的選項更廣泛可得。

And we have ramped up our R&D and innovation efforts to launch products that are on trend with consumers. For example, this February, we introduced bubly, a new flavored sparkling water with no artificial flavors, sweeteners or calories, and a brand and packaging that convey a playful and upbeat sense of humor. And we recently launched Drinkfinity, now available online in the United States. This unique beverage system addresses growing consumer demand for customizable nutritious beverages in a more sustainable packaging.

我們也加速研發與創新投入，以推出符合消費者趨勢的產品。例如，今年 2 月我們推出 bubly——一款不含人工香料、甜味劑或熱量的新型風味氣泡水，其品牌與包裝傳達俏皮、正向的幽默感。我們近期也推出 Drinkfinity，目前已可在美國線上購買。這套獨特的飲料系統，以更具永續性的包裝，回應消費者對可客製化、具營養飲料日益成長的需求。

We believe our strategy is sound and is positioning us well for the future. (inaudible) focused on the past 3 quarters where our financial results have not lived up to our expectations from the North American Beverage business. So what is the issue? Simply put, while most parts of the business are performing well, recent losses in cola market share in North America have led to subpar top line and bottom line performance over the past 3 quarters.

我們相信我們的策略是正確的，並正使我們在未來處於有利位置。(聽不清) 聚焦於過去 3 個季度，北美飲料業務的財務結果未達到我們的預期。那麼問題是什麼？簡而言之，雖然業務的大多數部分表現良好，但北美可樂品類市占近期的流失，導致過去 3 個季度的營收與獲利表現不盡理想。

We have studied in detail the causes for the share loss across every dimension. The overwhelming driver is that despite moderately increasing our media on trademark Pepsi over the past 3 years, our share of voice has fallen dramatically relative to our key competitor, who has substantially stepped up their media spending on colas over the past 2 years. To address this, we have allocated increased media to trademark Pepsi. And we have tightened and elevated our brand communication, beginning with the launch of our new Pepsi Generations campaign. The campaign supports all the brands under the trademark Pepsi umbrella, and this will enable us to more effectively leverage the media investment across our full Pepsi portfolio. Importantly, we plan to substantially and sustainably support the campaign throughout the year, while remaining disciplined on pricing.

我們已就各個面向，詳細研究造成市占流失的原因。最主要的驅動因素是：儘管過去3年我們對百事（Pepsi）商標的媒體投放略有增加，但相較於主要競爭對手，我們的聲量占比（share of voice）大幅下滑；該競爭對手在過去2年已大幅提高其可樂品類的媒體支出。為因應此情況，我們已增加對百事（Pepsi）商標的媒體投放。同時，我們也收緊並提升品牌溝通，首先從推出全新的 Pepsi Generations 行銷活動開始。該活動支持百事（Pepsi）商標傘下的所有品牌，這將使我們能更有效地在整個百事產品組合中槓桿運用媒體投資。重要的是，我們計畫在全年對該活動提供大幅且可持續的支持，同時在定價上維持紀律。

We're already seeing positive results from the campaign, with research telling us that the campaign is driving higher advertising recall, higher brand recall and higher brand regard with consumers. And our share performance has also begun to improve. These are important first steps. As we sustain the campaign, we anticipate it will translate to further improving sales and market share results.

我們已經從該活動看到正面成果；研究顯示，該活動正在帶動更高的廣告記憶度、更高的品牌記憶度，以及消費者對品牌更高的好感度。而我們的市占表現也已開始改善。這些都是重要的第一步。隨著我們持續推進該活動，我們預期它將轉化為銷售與市占結果的進一步改善。

Encouragingly, beyond trademark Pepsi, North America Beverages is performing reasonably well in the context of a highly competitive environment. Our tea portfolio under Lipton and Pure Leaf has, over the past 17 quarters, grown retail sales in the range of mid-single digits to as high as 21%. Our enhanced water portfolio is performing well, with our premium life water continuing to grow nicely as it enters the second year since its initial launch. And bubly's early results following its 2018 launch are exceeding our expectations.

令人鼓舞的是，除百事（Pepsi）商標之外，在高度競爭的環境下，北美飲料業務（North America Beverages）的表現仍相當不錯。我們在 Lipton 與 Pure Leaf 旗下的茶飲產品組合，在過去17個季度的零售銷售成長介於中個位數百分比至最高21%。我們的強化水（enhanced water）產品組合表現良好；其中 premium life water 自初次上市以來進入第二年，仍持續穩健成長。而 bubly 於2018年上市後的早期成果也超出我們的預期。

KeVita, our line of premium organic live probiotic beverages, grew retail sales 50% in Q1, following 66% growth for the full year 2017. And Starbucks ready-to-drink coffee grew retail sales 3% in the first quarter, following 4% growth in 2017, despite a number of new competitive entrants in the category.

KeVita——我們的高端有機活性益生菌飲料系列——在第一季零售銷售成長50%，此前2017年全年成長66%。此外，儘管該品類有多家新的競爭者進入，星巴克即飲咖啡（Starbucks ready-to-drink coffee）第一季零售銷售仍成長3%，此前2017年成長4%。

Furthermore, we are pleased with both the improved trajectories and the outlook for both Mountain Dew and Gatorade. Both brands posted improved retail sales performance in the quarter versus the second half of last year. And our positive outlook for these trademarks are underpinned by robust 2018 innovation.

此外，我們對 Mountain Dew 與 Gatorade 的改善趨勢與前景都感到滿意。兩個品牌在本季度的零售銷售表現，較去年下半年均有所改善。我們對這些商標的正面展望，係以2018年強勁的創新作為支撐。

In January, we launched Mountain Dew Ice, a clear lemon lime flavored dew made with a splash of real juice with just 100 calories per 12-ounce serving, and it is off to a strong start. Additionally, we expect our summer 2018 limited time offering of Mountain Dew Baja Blast to perform well, especially relative to our Dew summer 2017 LTO, which fell short of our expectations.

1月，我們推出 Mountain Dew Ice——一款透明的檸檬萊姆風味 Dew，加入少量真果汁，每12盎司僅100卡路里——上市開局強勁。另外，我們預期2018年夏季的 Mountain Dew Baja Blast 限時供應（LTO）將有良好表現，尤其相較於我們2017年夏季的 Dew LTO，其表現未達我們的預期。

Also, this summer, we will launch Gatorade Zero. Gatorade Zero will address the large and growing demand by athletes for additional hydration options. We are introducing a Gatorade that provides all the hydration and electrolyte solutions of base Gatorade without the carbohydrates. Gatorade Zero will give our athletes more flexibility in combining hydration with other fuel sources to meet their overall sports hydration and nutritional needs.

同時，今年夏天我們將推出 Gatorade Zero。Gatorade Zero 將回應運動員對更多補水選擇龐大且持續成長的需求。我們將推出一款佳得樂（Gatorade），提供與基礎款 Gatorade 相同的補水與電解質解決方案，但不含碳水化合物。Gatorade Zero 將讓運動員在將補水與其他能量來源搭配上更具彈性，以滿足其整體運動補水與營養需求。

Taken together, we believe our plans will drive continued improved performance in the business. Finally, beyond the strategic and execution actions I've just mentioned, we continue to consider all available options to drive greater shareholder value from NAB.

綜合而言，我們相信這些計畫將推動業務表現持續改善。最後，除了我剛提到的策略與執行行動之外，我們也持續評估所有可行選項，以從北美飲料業務（NAB）創造更高的股東價值。

Now moving on to Frito-Lay North America. We had solid performance, with balanced volume growth and net price utilization and continued strong market share results, driven by great market base execution, innovation and creative brand marketing.

接著談到北美菲多利（Frito-Lay North America）。我們表現穩健，銷量成長與淨價格實現（net price utilization）均衡，市占結果持續強勁；這主要受惠於優異的市場基礎執行、創新以及具創意的品牌行銷。

For example, building on the success of our 2017 launch of Lay's Poppables, an entirely new growth platform for Frito, we extended the Poppables product lineup with the introduction of new Lay's Poppables Honey BBQ and a new 12-count multipack of Poppables Sea Salt. We continue to drive net revenue growth through increased trial and household penetration, which, when combined with increased purchase frequency from the expanded product lineup and year-long media support, should continue to scale up this promising new brand extension.

例如，在我們2017年推出 Lay's Poppables 並取得成功的基礎上——這是菲多（Frito）一個全新的成長平台——我們透過推出新的 Lay's Poppables 蜂蜜BBQ口味，以及新的12入 Poppables 海鹽口味綜合包，擴展了 Poppables 產品線。我們持續透過提高試用率與家庭滲透率來推動淨營收成長；再結合擴充產品線帶來的購買頻率提升，以及全年媒體支持，應可持續放大這項具前景的新品牌延伸。

We have also extended the success of our Simply subline by introducing new package varieties with the Simply variety pack and a 3-flavor lineup of single-serve packages for Simply Lay's, Cheetos and Doritos offerings. The expanded package variety is enabling us to more fully capitalize on consumers' growing desire for organic, non-GMO snacks with no artificial ingredients.

我們也透過推出 Simply 綜合包，以及針對 Simply Lay's、Cheetos 與 Doritos 產品提供三種口味的單份包裝，延續 Simply 子系列（subline）的成功。擴增的包裝多樣性，使我們能更充分掌握消費者對有機、非基改（non-GMO）、且不含人工成分零食日益增加的偏好。

Demonstrating our focus on lifting and shifting successful ideas around the globe, we've recently introduced Red Rock Deli to select markets in the U.S. Red Rock Deli has been a breakout success in Australia that addresses millennial's desire for high-quality food offerings, with credentials like non-GMO project certification and no artificial flavors or colors.

