Can Pepsi buy its way into community and social media?
Pepsi does have some experience in community service.
By now everyone knows that Pepsi has pulled out of the Superbowl after 23 consecutive years. Instead the company plans to funnel the better hunk of its advertising budget into online programs such as the Pepsi Refresh Project, an effort that will fund thousands of consumer conceived initiatives with $5,000, $25,000, $50,000 and $250,000 grants. According to Pepsi, they’re looking for ideas that “make us think, inspire us and ignite participation” in categories that include health, arts & culture, food & shelter, the planet, neighborhoods and education.
If anyone’s been wondering when social media would move from the wings onto the main stage, this might be it. While a lot of us have been trying to steer clients in this direction one conversation at a time, preliminary reports suggest that Pepsi is getting out the checkbook, the creative guns, and the PR machine and taking social media to a new level by using the tools and tactics (community, conversation) along with the platforms (Twitter, Facebook) to harness the power of the crowd. It’s not like other companies and organizations haven’t done this, but a $20 million-plus commitment is worth noting.
Done right the Pepsi Refresh Project has the potential to create one of the first examples of a company being a social media company rather than simply a company doing social media. But I intentionally put the emphasis on the word potential.
Social media at its best is about listening, engaging, connecting and inspiring. At first glance Pepsi’s efforts seem a little bit more about buying. Whether or not the effort turns out to be genuine and authentic remains to be seen.
To date the companies most committed to social media (Zappos, Whole Foods, Starbucks) are brands that have community and customer engagement in their DNA. None of them have traditionally been outbound marketers dependent on advertising that interrupts. They’ve used social media naturally for everything from customer service to community building and crowdsourcing.
The question is whether Pepsi, simply by giving away money and deciding to support causes, will come across as authentic or exploitive.
Either way we can be sure of one thing. Big brands’ dependence on old media continues to decline. What do you think? Will Pepsi set in example? Or be made an example of?
Comments
When we do the math, note that not all impressions are created equal. Most TV commercials, even really good ones, have fairly limited impact.
But, a few become part of the culture and resonate for a very long time. 26 years on, Apple's "1984" commercial still matters. Should we still measure its impact based on how many impressions it generated on its one and only airing?
I applaud Pepsi for trying this bold experiment. Maybe it will be their "1984" for social media. Maybe not.
Whatever the outcome, we've all been given a huge gift: the opportunity to learn a lot on Pepsi's nickel, without bearing any of the risk.
For that alone, I plan to buy some Pepsi over the Holidays. Somebody please add $10 to Pepsi's ROI figures :-)
What, you don't remember Michael Jackson's hair lighting on fire?
It is a noble effort, but unfortunately I doubt it it will be as revolutionary as some people think it will be. Pepsi is perennial second-place brand. They will not surpass Coca-Cola, so any success they have with this campaign, (and don't get me wrong, I think it will have success) will be overshadowed by their inability to move into the top spot. Besides, Mountain Dew has done similar things before, asking consumers to pick new flavors and design bottles, and it didn't have any sort of revolutionary success. Who knows, I could be completely wrong however, and be poor and bitter when this competition is over.
Daniel:
You can look at this multiple ways. Desperation in that they can't compete with Coke in ad space. Admission and declaration that old media doesn't have the power and impact it once did. Acknowledgement that consumers want and even insist on new kinds of relationships with the brands in their lives. We all can't be number one in our business or category, but we have to keep trying stuff. I'm interested to see if Pepsi can make community and conversation a valid marketing solution in a category that's more about frequent purchase and consumption rather than about content and real interaction. You buy a Mac and you start a long relationship with Apple that transcends one product. You buy a can of Pepsi and you just drink it and maybe buy another one the next day. Different relationship.
I absolutely think Pepsi will set and example and everyone will turn to them for a bit and give them pats on the back with a blog post or two. Over time, if campaigns like this become easily replicated and are, then it all becomes clutter once again. There are so many "initiatives" over a 10 month span that requires continued audience engagement that Pepsi's biggest challenge is going to have people come back for more. I believe the numbers you'll see over time of voters coming back, and overall participation will look similar the ratings chart of Jay Leno's attempt at the 10 O'Clock time slot.
