The new Pepsi ad

here is an example from India of the magic that is possible so long as a brand is truthful about itself and don't over reach or exaggerate in its relevance.

 
Di Maria's angel said:
Pepsi have created quite the fiasco. Guess the ad has worked in someway.
Click to expand...

Not in any way, shape or form.

The current 'Millennial' generation aged 16-25 are the most knowledgeable, critical and sensitive group in history. I remember when at University, we were told that Nestle killed babies or something. In those days we had no internet or consumer knowledge and yet it took me years to shake off that (rather false) piece of propaganda.

25% of Millennials are outraged. They will convince another 50% who didn't care or hadn't yet formulated an opinion to also be outraged. The remaining 25% oppose the majority cos they fink they are rebellious and kool innit. So this ad has pissed off 75% of Pepsi's core target audience around the planet in the space of 36 hours, despite the fact that they pulled the ad after just 12 hours.

Millenials makes up 75% of cola revenue. Many people of this demographic wont buy Pepsi again because of their faux outrage, it will further perpetuate their own identity. Pepsi becomes the new Nestle, in sugary drinks category that is in terminal decline as the 21st century equivalent to tobacco.

Basically, they will a lose a shedload of business because of this. Thats what I think.
 
Last edited:
Appropriation is a word that I detest. Saying that someone can't do something because they are not White enough, Black enough, Asian enough, Straight enough, Gay enough or anything else enough is just bigotry under a different name.

I know that there is much racism/sexism/homophobia in the world but you don't stop it by stopping people who want to be more like you being more like you.
 
Just heard from reliable sources that Pepsi are paying YouTube account holders serious money to take down the film from their YouTube channels.
Damn - should have uploaded it!
 
sammsky1 said:
Not in any way, shape or form.

The current 'Millennial' generation aged 16-25 are the most critical, knowledgeable and sensitive group in human history. I remember when at University, we were told that Nestle killed babies or something. In those days we had no internet and no consumer knowledge and yet it took me years to shake off that (rather false) piece of propaganda.

25% of Millennials are outraged. They will convince another 50% who didn't care or hadn't yet formulated an opinion to also be outraged. The remaining 25% oppose the majority cos they fink they are rebellious and kool innit. So this ad has pissed off 75% of Pepsi's core target audience around the planet in the space of 36 hours, despite the fact that they pulled the ad after just 12 hours.

Within a declining market, Millenials makes up 75% of cola revenue. Many people of this demographic will never buy Pepsi again because of their faux outrage, it will further perpetuate their own identity. Pepsi becomes the new Nestle. In a carbonated soft drinks category that is anyway in terminal decline because it is the 21st century equivalent to tobacco.

Basically, they will a shed of business because of this. Thats what I think.
Click to expand...

Question for a marketing guy:

A brand like Pepsi (especially the original cola) doesn't need to create a stir or an impact in the market. So why do they spend a stupid amount of money on advertising or risk a PR disaster like this? If they were launching a new brand/flavour of cola, then it might be worth it. But the regular cola, is already well known - has a strong market base and I guess won't attract any new consumers?
 
sammsky1 said:
Interesting. Not sure but I'd like to find out. But in this case woukd probably take too long so better to just throw some bribery at it.
Click to expand...
I can see it going wrong though and some of the more political posters making ranting videos saying that Pepsi is trying to bribe them to shut up about their Appropriation.
 
Skills said:
Question for a marketing guy:

A brand like Pepsi (especially the original cola) doesn't need to create a stir or an impact in the market. So why do they spend a stupid amount of money on advertising or risk a PR disaster like this? If they were launching a new brand/flavour of cola, then it might be worth it. But the regular cola, is already well known - has a strong market base and I guess won't attract any new consumers?
Click to expand...

Never stay still.
 
sammsky1 said:
Not in any way, shape or form.