展現我們將成功概念在全球「移植與轉移」（lift and shift）的聚焦作法，我們近期已將 Red Rock Deli 引進美國部分市場。Red Rock Deli 在澳洲是一項爆款成功產品，能滿足千禧世代對高品質食品的需求，並具備如非基改專案認證（non-GMO project certification）以及不含人工香料或色素等資歷。

Another example of lift and shift is our launch of the innovative Lay's Smile campaign, a concept that has its roots in a similar campaign we initially ran in China. This year, we're harnessing the power of sharing a smile and having a positive impact along the way. With Lay's Smiles, we put more than 40 unique smiles on Lay's bags. And with each purchase of a Lay's Smile bag, donated a portion to Operation Smile. The photogenic and humorous elements of the campaign, combined with the compelling purpose-driven element, have driven terrific exposure for the brand through social media.

另一個「移植與轉移」的例子，是我們推出創新的 Lay's Smile 活動；其概念源自我們最初在中國執行的類似活動。今年，我們正運用分享微笑的力量，並在過程中帶來正向影響。透過 Lay's Smiles，我們在 Lay's 包裝袋上放上超過40種獨特的笑容。且每購買一包 Lay's Smile，我們就捐出部分金額給微笑行動（Operation Smile）。該活動具上鏡且幽默的元素，加上引人共鳴的使命導向（purpose-driven）元素，已透過社群媒體為品牌帶來極佳的曝光。

At Quaker Foods North America, our portfolio of Quaker-branded products had mid-single-digit retail sales growth, boosted by the continued success of Overnight Oats and supported by a new ad campaign highlighting the functional benefits of oatmeal.

在北美桂格食品（Quaker Foods North America），我們的桂格品牌產品組合零售銷售呈中個位數成長；在 Overnight Oats 持續成功的帶動下成長加速，並由一支強調燕麥功能性益處的新廣告活動提供支持。

Let me now turn to our sectors outside of North America. We are pleased with the 8% organic revenue growth we saw in our developing and emerging markets as a group, which is an acceleration from the 6.5% growth we had in the fourth quarter of 2017. Stable to improving macro conditions, combined with strong market execution, have led to very strong growth across many of our key international markets.

接下來我談談北美以外的事業部門。我們對開發中與新興市場整體8%的有機營收成長感到滿意，這較2017年第四季的6.5%成長有所加速。宏觀環境穩定至改善，加上強勁的市場執行，使我們在多個關鍵國際市場實現非常強勁的成長。

Within Latin America, organic revenue grew 10% in Mexico, high teens in Brazil and 20% in Argentina. In AMENA, we had strong double-digit organic revenue growth in China, India, Egypt and Pakistan. The growth in the sector continues to be diluted somewhat by beverage tax-related declines in Saudi Arabia.

在拉丁美洲，墨西哥的有機營收成長10%，巴西為十幾個百分點，阿根廷為20%。在AMENA，我們在中國、印度、埃及與巴基斯坦的有機營收皆呈現強勁的雙位數成長。該事業部門的成長仍在一定程度上受到沙烏地阿拉伯因飲料稅相關下滑所稀釋。

In our Europe Sub-Saharan Africa sector, Turkey and Poland organic revenue grew high teens, while Russia and South Africa grew mid-single digits. Even within the developed markets of Europe, we saw solid low single-digit growth in the U.K. and Spain, mid-single-digit growth in France and high single-digit growth in Germany. Importantly, the strong top line performance translated to impressive bottom line results, with core constant currency operating profit up 9% in ESSA, 10% in AMENA and 17% in Latin America.

在我們的歐洲—撒哈拉以南非洲（ESSA）事業部門，土耳其與波蘭的有機營收成長達十幾個百分點，而俄羅斯與南非則為中個位數成長。即使在歐洲的已開發市場中，我們也看到英國與西班牙穩健的低個位數成長、法國的中個位數成長，以及德國的高個位數成長。重要的是，強勁的營收表現也轉化為亮眼的獲利成果：ESSA的核心固定匯率營業利益成長9%，AMENA成長10%，拉丁美洲成長17%。

The strong international results are, in part, a reflection of our initiatives to leverage our scale by increasingly coordinating commercial activities across markets and sectors. Example, with the increased global focus on 0-calorie beverages, we have continued to strengthen and scale our distinctive Pepsi Black under the Max or Zero Sugar brands, depending on the market, which drove double-digit organic volume growth globally and the United States in 2017. We almost tripled our global footprint from 28 markets at the beginning of 2016 to 77 markets this year.

強勁的國際業績，部分反映了我們透過日益加強跨市場與跨事業部門協調商業活動，以運用規模優勢的各項倡議。例如，隨著全球對零卡路里飲料的關注提升，我們持續強化並擴大我們獨具特色的Pepsi Black（依市場不同以Max或Zero Sugar品牌呈現），帶動2017年在全球及美國的有機銷量皆達雙位數成長。我們幾乎將全球版圖從2016年初的28個市場擴大至今年的77個市場。

We are leveraging our Pepsi Generations campaign internationally, airing our This is the Pepsi ad across 55 markets and the soccer-themed copy under the Generations campaign across more than 60 markets. And we have expanded Lay's oven baked to 14 markets, with plans to nearly triple that number in the next 2 years. And the Lay's Smiles campaign mentioned earlier has now been launched across markets in each of our sectors and grew retail sales mid-teens in the first quarter.

我們正在國際市場運用Pepsi Generations行銷活動，在55個市場播出This is the Pepsi廣告，並在超過60個市場以Generations活動推出足球主題版本。我們也已將樂事（Lay's）烘焙系列擴展至14個市場，並計畫在未來2年將該數量幾乎增加至3倍。此外，先前提到的Lay's Smiles活動如今已在我們各事業部門的市場全面推出，並在第一季帶動零售銷售成長達中十幾個百分點。

Net-net, we are encouraged by the momentum we're seeing across many of our key international markets and solid financial performance by Frito-Lay North America. And although North American Beverages is in the process of a turnaround, we have plans in place that we expect will lead to improving performance.

總體而言，我們對於在多個關鍵國際市場所看到的動能，以及Frito-Lay北美穩健的財務表現感到鼓舞。儘管北美飲料（NAB）正處於轉型復甦過程中，我們已制定相關計畫，預期將帶動表現改善。

With that, let me turn it over to Hugh.

接下來，我把時間交給Hugh。

Thank you, Indra, and good morning, everyone. I'll just provide a quick update on the outlook, and then we'll move to your questions.

謝謝你，Indra，各位早安。我將就展望做個簡要更新，接著我們會進入提問。

From a macro perspective, we remain pretty positive. We see continued broad-based GDP growth, with developed markets stable and developing and emerging markets accelerating. And in most of our key markets, including the U.S., the picture is relatively positive with strong employment, consumer spending and consumer sentiment data. However, within this broadly positive picture, there remains a risk of geopolitical volatility in certain markets.

從總體經濟角度來看，我們仍相當正面。我們看到GDP持續廣泛成長，已開發市場保持穩定，開發中與新興市場則加速成長。在我們多數關鍵市場（包括美國），整體情勢相對正向，就業強勁，消費支出與消費者信心數據也表現良好。然而，在這個整體正向的情勢之下，部分市場仍存在地緣政治波動的風險。

From an industry standpoint, we continue to see pretty challenging conditions, including dynamic retail and consumer landscapes, a very competitive environment, some currency volatility, most recently in the Mexican peso, Russian ruble, Turkish lira and Brazilian real, and commodity inflation. As Indra mentioned, within our businesses, the majority of our divisions are performing well, and we expect NAB's results to improve as the year progresses.

從產業面來看，我們仍持續面臨相當具挑戰性的環境，包括零售與消費者環境快速變動、競爭非常激烈、部分匯率波動（最近包括墨西哥披索、俄羅斯盧布、土耳其里拉與巴西雷亞爾），以及大宗商品通膨。如Indra所提，在我們的業務中，多數事業部門表現良好，我們預期NAB的結果將隨著年度推進而改善。

So putting this all together, our guidance for 2018 remains unchanged. Specifically, we expect organic revenue growth at least in line with our 2017 growth rate or 2.3%. As we move through the year, our expectation is that we will continue to see some level of gross margin compression from inflationary input costs. Normally, you would see the gross margin contraction offset with SG&A productivity. But as we shared with you in February, with the benefit of a lower effective tax rate in 2018, we are making investments to fortify the business as well as fund the frontline bonus, and these investments will largely offset the productivity-driven margin improvement.

綜合以上因素，我們對2018年的指引維持不變。具體而言，我們預期有機營收成長至少與2017年的成長率（2.3%）持平。隨著年度推進，我們預期通膨性的投入成本將持續對毛利率造成一定程度的壓縮。一般而言，毛利率的收縮會由SG&A（銷售、一般及行政費用）生產力提升所抵銷。但如同我們在2月與各位分享的，受惠於2018年較低的有效稅率，我們正進行投資以強化業務並支應第一線獎金，而這些投資將在很大程度上抵銷由生產力帶動的利潤率改善。

We expect our core effective tax rate to be in the low 20s. And we expect core earnings per share of $5.70 or a 9% increase compared to 2017 core earnings per share of $5.23. We continue to expect -- we continue to generate strong cash flow and to exercise disciplined capital allocation with prudent reinvestment in the business.

我們預期核心有效稅率將落在20%出頭的水準。我們預期核心每股盈餘為5.70美元，較2017年核心每股盈餘5.23美元成長9%。我們仍預期——我們將持續產生強勁的現金流，並以審慎再投資於業務的方式，執行有紀律的資本配置。

For 2018, we continue to expect free cash flow of approximately $6 billion, which includes approximately $9 billion in cash flow from operations, including a $1.4 billion discretionary pension contribution made in the first quarter, and net capital spending of approximately $3.6 billion.

對於2018年，我們仍預期自由現金流約為60億美元，其中包括約90億美元的營運現金流（包含第一季已提列的14億美元自願性退休金提撥），以及約36億美元的資本支出淨額。

We continue to expect to return approximately $7 billion to shareholders in 2018, with cash dividends of approximately $5 billion, reflecting a 15% increase in the annualized dividend per share starting with the June payment, and share repurchases of approximately $2 billion. And as we mentioned on the last conference call, we still see the prospect for even higher cash returns as we begin to fully realize the benefits of greater global cash mobility beyond 2018.