Tyler:
You may be right. Real challenge for brands is whether they can create communities that are fueled by the community members and that reach some level of scale as they build themselves. Dell's service site, Coca Cola's fan page are a couple of examples. Tough to get the reach a mainstream brand needs in sm alone right now. But if the word of mouth from a growing and active community can achieve significant reach levels and become self-perpetuating, we'll see more of this. As I've suggested before, eventually being there won't be enough, will need constant creative refreshment. No pun intended.
I think Pepsi will set an example. The idea is innovative, but I wonder how many times it can be executed by other companies and still be considered new and exciting, or authentic rather than exploitive.
.-= Veronica Bakeru00c2u00b4s last blog ..veronicabaker: Social media matters because it has redefined the way we communicate as friends, consumers, brands, marketers and more #ESM. =-.
My problem with the whole thing is the comparision - bad ol' TV (or traditional) vs Social Media. I think Pepsi is comparing apples and oranges and so are we. Pepsi has ceased to be a marketing (and advertising) icon ages ago. This is one more desperate attempt to change the rules of the game that I am not sure will work.
.-= Subbuu00c2u00b4s last blog ..Mozilla Project - The uncut story =-.
You may be right. They have fallen way behind Coke when it comes to the big, embraced by all TV spot. No doubt why they changed agencies. I give credit to their new shop TBWA Chiat Day for trying some new things. And if they were a small company they would be applauded for experimenting and exploring ways to build community. Because they're a behemoth, they're instantly analyzed and picked apart. Ben Kunz's comment is a good one. This makes total sense on the numbers alone. Whether it turns out to be about the money and numbers or about real purpose and community will take a little longer to determine.
If I were Pepsi I'd probably have concentrated on Fun activities rather than causes that make a difference.
Why do these causes embody their brand? Integrate the brand essence into the community funded creativity. Pepsi is still the fun / active brand not a socially conscious brand. Unless they are successful in deeply embedding the brand into the lives of the participants this will fail in the long haul. It'll come across as a big fat expensive PR event using social media. PR events typically have a short half life.
Just my opinion but it will be much more fascinating if I'm wrong.
.-= Bruce DeBoeru00c2u00b4s last blog ..A Message for Crowdsourcing Fans from PermissionToSuck.com =-.
Well the Obama logo sure felt that way. But we are in an age when brands need to try new things and discover ways to embrace and connect with their communities. It does make more sense when a brand's social efforts connect naturally to its brand essence. Timberland and outdoor causes. Apple and education. Nike and fitness. Same thing with how brands use celebrities. If there's not a natural connection it will always feel contrived. Pepsi is trying to take its word "refresh" and give it new meaning as there's not much else it can turn the product into. Still, they're a big enough company with $$, impact and reach to try and make a difference. The how will be as important as the what.
I think that's right. I agree that this could be a milestone but it just might be that the milestone will happen when we stop calling social media "social" and simply fold it into a seamless strategy.
We (marketing folks) have been trying to touch emotional hot buttons for generations and now emotions aren't enough, we need passion. Luckily, along come the tools that offer passionate opportunities. Good stuff.
.-= Bruce DeBoeru00c2u00b4s last blog ..A Message for Crowdsourcing Fans from PermissionToSuck.com =-.
Most recently I experienced pepsi as being anti-social and creating an unfresh twitter move. I had been researching and dialoging with both pepsi and coke zero. I played out a fun relationship based conversation where I wanted to see 'other' zero calorie sodas but ultimately ended up with coke zero. Pepsi's jealousy ended up rewarded me for tweeting up competition by blocking me from there site. This all might be a noble marketing effort but if they can't control common simple courtesies as twitter admins then it's all not worth a social media push. Here is the petition to demonstrate and document what I went through as this really happened.
petition @pepsi to Free @mrBeanStalker, stop consumer brand discrimination with Twitter followers http://act.ly/1hq RT to sign #actly
.-= Terry Rogersu00c2u00b4s last blog ..mrBeanStalker: RT @eproulx: Love this --> Wooster Collective: David Choe's Sketches On The Train http://bit.ly/6DCwgO =-.
Well there's a perfect example of what I am talking about. The difference between being social and just doing social. If Pepsi chooses to take those kinds of actions, they'll incur as much wrath as they do accolades. You would think that a brand even the smallest amount of experience in the space would choose to engage rather than avoid.
