Charles Guth


© History Oasis

Charles Guth lived a remarkable life of both controversy and success in the early 20th century soda industry.

As a businessman, he displayed cunning opportunism in acquiring distressed assets, focusing first on a foundering Pepsi brand before later targeting the obscure Noxie-Kola company.

But Guth's drive came at a troubling moral price, including his contested killing of an African American employee years prior that underscored the racial inequities of Guth's era.


portrait of George A. Murphy
© History Oasis

As a prominent businessman living in Baltimore in 1913, Charles Guth employed an African American man named George A. Murphy as his personal chauffeur.

Tensions between the two men came to a head in September of that year, culminating in a violent altercation that left Murphy dead at Guth's hand.

According to Guth's testimony, he had decided to fire Murphy and a dispute arose in which the chauffeur allegedly attacked Guth with an ax.

Acting in what he claimed was self-defense, Guth responded by shooting Murphy dead.

While deemed credible by both a coroner’s jury and a grand jury at the time, Guth's version of events was vehemently disputed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

In their view, the incident represented little more than the senseless killing of a black man by his white employer, whom they suspected had acted callously if not maliciously, contrary to Guth's claims of provoked self-defense.

The NAACP pointed to the repeated injustices afforded to black Americans in cases like this, and described Guth's acquittal as a gross miscarriage of justice enabled by the endemic racism of the time.

The case spotlighted not only the fraught nature of race relations, but also the commonplace legal inequities that saw white violence against black lives routinely pardoned in the early 20th century.

For groups like the NAACP, it underscored the steep hurdles facing their cause and just how cheaply black lives were valued in the eyes of courts and society at that time.

More broadly, this case reflected the simmering racial tensions of an era that would erupt in civil unrest in cities like Baltimore only a few decades later.


A Loft Candy storefront
© History Oasis

In 1929, Charles Guth leveraged his position as president of the Mavis Candies company to secure greater power within the candy industry in Baltimore.

That year, the much larger Loft Candy Company purchased Mavis Candies, folding it into their growing confectionary empire.

As part of the acquisition deal negotiated by Guth, he was promptly rewarded for brokering the purchase with an appointment to Vice President of Loft.

His rapid ascent from leader of a small candy outfit to second-in-command of the dominant candy corporation in Baltimore reflected Guth's burgeoning influence and ambition within the consumer goods landscape of early 20th century America.

The deal also marked an era of aggressive expansion and consolidation within the candy trade as companies bought up rivals and incorporated them into ever-larger conglomerates.

By catapulting Guth into the executive ranks of Loft, it set the stage for his subsequent transition several years later into the soda industry, when he would bring the same bold tactics to resurrect the failing Pepsi company.


© History Oasis

As Charles Guth's experience in the candy business grew in the early 1930s, so too did his determination to make a mark within the booming soda industry.

Guth set his sights on gaining concession rights to sell Coca-Cola at his Baltimore drugstore, but was frustrated when the Coca-Cola Company refused to grant him favorable distribution terms.

Incensed by Coca-Cola's rejection, Guth began selling rival soda brand Pepsi-Cola instead.

When the Pepsi-Cola Company fell into bankruptcy in 1931—for the second time in its turbulent history—the opportunistic Guth sensed an opening. He quickly snapped up the company's assets for a bargain price of $10,500.

The remarkably small sum Guth paid to purchase Pepsi in 1931 underscores just how far the company's prospects had cratered.

But where others saw a crisis, Guth scented possibility.

By gaining outright ownership of the Pepsi trademark, patents, bottling infrastructure at rock-bottom bankruptcy prices, Guth acquired the framework to challenge Coca-Cola's supremacy—if he could revive public faith in such a beleaguered soda brand.

His gambit would require deft handling in pivoting a company with two bankruptcies under its belt toward profitability.

Fortunately Guth's prior experience ascending the corporate ladder in candy and soda distribution equipped him for the challenge of transforming Pepsi's fortunes.


© History Oasis

When Charles Guth took ownership of Pepsi-Cola in 1931, the company was in dire straits, struggling to capture even a fraction of the market share enjoyed by rival Coca-Cola.

Guth moved swiftly to revitalize the failing soda company through an updated recipe and revised pricing model aimed at making its drinks more appealing and affordable to Depression-era consumers.

Guth worked closely with chemists to tweak Pepsi’s flagship cola formula to better highlight its sweeter, citrusy flavor profile compared to Coca-Cola’s more mellow blend.

Next he introduced a 12 ounce Pepsi bottle for the cost of rival sodas sold in 6 ounce portions. By boosting affordability and value, Pepsi began gaining ground on incumbent brands.

Within just a few years, Guth’s savvy changes to branding and pricing catalyzed phenomenal growth for Pepsi-Cola across the 1930s.

By 1936 Pepsi’s annual sales rocketed to 500 million bottles, capturing the tastes of consumers won over by its revamped cola recipe and economic multi-serve bottles.

With Americans drinking Pepsi in unprecedented numbers, company profits swelled to an impressive $2 million annually by 1936.

Through creative chemistry and innovative value deals, Guth led Pepsi out of its doldrums to surging prosperity. His repositioning of an underdog cola brand laid the commercial groundwork for Pepsi to ultimately become the global beverage titans it remains today.


Trial of Charles Guth
© History Oasis

While Charles Guth proved adept at resurrecting Pepsi-Cola, his aggressive efforts to expand the company soon raised legal issues with his role as president of the Loft Candy Company.

In 1935 Loft filed suit against Guth, alleging he improperly leveraged Loft resources to revive Pepsi.

Specifically, Loft asserted that Guth exploited their finances, facilities, personnel and commercial assets to fuel Pepsi's rise.

By neglecting his responsibilities at Loft in favor of devoting company resources to Pepsi's enrichment, Guth stood accused of breaching his fiduciary duty of loyalty.

The ruling in the case, ultimately against Guth in 1939, established precedent around misappropriation of corporate resources toward external side businesses.

The legal opinion held that Guth violated good faith as a corporate officer, placing personal commercial interests ahead of the company to whom he owed a duty of care.

The case enshrined into case law what became colloquially known as the "Guth rule".

This guiding principle enumerated that company executives shall not divert business opportunities toward their own separate enterprises if the parent entity is financially stable enough to undertake said opportunity themselves in line with corporate bylaws.

By upholding charges leveled against Guth, the verdict underscored limitations against enrichment that comes at the expense of an employer's assets and shareholder interests.

The Guth rule emerged as a bulwark against corporate malfeasance by officers seeking to line personal pockets rather than steward resources faithfully on a company’s behalf.


vintage ad of Noxie-Kola
© History Oasis

After the 1939 court decision forcibly severed Charles Guth's leadership tenure at Pepsi-Cola, the discharged executive carried his talents in resuscitating failing soda brands to a new firm—Noxie-Kola.

Much like Pepsi before Guth's intervention, the Noxie-Kola Company was an underperforming cola manufacturer struggling to stay solvent.

Guth saw in this distressed asset an ideal project to prove he could replicate the revitalization stratagems that reversed Pepsi's slide into irrelevance years prior.

Details surrounding Guth's strategy guiding the Noxie-Kola Company post his installation as an executive there are scarce.

Yet presumably he once more deployed an inventive array of recipe improvements, aggressive pricing promotions and wider distribution pushes to elevate public awareness of a little-known niche soda brand.

While Noxie-Kola never reached the heights Guth steered Pepsi toward, even modest success likely validated his core strengths as an ingenious turnaround specialist capable of resuscitating brands via shrewd chemistry calibration and economic customer engagement.

It underscored Guth's specialized capacity to transform companies in crisis into thriving enterprises.