我們仍預期在2018年向股東回饋約70億美元，其中現金股利約50億美元，反映自6月發放起每股年化股利提高15%，以及約20億美元的庫藏股回購。此外，如同我們在上次電話會議中提到的，隨著我們在2018年之後開始充分實現全球現金調度能力提升所帶來的效益，我們仍看好現金回饋有進一步提高的可能。

Finally, as you update your models, I'd like to highlight the following. We continue to expect our core constant currency EPS growth to be higher in the second half than in the first half as we will lap NAB's softer performance and natural disaster-related business disruptions in the second half. And we expect variability in the timing of productivity savings investments, which includes the accrual of the frontline bonus and net commodity inflation, to contribute to relatively better performance in the second half of 2018.

最後，當各位更新模型時，我想強調以下幾點。我們仍預期核心固定匯率EPS成長在下半年將高於上半年，因為下半年將與NAB較疲弱的表現以及與天然災害相關的業務中斷形成比較基期（lap）。我們也預期生產力節省投資的時點（包括第一線獎金的應計以及大宗商品通膨淨額）在時間上的變動，將有助於2018年下半年相對較佳的表現。

With that, we're ready to take the first question.

接下來，我們準備開始第一個問題。

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from the line of Dara Mohsenian of Morgan Stanley.

(接線員指示) 第一個問題來自Morgan Stanley的Dara Mohsenian。

So Indra, on the beverage business, obviously, a disappointing few quarters. I'd also argue, if you go back longer term, you could argue it's somewhat disappointing the performance, even excluding -- or even including the solid results from back in 2015, 2016. And we continue to see this wide dichotomy between the sect's business performance in beverages. You articulated that with the corporate X beverage numbers earlier. So with all that as context, you mentioned all available options on the call earlier. And as you think about that, is that more sort of options and structure maybe that we've seen in the past, perhaps tweaked a bit for today's environment? Or is that seriously considering more radical changes? And I'm trying to get a sense for the level of sort of discontent within the organization around these beverage results.

Indra，關於飲料業務，顯然過去幾季令人失望。我也會認為，如果把時間拉長來看，即使不排除——或即使包含2015、2016年當時不錯的結果，整體表現仍可說有些令人失望。而我們也持續看到飲料業務在各事業部門之間存在很大的分歧。你先前用公司層級與飲料的數據已闡述了這點。在這樣的背景下，你在稍早的電話會議中提到「所有可用的選項」。那麼當你思考這些選項時，這比較像是過去我們見過的選項與架構、可能為了當前環境稍作調整？還是說你們正認真考慮更激進的變革？我想了解的是，組織內部對於這些飲料業績結果的不滿程度大概到什麼程度。

So Dara, that's a good question. So let me start off by saying, we're talking just about North American Beverages. As I look around the world, given some of the actions in many countries on beverage categories, selected beverage categories, we have actually performed quite well internationally in beverages, not just as PepsiCo, but the PepsiCo system, because our bottlers have their own beverage businesses, too. So if you look at the total, the beverage system of PepsiCo has actually performed extremely competitively. The issue is in North America, and the issue is really the last 3 quarters. We look at the performance of the business constantly. If I look at it post the reinvestment we made in 2012, the business has actually performed quite well, very competitive, but performed quite well. And 2014 coming into '15, '16 and even the first half of 2017 was good. The last 3 quarters have been worrisome for us. And let me talk a little bit about this, and I am reflecting back in the last 15 years of looking at North American Beverages in particular. Whenever we have a competitive situation where somebody is going through a financial transaction with beverages, clearly, that creates room for reinvestment, which starts to perturb the competitive balance. And that's what we are seeing in the last 3 quarters because of stepped-up investment resulting from business model changes. The question is, should we allow this to pass or should be step up and invest along with our competitor? And that's a big question we ask ourselves. For 3 quarters, we said, let it pass because all of these have a time frame. And once that temporary investment phase is over, the business comes back to a competitive equilibrium. But we don't want to be a net share donor, especially in CSDs, especially in colas. And so we'll go toe-to-toe and increase our spending in colas, in particular, but we're going to remain very responsible on pricing. The key thing is this is a business that's highly competitive in North America. There's no question about it. It's a big business. It's a profitable business. Is it the same profile with salty snacks? No. But it generates a lot of U.S. cash, in the mid-teens profitability. I think that's a very, very attractive business in the staple space. And it gives you enormous clout with retailers because the velocity of these categories are phenomenal. And I will tell you one thing, anybody who's in the beverage business always wants to be in the salty snack business. And anybody who's in the salty snack business always wishes they had a beverage partner because you can't have a salty snack without a beverage. So we have the combination together. We just have to keep making sure that our portfolio works, and that's what we are doing. We like the fact that we have to go through these short-term issues with performance. But believe me, our team is maniacally focused on getting this business back to track in the second half of this year, and we will, sequentially improving every quarter.

所以，Dara，這是個好問題。我先從這裡開始說明：我們現在談的只是北美飲料業務。放眼全球，鑑於許多國家在飲料品類、特定飲料品類上採取的一些行動，我們在國際飲料業務其實表現相當不錯，不僅是百事公司（PepsiCo）本身，而是整個百事公司體系，因為我們的裝瓶商也有各自的飲料業務。所以如果看整體，百事公司的飲料體系其實表現得非常有競爭力。問題出在北美，而問題主要是在最近3個季度。我們持續不斷地檢視業務表現。如果我看2012年我們做出再投資之後的表現，這項業務其實表現得相當好，非常具競爭力，而且確實表現不錯。而2014年進入2015、2016，甚至2017年上半年都很好。最近3個季度讓我們感到憂心。我稍微談談這點；我也回顧過去15年，特別是觀察北美飲料業務的經驗。每當出現競爭情勢、有人在飲料業務上進行財務交易時，顯然就會創造出再投資的空間，進而開始擾動競爭平衡。而這正是我們在最近3個季度所看到的情況：因商業模式變更而帶來的加碼投資。問題是：我們應該讓它過去，還是應該跟著競爭對手一起加碼投資？這是我們自問的一個重大問題。過去3個季度，我們說先讓它過去，因為這些事情都有時間框架。一旦那個暫時性的投資階段結束，業務就會回到競爭均衡。但我們不想成為淨市占的捐贈者，尤其是在碳酸飲料（CSDs），尤其是在可樂品類。因此我們會正面迎戰，特別是在可樂上增加支出，但我們在定價上仍會非常負責任。關鍵在於：北美這門生意競爭非常激烈。毫無疑問。這是一門大生意。也是一門獲利的生意。它的輪廓是否和鹹味零食一樣？不是。但它能帶來大量美國現金流，獲利率在十幾個百分點的中段。我認為在民生必需品領域，這是一門非常、非常有吸引力的生意。而且它能讓你在零售商面前擁有巨大的影響力，因為這些品類的銷售速度非常驚人。我告訴你一件事：任何做飲料生意的人，總是想做鹹味零食生意。而任何做鹹味零食生意的人，也總希望有一個飲料夥伴，因為沒有飲料就吃不下鹹味零食。所以我們把兩者結合在一起。我們只需要持續確保我們的產品組合能運作良好，而這正是我們在做的事。我們樂於面對這些短期的績效問題。但相信我，我們的團隊以近乎偏執的專注度，致力於在今年下半年讓這項業務回到正軌，而且我們會做到，並且每一季都會逐季改善。

Your next question comes from the line of Lauren Lieberman of Barclays.

下一個問題來自巴克萊（Barclays）的Lauren Lieberman。

I wanted to talk a little bit about productivity. The profitability outside the U.S. really accelerated, and productivity was highlighted, kind of ranked first in the description of each of those businesses in the release. So could you talk a little bit about the balance of kind of productivity savings outside the U.S. versus within the U.S.? And as we go forward, should we expect more savings to come out of international and perhaps to start to see some margin build? Or are you still more prioritizing reinvesting, maybe pricing a bit below the rate of inflation to continue consolidating market share internationally?

我想稍微談談生產力。美國以外的獲利能力確實加速提升，而新聞稿在描述各項業務時也特別強調了生產力，某種程度上把它排在第一位。所以你能否談談美國以外與美國境內的生產力節省之間的平衡？以及往後看，我們是否應該預期更多節省會來自國際市場，並且可能開始看到一些利潤率擴張？或者你們仍更優先把節省再投資回去，例如定價可能略低於通膨，以持續在國際市場鞏固市占？

Our goal is not to price below inflation. That's not our goal. What we're trying to do is build frequency and penetration. That's all we focus on in every market. And market by market is a function of what the nature of the competition is. Because in many of these markets, we have local competitors, too, and we have to think about our pricing architecture versus local competition. So at every point in time, Lauren, we are looking across geographies to really figure out how best to grow the businesses. Is it frequency? Is it penetration? Do we want to actually create a price umbrella for other local competitors to come in? Or do we want to remain with the price premium that's reasonable and allows us to build the business? So while doing this, sometimes, we let productivity flow through. Other times, we reinvest it back in the business. So it's again literally a case-by-case basis. The net-net result of all of this is, as a company, overall, we are focused on productivity like you won't believe it. We think all the digital technologies that are [coming], all the new ways we can work to improve agility, improve flexibility, delayer the company, there's so much we are looking at, is actually going to increase the productivity of our company. It's just that we have to make sure we have enough beta tests done with all the new technologies in the company that when we roll it out across the company, they actually yield results as opposed to flopping. So we are in the process of doing all the beta tests now to make sure that they actually yield the kind of results that we're looking for. Rest assured, you might see short-term international productivity, but overall, we're looking at global productivity initiatives. Hugh, did you want to add anything?