Found it to be silly on a lot of levels for a 'grown-up' global brand to do this, but at the end of the day it's usually young admins who do not realize or know better what they are representing in the social space as no one knows how to supervise this. Have been conducting these research experiments for a little while now and trip into this more often than not. People are still human and will can easily confuse or blur the lines with personal dialog in the social arena. It seems that brand and social media views can almost be as hot of a topic as religion and politics these days.
.-= Terry Rogersu00c2u00b4s last blog ..mrBeanStalker: RT @GOOD: The decade in culture: http://su.pr/1BYscP Ten years of trucker hats, bad TV, and social media. (by @brainpicker) =-.
Interesting. Since there is often a single person behind brands being social, how long do you suppose it will take before one employee makes a mistake big enough to cause problems for a brand causeing all social media to be screened through the PR department? Ha - here we go.
.-= Bruce DeBoeru00c2u00b4s last blog ..A Message for Crowdsourcing Fans from PermissionToSuck.com =-.
Not that long and it's a loaded tweet waiting to happen. Definitely makes for an entertaining brand study with social as this is one of the fear obstacles clients have been dreading with bad PR. This is so overlooked but it's their own employees that will probably be the biggest vulnerability as opposed to the pissed off consumer. At least an unhappy customer tells you what is wrong and is more than willing to consult on how to fix it to a level of satisfaction. An employee mistake is the company's problem as they represent the brand and product.
.-= Terry Rogersu00c2u00b4s last blog ..mrBeanStalker: Least amount of sunlight today since it's the Winter Solstice. This will mean more light in my life. Yeah, only upside from here. =-.
I think it's genius. Let's get out the calculator to see why:
On one hand, $20 million could buy Pepsi seven :30 second spots on the SuperBowl (at about $3 million each), reaching a little more than 90 million viewers. The ads would be clever. People might talk. For three days or so. And then, gone. And most of those viewers likely wouldn't even recall the ads, busy chatting in parties.
On the social media front, $20 million at an average $1 per truly engaged social media reader would reach only 20 million viewers ... but in a series of real impressions, with people seeing Pepsi through the social media formats they want. The conversations would likely be much more meaningful, because friends of Chris Brogan might see him espouse Pepsi (as much as I don't like paid posts) and fans of cause marketing might see Pepsi give food to the homeless, etc. Because social media is immersive, people only watch what they care about, and Pepsi would intercept them. And odds are, of those 20 million real impressions, thousands would become engaged in actions that act as Pepsi brand advocates.
If Pepsi achieves only a tenfold multiple, it's gotten 200 million impressions vs. 90 million ... in formats that are unusual, new, opt-in, and most likely to make real impact. And ... by spreading its bets among thousands of consumer-generated initiatives, Pepsi has created a random learning lab to find the marketing messages and tactics most likely to succeed at scale in the next campaign.
It seems like a very smart move -- in essence, crowdsourcing the commercial among those most likely to send it viral to others.
It also points out the days of SuperBowl ads being one of the last vestiges of effective advertising may be waning. Yeah, it's all good comedy ... but can anyone name five brands that advertised in last year's Superbowl? And can you think of one purchase those ads led you to make?
.-= Ben Kunzu00c2u00b4s last blog ..2010: Year of the oh-so-sexy tablet =-.
Ben,
Was waiting for you to show up. Proof that all of this has to be quantified and when you look at the numbers it makes total sense. Lessons in your comment for brands everywhere to start thinking about how to justify an investment in social media. (I still think that Pepsi has to be careful about the groups it supports and the brand needs to be honest and objective; for example will they support a group trying to get junk food out of public schools? I fear not.) But your numbers point out it's a no brainer when it comes to the trade off. You are right, ads come and go and may barely be remembered. But if you can achieve scale through community, pass along, participation and the fact that consumers and community members themselves are broadcasters and distribution channels, it is, unarguably, the new way to market, connect, engage and inspire. It's media for the next generation.
Media for the Pepsi Generation? ugh - sorry.
.-= Bruce DeBoeru00c2u00b4s last blog ..A Message for Crowdsourcing Fans from PermissionToSuck.com =-.
It will all come down to how they manage the selection and distribution of the funds. If they end up funding some organization or efforts that are not politically correct then the damage of headlines like "Pepsi Funds the KKK" will do more damage the the positives of customer engagement. Let's hope the get it right.
