Posts Tagged ‘pepsi’

Pepsi-Cola Brands Add Meaningful Mojo

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

In this blog and my book I’ve written often about my goal to drive a fundamental shift in the way that the marketing function is performed—rather than just some small experiments as part of a traditional, interruptive campaign, true change will only occur when major companies change their organizational alignment toward Marketing with Meaning. Well, dear readers, when I look at the pattern of work that is coming from the Pepsi-Cola brands I begin to gain confidence that the shift is indeed happening.

There certainly have been other companies that are farther down the road of turning Marketing with Meaning into their way of doing business. In my book I talk about Pepsi’s Frito-Lay subsidiary, which has shifted remarkably along these lines with brands such as SunChips and Doritos. There’s also some major change going on at Kraft Foods and Procter & Gamble. Until recently Pepsi has been known more for continuing the pattern of big, traditional advertising campaigns. Its “Got G” campaign for Gatorade last year did not reverse a sales decline, and a rebranding effort on Tropicana bombed.

But if you were writing a history of Meaningful Marketing today you would have to call out Sunday, February 7, 2010. It was Super Bowl Sunday, if you remember, and it will be noted in the Museum of Advertising as the day that Pepsi decided not to advertise for the first time in 23 years. Instead, the brand quietly launched The Pepsi Refresh Project weeks earlier, an effort to provide funding to individuals and groups with important causes. Some say that Pepsi won by not wasting dollars on the big game, but I believe we all won because the company showed us how even a huge brand built on traditional, interruptive advertising could shift to Marketing with Meaning with a big idea.

But Pepsi Refresh has been the first of other major steps down this path of a new way of marketing. Another great example is the latest innovations on Gatorade. After years of simply reminding us that Gatorade exists with the assistance of a phalanx of highly paid celebrity endorsers, the brand has gone back to its roots in innovation. It recently launched a line called G Series with different SKUs for Before, During, and After a workout. Here the brand is giving its buyers something that is specifically formulated for each step, and instead of pricey pitchmen, the marketing is direct, informative, and—because the product is unique—interesting. This is the innovative brand that I’ve missed for years, and I look forward to trying this new regimen in my next long run. It is a reminder that Marketing with Meaning starts with a meaningfully different and beneficial product.

Another great example of the shift at Pepsi-Cola is the next chapter in DEWmocracy. I first wrote about this user-driven campaign around new Mountain Dew flavors in my book. It was originally launched in 2007, and I included this case study in my chapter about how you can turn a one-time meaningful idea into an ongoing source of engagement and sales. Even way back then, Frank Cooper, Vice President of Marketing for Mountain Dew, alluded to chance for this to be much more than a one-time win. Back then he said:

“If we get a significant reaction, we think there’s an opportunity to expand this game into a broader online property. We’re seeking feedback from the consumer about what parts of the game they enjoy; is the story resonating? And if it is, we do have plans to expand it.”

Over two years later, the latest “game” of DEWmocracy has launched its third iteration with a very impressive and engaging execution. It’s not the immersive game that was more appropriate for the Web in 2008; instead, the brand has evolved to use even more consumer creativity and direct involvement. Trucks sampled several new flavors with more than 200,000 people across the U.S. And 50 “Dew Labs” fanatics were chosen to narrow down to the final three flavor/color/name candidates. The brand then offered designers and art schools the chance to create the next can. And now Mountain Dew is tapping small agencies, digital content creators, and other small producers to create TV ads for each flavor. Even media companies such as CollegeHumor are campaigning for their ideas to win.

It’s no wonder that Frank Cooper was recently promoted to the role of Chief Consumer Engagement Officer and last week was listed as #6 on the Advertising Age Entertainment A-ListAdvertising Age praised the fact that Mountain Dew retained 80% of the citrus soda market from 2006 to 2008, despite seeing traditional media spending cut in half.