我們的目標不是把定價壓在通膨之下。那不是我們的目標。我們想做的是提升購買頻率與滲透率。這就是我們在每個市場專注的全部。而逐一市場的做法，取決於競爭態勢的本質。因為在許多市場，我們也有本地競爭對手，所以我們必須思考我們的定價架構相對於本地競爭的定位。因此在任何時點，Lauren，我們都會跨地理區域檢視，真正找出如何最有效地推動業務成長。是頻率嗎？是滲透率嗎？我們是否想要實際上為其他本地競爭者創造一個「價格保護傘」讓他們進來？或者我們要維持合理的溢價定價，同時又能讓我們把業務做大？在這樣做的同時，有時我們會讓生產力節省直接反映到損益表。其他時候，我們會把它再投資回到業務中。所以這確實是逐案、逐市場決定。所有這些的最終結果是：作為一家公司，整體而言，我們對生產力的重視程度超乎你想像。我們認為所有正在[到來]的數位技術、所有能讓我們提升敏捷性、提升彈性、精簡層級（delayer）公司的新工作方式，我們正在看很多事情，實際上都會提高公司的生產力。只是我們必須確保公司內對所有新技術做了足夠的Beta測試，當我們在全公司推廣時，它們確實能產生成果，而不是失敗。所以我們現在正在進行所有Beta測試的流程，以確保它們能產生我們所期待的那種結果。請放心，你可能會看到短期的國際生產力提升，但整體而言，我們著眼的是全球性的生產力倡議。Hugh，你想補充什麼嗎？

No, I was just going to comment on that as well. The productivity balance won't change. It will be consistent across the globe.

不，我也正想就那點補充一下。生產力的平衡不會改變。它在全球都會保持一致。

Your next question comes from the line of Bryan Spillane of Bank of America.

下一個問題來自美國銀行（Bank of America）的 Bryan Spillane。

So I guess, I want to follow up on Dara's question, just about NAB. And I guess as you think about all the available options to drive greater shareholder value, would that actually include separating or selling NAB? Is the international business still important to have the scale benefits and you'd keep one or not the other? Or is that really not kind of what you're implying when you talk about all available options?

我想我想接續 Dara 的問題，談談 NAB。我想，當你們思考所有可用的選項以提升股東價值時，是否也包括分拆或出售 NAB？國際業務是否仍然重要，因為能帶來規模效益，所以你們會保留其中一個而不保留另一個？或者當你們談到所有可用選項時，其實並不是在暗示這類事情？

That's not what we are talking about when we talk about all available options. The beverage business is still a global business. It's very linked, the North American business with the international business. And it's very linked to our snacks business. It provides very important scale in many international markets and provides us a seat at the table with customers here in the U.S. So I think the beverage business is very important. The real question we are asking ourselves is, how best do we handle the operating aspects of bottling? We've gone back and forth between a separate company part of PepsiCo. Is it best as a standalone public entity? Or is it best in the hands of multiple franchisees? The evidence is not clear. And we want to make sure we just don't engage in financial transactions for the sake of financial transactions. But whatever we do is really setting the company on a sustainable path. So we're looking at what models exist out there. We're looking at what we did in the past. And we're trying to see how best to operate this very attractive, but very competitive beverage business that creates shareholder value and also does not detract from the overall performance of the rest of PepsiCo.

我們所說的「所有可用選項」並不是在談這件事。飲料業務仍然是一個全球性的業務。北美業務與國際業務之間連結非常緊密。而且它也與我們的零食業務高度連動。它在許多國際市場提供非常重要的規模，同時也讓我們在美國這裡能在與客戶的合作中占有一席之地。所以我認為飲料業務非常重要。我們真正問自己的問題是：我們應該如何最好地處理裝瓶營運層面的事務？我們在不同方案之間反覆權衡：作為百事公司（PepsiCo）旗下的一家獨立公司。是否最好成為一家獨立上市公司？或者是否最好交由多個特許經營商來經營？目前證據並不明確。我們也希望確保不會為了交易而交易，只是做財務交易。而是無論我們做什麼，都是真正在為公司建立一條可持續的發展道路。因此我們正在研究外部有哪些模式。我們也在回顧過去做過的事情。並試圖找出如何最好地經營這個非常有吸引力、但競爭也非常激烈的飲料業務：既能創造股東價值，也不會拖累百事公司其他業務的整體表現。

Your next question comes from the line of Vivien Azer of Cowen.

下一個問題來自 Cowen 的 Vivien Azer。

So Indra, I was hoping we could touch on Frito-Lay, please. Another solid print from the top line. But I was hoping you could touch on price realization. You did cycle quite a tough compare. But it does also look like in the scanner data that there might be a slight softening in pricing, driven by competitive promotional activity. So if you could just offer any color on that, that would be helpful.

Indra，我希望我們能談一下 Frito-Lay。營收端又是一個穩健的表現。但我想請你談談價格實現（price realization）。你們確實是在一個相當艱難的比較基期上循環。但從掃描器數據看起來，價格可能有些微走軟，原因是競爭對手的促銷活動增加。如果你能就此提供一些說明，會很有幫助。

So Hugh?

Hugh？

Yes, I'm happy to answer that. No, I would take the pricing as more temporary in nature. I think when we get to the end of 2018, you're going to see Frito-Lay pricing that's very much in line with what you've seen in the past. I wouldn't expect any dramatic dislocation in that regard. Quarter-to-quarter, price can wiggle a bit. But by the end of the year, you're going to see the same consistent Frito, both from a pricing perspective as well as from a profit perspective that you've seen in the past.

是的，我很樂意回答。不，我會把這次的定價視為較偏短期、暫時性的現象。我認為到 2018 年底，你會看到 Frito-Lay 的定價非常符合你過去所看到的水準。我不預期在這方面會出現任何劇烈的失衡。季度之間，價格可能會有些波動。但到年底，你會看到一如既往、穩定一致的 Frito，不論是定價面還是獲利面，都會和過去你所看到的一樣。

Your next question comes from the line of Caroline Levy of Macquarie.

下一個問題來自麥格理（Macquarie）的 Caroline Levy。

I'm wondering if I got this right, but it looks like your spending on A&M was down in the first quarter North American Beverages. If I did get that right, can you just help us, regardless, understand sort of the pacing of the spend behind this business and which brands in particular? Is it really very cola-focused? Are you going to be spending heavily on all your brands, and what the strategy is? Just a little more to give us some confidence in the back half recovery.

我不確定我是否理解正確，但看起來你們在第一季北美飲料（North American Beverages）的 A&M 支出下降了。如果我理解沒錯，無論如何，你能否協助我們理解這項業務背後支出的節奏（pacing），以及特別是哪些品牌？是否真的非常聚焦在可樂品類？你們會在所有品牌上都大幅投入嗎？策略是什麼？希望能多給我們一些資訊，讓我們對下半年復甦更有信心。

Hugh, why don't you take it, and then I'll follow up.

Hugh，你先回答，然後我再補充。

Yes, happy to. Caroline, a couple of things on that. Number one, we kind of have to separate the accounting from the actual spending in the marketplace. From an accounting perspective, as, of course, you know, A&M gets spread out on a curve. As the volume was a little bit softer in the first quarter relative to our expectations for the year, less of the spend would have been booked in the first quarter. And so you're seeing a timing difference in what appears in the books. In terms of media spend in the marketplace, we were actually up strong double-digits and strong double-digits across the big brands. So I wouldn't overfocus on what the A&M showed up in the financial books. That's a product of GAAP convention. In terms of actual advertising in the marketplace behind the big brands, it was up significantly.

好的，很樂意。Caroline，關於這點有幾件事。第一，我們必須把會計處理與市場端的實際支出分開來看。從會計角度來看，正如你當然知道的，A&M 會依照一條曲線分攤。由於第一季的銷量相較於我們對全年預期略為疲弱，因此第一季入帳的支出會比較少。所以你看到的是帳面呈現上的時間差。就市場端的媒體投放而言，我們實際上是強勁的雙位數成長，而且在主要品牌上也都是強勁的雙位數成長。因此我不會過度聚焦在 A&M 在財務帳上呈現的數字。那是 GAAP 慣例所造成的結果。就市場端針對主要品牌的實際廣告投放而言，確實是顯著增加的。

And in terms of going forward, Caroline, which was the second part of your question. In most of the brands that we have, we are spending at very competitive levels, and they're all yielding the right results. The only place where we were outspent in the marketplace is in colas. And we were surprised by the extent of which media spending was taken up in colas by competition. So we are going to step up our advertising behind trademark Pepsi, with a little bit of a focus on Zero Sugar and Diet Pepsi. And at the end of the day, we don't want to be a share donor. We want to be responsible in pricing. We want to be responsible in portfolio management, to go where the consumer is going, at the same time, being a share donor is not our cup of tea.

至於未來的方向，Caroline，這是你問題的第二部分。在我們大多數品牌上，我們的投入都維持在非常具競爭力的水準，而且都帶來了正確的成果。唯一在市場上被競爭對手超越投放的地方是在可樂品類。我們對競爭對手在可樂品類加大媒體投放的幅度感到意外。因此我們將加大對 Pepsi 主品牌（trademark Pepsi）的廣告投放，並稍微更聚焦在 Zero Sugar 與 Diet Pepsi。歸根結底，我們不希望成為「市占率捐贈者」。我們希望在定價上負責任。我們希望在產品組合管理上負責任，跟著消費者的走向調整；同時，成為市占率捐贈者並不是我們想做的事。

Your next question comes from the line of Ali Dibadj of Bernstein.

您的下一個問題來自 Bernstein 的 Ali Dibadj。

So I wanted to go back to pricing in North America Beverages for a moment. You may remember, we were quite vocal in pushing that price rationality, is this the best for shareholders and CSDs at least? And look, to your credit, you were early adopters of the sustainable price/mix that we've been seeing in CSDs in North America. But actually, now there's a little bit more controversy about it. I think I'd argue that the biggest investment controversy we are hearing right now, certainly since Coca-Cola reported a couple of days ago, the controversy is whether price/mix will become more competitive or not. Now to be clear, you reported pricing up in NAB, the EPS reported pricing up in NAB or their equivalent. KO had pricing down. I don't know if you listened to the call or not, but they excused it away with Easter compares and freight costs oddly and price, et cetera. But for all investors are trying to figure out that controversy in particular, what will price/mix look like in North America beverages for you, for your competitors, in the context of KO's hopefully confusion in terms of their pricing and your talk at reinvestment? I get that you're being clear in terms of being responsible on pricing. I want to get a better sense of what that is and how we should think about price/mix in North America beverages going forward.

