Cause marketing -- the practice of tying charitable contributions of a firm directly to customer revenues produced by promoting a product -- is nothing new. Barnes & Noble promotes literacy, Coca-Cola sponsor local boys and Girls Clubs, and many brands support the Race for the Cure for Breast Cancer. Here is a list of the nine most influential cause marketing campaigns of all time.
The altruistic tendencies of Gen Y are giving extra urgency to many brand seeking to connect with under 30 consumers. Pepsi recently announced it would not be participating in the Super Bowl in order to focus on social media. Pepsi's 'Refresh Everything' social media campaign kicks off Wednesday. Pepsi is inviting consumers to nominate and vote on the causes that should receive funds from Pepsi, a classic 'crowdsourcing' effort. Pepsi plans to give away multiple grants each month, including two $250,000 grants, 10 $50,000 grants, and 10 $25,000 grants. Visitors are also encouraged to submit their own organizations and grant ideas, a $20 million effort in all.
This is a risky move for Pepsi, even if it is considerably less expensive than running spots in the Super Bowl. Do you think it will pay off? Do you think this effort will be among the most influential cause marketing campaign of all time? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
I'm glad to see more corporations move toward tackling social causes, but as much as I wish these brand-building strategies would work in the long-run, I think they are likely to be more of a fad than a successful, long-term strategy. It's more likely, in my opinion, that these "doing good" differentiation strategies will work best for the early adopters...but as more companies jump in, it will not be much of a differentiation at all.
Probably more significant, though, is the fact that corporations spending money on humanitarian efforts are in some ways spending money on what economists would call a "public good." Public goods are often goods that people want, but don't want to personally pay for...it's typically when the benefit of the good is spread across a large group of people. Since the money is ultimately coming from consumers of Pepsi, I think a competitor who uses money to pay for benefits that go directly to the consumer when they consume that product are likely to provide more bang for their buck.
This isn't to say I don't think there's a place for this type of brand strategy, or that a company can make money this way, but I think over time it will provide a lower ROI than other strategies that more clearly provide value straight to the consumer.
One final question, though. Will the money Pepsi gives to 501c3 organizations through this campaign be considered tax deductible? (in other words, do nonprofit donations that are actually a form of advertising still provide a company with tax benefits?)
Brian asks a good question, if this tax deductible advertising, then its rather clever. The savings could be huge, assuming widespread publicity for what is basically a publicity effort, though its unclear what costs might associated with publicizing it.
I had never heard of this campaign before, granted I rarely befriend companies on Facebook, but if I'm not alone in that policy, and large segments don't have friends passionately vying for their cause to win, I'm not sure how this can reach large numbers to be called influential.
I do think Pepsi gets points for making news announcing that they aren't advertising this year. People will get to talking whether its some harbinger in a move away from traditional media. Granted its a one time impact, but that's more of an impact then they've made on me in the last few Super Bowls since I can't recall any of their recent campaigns.
Pepsi's engagement in this social media campaign will probably improve its public perception. However I doubt that it will result in brand-differentiation significant enough to allow it to pull customers away from its competitors. It seems to me that people who prefer the taste of Pepsi over Coke buy Pepsi. People who prefer the taste of Coke buy Coke. People who are indifferent buy whichever is cheaper in the store or go for generic brands. In general, both Coke and Pepsi seem to have reached a steady state where new advertising probably doesn't expose them to new customers or to consumers unfamiliar with their brands. The only advantage of advertising for these companies is that it helps them maintain their brand recognition. If Pepsi has found a means to spend less on advertising yet still reach the same (or even a larger) number of people, it is a good move for them. It helps that this move also casts them in a more socially responsible light. However, this advantage may be short-lived; Coke (and other competitors) may follow suit, and as Brian has mentioned, the differentiating effect of this strategy may quickly disappear.
Cause Marketing relationships between for profit and a not for profit groups usually involve non tax deductible dollars because the for profit group expects a direct corporate gain, which in this case, would be the positive publicity generated through its association with the cause.