The current 'Millennial' generation aged 16-25 are the most critical, knowledgeable and sensitive group in human history. I remember when at University, we were told that Nestle killed babies or something. In those days we had no internet and no consumer knowledge and yet it took me years to shake off that (rather false) piece of propaganda.

25% of Millennials are outraged. They will convince another 50% who didn't care or hadn't yet formulated an opinion to also be outraged. The remaining 25% oppose the majority cos they fink they are rebellious and kool innit. So this ad has pissed off 75% of Pepsi's core target audience around the planet in the space of 36 hours, despite the fact that they pulled the ad after just 12 hours.

Within a declining market, Millenials makes up 75% of cola revenue. Many people of this demographic will never buy Pepsi again because of their faux outrage, it will further perpetuate their own identity. Pepsi becomes the new Nestle. In a carbonated soft drinks category that is anyway in terminal decline because it is the 21st century equivalent to tobacco.

Basically, they will a shed of business because of this. Thats what I think.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I never meant that it worked in a good way. Got them into the news, that was it.
 
Skills said:
Question for a marketing guy:

A brand like Pepsi (especially the original cola) doesn't need to create a stir or an impact in the market. So why do they spend a stupid amount of money on advertising or risk a PR disaster like this? If they were launching a new brand/flavour of cola, then it might be worth it. But the regular cola, is already well known - has a strong market base and I guess won't attract any new consumers?
Click to expand...

It's about showing off to the world that you're the king of your domain. Everyone and their mother knows what Coke and McDonalds is for instance, yet they are spending millions, possibly billions, on advertising and sponsorship. Companies like this are also not always doing so to advertise their products. They're advertising a lifestyle. "Look how popular we are. You can be a part of the in crowd if you get with our cause." Cool kids use cool products, and the commercials remind you so.
 
There is a bigger point at the so called outrage of this ad. As mentioned, it's yet another glaring example of how a large corporation is extremely out of touch with their customer base and society in general. And it's also an example of how a large corporation tries to make an extra dollar off of serious issues that matter to a lot of people, especially when those issues stem from this buffoon of a president.
 
VeevaVee said:
People love being offended, and anyone that's offended is given a respect as if they're right to be so.

That said, it is slightly daft of them. I wonder if Pepsi knew this would cause a stir?
Click to expand...
This is so true and says all about this reaction as well as society now a days.

However... I wouldn't be surprised if all of this was planned. Pepsi's marketing department is amongst the best in the business, and not anticipating this response would be far too lazy for a commercial with this kind of budget.
 
ThomasEmil said:
This is so true and says all about this reaction as well as society now a days.

However... I wouldn't be surprised if all of this was planned. Pepsi's marketing department is amongst the best in the business, and not anticipating this response would be far too lazy for a commercial with this kind of budget.
Click to expand...

Yes, I used to work for them.

But to what end is this at all positive? I cant see the angle.
 
This is outrageous, not the advertisement but the overreaction. Who gives a flying feck? There's far too much political correctness and it's only getting worse. You can't say or do anything anymore without offending some group.
 
Coke must be loving this.

And not surprised Kendall Jenner agreed to this. Her family would do anything for money.
 
Skills said:
Question for a marketing guy:

A brand like Pepsi (especially the original cola) doesn't need to create a stir or an impact in the market. So why do they spend a stupid amount of money on advertising or risk a PR disaster like this? If they were launching a new brand/flavour of cola, then it might be worth it. But the regular cola, is already well known - has a strong market base and I guess won't attract any new consumers?
Click to expand...

This is a question which has haunted marketing since its inception. Lord Lever Hulme, founder of Unilever and considered the founder of modern marketing said in 1895 that 'I waste half of my advertising budget, I only wish I knew which half'.

Companies who advertise have 2 core service requirements: Media Buying Agencies who plan and buy the most suitable advertising space to reach a target audience and Creative Advertising Agencies who strategically plan and create the content.