我想先回到北美飲料（NAB）的定價話題。您可能記得，我們過去相當直言不諱地推動價格理性化——至少就股東與碳酸軟飲（CSD）而言，這是否是最佳作法？而且坦白說，值得肯定的是，您們很早就採用了我們在北美 CSD 看到的可持續價格／組合（price/mix）策略。但其實現在對此出現了更多爭議。我認為可以說，我們目前聽到最大的投資爭議——尤其是在可口可樂幾天前公布之後——就是 price/mix 是否會變得更具競爭性。先說清楚，您們在 NAB 報告的定價上升，EPS 也顯示 NAB 的定價上升或其同等指標。KO 的定價則是下降。我不確定您是否聽了他們的電話會議，但他們把原因歸咎於復活節比較基期、運費成本（有點奇怪）以及價格等等。但投資人特別想弄清楚這個爭議：在 KO 的定價說法（希望只是混亂）以及您提到再投資的背景下，您們與競爭對手在北美飲料的 price/mix 會是什麼樣子？我理解您在定價上強調負責任的做法。我想更清楚那具體是什麼，以及我們應該如何看待未來北美飲料的 price/mix。

Again, mix is very important because based on the mix, you'll see what the price realization is going to be. But Ali, I'll tell you something. We've said this for several years now, and I'll repeat it. The message that all our NAB taps have is make sure that we never return to what happened in 2011, 2012 when there were $5 cubes. That's not going to happen. We want to make sure that, especially with inflation creeping into the business, we price to cover inflation. I think it's very important, with a category growth of about 2%, that we play this market in a very responsible way so that we don't further depress the category. Now here's a challenge. Single-serve clearly has better price realization. And as the mix of single-serve versus groceries shift, clearly, you'll see some pricing perturbation. But from our perspective, we are watching grocery pricing very, very carefully. And we want to make sure we don't destroy the pricing architecture across the industry. And that's really the game we are playing. But we're not going to lose the game because of media spending because, at the end of the day, pricing discipline is one thing. But if it's a question of media spending to make sure that the consumer understands that Pepsi is still a strong vibrant brand, we're going to spend on media. And we are maniacally focused on making sure we use every opportunity with mini cans, with other packaging formats, to cover inflation to the extent we can, although that's difficult, but inch the pricing up. That's what we are focused on right now.

再說一次，組合（mix）非常重要，因為根據組合，您會看到價格實現（price realization）會是什麼。但 Ali，我跟你說一件事。我們已經講了好幾年了，我再重申一次。我們所有 NAB 團隊傳達的訊息都是：務必確保我們永遠不要回到 2011、2012 年那種出現 5 美元方箱（$5 cubes）的情況。那不會再發生。我們要確保，特別是在通膨逐步滲入業務的情況下，我們的定價要能覆蓋通膨。我認為在品類成長約 2% 的情況下，我們必須以非常負責任的方式來經營這個市場，避免進一步壓抑品類。現在有個挑戰。單次飲用（single-serve）顯然有更好的價格實現。而當單次飲用與雜貨通路（groceries）的組合發生變化時，您自然會看到一些定價波動。但就我們而言，我們非常、非常仔細地關注雜貨通路的定價。我們要確保不會破壞整個產業的定價架構。這才是我們在玩的這場遊戲。但我們不會因為媒體投放而輸掉這場遊戲，因為歸根結底，定價紀律是一回事。但如果問題在於媒體投放，以確保消費者理解百事仍然是一個強勁、有活力的品牌，我們就會在媒體上投入。而且我們極度專注於確保把握每一個機會——透過迷你罐（mini cans）以及其他包裝形式——在力所能及的範圍內覆蓋通膨；雖然這很困難，但要讓價格一點一點往上走。這就是我們目前的重點。

Your next question comes from the line of Amit Sharma of BMO Capital Markets.

您的下一個問題來自 BMO Capital Markets 的 Amit Sharma。

Indra, just a clarification for you and one for Hugh. When you talk about increasing spending on the colas in North America, are we talking about taking spending from other segments and putting it behind colas? Or are you thinking about just raising the overall bucket? And then for Hugh, maybe talk about maybe potentially bringing more cash back. And when you talk about returning it to shareholders, are you thinking more of buyback or raising dividend higher as well?

Indra，我有一個問題想請您澄清，另外也有一個想請教 Hugh。當您談到在北美加大對可樂品類的投入時，我們指的是把其他品類的支出挪過來支持可樂？還是您在考慮把整體預算池（overall bucket）做大？另外給 Hugh 的問題，能否談談可能把更多現金匯回來。當您談到回饋股東時，您是更傾向於回購，還是也會考慮提高股利？

To your question, the first part, Amit, a little bit of both. Some of it will be reallocation, but some of it will be additional spending we'll put in. We are working through the details now, but the fact of the matter is, we are going to increase spending behind colas. Hugh, on the increased cash?

針對你的問題第一部分，Amit，兩者都會有一些。其中一部分會是重新分配，但也會有一部分是我們會額外增加的投入。我們目前正在推進細節，但事實是，我們會加大對可樂的投入。Hugh，關於增加的現金呢？

Yes. So Amit, we're still working through plans to bring cash back to the U.S. No change in 2018 guidance, either from a dividend or share repurchase perspective. And as regards to 2019, obviously, it's too early to talk about that. We'll talk about specifics of that as we get closer to next year.

是的。所以 Amit，我們仍在制定把現金匯回美國的計畫。就 2018 年指引而言，無論是股利或股票回購的角度，都沒有變化。至於 2019 年，顯然現在談還太早。我們會在接近明年時再談具體細節。

Your next question comes from Mark Swartzberg of Stifel.

您的下一個問題來自 Stifel 的 Mark Swartzberg。

Also NAB. I know we're spending a lot of time on that, but it's important. Firstly, a clarification response to your response to Bryan's question. Are you also saying refranchising is not on the table when you say you're not interested in hiving off beverage? And then also, Hugh, you mentioned strong double-digit increases on the big brands. Why do you think the volume didn't respond better to those increases?

也是關於 NAB。我知道我們在這上面花了很多時間，但這很重要。首先，針對您對 Bryan 問題的回覆，我想再澄清一下。當您說您不打算把飲料業務分拆出去時，您是否也在表示特許經營重組（refranchising）不在考慮範圍內？另外，Hugh，您提到大品牌有強勁的雙位數成長。您認為為什麼銷量（volume）對這些成長的反應沒有更好？

On refranchising or any other option, Mark, I didn't say no to anything, I didn't say yes to anything. All that I said was we're studying all of the options because we have gone back and forth with the bottling business over the last decade or 2. And I don't believe just doing a financial transaction for the sake of short-term financial results is the optimal way to create shareholder value. What we're trying to say is, given the dynamics of this business going forward, given that the mix of products is likely to change, with more [heart fill], more noncarbonated, more nutritious beverages coming on to the marketplace, how best do we manage the concentrate business versus the bottling business so that we don't have to engage in a financial transaction every 5 or 10 years. That's what we're trying to do. We are looking at structures that exist today to see whether they are operationally easy to execute or do they sound good in the short term, but they're very, very complex and operationally a nightmare to operate. We're studying that. We're also looking at other structures because I always told you, the bottling business is a utility, low earnings growth, lots of cash. How do you operate the bottling business like a utility? What's the best structure to do that? That's what we are thinking through, stay tuned.

關於特許經營重組或任何其他選項，Mark，我沒有對任何事情說不，也沒有對任何事情說是。我所說的只是：我們正在研究所有選項，因為在過去 10 到 20 年間，我們在裝瓶業務上反覆進退。我不認為為了短期財務結果而做一筆純粹的財務交易，是創造股東價值的最佳方式。我們想表達的是：考量這項業務未來的動態，考量產品組合很可能會改變——會有更多 [heart fill]、更多非碳酸、更多更具營養的飲料進入市場——我們要如何最好地管理濃縮液業務與裝瓶業務之間的關係，讓我們不必每 5 或 10 年就進行一次財務交易。這就是我們正在做的事。我們正在檢視目前存在的結構，看看它們在營運上是否容易執行，還是短期聽起來不錯，但實際上非常、非常複雜，營運起來簡直是惡夢。我們正在研究這些。我們也在看其他結構，因為我一直告訴各位，裝瓶業務就像公用事業（utility）：獲利成長低、但現金很多。要如何把裝瓶業務當作公用事業來運作？最好的結構是什麼？這就是我們正在思考的方向，敬請期待。

And Mark, as regards to the increase in media spending, certain marketing levers work very quickly, distribution and price being the chief among them. Advertising and marketing, there is a building effect over the course of several quarters. So I think you actually did see some responsiveness in Dew, and even Pepsi improved a bit. But it's going to take a few quarters for the Pepsi business to fully respond to the increased advertising in the marketplace.

Mark，關於媒體投放增加這件事，某些行銷槓桿的效果來得很快，其中以通路與價格最為關鍵。至於廣告與行銷，則會在數個季度的過程中產生累積性的建立效果。所以我認為你確實看到Dew有一些反應，甚至Pepsi也略有改善。但Pepsi業務要對市場上增加的廣告投放做出全面反應，還需要幾個季度。

Your next question comes from Andrea Teixeira of JPMorgan.

下一個問題來自摩根大通（JPMorgan）的Andrea Teixeira。

Could you please comment on the cadence? I guess, I want to move back to the numbers, if we can. The cadence of the impacts of the commodities and transportation and also, obviously, the employee bonus, which I understand is a one-time effect and probably behind us. So -- and correct me if I'm wrong. So if you could help us reconcile as we go through the year against the $1 billion productivity per year? So if you can share some of what you're tracking year-to-date against that objective.