Although risky, I do think that it is important for Pepsi to diversify their marketing activities, and explore this form of marketing tool. The traditional 30 second ad that comes with sporting event sponsorships (ie, superbowl) has declined in popularity over the years with the advent of new formats and platforms of media consumption – hulu, tivo, etc. As a result, companies are becoming more and more hesitant to spend their marketing dollars in this traditional space.
Pepsi’s Refresh Everything campaign, may not be the most influential campaign of all time because of lack of awareness (the first time I learned about this campaign was also in class today) but this is not to say that cause marketing cannot be successful in generating positive and significant ROI’s. Many companies have proven this method to be successful for both generating ROI’s and creating a positive image in minds of consumers.
This is a huge gamble for Pepsi – thinking about the opportunity cost, it’s not only that they miss the commercial time during the Super Bowl, but also the multitude of viewers who will turn to YouTube and other sites to replay the Super Bowl commercials as well as the reinforced message when the ads air for a period of time thereafter.
As for the question regarding whether or not it may be one of the most influential cause marketing campaigns – I believe it depends on how you measure influence. Monetarily, $20M is a small fraction of the money for those listed in the Top 9 link. Personally, I believe a factor of influence is time. If this is a one-time $20M campaign for Pepsi, I’d have to think that it will not be very influential for the Pepsi brand, specifically. But, if Pepsi is committed to the projects in which it is going to initially invest (to ensure their succeed) or continue the program, then as a consumer I would find a deeper emotional connection to the brand through the effort and types of projects that are supported.
Suzy, thanks for clarifying the tax issue, that makes total sense.
Amy, excellent question about whether this is a long term effort on the part of Pepsi or a one-time campaign. Perhaps the answer depends on how successful it is in meeting Pepsi's objectives for image enhancement, social media buzz and overall awareness?
Ali, I love you point about why people buy soft drinks. Taste is definitely a part of it, but experience has shown it is far from the whole story. How else would you explain the "New Coke" debacle?
Great conversation, looking forward to hearing from more students.
I'm going to take an optimistic stance and guess that Pepsi will see results from this form of advertising.
Understanding that there are many factors that go into the purchase of say Pepsi over Coke, on the grounds of advertising alone I am more likely to purchase Pepsi given their commitment to social altruism rather than a brief, unrelated Superbowl ad.
However, success in this form of marketing does require a few things. A company like Pepsi, with a well regarded brand name and a consistent product, is in a better position utilize this form of advertising than a company with a consistently evoloving product which requires the exposure. However, sucess also requires Pepsi to do some behind the scenes work to facilitate the spread of their campaign. Simply relying on the public to spread the message is foolish. Pepsi needs to quietly ensure that the word is out.
I completely agree with Brian that this advertising strategy will probably work best for those who start early. However, wouldn't it be great if this way of thinking corporations didn't serve to differentiate them, but was instead required to appeal to our generation? Hopefully corporations will move in that direction much like we have seen them commit to sustainablility in order to appeal to customers and employees alike.
I think this project is a right step in the right direction. Corporate Social responsibility is garnering awareness among the millenials and is increasingly becoming a criterion to choose a company - either to work for or to buy products from. Having said that, every company that takes proactive steps in helping social causes may not be successful in enhancing its brand image but a company that consistently shuns this responsibility will alienate its stakeholders. It seems like Pepsi is trying to appeal to both the entrepreneurial spirit of the young population and to the desire to make a difference.
In order for this project to positively impact Pepsi’s Brand, Pepsi should:
1. Increase the promotion of this project.
2. Probably increase the amount of funding that it is currently providing in order to demonstrate that it truly cares about bring an idea to fruition. (the current funds seem to signify a meager percentage of Pepsi’s overall revenues)
3. The tag line should be changed. Refresh everything doesn’t seem to jibe with the idea of creating a difference. The project mentions creating a difference not improving the status quo. So this tag line is inconsistent with goal of the project and may not convey the entire message without reading further about the details
Whether this will be one of the most influential cause marketing campaign depends upon the actual difference the projects that are funded make. This way in the long run, consumers will associate the projects with the funding that Pepsi had provided for them and will elicit a positive feeling towards Pepsi. Time will be the test!
