I guess everyone has heard about Pepsi not advertising during the Super Bowl but instead spending that money on their “Refresh project”. The Refresh project being an online effort where cause marketing meets social media meets crowdsourcing meets accolades from the usual online marketing suspects before it even launches.
One would expect that I, as a “digital guy”, would cheer for more money flowing towards online than towards the evil Super Bowl 30 second spot. (which was dead anyway remember)
Instead I’m skeptical. For a myriad of reasons.
When you reverse-engineer this campaign it’s pretty obvious it’s rooted in the contemporary planning insights such as:
People are not consumers waiting to be advertised to.
Or
Do stuff instead of say stuff.
And
Have a world view rather than a category positioning.
etc.
Yet from where I’m standing it looks like they managed to interpret most of them wrongly.
No, people aren’t waiting to be advertised to, but it seems to me they also aren’t waiting for yet another platform to engage on.
And I’m all for brands doing stuff instead of saying stuff.
But obviously it’s very hard to figure out WHAT to do and HOW to do it.
Awarding money to people wanting to improve their community is a noble cause. And I applaud any company doing that. But since it’s the money Pepsi used to spend on TV ads, it’s obvious they’re expecting more sales out of it. And the fact that it IS obvious already puts the whole thing into perspective doesn’t it. There’s no noble cause in the process, experience or product of Pepsi. It’s not fair trade coffee, it’s not health food, things that would justify Pepsi as a do-good brand. So Pepsi, out of nowhere, going down the “Do Good” route just feels contrived.
It feels like what we got here is a not too distant cousin of greenwashing.
I’m not buying it, and I’m not the cynical marketing guy that thinks “consumers” are less smart or less pragmatic than I am and will buy it.
In short, I think the “do good” trend might be worth exploring, but it’s too far removed from Pepsi’s DNA to be credible.
Another plain on which they missed the ball is the social thing.
This is not a social idea.
It’s a social media idea.
It’s not an idea worth spreading, it’s a process that’s constructed so people will have to use their online presences to spread a marketing message.
Case in point:
So, not a fan of the idea, their marketing disguised at “Doing Good” remains just that, a disguise, a means to an end.
On top of the idea, the execution also has it’s faults .
At it’s core Refresh is a contest, you come up with an entry, I guess there’s some work involved in presenting your case, and than you have to get people to vote for you.
I think this is very dangerous territory for a brand. If the whole purpose of the thing is to create a positive feeling towards the Pepsi brand, they better hope that the people that participate are good losers. Because there are going to be a lot more losers than there are winners. And the social media tactic (that’s a pejorative) of having a public vote means that participants are going to contact all their connections to vote, which will make their eventual “loss” very public and all the more painful.
Now I know there’s more eyeballs to this than just the people participating, but if you expect people to use their network to spread your message you have to accept they can also use it to spread theirs, and it might not be what you want to hear.
And in the red corner we have Coca Cola.
They recently announced they’re abandoning the build of ever-more networking platforms in favor of harnessing existent platforms such as Youtube and Facebook. I’m not going to say that’s smart, I’m going to say you’re not the brightest bulb if you’re not already doing that.
And what are they using the attention they get through these platforms for?
Advertising.
Old. School. Advertising.
They’re not pretending to be something they’re not, they’re doing what they’re known for, advertising. But not big idea, bring-on-the-trumpets, stop the presses advertising. Smart, small ideas such as this one. Cheap to produce, easy to engage with.
The amount of engagement it took from me is proportional to the importance of soda in my life: not a lot.
I liked it. Done. Next. And if I didn’t like it, nothing’s lost. Just with their Youtube channel they have a decent attention base on which to launch ideas that might or might not take off. I’m pretty sure that their Super Bowl commercial will be anything but small and cheap to produce, but after that initial broadcast it will most certainly be found on their Youtube channel, allowing the whole channel to bask in it’s glory, and gather even more momentum.
So, as an advertising strategy, I prefer this one to Pepsi’s.
But Coke is also up to something very smart.
These soda fountains pictured above. (more here).
People value products that are taylored to them more than big corporate one-size-fits all products. These fountains allow them to compose their own soda. Fanta, Cola or vitamin water with added flavor (cherry please), carbonated or not, caffeinated or not. Possibilities are endless.
This is a very innovative idea.
But it’s also a very social idea.
Soda preference quit being a conversation topic ages ago. But these machines put soda right back up there with Starbucks’ secret menu and In-n-Out’s triple triple.
No longer Coke or Fanta, but everyone his own blend of soda. How big a game changer is this? People won’t be able to refrain from talking about their personal blend. Every “Whaddayawanna drink?” is bound to turn into people comparing recipes.
And I shouldnt even mention it anymore, but yes, it will all reflect online, just like breakfast does.
Contrary to most marketing blog posts who are written after the facts, this one’s written before, so It’ll be very interesting to follow both cases.
I’m putting my money on Coke, knockout in the second round.
The Internet will declare it’s winner.
Tags: coca cola, coke, coke freestyle, pepsi, refresh, social idea, social media
