The Quisenblog

I’m talking about the soft drink marketers’ uses of Social Media here.

As you may recall, Pepsi was one of the first big-name marketers to aggressively go “all-in” in a Social Media sense, with its much talked-about “Pepsi Refresh Project.” This was a commitment from Pepsi to support worthwhile causes recommended and voted on by its customers and fans. Pepsi used Social Media (primarily Facebook) to elicit suggestions, to “crowd source” the causes (have fans and friends vote on them), and to report news developments.

What gathered a lot of media attention for Pepsi wasn’t so much the program itself, but the fact that Pepsi was pulling back in its traditional media spending in order to fund this program. As it turns out, the brand really didn’t need to cut back much, just the couple of spots it traditionally ran in the Super Bowl.

In the year following “Pepsi Refresh,” Pepsi’s flagship product slipped into third place in the soft drink category (behind Diet Coke). Many Social Media naysayers were quick to blame this slide on Pepsi’s move from mass media to Social Media. While I, for one, don’t think Pepsi’s descent in the cola wars was due to the fact that it didn’t run a couple of Super Bowl spots (more on that in this post), I do think the marketer dropped the ball when it came to defining and managing the “Pepsi Refresh” program. Specifically, I take Pepsi to task for three key reasons:

1. The focus was more on the “crowd sourcing” part of the program than in the good works themselves. Pepsi seemed to be more interested in social media for social media’s sake rather than dedicated to a specific cause and serving as a catalyst for building a community of fans who also supported it. Social Media is most effective when it is used to amplify a strategy, not become one.
2. The program didn’t have a clear mission. Instead of focusing on a clear, single goal (for example, fresh drinking water in third-world countries), suggestions from fans were all over the map. Many were geographically limited, so the Pepsi community as a whole would not benefit or see the results. If you’re going to start a movement (which is what Social Media at its best is capable of doing), you need to have a clear, succinct, non-compromising vision of what it is you will do and how specifically your audience can contribute and participate.
3. The program didn’t treat all community members fairly. The more active you were in Social Media, the more influence you had over the process. There were charges, in fact, of cheating on the part of some charitable entities in order to extort funds from Pepsi. This is not the kind of PR you want.

Contrast what Pepsi did more than a year ago to what Coke is doing now. Coke has teamed with the World Wildlife Fund to help preserve the habitat of the Arctic Polar Bear. Promoted by both mass media and Social Media, this program spells out exactly what the marketer intends to do (donate up to $2 million for Arctic habitat preservation over five years) and how the Coke community can help support (purchase cans and bottle of Coke with the polar bears on it). Simple. Elegant. Easy to understand. Easy to take part in. A cause that is hard to say “no” to. By partnering with WWF, Coke also aligned itself with a an organization which is beyond reproach, giving the program more legitimacy. What’s more, when you see someone drinking a Coke from a polar bear can, you immediately identify him as a fellow Arctic preservationist.

Of course, I do have some issues with this campaign as well. An annual donation of just $500,000 for an organization that has annual sales in the billions is less than a drop in the bucket. Chances are, Coke is spending at least 20 times that amount in paid media promoting this campaign alone. Hey Coke. Don’t be so chintzy. Increase your contributions ten fold.

In case you haven’t seen it, here is the spot Coke is running promoting its Save the Arctic efforts:

3SLzTN3VJus

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Media, New Media, On Clients, Ramblings, Social Media, customer experience, strategy amplify strategy, best use of social media, Coca Cola, Coke, Pepsi, Pepsi refresh, Social Media campaigns

Social Media naysayers have been having a field day these past few weeks. Last month, after Beverage Digest reported that Pepsi’s flagship brand slipped into third place (behind Coca Cola’s Diet Coke brand) in the cola wars, a meme started making its rounds that money spent in Social Media was a waste, at least as far as major brands are concerned.

As proof, Social Media detractors point to two prominent marketers who cast their lot in Social Media and (apparently) came up losers—Pepsi and Burger King.