Brand advertising is a HUGE business with just under $500 billion spent in 2016 by advertisers around the world booking space from media owners. That includes TV, print, radio, digital, outdoor, ambient, on shelf and others (https://www.magnaglobal.com/wp-cont...mber-Global-Forecast-Update-Press-Release.pdf). About another $150 billion is spent on hiring creative advertsing agencies to produce the content. The industry is full of incredibly smart and hard working people, most of whom love what they do.

Companies advertise to create 2 forms of intangible brand equity: general awareness and unprompted Top of Mind awareness. The industry has continuously conducted all manner of market studies and case studies for over a century to hypothesise the impact of different levels of advertising investment and how to spend in the most efficient manner. These tests have consistently shown what is now considered sacrosanct:

- In an established market like the UK cola category where there is more than one established player, there is a huge opportunity cost of not advertising. Eg: If Pepsi advertised at a certain level and Coke stopped during the same period (eg: 6 months) then Pepsi's short term revenues will grow and Coke's will fall.

All brands have loyal users (around 60% of their business) who wont move in the short term because of their strong preference. But the 40% who are indifferent decide by what is 'top of mind' at the point of purchase. And even though you cant recall most advertising that you see, you actually absorb effective advertising into your sub-conscious. Your brain draws upon this when making purchase decisions which comprise of factors such as familiarity, perceived quality and emotional affinity. @Pogue Mahone said yesterday he cant remember any ads these days, but he can, he just cant consciously recall any.

And so if you haven't been advertising and your competitor has, you'll lose a lot of 'top of mind' awareness and you lose a lot of that floating 40% of unloyal consumers. In effect, you need to spend to a certain level just to stand still. This is the same for Persil vs Arial, Samsung vs apple, Tesco vs Sainsbury, Nike vs adidas etc; all established well known brands.

- Even with historic equity brands, if you stopped advertising, you'll also lose credibility and general awareness. Think Nokia, SafeWay, Yahoo, Findus etc.

- Retailers and stockists also demand that brands invest in advertising to stimulate product pull off shelf. If Pepsi stopped advertising, a retailer like Tesco would give them less desirable and smaller shelf space which makes the brand feel even less attractive to the 40% unloyalists. A double whammy.

- In developing countries in Asia or Africa, brands also use their advertising to inform tiny stockists around the country of new promotions which encourages them to push the brand onto customers. It also helps company sales people sell their brand to these small stockists because his 'top of mind' awareness is now higher.

I know your post was abit tongue in cheek, but advertising investment levels is a very rigorous mathematical exercise and with great scrutiny, especially when deciding how much and where to invest.

The creative content part also has many decades of best practice and processes. Nowadays it also involves a lot of psychology, anthropology, sociology and market research expertise. But with $500billion of advertising around the world competing for your attention, its incredibly difficult to get noticed 'above the clutter' and deliver this elusive 'top of mind awareness'. Often, its these very fine margins that deliver the company growth required to trigger bonus payments for all staff. So marketing execs take greater creative risks to increase relevance to a target audience. Once in a while, they go too far or get blinded and so get it absolutely wrong, as we saw with Pepsi yesterday.

Hope that answers your question :)
 
Last edited:
sammsky1 said:
This is a question which has haunted marketing since its inception. Lord Lever Hulme, founder of Unilever and considered the founder of modern marketing said in 1895 that 'I know that I waste half of my advertising budget, I only wish I knew which half'.

Companies who advertise have 2 core service requirements: Media Buying Agencies who plan and buy the most suitable advertising space to reach a target audience and Creative Advertising Agencies who strategically plan and create the content.

Brand advertising is a HUGE business with just under $500 billion spent in 2016 by advertisers around the world booking media space from media owners. That includes TV, print, radio, digital, outdoor, ambient, on shelf and others (https://www.magnaglobal.com/wp-cont...mber-Global-Forecast-Update-Press-Release.pdf). About another $150 billion is spent on hiring advertsing Agencies to produce the content. The industry is full of incredibly smart, creative and hard working people, most of whom love what they do.