By the way here in Spain there is Coke Light, Coke Zero, Coke Light without Caffine, Regular Coke, and Coke without Caffine. I haven't seen Pepsi for sale in my supermarket so maybe Coke's strategy is just to take all the space on the shelf with so many variations!
.-= @crowdmanageu00c2u00b4s last blog ..Making $470m with a Bunch of Comments =-.
This feels like the online equivalent of a charity ball. Throw some money at a cause to make people feel good, involved and like they're going something.
But...
I agree with Mark Harmel. Pepsi is totally missing its biggest opportunity to do good in the world -- the opportunity it has the most control over -- improving how its own products affect the world.
Instead of pushing its big profits back into communities that need help it could make products better for the health of *the people* in those communities.
That seems like a much better long-term, sustainable and meaningful good-work project.
.-= Jamesu00c2u00b4s last blog ..Classic Lego TV Ad: Kipper =-.
James,
Quite true, which returns to the question of whether or not companies are social (in their behavior and culture) or whether they just do social to take advantage of the trend. Interestingly, what if there were a "movement" of people who wanted to get companies like Pepsi to change their products and make them more healthy. Will Pepsi fund that program?
My issue with Pepsi's approach is that it does not seem to have a point other than to simply create more engagement between the company and its customers. That's not enough, I don't think. Pepsi needs to stand for something. Does it taste better than Coke? Is it the choice of a new generation? What? Refreshing is hardly enough at Pepsi's level.
Jeff
.-= Jeff Shattucku00c2u00b4s last blog ..For love or money? Part one of a three-part series. =-.
I'm not sure I totally agree. Big difference between refreshing and refresh. One describes the product, the second could inspire behavior. In the new social media world a brand is not only its product but its content. If the content is good, meaningful and relevant, and it embraces co-creation from its community, or adds real utility and value toward the collective goal of change then it might be enough. It's not like Pepsi is Apple, offering a range of products, brilliant service and inherent creative inspiration. It's just a sugary soft drink. But as a big company with a dependence on its market, it's obligated to do something of value that's in part defined by its users.
I see your point about refreshing and refresh, and I agree. To refresh could mean, say, refresh your point of view. That said, I like James'/Mark's take which, to me at least, means to walk the talk. In Pepsi's case, this could mean healthier stuff or just some really concerted efforts around reducing the environmental impact of Pepsi's bottles and cans.
.-= Jeff Shattucku00c2u00b4s last blog ..For love or money? Part one of a three-part series. =-.
I love the Good Idea Project. There are many good works that are being done and too often the lessons are lost because their story is not being told.
Can a company that is a big contributor to the obesity epidemic also do good? I always hope that getting a company to talk the talk also sets a standard for them to live up to as well.
It certainly is a big experiment. They will certainly do some things wrong along the way, but they have a bigger chance of getting it right by trying.
.-= Mark Harmelu00c2u00b4s last blog ..the story behind the living joshua tree holiday card =-.
Well, we'll all be watching. Will also be interested to see who plays what role, from ad agency, to digital agency to internal community manager. As more and more stuff moves into social spaces, everyone is vying for some piece of the business.
I think Pepsi will set an example.
Coke, on the other hand, has launched a joke with what amounts to a "crate three kids around the world and make them tweet about it" campaign.
Adding money to the mix doesn't make things "unnatural." If anything, it clarifies relationships and enables loyal content creators to get something more than a mention in return for their investment in the brand.
.-= Seth Simondsu00c2u00b4s last blog ..Bye With A Warmly Huggs =-.
Well I'm rooting for them on a number of fronts. Would be great to a big brand do it right. And would be rewarding for all those trying to make something positive happen get some recognition and support. However we have seen what happens when every brand in the world tries to jump on a new trend, whether it's save the tuna or flaunt your green. Not all efforts have been sincere.
Pepsi is lost and flailing, desperately launching themselves at every trendwagon that rolls by, but with this, they're gone from merely sad to alarmingly ridiculous.
[...] Edward Boches put it: Done right the Pepsi Refresh Project has the potential to create one of the first examples of a [...]
[...] Pepsi’s decision to pull out of the Superbowl after 23 consecutive years and instead, to funnel its advertising budget into online community efforts. While your company might not have anywhere close to Pepsi’s budget, you should pay attention [...]