I have a difficult time buying into these more altruistic efforts, especially when they come at the expense of more traditional marketing practices. I think many marketers are tying together social media with the 'green' movement because young people are supposedly engaged with both far more than older generations, but I believe both movements are in danger of ignoring the elephant in the room that is profitability. Until the private sector can find reliable models to make both green tech and social media consistently profitable, they run the risk of being fads that die out, at least in terms of being potential sources of revenue for companies.
That being said, I think social media has far more in common with public relations practices than straight-up advertising, since it is really about relationships and more authentic engagements with the consumer. The problem is, you'd never see a corporation slash their advertising budget in favor of putting more money into PR. For now, these social media efforts and their connection to various social causes are useful only for supporting the overall marketing strategy, which I believe Pepsi is doing with their Refresh campaign. It is not the right move, however, to pull out of the Super Bowl in favor of the fringe benefits afforded by social media. While it's true that traditional television spending does not have nearly the value it once had because of fragmented viewership, it is an absolutely terrible move to make a statement on this by pulling out of the one broadcast that everyone in America actually does still watch together. I remain very skeptical about this course of action.
I don't think the point of the Refresh Everything specifically to sell more soft drinks. Firstly, Pepsi Co is no longer just the soft drinks. It now includes a portfolio of brands (over 200 globally, according to their website) that actively target and ascribe to improving either the performance of the user such as Gatorade, baked snacks like Frito-Lay and Flat Earth, or TrueNorth nut snacks. Changing the perception of the overall Pepsi brand may have a stronger effect on those sub-brands whose values more closely align with this particular projec than others.
Secondly, what could make this effective is by helping define what Pepsi is not - Coke. It's an additional point of differentiation between the two mega-brands, in addition to taste, packaging, name, and advertising 'noise'. It might not make you change your taste preference, but it might make you feel better about your purchase. That brand halo around Pepsi then may extend to other products that you don't have a specific taste for, like TrueNorth nuts versus Planters.
The brands you associate yourself help project and define your identity to other people - and to yourself. So while this might not directly sell more products, I believe it is more about the larger gut feeling people are supposed to feel for the Pepsi family of brands than the cans you prefer to buy out of the vending machine (and then hopefully recycle - but that's a different story...).
I agree with Kate’s point and initially associated the campaign with more than just the soft drink, but found it interesting how the first line that Pepsi flashes on the video is “Could a soda really make the world a better place?”
Good point Amy. I'd venture a guess that was developed by an external marketing team and not their Corporate Citizenship team, given that their official website discusses their platform of 'Performance with a Purpose' across all their brands:
http://www.pepsico.com/Purpose/Sustainability/Performance-with-Purpose.html
Pepsi's strategy is risky and bold. But, their timing could not be better. Social media is hot now, and very few global corporations have effectively utilized social media yet.
Because they are the first corporation to cut Super Bowl advertising after 23 years and replace it with social media, they are receiving significant media attention in places like ABC, CNN, NPR, Reuters, AP and the WSJ.
Pepsi is stepping out into new territory, but I believe it will pay off. Americans who are passionate about their cause are motivated to visit the site every day and spread the word to all of their networks who will in turn visit the Pepsi fan page daily, making the brand top of mind.
Whether or not a consumer drinks Pepsi, the social media campaign increases Pepsi's social responsibility in the mind of the consumer and provides 1:1 interactions with the consumer, which are much more meaningful than a Super Bowl commercial in which viewers can be passive.
This campaign is about increasing Pepsi's brand equity, not necessarily Q3 soft drink sales.
I hadn't heard about this until it was brought up in class as well. I think they stand a good chance to make their money back on this, but I really doubt it will be one of the most influential cause marketing campaigns.
I think this campaign will be limited because of a lack of relevance to consumers and a lack of focus in their objectives. Cause marketing is different from normal marketing in that they're trying to get you to associate their brand with a cause. In "Refresh Everything", Pepsi isn't associating themselves with a cause, they're associating themselves with any cause. The thing about each of the most influential cause marketing campaigns that jumped out to me was how the companies linked the cause with their core values and demonstrated the impact of their contribution. For example, AMEX linked credit (capitalism) and restoration of the Statue of Liberty. Pepsi probably thinks this connects individuality with drinking Pepsi, but it just makes me think they have more money than understanding of their customers. There's no core message to it other than "Pepsi likes social media, just like you!", it doesn't link Pepsi in my mind to any cause, and it doesn't show Pepsi is actually committed to making any substantial difference.
