Quoting the only part of the page that agrees with you and ignoring the rest is pretty lame. The article repeats several times throughout, literally like once every other paragraph, that Coca Cola had no hand in creating the image. They did not, as you claim, “make him only red today”-- that image of Santa Claus was standardized before they used him in their advertisements. What Coca-Cola did do is help spread the existing standard image of Santa Claus, and if that’s all you’re arguing, then I agree, although I believe it was likely to happen regardless.

For anyone reading this comment thread, the relevant counterpoint from the snopes article is this:

It is true that, since Santa Claus is an evolutionary figure, he did not suddenly appear fully-formed one day and immediately supplant every other character traditionally associated with Christmas. However, it is not true in any realistic sense that Coca-Cola “created” the modern Santa Claus: they did not invent the now-familiar rotund, bearded fellow clothed in red-and-white garb, nor did they pluck him from a pantheon of competing, visually different Christmastime figures and elevate him to the supreme symbol of Christmas gift-giving. The red-and-white Santa figure existed long before Coca-Cola began featuring him in print advertisements, and he had already supplanted a bevy of competitors to become the standard representation of Santa Claus before he began his tenure as a pitchman for Coke.