????隨后，在2002年，Hansen's創(chuàng)立了Monster業(yè)務。據(jù)晨星（Morningstar）10月份發(fā)布的分析師報告稱，該公司的飲料產品收入已從2003年的5,000萬美元飆升至2011年的17億美元。收入激增全都歸功于Monster。因此，當今年1月，Hansen's Natural宣布將更名為Monster Beverage時，分析師們也為之喝彩。這完全是出于財務考慮——公司希望更貼近創(chuàng)收主力品牌。

????但Monster也帶來了大風險。功能飲料屬于營養(yǎng)保健品（不屬食品），不歸美國食品與藥物管理局（FDA）管轄。這樣的監(jiān)管狀況或缺乏監(jiān)管的狀況短期內看來不會改變，但分析師們將此視為一項行業(yè)風險。眼下看來，Monster Beverage不再躲在Hansen's大旗下悄悄撈進Monster利潤，而是扛起能量飲料品牌大旗，似乎是明智之舉。

????但如果將來能量飲料被歸入食品和飲料類產品，Monster或許會面臨它作為一家果汁和天然蘇打水公司時從來都不會遇到的難題。既然更名為Monster的轉換已經完成，現(xiàn)在已經沒有回頭路了。

????Then, in 2002, Hansen's created a Monster. The company's revenue from drink products skyrocketed from $50 million in 2003 to $1.7 billion in 2011, according to an October analyst report from Morningstar. The jump was all thanks to Monster. So analysts cheered when this January, Hansen's Natural announced that it would change its name to Monster Beverage. There's a pure financial angle here – the company wanted to identify closest with the brand that generated the bulk of its revenue.

????But Monster also generates the bulk of the risk. Energy drinks aren't considered food but dietary supplements, which aren't regulated by the FDA. The regulation situation, or lack thereof, doesn't look like it will change in the near future, but analysts do consider it an industry risk. For now, Monster Beverage seems smart to capitalize on the brand strength of its spooky neon energy drink instead of quietly raking in Monster profits under a Hansen's umbrella.

????Yet, should energy drinks ever shuffle into the food and drink category, Monster may have a problem on its hands that a fruit-juice and natural soda company never would have faced. And now that the transformation to Monster is complete, there's no going back.