Companies advertise to create 2 forms of intangible brand equity: general awareness and unprompted Top of Mind awareness. The industry and big global corporations have continuously conducted all manner of market studies and case studies for over a century to hypothesise the impact of different levels of advertising investment and how to spend in the most efficient manner. These tests have consistently shown what are now considered as sacrosanct:

- In an established market like UK cola category where there are 2 established players, there is a huge opportunity cost of not advertising. Eg: If Pepsi advertised at a certain level and Coke stopped during the same period (for say 6 months) then Pepsi's short term revenues will grow and Coke's will fall.

All brands have very loyal users (around 60% of their business) who wont move in the short term because of their strong brand preference. But the 40% who are not loyal to either brand decide at shelf, depending on what is 'top of mind'. And even though you cant recall most advertising that you see, you actually absorb effective advertising into your sub-conscious. Your brain draws upon this when making purchase decisions which comprise of factors such as familiarity, perceived quality and emotional affinity. @Pogue Mahone said yesterday he cant remember any ads these days, but he can, he just cant consciously recall any.

And so if you haven't been advertising and your competitor has, you'll lose a lot of 'top of mind' awareness and you lose a lot of that floating 40% of unloyal consumers. In effect, you need to spend to a certain level just to stand still. This is the same for Persil vs Arial, Samsung vs apple, Tesco vs Sainsbury etc etc

- Even with strong historic equity brands, if you stopped advertising, you lose top of mind awareness PLUS you'll also lose credibility and awareness. Think Nokia, SafeWay, Yahoo, or Findus etc.

- Retailers and stockists also demand that brands invest in advertising to stimulate product pull off shelf. If Pepsi stopped advertising, a retailer like Tesco would give them less desirable and smaller space on shelf which makes the brand feel even less attractive to the 40% unloyalists. A double whammy.

- In developing countries in Asia or Africa, brands also use their advertising to inform tiny stockists around the country of a new promotion which encourages them to push the brand onto customers. It also helps company sales people sell there brand to these small stockists because his 'top of mind' awareness is also higher.

I know your post was abit tongue in cheek, but advertising investment is a very rigorous mathematical exercise with a great deal of scrutiny, especially when deciding how much to invest and how to invest it.

The creative content part also has many decades of best practice, norms and processes. Nowadays it also includes a lot of psychology, anthropology and sociology and lots of market research. But with $500billion of advertising around the world competing for your attention, its incredibly difficult to get noticed 'above the clutter' to deliver this elusive 'top of mind awareness'. Often, its these very fine lines that trigger bonus payments for company growth. So companies take greater, more sophisticated creative risks in order to be relevant to a target audience. Once in a while, they get it absolutely wrong, as we saw with Pepsi yesterday.

Hope that answers your question :)
Click to expand...

That's brilliant insight, thanks for the time you took to write that! I actually took a marketing module within my engineering degree for my master year, so it's always something that's fascinated me.
 
Skills said:
That's brilliant insight, thanks for the time you took to write that! I actually took a marketing module within my engineering degree for my master year, so it's always something that's fascinated me.
Click to expand...
My pleasure, Im 20 years into my career so this is ABC to me and easy to write.

I'll also send this out to my junior team next time I'm coaching them on this topic or my CEO next time they try to cut my advertising budgets! :)

Whats brands featured in your marketing module doing your MSc/Eng?
 
Last edited:
sammsky1 said:
My pleasure, Im 20 years into my career so this is ABC to me and easy to write.

I'll also send this out to my junior team next time I'm coaching them on this topic or my client or CEO next time they threaten to cut my budgets! :)

Whats brands featured in your marketing module doing your MSc/Eng?
Click to expand...

We had a few guest lectures from Unilever (this was more based on their supply network), Mondelez (dairy milk brand) and there was also one about JLR (premium cars).