As someone who worked in non-profit fund-raising, I find this campaign extremely interesting because it revolutionizes the way that non-profit organizations interact with donors. It’s no secret that non-profits were hit extremely hard by the financial crisis, and they have experienced severe decreases in donations and support. Most non-profits’ fund-raising model’s outreach was typically one-sided—the non-profit would send the request and the donor would fulfill by making a contribution.
Pepsi’s campaign changes this structure because it is now the donor making the outreach both to the company and to other either current or future donors (who would need to vote on the site). I believe this structure places more pressure on the non-profit, who will now need to seek other ways to differentiate itself from other non-profits who share the same cause. If I am interested in AIDS awareness, why would I vote for one AIDS awareness organization versus another? Perhaps non-profits, which are typically resource-strapped, would need to then develop a more savvy marketing strategy for the non-profit itself. Is dedicating resources that would have otherwise gone towards “the cause” to developing better marketing tactics a good thing?
Overall, Pepsi is taking a risk here, but I believe it is a good one. ‘Refresh Everything’ allows the program participant not just “to give,” but “to give to my cause.” It not only leverages Gen Y’s altruistic tendencies, but also appeals to that “me, me, me” stereotype that is so often linked with our generation.
I must be the Eeyore in the crowd, I'm afraid. Kudos to my classmates for thoughtful comments, but refresh everything is just noise; I think this campaign will prove ephemeral and fade away, just like a pepsi sugar buzz.
Cause marketing is often more effective in brands that just setting their foundation. Clark bars are known for the company's environmentally-friendly stance, which created buzz around the products. However, I believe that established companies like Pepsi have less to gain from cause marketing. It could help Pepsi's overall image, but that will probably only generate moderate sales increases in the long-run. Gen Y is more socially conscious, so by supporting causes now, Pepsi could tap into that market later. This very public offering could be the first step to creating the perception of an altruistic brand.
Pepsi faces two problems with 'Refresh Everything' as a marketing ploy. First, there are many companies that are more socially conscious. Gen Y could easily turn to those beverages quench their thirsts. For example, Honest Tea is more vocal about their corporate social responsibly initiatives. Second, grabbing a drink usually not a well thought-out decision. Most people choose drinks with which they are familiar or simply enjoy the taste, not what parent companies support certain causes. If Pepsi is refreshing everything as a public service, the campaign could be wildly successful. It will provide necessary cash infusions to many worthy causes. If this campaign means to generate sales in the near future, I doubt the chances of success.
Do you think it will pay off?
I hold a negative attitude in the short-run sales growth benefited from it, but positive in the long-run company's image building. The reason I think the campaign can not bring more sales is that the potential participants( orgnizations with high tech, professionals with specialties or ambitious individual with strong responsiblity) are not exactly real buyers( such as Gen-Y). The potential participating professionals might choose more healthy drinks for them and their families.
Do you think this effort will be among the most influential cause marketing campaign of all time? Why or why not?
I doubt the influence. I even doubt if the campaign can stand out from other similar campaigns. First, ideas are too so spreaded that no any project stemed from an idea could have big burget(even USD250000 is still small) and make a big impact. Second, the campaign is not unique among so many silimar campaigns.
There are a lot of good comments here, and I quite agree with most of them, but going back to the question, that is if I found risky this move and if it will pay off? I will say that most of the multinational companies are switching their efforts from traditional marketing to internet specifically social media, so I don’t see this as a risky move, actually I believe the investment in social media will be better than any commercial in the super bowl, moreover; if we try to think what is the main goal of this campaign, I bet that Pepsi won’t measure the campaign effectiveness on how many Pepsis they sold, but they are focusing their efforts in increase/maintain their brand awareness and increase loyalty among customers. Pepsi figure out that the best way to do so is through out a social media campaign, now with that in mind the question for me will be, if I like the campaign? And that is a different history; looking at the different opinions in the blog, it seems quite hard to relate this Pepsi effort with the brand consistency and brand equity at least from the others bloggers point of view, although as Marissa said they are getting a lot of PR from ABC, CNN, and so on and more important from MBA student (hehe) than they would get with a commercial in the super bowl.