可否請您談談節奏（cadence）？我想，如果可以的話，我想回到數字本身。包括大宗商品與運輸的影響節奏，以及（很明顯的）員工獎金；我理解那是一次性影響，應該已經過去了。所以——如果我說得不對請糾正我。因此，若您能協助我們在全年推進時，如何與每年10億美元的生產力目標相互對照、加以勾稽。也請您分享一些截至目前（year-to-date）相對於該目標所追蹤到的進度。

Yes, happy, Andrea, to talk a little bit to that. And certainly, you can follow up with Investor Relations to get into more of the details. Specific to your question, number one, the frontline bonus was entirely booked in Q1, so you see that in the numbers already. Number two, in terms of the commodity inflation, that will be pretty consistent over the course of the year. And the productivity will equally be consistent relative to prior year over the course of the year. Of course, productivity always builds during the year, but prior year productivity also builds. So that shouldn't be a dramatic difference.

好的，Andrea，我很樂意就此多談一些。當然，你也可以在會後與投資人關係部門跟進，以取得更多細節。就你的問題而言，第一，第一線獎金已在第一季（Q1）全數入帳，所以你已經在數字裡看到了。第二，關於大宗商品通膨，全年走勢會相當一致。而生產力提升相對於去年，也會在全年維持同樣一致的表現。當然，生產力通常會在一年當中逐步累積，但去年同期的生產力也同樣會累積。因此這不應該會造成顯著差異。

Your next question comes from Robert Ottenstein of Evercore ISI.

下一個問題來自Evercore ISI的Robert Ottenstein。

I was just wondering if you could give us a little bit of help, and sorry to go back on North American Beverages, but is it really as easy as just spending more money and driving share of voice? Or is it quality of the share of voice? And I'm just wondering if you can just kind of give us some metrics or some evidence of the work that you've done that it's purely a question of share of voice, that you have the right message, you just need to get it out more, and that the brands are essentially healthy, it's just you're being outspent.

我想請教能否給我們一些協助；也抱歉又回到北美飲料（North American Beverages）的話題，但事情真的就只是多花點錢、提高聲量占比（share of voice）這麼簡單嗎？還是說關鍵在於聲量占比的「品質」？我想請你們提供一些指標或證據，說明你們所做的工作是否純粹是聲量占比的問題：你們訊息本身是對的，只是需要更廣泛地傳遞；而品牌基本上是健康的，只是你們被競爭對手花更多錢壓過。

Robert, we look at this all the time. Clearly, the quality of voice is important. You cannot just spend with a poor message. The message that we had the last 2 years, I don't think resonated as much. But the new Pepsi Generations campaign is resonating exceedingly well, scoring very high. The recall, the regard numbers are all extremely high. And as we go through the summer, you'll see more advertising for Pepsi Zero Sugar, Diet Pepsi, as new products come in. You will see a trademark campaign, augmented with some specific additional messaging on Pepsi Zero Sugar and Diet Pepsi. And believe me, we are maniacally focused on the quality of the message to see if it's resonating with the traditional users, which tend to be more the boomers, and then recruiting the new people, which is the millennials. And we are watching all of these cohort groups to make sure that the message is getting through, that Pepsi is a refreshing drink. It's great for fun times together, and it's great with food. And the recent campaign with Aaron Judge is gaining a lot of attention, and we feel good about the messaging. But at the end of the day, having a great message but not conveying that regularly, especially with a competitor who is on air all the time, is not the right approach. And so we are going to step up the advertising, and we will constantly look at how it's resonating with consumers. And if we have to make a little tweak here and there, we'll do it.

Robert，我們一直都在看這件事。很明顯，聲量的品質很重要。你不可能用一個不好的訊息就只靠砸錢。過去兩年的訊息，我認為共鳴度沒有那麼高。但新的Pepsi Generations活動共鳴非常好，評分很高。回想度（recall）、好感度（regard）等數據都非常高。隨著我們進入夏季，隨著新產品上市，你會看到更多Pepsi Zero Sugar與Diet Pepsi的廣告。你會看到一個主品牌（trademark）活動，並搭配一些針對Pepsi Zero Sugar與Diet Pepsi的額外訊息加強。而且相信我，我們對訊息品質是否能與傳統使用者（通常較偏婴兒潮世代）產生共鳴，以及是否能吸引新客群（也就是千禧世代），都抱持著近乎偏執的專注。我們會觀察所有這些分群（cohort）族群，確保訊息能被有效傳達：Pepsi是一款清爽的飲料。它很適合大家一起歡樂相聚的時刻，也很適合搭配食物。近期與Aaron Judge合作的活動獲得了很多關注，我們對訊息內容感到滿意。但歸根究柢，訊息再好，如果沒有持續、規律地傳遞——尤其面對一個幾乎隨時都在投放的競爭對手——那就不是正確的做法。因此我們會加大廣告投放，同時也會持續檢視消費者的共鳴情況。如果需要在這裡或那裡做一些小調整，我們也會做。

Your next question comes from Pablo Zuanic of SIG.

下一個問題來自SIG的Pablo Zuanic。

Look, just to follow up on this North American Beverage commentary you've made. I mean, obviously, investment bankers listening on this call will be knocking on your door and giving you plenty of ideas and suggestions. But I want to make 2 questions. One, why do you really think that beverages, whether they concentrate with or without bottling, gives you greater strength in terms of having a seat at the table? I could argue the opposite, right, that the poor performance in beverages maybe dilutes that seed when you're having discussions about Frito and all the great innovation you are putting through there. So maybe just remind us and convince us, why really having beverages, whether concentrate with or without bottling, really helps? And the second question which is related to that, in the hypothetical scenario that you did not have beverages, tell us what do you think you could do better? I mean, I could argue that the relationship with Tingyi could be expanded. I could argue that you could be a lot more aggressive overseas in expanding your snacks footprint. I could maybe argue that you could [load] more without beverages. But if you can comment on that. I mean, you have opened the door to these questions, of course, with the commentaries you have made today.

我想就你們對北美飲料的評論再追問一下。我的意思是，顯然，正在收聽這通電話的投資銀行家會去敲你們的門，給你們很多想法與建議。但我想問兩個問題。第一，你們為什麼真的認為飲料業務——不論是僅做濃縮液（concentrate）或是包含裝瓶（bottling）——能讓你們在「坐上談判桌」這件事上更有力量？我也可以提出相反的論點：飲料表現不佳，或許反而會在你們討論Frito以及你們在那邊推動的各種優秀創新時，稀釋你們的席位（seat）。所以請你們再提醒我們、也說服我們：為什麼擁有飲料業務——不論是濃縮液、含或不含裝瓶——真的有幫助？第二個相關問題是：在一個假設情境下，如果你們沒有飲料業務，請告訴我們你們認為自己可以做得更好的地方是什麼？我的意思是，我可以主張與Tingyi的合作關係可以擴大。我也可以主張你們可以在海外更積極擴張零食版圖。我甚至可以主張如果沒有飲料，你們或許可以更「加槓桿」（[load] more）。但如果你們能對此評論一下。畢竟，今天你們的評論當然也等於為這些問題打開了大門。

Pablo, first of all, the investment bankers have been knocking on our door forever. They have lots of great ideas. But at the end of the day, as I said, the ideas have got to make sense. They've got to make business sense and shareholder value sense. And we've been thinking through all of this a lot. Hugh, why don't you take the first part of the question, then I'll come back and add to it?

Pablo，首先，投資銀行家一直以來都在敲我們的門。他們有很多很棒的點子。但歸根究柢，正如我所說，這些點子必須說得通。它們必須在商業上說得通，也必須在股東價值上說得通。而我們也一直在深入思考這一切。Hugh，你先回答問題的第一部分，然後我再回來補充。

Yes, happy to. I would respectfully disagree with you on the notion that not having beverages would increase our sway or our influence with retailers. The fact is we're the #1 beverage company or food and beverage company in North America. We're the #2 food and beverage company globally. We have impulse categories and expandable consumption. And we've consistently drove -- driven growth for our retailers because of the fact that we have impulse categories and strong brands, and they've been well-marketed over time. So as our retailers are looking for growth, they inevitably come first to PepsiCo because of the size of the 2 businesses. It's not to say either one of them is in a terrific business alone. We just think the 2 of them are better together, and I have a lot of evidence to support that. So I do think that the retailers value what we bring to the table in their entirety.

是的，很樂意。我會恭敬地不同意你所提出「沒有飲料業務會提升我們對零售商的話語權或影響力」這個看法。事實是，我們是北美第 1 大飲料公司，或說食品與飲料公司。我們在全球是第 2 大食品與飲料公司。我們擁有衝動性品類以及可擴張的消費。而且我們一直以來都為零售商帶動成長，原因在於我們有衝動性品類與強勢品牌，且長期以來行銷到位。因此，當零售商在尋求成長時，基於這兩大業務的規模，他們不可避免地會首先想到百事公司（PepsiCo）。這並不是說其中任何一個單獨拿出來就是非常出色的生意。我們只是認為兩者結合在一起更好，而且我有大量證據可以支持這點。所以我確實認為，零售商重視的是我們整體所帶來的價值。

Again, Hugh, adding to your comment. In North America, if you take the biggest retailers, they do top-to-top meetings and a joint business plan session maybe with 3 companies. And PepsiCo is a company that is a must do a top-to-top with because we are such a big part of the store, such a big part of the growth. And most large retailers will say, if PepsiCo doesn't grow, we can't grow because it's such a big part of the high-velocity categories. So our joint business plan, top-to-top meetings, maybe one of the few where the senior most leaders of the big retailers attend these meetings. Second, I go over to Europe, and individually, our businesses maybe 37th or 50th in importance to a retailer. But together, we are on the top 10, but not just in the top 10, we're the fastest growing. And very often, we end up with top-to-top meetings with European retailers, and I attend many of them. And the reason that they ask for the top-to-top is because, together, we drive a lot of the sales growth of the retailer, and we are high-velocity categories and bring the traffic in. And we are very innovative across both categories. So I think that what we're looking at right now is a short-term performance issue with North American Beverages. We know exactly what needs to get done, and we're off doing it. And we have come off 3, 4 years of terrific performance, so we've got 3 quarters of performance miss, and we are going to fix it, period.