Some background: this past year, Pepsi opted not to advertise in the Super Bowl, instead embarking on the ambitious “Pepsi Refresh” project in Social Media. And Burger King, in lieu of matching McDonald’s dollar-for-dollar in paid media, instead leaned heavily on such noted Social Media campaigns as the Whopper Sacrifice and the Subservient Chicken.

And here we are, with Pepsi sales down 5% year/year, and the brand mired in third place. And Burger King having just experienced its sixth consecutive quarter of declining sales.

Some of the loudest voices in the room would have you believe it’s all Social Media’s fault.

If only things were that cause-and-effect.

The truth is, looking at the situations from the 10,000 foot level, just as you’d suspect, both marketers have challenges that go well beyond the decision of whether or not to tweet regularly or start a Facebook page. Both entered the recession #2 in a market with a strong dominant leader (in dicey economic times, market leaders can be expected to outperform the category to everyone else’s detriment). Both marketers suffered unsettling turnover in marketing and management. And most telling, both have made questionable marketing moves beyond the scope of Social Media. Pepsi, once the choice of the “new generation,” lost that mantle to emerging products such as Mountain Dew, Gatorade and the assorted energy drinks, then compounded matters by going through its much-lambasted multi-million dollar Peter Arnell logo redesign (exemplified by the much-mocked memo which infamously equated the new design with “the Earth’s magnetic fields and the sun’s radiation”). And Burger King? The marketer used nearly 60% of its ad budget in late 2010 in an ill-fated attempt to unseat McDonald’s dominance in the breakfast daypart. That fiasco made Gallipoli look like a stand-off.

And interestingly enough, at the current time, both marketers are operating without a Chief Marketing Officer. I’d wager that the lack of a strong visionary marketing leader has more to do with the brands’ struggles than decisions as to where it spends its marketing bucks.

Not to totally absolve Pepsi and Burger King’s Social media efforts of all blame. For starters, Social Media proponents were way too ebullient about the efforts, and heaped much praise on them before they ever generated an inkling of a result. And the strategies of both (if you can call them that) were questionable, in my opinion.

Regarding the Pepsi Refresh Project, the marketer seemed way more interested in the “crowdsourcing” part of the project than the actual good works being done. It seemed more like a marketing ploy than an authentic “cause marketing” campaign. Pepsi didn’t focus on a single unifying cause, like safe drinking water to the world or shoes for kids in developing nations. The emphasis on the crowdsourcing element proved controversial as well. There were well-publicized allegations of cheating. The projects touted by well-organized and well-connected non-profits benefited at the expense of average grass-roots consumers. Nowhere was this more evident that in the Gulf Refresh Project launched just after the BP oil spill. You can read about the issues we found with that project here.

And for Burger King? While its Social Media efforts were entertaining, product-focused and well-integrated into its media advertising, it all had a very tactical feel to it. Burger King has long lacked a cohesive strategic platform. What does the brand stand for? I’d bet if you asked 10 consumers, you might get 10 different answers.

Sorry, but “If only they’d have been in the Super Bowl” is not a grown-up response to the ails of Pepsi and Burger King. Marketers who think in terms of “either/or” when it comes to paid media versus Social Media are embarrassingly out of touch. Social Media, when used correctly and integrated into offline efforts, add depth to and amplify a winning strategy. (Great examples of this include the recent Evian “Rollerskaing Babies” and Old Spice “Man on a Horse” campaigns). Conversely, without a winning strategy, Social Media (as with any other media) are reduced to a series of “throw-it-against-the-wall” tactics. Just like an aimless logo redesign or a tagline-du-jour.

And speaking of Content Strategy (how’s that for a segue?), that will be what I’m covering in the upcoming intensive Social Media workshop through GSI’s BizStreet on April 28. If you’re interested, find out more and register here. Hope to see you there.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey Creative, Media, New Media, On Clients, Ramblings, Social Media, strategy burger king, Pepsi refresh, peter arnell, social media detractors, social media integration, whopper sacrifice

Early this year, Pepsi announced its “Pepsi Refresh Project,” which was a way of allowing the “followers” of Pepsi in Social Media to nominate worthwhile ideas or public service projects Pepsi could fund.

