Everyman's fascination with colas-fizzy, brown, sugared, flavoured water-is fast fading. That it lasted as long as it did is a surprise and is, perhaps, attributable as much to the sheer ingenuity of the product-concept of colas (more on this high-sounding term later) as the efforts of rival companies.

Beer, (fresh fruit juice or milk, if you're under the legit age) tastes better than cola. Water is far more effective at quenching thirst. And if you're one of those who have been suckered into drinking cola in the belief that it makes them look cool, or is the adult thing to do, oops, you've been had. If it is about the pursuit of cool, Red Bull, or Snapple (yup, that's cool, just ask Bret Easton Ellis) or Tequila would do the job better. As for playing grown up, you can't get any more adult than Scotch or home-brewed coffee. And, oh yes, no one in their right mind will ever suggest that colas are good for the health.

At the core of the cola concept is nothingness. The perpetual motion machine held the interest of inventors until someone, in a display of bad sportsmanship, proved that there was no such thing. The fact that Pepsi and Coke have been able to build billion-dollar businesses selling air, water, sugar (commonly available ingredients, all) and emotions to people who don't need the resulting concoction is, by itself, an achievement of the power of suggestion that merits some attention.

The operative word in that sentence is some: surely, there's enough to fill up the pages without having to resort to agonisingly detailed descriptions of how Amitabh Bachchan and Sachin Tendulkar indulge in a spot of kite flying in the latest Pepsi commercial? Every report on how the colas are indulging in competitive advertising reads the same. Pepsi's spokesperson tries to work out inventive ways of using the 'Nothing Official About It' phrase that the company coined to counter Coke's sponsorship of the Cricket World Cup in 1996. The usual response of the Coke spokesperson is that the company won't use the Coca-Cola brand, a holy cow, for competitive advertising.

We'd like to think people drink colas the same way they buy music that is eminently forgettable (like that of Britney Spears who, surprise, surprise, actually features in a Pepsi ad): they can't exactly pinpoint why they did it. Maybe the ads churned out by the dream factories on the rolls of companies help. Only, it is difficult to find the usual zing in the latest ads put out by the cola majors in India. Pepsi needs to realise that no number of celebrities can resuscitate an advertisement desperately in need of a plot (to give the company its due, it has done some fine advertising in India in the past). Coke has never looked like getting its ads right in India, so we won't blame it for uninspired advertising, albeit, with some interesting music. Somewhere along the way this whole thing of Pepsi spoofing a Coke ad and Coke getting back through Thums Up, and then Pepsi retorting through Lehar Soda (guys, how low can you stoop?) has started to grate. And to think Ridley Scott, him of Blade Runner fame, actually made some Pepsi and Coke ads in the US in the 1980s.

Unfortunately, consumers won't see the end of the celebrity-driven advertising the colas have adopted in India (an extension of its international strategy for Pepsi; a local innovation for Coke, although the company has made an exception with Spears-clone Christina Aguilera in the US) anytime soon. Both have to count on advertising to sell their respective colas: without the noise, there's no product. And both must be hoping that sooner than latter they will sign on the kind of celebrity who can actually work wonders for the brand. For, despite their high-decibel advertising featuring celebs-of-the-month, both companies have seen the sales of their colas stagnate. The thrill is gone.