Pepsi wanted to change the world. The world was changing. Obama just entered the White House and the world was looking to capitalize on the word “Change”. Pepsi might not have been looking to capitalize, but it saw an opportunity to build brand awareness by doing some good. The pressure was coming down on the soft drink industry. Sugary drinks were becoming less favorable and the brand was pushing away from fizzy sugary drinks and created a good better best business model categorizing each drink they created based upon nutritional value. This was not helping sales. (Avery, 2013)
What’s a brand to do when their product has been pigeonholed by both the health and medical experts, and the consumer? Pepsico decided it was time to rebuild brand awareness through a social media marketing strategy and utilizing the means to give back to the community. The company organized a marketing campaign that would drive consumers to a landing page where they would pitch ideas that would refresh the community. Pepsi allocated a portion of their marketing budget, including the money for their Super Bowl ads, and portioned out grants to projects that were submitted to their landing page. The consumer would vote on the projects they wanted, and grant money would be issued based on voting. The goal was to target Millennials. Data showed that a Millennial would more likely switch brands to one that is giving back to the community. (Avery, 2013) They utilized this theory and data that claimed Millennials believed it was their duty to change the world for the better. This would be the Pepsi Refresh Project. The campaign was not to sell more products but to increase brand awareness. The company steered clear of any type of content that forced a purchase to have a better ability to receive a grant. The campaign provided the engagement they wanted. The website received millions of unique visitors daily and was receiving thousands of followers daily. Pepsico also pursued traditional media marketing but punted on the Super Bowl. They contributed the budget towards grants. The campaign worked but there were issues.
Millennials don’t drink soda. They may engage on the website and through social media, but they are not soft drink consumers. Because of this, the company was losing market share. While the company built a large social media presence, the company focused on developing meaningful relationships and providing for the community but failed to sell the products they developed. Essentially the campaign was a negative net. You cannot critique the fact that Pepsico was trying to something that they considered right in hopes that this would push people to consume their product. They forgot to sell the product though. There is no rule that says the brand couldn’t do both of these things. Why couldn’t Pepsico develop relationships through social media and continue to sell their product. Maybe the initiative could have been scaled down a bit in order to leave a budget for developing a campaign that sold Pepsi and Diet Pepsi. a frightening statistic from the campaign also is that while they were targeting the generation who wants to change the world, more than half of the votes came down to Boomers and Gen-X. Millennials held no interest in the brand and the community initiative. This damning statistic proves that the company left its wheelhouse and wandered into uncharted territories. Maybe, all they had to do was focus on their product, and develop a campaign that provided change Millenials wanted to see in a large brand, a pivot in product nutrition.
Avery, J. (2013). The Pepsi Refresh Project: A Thirst for Change. Harvard Business School, 9(512), 018th ser., 1-25. Retrieved November 20, 2020, from https://services.hbsp.harvard.edu/lti/links/content-launch.