再一次，Hugh，補充你的評論。在北美，如果你看最大的零售商，他們會做高層對高層（top-to-top）會議，以及聯合商業計畫（joint business plan）會議，可能只會跟 3 家公司進行。而百事公司是一定要做 top-to-top 的公司，因為我們在店內占比很大，也是成長的重要來源。多數大型零售商會說，如果百事公司不成長，我們就無法成長，因為我們在高周轉品類中占比太大。因此，我們的聯合商業計畫、top-to-top 會議，可能是少數幾個會有大型零售商最高層領導出席的會議之一。第二，我到歐洲去看，若單獨來看，我們各個業務對零售商的重要性可能排在第 37 或第 50 位。但合在一起，我們就進入前 10 名；而且不只是前 10 名，我們還是成長最快的。我們也經常與歐洲零售商進行 top-to-top 會議，我本人也參加了很多場。他們之所以要求 top-to-top，是因為合在一起，我們推動了零售商很大一部分的銷售成長；我們屬於高周轉品類，能帶來客流。而且我們在兩大品類上都非常創新。所以我認為，我們目前看到的是北美飲料業務的短期績效問題。我們非常清楚需要做什麼，也正在著手執行。而且我們在過去 3、4 年表現非常出色，所以只是有 3 個季度的表現未達預期，我們會把它修正過來，就這樣。

Your next question comes from Nik Modi of RBC Capital Markets.

下一個問題來自 RBC Capital Markets 的 Nik Modi。

I guess a lot of your commentary on the beverage business has been around just stepping up marketing, but we haven't really talked about much on execution. And I'm just wondering, because if you're in the marketplace and you look at a refranchised Coke territory versus a Pepsi territory, you can see a very stark difference in terms of pre and post the refranchising for Coke. And so I'm just wondering, how can you compete in that type of situation where you have these independent franchisees just spending a lot more of their own capital in improving execution at retail versus a company-owned bottling operations? So I just was hoping you can give me some context around that as we think about some of the options you might have in the future.

我想你們對飲料業務的很多評論都圍繞在加大行銷投入，但我們其實沒有太多談到執行面。我只是想問，因為如果你在市場上看一個可口可樂（Coke）完成重新特許經營（refranchising）的區域，對比一個百事的區域，你會看到在可口可樂重新特許經營前後，零售執行方面有非常明顯的差異。所以我想問，在這種情況下你們要如何競爭：那些獨立特許經營裝瓶商投入更多自有資本來改善零售端執行，相較之下你們是公司自營的裝瓶營運？因此我希望你能提供一些背景脈絡，讓我們在思考你們未來可能採取的一些選項時有更多理解。

You're right, Nik. You know what, and this is just our observation because we have studied all these in great detail. In the first couple of years of refranchising, when the parent company gives you a bit of a break, you're spending the parent company's money. After the first 18 months, it's your money that you have to spend. And right now, those independent bottlers are operating on very, very low margins. So the real challenge is going to be, after the first 18 months after refranchising, are they going to be spending their own money off of lower margins already to do what they've been doing in the first 18 months post-refranchising where they got some breaks from the parent company? I don't know, the jury is out. All that I tell you is the evidence in a couple of cases where we've seen the first 12 months passed after refranchising, we're already seeing execution drop off significantly. Again, I'm not passing any judgment, I'm just giving you an observation. Believe me, what we are doing is studying their model in great detail. And if we believe their model makes sense and if we believe that it's a model that can be executed without having to buy back the bottlers again in a few years down the road, the advantage is we can follow it easily. We are in studying mode at this point, along with all other options.

你說得對，Nik。你知道，這只是我們的觀察，因為我們已經非常深入地研究了這些案例。在重新特許經營的頭幾年，當母公司給你一些優惠時，你花的是母公司的錢。在前 18 個月之後，就變成你必須花自己的錢。而現在，那些獨立裝瓶商的利潤率非常、非常低。所以真正的挑戰會是：在重新特許經營後的前 18 個月過去之後，他們是否還會在本來就較低的利潤率之下，繼續用自己的錢投入，去做他們在重新特許經營後前 18 個月所做的那些事（當時他們從母公司獲得了一些優惠）？我不知道，這還有待觀察。我只能告訴你的是，在我們看到的幾個案例中，重新特許經營後的前 12 個月一過，我們已經看到執行力明顯下滑。再次強調，我不是在做任何評判，我只是提供一個觀察。相信我，我們正在非常仔細地研究他們的模式。如果我們相信他們的模式有道理，而且我們相信這個模式可以被執行，而不需要在幾年後又把裝瓶商買回來，那麼我們的優勢在於：我們可以很容易地跟進採用。目前我們處於研究階段，同時也在評估所有其他選項。

Your next question comes from Bonnie Herzog of Wells Fargo.

下一個問題來自 Wells Fargo 的 Bonnie Herzog。

I have a follow-on to an earlier question on price/mix, specifically on channel mix. Could you guys drill down a little on what you're seeing in terms of your businesses in the different channels in the quarter, and then your outlook for the rest of the year and how that may positively or negatively impact your mix? And then just to clarify, you do expect your price/mix to be positive this year, correct?

我想延伸追問先前關於價格/組合（price/mix）的一個問題，特別是通路組合（channel mix）。你們能否更深入說明一下，本季在不同通路中你們各項業務的表現觀察，以及你們對今年剩餘時間的展望，這可能會如何正面或負面地影響你們的組合？另外確認一下，你們確實預期今年的價格/組合會是正向的，對嗎？

Go ahead, Bonnie -- go ahead, Hugh.

你先請，Bonnie——Hugh，你先請。

Yes. First, we're seeing pretty consistent positive pricing across all of the channels. So nothing that you see in the IRI or Nielsen data is different than what we're seeing overall. Second, as regards the year, yes, we absolutely expect pricing that's consistent with what we've seen in the past couple of years. The business pricing performance has been kind of in the 1% to 2% range price/mix. It's typically been around 2%. I think that's probably a reasonable assumption for us. Again, all subject to what happens in the marketplace, but that's, I think, what you can reasonably expect.

是的。第一，我們看到在所有通路都有相當一致的正向定價。所以你在 IRI 或 Nielsen 數據中看到的，與我們整體所看到的並沒有不同。第二，關於今年，是的，我們絕對預期定價會與過去幾年所見一致。業務的定價表現大致落在價格/組合 1% 到 2% 的區間。通常大約在 2% 左右。我認為這對我們來說可能是合理的假設。同樣地，一切仍取決於市場上會發生什麼，但我認為這是你可以合理預期的。

Your next question comes from Steve Powers of Deutsche Bank.

您的下一個問題來自德意志銀行（Deutsche Bank）的 Steve Powers。

Building further on the discussion of snacks and beverages belonging together. As you think about the path to improvement in NAB, I'm just wondering what the role -- the relationship with Frito-Lay is expected to play in that improvement. Because as I listened earlier to the plans for NAB improvement, there definitely seem to be many NAB-specific initiatives under way. But in the context of a broader Better Together, Power of One strategy, I guess, I continue to be somewhat surprised there aren't more joint snacks and beverages efforts being prioritized, such that Fritos enduring strength can theoretically lift beverages. Is that just a misconception on my part, that there aren't more or there isn't more explicit cooperation between the 2 businesses? Or is there evidence that joint beverages versus snacks execution still remains elusive?

延續先前關於零食與飲料應該搭配在一起的討論。當您思考 NAB 改善的路徑時，我想請教，Frito-Lay 的角色——也就是與 Frito-Lay 的關係——預期會在這項改善中扮演什麼作用。因為我先前聽到關於 NAB 改善的計畫時，確實看起來有許多針對 NAB 本身的措施正在推進。但放在更宏觀的「Better Together、Power of One」策略脈絡下，我想我仍有些意外，似乎沒有把更多零食與飲料的聯合行動列為優先事項，讓 Fritos 長期的強勢理論上能帶動飲料。這是否只是我自己的誤解——其實兩個事業之間並非沒有更多、或沒有更明確的合作？或者是否有證據顯示，飲料與零食的聯合執行仍然難以落地？

Oh, great question, Steve. I'd say that there's stuff that happens together behind the scenes and stuff that happens that's visible to all the consumers. For the big holidays, you do see joint promotions. The idea of Power of One is not to force joint activity even if it doesn't make sense because, sometimes, just based on the marketing calendar with various retailers, Frito and Pepsi may be on deal at different times. So we have to be very, very careful that we don't force deal activity when it doesn't make sense. But Super Bowl was an example where the 2 came together in a significant way. But let me speak behind the scenes. We talked about the joint business planning. We talked about technology transfer. Frito-Lay had GES. NAB had geo box. They're all the same technologies. So we negotiate with suppliers in one place. We have the same chassis for both beverages and Frito-Lay. The go-to-market system shares all the best practices between the 2 entities. When we think about customer management, customer databases, how you think about managing the whole customer relationship, we have Power of One customer teams. Our Wal-Mart team is one team. And so behind the scenes, in dealing with the customers, we are one company. From an execution at the shelf perspective, we do displays and joint activity when it makes sense. Foodservice, we go together. As much as possible, we do have joint programs between beverages and snacks, and that gives us a much better seat at the table for many foodservice negotiations. And then our Hello Goodness vending machine, which we are now rolling out pretty fast, that's got both beverage and snack, Better For You, Good For You options in the machine. And that's what's allowing us to win university accounts because they love the fact that we are putting in Good For You, Better For You products in machines and that's both snacks and beverages, and we take care of fulfilling it. And so I think there's lots going on behind the scenes. Your question sounds like music to my ears because I like to do more and more and more. But you've got to be a little bit careful that you don't do Power of One for the sake of Power of One. You do it because it makes sense in terms of driving sales or lowering costs. Then talent, one thing I shouldn't forget. The great thing with NAB is because it's so competitive, if you take a Frito-Lay person, put them in North American Beverages and send them back to Frito-Lay, they are much better executives because they now really learned what it is to be in a dogfight. And so from a talent development, we actually like NAB as a wonderful talent development area where you really earn your stripes for playing in a highly competitive, sort of not just large competitors, but a whole bunch of small competitors and how you navigate that whole minefield.