P.S. The site is quite difficult to navigate, it took me a lot of time to watch the video, but at the same time they have 284k plus fans at facebook.
In my former job, my employer emphasized the idea of running a company that stressed the '3-P's'...people, planet, and profit. In other words, part of the core principles that this particular employer embodied was to serve the greater good; while making huge profits. Risky? Yes. But it sure paid off. Just last year this particular company spent about 1/4 of the money their biggest competitors did on advertising, and as a result, gained several points in market share and increasing sales dramatically.
I think right now, the way the economy is, consumers really appreciate when a company has it in them to give back to the great good. Consider this...I bet just as many people will be 'aware' of Pepsi as a result of their 'Refresh Everything' campaign as they would if Pepsi advertised during the game. When they read the article in the NY Times/Wall Street Journal or see the nightly news case about it, consumers will still think, Pepsi = Good!
On one hand I do think this will be profitable, on the other, I'm not totally convinced it will be the best marketing campaign of all time. That's a pretty big statement. I think it's a great way to 'weather the storm', but I don't think you're going to see unbelievable rises in sales as a result.
This is a very gutsy move by Pepsi, to say the least. This plan has the potential to reach more people that a Super Bowl ad ever will. Worst case scenario, they spent $20 million for some good PR.
I'm a bit skeptical about the execution though. Like many of the people here, I had not heard of this campaign until it was mentioned in class. Maybe I'm just not as updated on current events as I thought I was. And who knows, maybe Pepsi is planning a major media blitz as we get closer to the Super Bowl.
I think they’re missing a great opportunity by not advertising during the Super Bowl though. They could have capitalized on the opportunity to educate people about the Refresh Project. Social media is the future and all, but it is more effective when utilized as part of a multi-channel marketing campaign. I’m all for bold moves, but Pepsi should have hedged its bet this time.
Lots of good thoughts expressed here.
I agree with Katie's initial comment that the campaign is much more about expanding the brand and not about selling soft drinks. The issue I will take on is that which many of the comments have touched on: Did Pepsi launch this campaign because it may be more profitable than running an ad in the Super Bowl? Or does Pepsi truly intend to expand its brand and overall footprint to permanently feature cause marketing?
While cause marketing, sustainability, and going green are critical needs in today's business world, they are also "trendy." Saving the planet is just the "cool" thing to do right now. How can consumers be assured that the Refresh campaign is truly altruistic and that it does not offer significantly MORE revenue than what can be earned from a Super Bowl Ad?
On the flip side, if Pepsi is truly expanding its brand to encompass an altruistic theme, then perhaps it should inform consumers of other initiatives it plans to take on in the future. Consumers need to be assured that the Pepsi's altruism is here to stay and not just the soup du jour.
Only time will tell what Pepsi's real intentions were behind the Refresh campaign. Personally, I do hope that the public works efforts are here to stay.
There are some great comments on here. As Ali said I do not think this campaign will have any differentiating effect for Pepsi. i do think it is a great idea, and I do think it will be successful in reaching the same number of people (if not more) than it would by advertising in the Super Bowl, at a cheaper price. I do not think that this will be a path that many companies follow n the future, and I do not think that we will see many, if any, other companies pull out of the Super Bowl advertisements next year. I believe it was an extremely smart move by Pepsi as a one year strategy because I believe that the announcers and publicity attained otherwise by pulling out of the Super Bowl ads has already begun to pay off. But, in the future, this will not be a smart strategy, I do not think, since it will not be as much of a shocker as it was this year. It will not receive the media buzz as it will this year if it repeats in the future.
As far as a social media campaign, I believe this is a good and will have no problem taking off (even for those of us who heard about it just in class!). The word for this will spread so quickly after the launch. These kind of campaigns tend to find participants/followers via all the social media outlets. There are a lot of passionate people out there with strong social networks who can probably be convince quite a few people to take 10 seconds a click on a cause. There is nothing to lose, right?