I actually also worked in product research for Procter and Gamble for a year. I helped design a test method to support a marketing claim for one of their Homecare brands in 2015 (though I never really did anything directly linked to marketing).
 
sammsky1 said:
Yes, I used to work for them.

But to what end is this at all positive? I cant see the angle.
Click to expand...
Clearly everybody is talking about Pepsi now. Unlike other service-oriented products, a beverage is something we crave at the thought it. The ones offended by this is tiny, and now everybody else is watching the ad and talking about Pepsi, it would boost sales - because people won't change preference of taste because of some ad.
 
ThomasEmil said:
Clearly everybody is talking about Pepsi now. Unlike other service-oriented products, a beverage is something we crave at the thought it. The ones offended by this is tiny, and now everybody else is watching the ad and talking about Pepsi, it would boost sales - because people won't change preference of taste because of some ad.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Plus, all those who reacted against those complaining about the spot, might give Pepsi a go.

I think the biggest looser is the kardashian kid. She is really good looking, but that ad was just so cringe worthy. She probably made a lot of money for 1 day of work, but i don't think it was worth the embarrassment. Should have skipped that. Her image took a big hit... she wont be doing similar ads anytime soon for sure.

ps. Pretty sure that if the actress would have been some random girl actress (instead of a millionaire teen girl who don't give a feck about the world outside her bubble) then the reactions would have been quite moderate in comparison.
 
George Owen said:
Exactly. Plus, all those who reacted against those complaining about the spot, might give Pepsi a go.

I think the biggest looser is the kardashian kid. She is really good looking, but that ad was just so cringe worthy. She probably made a lot of money for 1 day of work, but i don't think it was worth the embarrassment. Should have skipped that. Her image took a big hit... she wont be doing similar ads anytime soon for sure.

ps. Pretty sure that if the actress would have been some random girl actress (instead of a millionaire teen girl who don't give a feck about the world outside her bubble) then the reactions would have been quite moderate in comparison.
Click to expand...
True. The Kardashian/Jenner clan has a bad reputation so wrong choice of people.
 
I knew Evil Kris was involved!!1!!!:
Marina Hyde said:
According to various reports, Kris Jenner is more than unhappy about the horrendous position in which Kendall has been placed by her decision to accept unspecified millions of dollars to participate in a Pepsi advert whose concept she will have approved. Her mother fears this unfortunate association has rendered Kendall less attractive as a brand-face to other firms – and may even cause firms with whom she already has contracts to consider not renewing their association. It wouldn’t be anything personal; it’s just whether or not they want the image of silly Kendall solving racism with a fizzy drink drifting into consumers’ thoughts at the point of purchase.
Click to expand...
Lost In Showbiz ~ Diet Woke: how Pepsi’s ad backfired for Kendall Jenner
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...race-luther-king-kendall-jenner-lindsay-lohan
 
sammsky1 said:
This is my bread and butter.

This Pepsi ad is an excellent example of the perils of Ivory Tower arrogance. Pepsi is not a credible brand to help solve the cultural tension it is contextualised within. In fact, Pepsi has no relevance whatsoever with recent US cultural tensions and is therefore rightly seen as manipulative and profiteering.

A shame as when brands resolve cultural tensions in a truthful way one can create magic (like Amazon did last xmas which I was heavily involved with).

)
Click to expand...


The Imam has become a minor celebrity in Leicester
 
Mozza said:
The Imam has become a minor celebrity in Leicester
Click to expand...

His name is Iman Zubuir Mohamand and the priest is the Right Reverand Gary Bradley. I met them both on the shoot and they are lovely wise people.

Yes, they become mini celebrities .... and also real life friends!

 
That is genuinely one of the shittest ads I have ever seen. And not for any fake outrage (who could be outraged at that ad ffs) but because its just crap.

Also, Pepsi? Really? Does anyone actually drink it unless forced to? Its so inferior to Coca Cola.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.