喔，Steve，問得很好。我會說，有些事情是在幕後一起進行的，也有些是所有消費者都看得到的。在大型節慶期間，你確實會看到聯合促銷。Power of One 的理念並不是在不合理的情況下也要強行做聯合活動，因為有時候，基於各零售商的行銷檔期，Frito 和 Pepsi 可能會在不同時間做促銷。所以我們必須非常、非常小心，不要在不合適的時候硬推促銷活動。但超級盃就是一個例子，兩者以相當顯著的方式結合在一起。不過讓我談談幕後的部分。我們談過聯合商業規劃（joint business planning）。我們談過技術移轉（technology transfer）。Frito-Lay 有 GES。NAB 有 geo box。它們其實是相同的技術。因此我們在同一個地方與供應商談判。我們在飲料與 Frito-Lay 之間使用相同的車體底盤（chassis）。我們的市場進入（go-to-market）系統在兩個實體之間共享所有最佳實務。當我們思考客戶管理、客戶資料庫，以及如何管理整體客戶關係時，我們有 Power of One 的客戶團隊。我們的沃爾瑪（Wal-Mart）團隊就是一個團隊。因此在幕後、在面對客戶時，我們是一家公司。從貨架端執行的角度來看，我們會在合理時做陳列與聯合活動。在餐飲服務（foodservice）方面，我們是一起推進的。在可能的情況下，我們確實在飲料與零食之間推動聯合方案，這也讓我們在許多餐飲服務談判中擁有更好的談判位置。另外，我們的 Hello Goodness 自動販賣機目前正在相當快速地鋪設，機器裡同時有飲料與零食的「Better For You」與「Good For You」選項。這也是我們能贏得大學客戶的原因，因為他們很喜歡我們在機器裡提供 Good For You、Better For You 的產品，而且同時涵蓋零食與飲料，並由我們負責補貨與履約。所以我認為幕後其實有很多事情在進行。你的問題對我來說簡直像音樂一樣悅耳，因為我也希望做得更多、更多、更多。但你也必須稍微小心，不要為了 Power of One 而 Power of One。要做，是因為它在推動銷售或降低成本方面有意義。另外還有人才——有一件事我不該忘記。NAB 很棒的一點是，因為競爭非常激烈，如果你把一位 Frito-Lay 的人放到北美飲料（North American Beverages），再把他送回 Frito-Lay，他會成為更好的主管，因為他真正學會了什麼叫做在激烈競爭中作戰。因此從人才發展的角度，我們其實把 NAB 視為一個很棒的人才培育領域，在高度競爭的環境中，你能真正磨練實力——不只是面對大型競爭者，還有一大堆小型競爭者，以及你如何在那片雷區中穿梭前進。

Your next question comes from Kevin Grundy of Jefferies.

您的下一個問題來自 Jefferies 的 Kevin Grundy。

Quick points of clarification and then a broader question on sports drinks. But the clarification is on NAB and the strategic consideration. So Indra, is there a time line here that will govern the process? In other words, will investors know next quarter, by year-end, et cetera? So if you could just build on that, I think that would be helpful for people. The broader question I have, though, is on the Gatorade business and your view for the sports drink category. Trends have slowed there, seemingly on health and wellness concerns, Gatorade lost some market share despite higher levels of investment. Can you discuss, Indra, your outlook for the Gatorade business now? How that possibly may have changed over the past year or 2 and your level of confidence that new product innovation can improve your trends?

先做幾點快速釐清，然後再問一個關於運動飲料的更宏觀問題。釐清的部分是關於 NAB 與策略性考量。Indra，這裡是否有一個會主導流程的時間表？換句話說，投資人會在下個季度、年底等時間點知道嗎？如果您能就此再補充一些，我想會對大家很有幫助。不過我更宏觀的問題是關於佳得樂（Gatorade）業務，以及您對運動飲料品類的看法。該品類的趨勢似乎因健康與福祉疑慮而放緩，儘管投資水準提高，佳得樂仍流失了一些市占。Indra，您能談談目前對佳得樂業務的展望嗎？過去一到兩年這個看法可能有哪些變化？以及您對新產品創新能改善趨勢的信心程度？

The first question -- and Hugh, I'll make some comments, if you want to add something, please do. Look, this is -- looking at the best way to operate North American Beverages, this is not something new. We've been talking about it for the last 2 years on the call. So we always look at it and say, hey, what's the best way to create value? And that's something we are maniacally focused on. And we studied other companies' activities. We've looked at creative options on our side. But again, we have to make sure, whatever we do does not take us back to the old system of having problems between the bottling company and the concentrate company because this is a big attractive category. And so there is no time frame, Kevin. When we get to a place where we think it makes sense to do something, we'll share it with you. But at this point, we're not going to give you any date because we don't know. We haven't come up with a solution as yet. We're still studying. In terms of Gatorade, the business is still very, very strong. This is like the ready-to-drink coffee business. When some new competitor comes in and decides to drop the pricing substantially and take some share from distribution, the leader, especially a leader like Gatorade, has to be very judicious in not trying to compete on pricing. And so what happens is we allow some distribution build to happen, then we watch to see what happens to velocities of that product. And right now, what we're seeing is, there is some competition in sports drinks. But after the first distribution build, velocities are dropping off. And if some of these companies are actually preparing for sale, you do see them taking on some actions that are not sustainable in the long term. In those cases, Gatorade just has to be very responsible and very careful in its response. It's got to be surgical, and that's what we are doing. We are watching Gatorade shares like a hawk. And whenever we have a competitor that's trying to build distribution through pricing, there's a point or 2 that we might lose, but we always gain it back. It's still the strongest franchise in sports nutrition, bar none.

第一個問題——Hugh，我先講幾點，如果你想補充也請加入。你看，關於如何以最佳方式營運北美飲料（North American Beverages），這不是新議題。過去兩年我們在電話會議上一直在談。所以我們一直都在檢視並問自己：嘿，創造價值的最佳方式是什麼？而這件事我們是近乎偏執地專注。我們研究了其他公司的作法。我們也在我們這邊評估一些創新選項。但同樣地，我們必須確保，不論做什麼，都不會讓我們回到舊體系——也就是裝瓶公司與濃縮液公司之間出現問題——因為這是一個非常具吸引力的大品類。所以，Kevin，沒有時間表。當我們到了一個我們認為採取某些行動有意義的階段，我們會與你們分享。但就目前而言，我們不會給任何日期，因為我們不知道。我們尚未提出解決方案。我們仍在研究。至於佳得樂（Gatorade），這個業務仍然非常、非常強勁。這有點像即飲咖啡（ready-to-drink coffee）業務。當有新的競爭者進來，決定大幅降價並透過通路鋪貨來搶市占時，領導者——尤其像佳得樂這樣的領導品牌——必須非常審慎，不要試圖在價格上競爭。因此通常的情況是，我們會讓對方先完成一波通路鋪貨，然後觀察該產品的動銷（velocities）會如何發展。而我們現在看到的是，運動飲料確實存在一些競爭。但在第一波通路鋪貨之後，動銷正在下滑。而如果其中一些公司其實是在為出售做準備，你確實會看到他們採取一些長期而言不可持續的行動。在這些情況下，佳得樂必須非常負責任、也非常謹慎地回應。必須精準出手（surgical），而這正是我們正在做的。我們像老鷹盯獵物一樣緊盯佳得樂的市占。每當有競爭者試圖透過價格來擴大通路鋪貨時，我們可能會短暫流失一到兩個百分點，但我們總是會把它拿回來。它仍然是運動營養領域最強的品牌資產（franchise），無可匹敵。

Your next question comes from Brett Cooper of Consumer Edge Research.

您的下一個問題來自 Consumer Edge Research 的 Brett Cooper。

A quick question for you. I mean, as the retail environment changes, consumer evolve, is there greater room for collaboration on distribution, both from an efficiency standpoint and potential environmental benefit? I'm thinking specifically within the U.S. or North America.

我有個簡短的問題想請教您。我是說，隨著零售環境改變、消費者也在演變，是否在配送／通路分銷方面有更大的合作空間，無論是從效率角度或潛在的環境效益來看？我特別指的是在美國或北美地區。

Go ahead, Hugh.

Hugh，請。

Yes, Brett, this is Hugh. I think there's always opportunities to do that within the boundaries of competitiveness. So if nothing else, hopefully, this management team has convinced you that we're always looking for avenues for growth that provides good returns. And to the degree that those opportunities present themself or to the degree that we're able to turn over rocks and ferret them out, rest assured, we'll take advantage of them as quickly as we can.

是的，Brett，我是 Hugh。我認為在競爭力的界限之內，總是有機會做到這一點。所以即便沒有別的，我希望這個管理團隊已經讓您相信，我們一直在尋找能帶來良好回報的成長途徑。而在這些機會出現的程度上，或在我們能夠翻找每一塊石頭把它們挖掘出來的程度上，請放心，我們會盡可能迅速地加以把握。

Thank you all for your questions. And let me summarize. We are hyper-focused on improving the financial performance of North American Beverages, but in a responsible and sustainable way. We are very pleased with the very strong performance we are seeing across the balance of the business. And we're on track to deliver our full year financial targets.

感謝各位的提問。讓我做個總結。我們高度聚焦於提升北美飲料業務的財務表現，但會以負責任且可持續的方式進行。我們對於在其餘業務中所看到的非常強勁表現感到非常滿意。而且我們正按計畫達成全年財務目標。

Thank you very much for joining this morning. And thank you for the confidence you've placed in us with your investment.

非常感謝各位今天早上參與。也感謝各位以投資對我們所賦予的信任。

Thank you. And that does conclude PepsiCo's First Quarter 2018 Earnings Conference Call. You may now disconnect.

謝謝。百事公司 2018 年第一季財報電話會議到此結束。您現在可以掛線。