But I have to agree with Ali, people have made a decision about whether they like the taste of Coke or Pepsi. I know I have. A campaign like this whether it be for Pepsi or Coke would not change the choice of which product I would purchase given the choice. But that being said, I don't think that not having superbowl advertisements will lose any consumers or market share for Pepsi, I just dont think that this campaign will bring more supporters.
With other companies/products, I think there are tendencies for people to purchase products based on the "good" that the company is doing. For example, some people will pay more for a Patagonia shirt because it is environmentally friendly. Or you will pay $5 more for a red product because that $5 is going to the (RED) campaign. Or you will pay more for some commodity because it was produced by a women's microenterprise in Ghana. But unfortunately, I just do not think that there is a substitute for Coke or Pepsi preference, no matter how much good one of the companies is doing in the world.
I believe PEPSI is moving from one extreme of the mass media advertising (Super Bowl) to the other (social media), not everything is black or white, such a big shift has to be thought thoroughly. It is proven by Nielsen studies that the best communication and promotional efforts are those where all the company efforts are allocated to the same purpose and encompass a series of activities (push and pull) and uses a series of media vehicles (traditional and below the line). I believe this effort could make a much bigger impact if it was communicated through massive media (which do not necessarily mean to have presence at the Super Bowl) or even BTL (POS, malls, universities) activities… it could be turned into a truly massive social media campaign.
Granted millennial media affinity, message exposure and retention may be efficiently reached through media 2.0, but does this mean that it is the single and most effective way? I believe this is a great experiment (a $20 million dollar one) that would cause PEPSI to have a good impact, build loyalty and keep growing a CSR (corporate social responsibility) image, but I do not believe it is the greatest moment to do so (we are in a recession) What is going to happen if sales plummet? Will they keep this campaign within their long-term marketing strategy (Keep in mind that short term efforts are not good enough for any campaign, especially not for one which is trying to create a new concept, one that lies far behind from what the brand stands for, one that seeks to incorporate an “intangible benefit” to the brand equity DNA. All these take time to be credible and understood. Will PEPSI stand the challenge? Will sales grow enough in such a hard economic time so as to justify this effort? If so, they will be successful, if not it is going to caught the eye of the media (PR) for a while and then disappear (but it seems such a waste for such a good cause)
Also, I agree with Rob, what specific cause are they supporting? There is a lot of money but it is to be split into so many interests that it may end up doing a limited within the advocates of each cause. Consumers will remember PEPSI as being a huge ambassador for Non Profit causes but so too can you remember many companies like this. I believe the brand should “marry” with one idea that the audience could relate the brand more easily with. “Refresh everything” is a good name but what does everything means?
I don't want to be *too* cynical...but I do it well, so here's my two cents.
While I think Pepsi's use of social media in this sense is interesting and innovative, and perhaps not solely for selling more products (though really, that's what they're hoping for), I don't quite see why they pull the Super Bowl ads but not donate that exact amount to causes. It will be interesting to see if, once Coca Cola's ads are broadcast - assuming they do so, of course - Pepsi really lays it on thick about how they didn't have an ad because they're donating money to causes...while Coca Cola has quietly (at least to me, until recently) carried on its social responsibility campaign and donated quite a bit of money to different causes.
On the Coca Cola thread - the response to the Pepsi campaign was quick and costly: several full-page ads in USA Today, focusing on the company's "green" philosophy among other things. It was almost as if to say, "we can run ads AND do good."
Guess we'll have to wait and see what happens!
Empowerment. Independence. Emotion. All main drivers of any successful campaign - people want the ability to make their own decisions based on their own feelings. By opening its coffers to the public through these grant offerings, Pepsi will show the nation that it has faith in us to best allocate its funds to the charitable causes that mean the most to us - the ones with which we will feel an emotional connection. Provided the company maintains its monetary commitment to this effort long enough to establish a reputation, it will enjoy a huge boost in both worldwide exposure and brand loyalty as more people get involved and hear the success stories of the chosen initiatives. What may initially be a rather small group of participants will inevitably grow as the grant money is used, Pepsi is acknowledged, and more people apply for and vote on new projects. By incentivizing people to think and act, Pepsi will encourage them to become more active volunteers, realizing they can make a difference in the world. Despite what one may attribute to taste, the decision to purchase a soda has more to do with the subconscious emotion elicited when seeing the logo or saying the brand name than it does with the flavor of the drink inside the can; we humans acquire whatever taste our brain associates with positive feelings (think about how terrible beer tasted when we were young versus how delicious it sounds right now). Big win for Pepsi.