So far, the program has been a win/win for Pepsi. The soft drink maker received plenty of media attention for its Refresh Project, and it gave it a chance to connect with its fans and followers in a meaningful way.

In light of the recent Gulf disaster, Pepsi expanded its Refresh Project into a “Do Good for the Gulf” Refresh campaign. Pepsi has pledged $1.3 million to consumer submitted ideas that could “refresh the communities of the Gulf states.” Pepsi invited the public to submit ideas through July 16. Starting August 2, consumers can vote on the ideas they like best. Finalists will be announced on September 2, and grants will be awarded on September 22.

On the surface, this initiative seems to hit all the right notes. It’s a natural way to extend Pepsi’s Social Media campaign while doing some much-needed good. But to the skeptical part of me, this just doesn’t smell right. By tying itself to a major disaster, the company has to carefully walk the line between legitimate cause marketing and shameless self promotion. Is the company’s driving intention to help the residents of the Gulf, or is it to promote the Pepsi brand?

Here are a few of my reservations:

1) The amount pledged. Hey $1.3 million isn’t chump change by any stretch of the imagination. But knowing the inner workings of corporate marketing/PR departments, I can easily imagine the company is paying ten times that amount to promote and administer the program. It’s like those solicitations you get to help feed the children of Africa, but when you look into the financials of the organization, you find out that only 5 cents of your dollar goes for food. In other words, if Pepsi’s #1 concern is providing for Gulf residents, it could do better.

2) The company’s involvement in the “crowd sourcing” part of this project. The focus strictly on Social Media means the system will be gamed—heavy users Social Media will have more of a say than your average Gulf resident. While that fits with the original intention and structure of the Refresh Project, it feels somewhat ham-handed for dealing with people’s legitimate needs and concerns.

3) The very public way the company is going about this promotion. It seems a little too “corporate” and well-planned. Disasters are messy. Carefully orchestrated philanthropy feels out of place. For an example of a company that did it right, think back to WalMart in the days following Hurricane Katrina. With no fanfare, the company’s stores loaded tens of thousands of bottles of fresh water on its trucks and delivered them to needy residents before the media even showed up.

There’s nothing wrong with an organization striving to get noticed for its good works. If I were advising Pepsi on how to follow through on this project, here’s what I’d tell them:

1) Find out what the needs are NOW and address them. Why wait until the end of September to actually do something? The days immediately following a disaster are when the needs and opportunities are most critical. Find out what needs aren’t being addressed now, and address them. If there’s a need for more shovels or graders to comb the beaches, provide them. If volunteers need accommodations, equipment, hazmat suits or respirators (or cell phones to call home), provide them. Go ahead and collect nominations from the Facebook crowd, but don’t let them lead you on this.

2) Involve the Pepsi community as a whole. Allow folks beyond the Gulf in California or Nebraska or Idaho to contribute to the cause. Set up a dollar-for-dollar match campaign with specific projects in mind. Or start a general Gulf Fund where the company would handle all administrative expenses so every dollar goes to the cause, whether its shrimp fishermen’s families, bankrupted hotel operators or whatever.

3) Make a long-term pledge. Don’t bug out as soon as the story falls off the front page. Commit that “five cents of every Pepsi product purchased will go to Gulf aid,” or something like that.

4) Don’t focus on getting attention. No need to string huge Pepsi banners on the beaches, put logos everywhere and arrange for press briefings. Just get out there and do what you know needs done. People will notice. Stories will spread. This will be more powerful than an orchestrated Social Media campaign.

Public skepticism of corporations is high right now. The first question many consumers will ask of your good works is “What’s in it for you?” It pays to be as transparent as possible. If your #1 intention is to do good, then do good. Don’t worry about how you can milk your efforts.

Posted by Mickey

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mickey New Media, On Clients, Ramblings, Social Media cause marketing, crowd sourcing, gulf clean up, Pepsi, Pepsi refresh