“If not us, who. If not now, when?” –Robert F. Kennedy
My initial reaction to the Pepsi Refresh campaign was that it was a fabulous idea. I was, personally, instantly won over by Pepsi. And I hate Pepsi. Then again, I probably would have hated the idea of wearing a little yellow piece of rubber around my wrist, if I had thought about it, 8 years ago. I know I would have hated the idea of giving up a Saturday at the beach to strap on a tool belt and hammer a couple of 2x4s together. But connect these activities with a cause and I’m sold. It could be that I’m just a bleeding heart, but I think it’s about 99% more likely that I’m just generation Y.
There are some great questions and ideas on this wall. I wanted to address the concern that’s been reiterated a few times: Refresh is Risky. Yes, I understand that Superbowl ads are coveted exposure, that the company gets to sit in America’s living room for 30 seconds. However, I cannot believe losing this exposure is not going to affect how many Pepsi’s are sold—as several of you have mentioned. So instead of sitting in America’s living room for 30 seconds, Pepsi has the chance to increase its brand equity and resonate with a generation who backordered Livestrong bracelets and skyrocketed Habitat for Humanity participation, a generation that is becoming increasingly more globally aware and socially responsible. With the dawn of the tech era and the increasingly boundless mechanisms of the communication, the way generations think is becoming and will become more sophisticated. With such sophistication will come an ever increasing commitment to global social responsibility and efficacy. Matt mentioned his company mantra: People. Planet. Profit. Joe mentioned self-empowerment. These ideas are generation Y. We are being conditioned to think that we have the capacity to better global society, and we plan to do it. With Refresh, Pepsi attempts to evolve with generation Y. People. Planet. Profit. I don’t think it’s a trend, I think it’s a shift in a school of thought, and companies like Pepsi need to be on board.
Whether this is altruistic or enlightened self interest, Pepsi has capitalized on the Super Bowl already by not participating in it. I can't tell anyone who is participating in the Super Bowl ad blitz, but I certainly know one who isn't. That in itself is valuable, and Pepsi has done a great job of capitalizing on it.
As for the specific cause, Pepsi has an interesting idea to engage both current and potential customers in voting on favorite cause. Though there are plenty of these types of initiatives, Pepsi is smart to enter into this area. the tactics employed a generation ago are not effective in building a brand with younger generations. Because these consumers are asking for more from companies and products, Pepsi needed to deviate from familiar methods to continue to build its brand. I think it will pay off for this already strong brand.
While I think that it is very interesting that PepsiCo isn't investing in advertisements during the super bowl, they are still heavily promoting their soft drinks during the playoff games leading up to the super bowl. They haven't completely pulled all of their advertising dollars during NFL football games, which makes me ask the questions - is PepsiCo 100% confident in their 'Refresh Everything' campaign?
Because of these Pepsi ads that are currently running during playoff games, I would have to answer 'No.' What is ironic is the 'Refresh Everything' campaign will attract and target a completely different demographic than their super bowl ads target. I would conclude that PepsiCo doesn't want to put all their faith in this new campaign and ultimately defining this advertisement investment as a risky move.
In analyzing the effectiveness of this campaign, I am skeptical of the influence this campaign will have in driving higher Pepsi sales. I don't believe that it will be one of the most influential campaigns of all time but I don't doubt that the overall 'Refresh Everything' Campaign wont be successful. But I know that I totally underestimate the power of the web. While I talk about social media and social networking as the new buzz words that we are all using, I forget how powerful the web truly is and how a campaign like 'Refresh Everything' can grow and thrive virally very quickly.
Anyone experience anything about the easy google profit kit? I discovered a lot of advertisements around it. I also found a site that is supposedly a review of the program, but the whole thing seems kind of sketchy to me. However, the cost is low so I’m going to go ahead and try it out, unless any of you have experience with this system first hand?
www.onlineuniversalwork
Post a Comment