Three big beverage brands, all moving toward Marketing with Meaning, and all doing it in ways that are differentiated based on their brand equity and target consumer. I call it a trend. And I’m excited to announce that we will include executives from Pepsi in our “Burning Question” seminar at the Cannes Advertising Festival this June. We’ll get the chance to learn more about how this company is shifting its marketing approach toward purpose and meaning, and gain insights on how even a giant, traditional advertiser can learn new tricks.

We have a lot more news coming about our Cannes event in the weeks ahead!

How Meaningful Marketing Can Help a Non-innovative Brand

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

dove_logo

Over the holiday break I got a very interesting email question from Al Samuelian, VP Group Media Director at media agency MPG. He was in the middle of reading my book and paused to ask, in summary: “Can you implement a Marketing with Meaning strategy if your product or service stinks?” I thought it was a great question—and one of the reasons that I love opening up this entire concept to public discussion—so I choose to share our back-and-forth thinking here.

When Your Product Is Poor

My first response was fairly short and simple: No, you cannot win if your base product or service is sub-par. Brilliant marketing can never overcome a product that fails to live up to customers’ expectations. You can look to the movie industry for many examples of big ad budget films that petered out once the pixels hit the screen. And with digital and social media, negative word of mouth travels so many times faster and farther.

Al Samuelian replied with a great story about when a car marketer visited Google recently and asked, “What should I do when I get negative online reviews or social-media chatter about service at my dealerships?” The simple reply by the panel of Google experts: “You should improve service at the dealerships.”

This point is also a good reminder for all marketers that our jobs are not just to make advertising (meaningful or otherwise), but to start with guiding the features and functions of the ultimate product that you have to sell. Marketers should have a say—preferably the final say—when it comes to product benefits, features, retail placement, pricing, customer service, and any other decision that is relevant to how it is presented to the end customer. Al suggested that it might be time for us to redefine the classic “4Ps” for the new world of digital, social, and extreme word of mouth. Not a bad idea!

But I know from my own experience that organizational structures are the biggest barrier to marketing making a difference. I remember my own meeting with a major car company when I was marketing Mr. Clean Car Care at P&G. We wanted to do a joint promotion at the car manufacturer’s national chain of dealerships and repair centers, but the marketer from Big Car, Inc. admitted that she couldn’t even get them to run a national “Buy 3 Tires, Get 1 Free” promotion. The decentralized structure of the network prevented her from managing her business. Now this error, and many others, is part of the reason that the company is tanking.

When You Don’t Have Much Innovation

The other half of our discussion revolved around brands that do not have much innovation to stand on. Sure, it’s easy to do meaningful marketing when you have a breakthrough product such as Mr. Clean Magic Eraser or Nike+, but what about the 95% of brands we work on that do not have much word-of-mouth merit?

In thinking about this question I brought up the model presented by Laura and Al Ries in their book, The Fall of Advertising & the Rise of PR. The central hypothesis of the book is that brands are first built on innovation—they bring some new news to the marketplace of existing players—and the best way to win is by making the news as big as possible. Hence, the book’s belief on making PR the lead focus of early marketing efforts. Then, after years in market, the strategy becomes simply reminding people that you exist and what you stand for. This is where the authors find that advertising is more effective. For example, Coke and Pepsi haven’t changed their formulas in years, so the cola war is a battle to remind people through advertising.

My belief is that Marketing with Meaning can work well for non-innovative products and brands in two ways. First, the marketing can itself bring innovation and PR news to the brand in ways that the product itself cannot. Charmin creating a mobile app that helps you find public restrooms is an incredible new way to innovate, and has earned the brand more than 500 million free news media impressions. This idea of using marketing as a way to apply innovation could open up entirely new ways of thinking for brand managers who have struggled for years with doing something new with product development. Making changes to a product formula and assembly line can take millions of dollars and thousands of hours. But cranking out an iPhone app can be done by a small team in a matter of weeks.

The second way that Marketing with Meaning can help non-innovative brands is by serving as the “memory jogger” as described by Laura and Al Ries, but in a format that has a much higher chance of earning customer attention and loyalty. My favorite example is the story of Unilever’s Dove brand. You know by now that the brand was struggling to find a new positioning in the marketplace until it seized the high, unoccupied ground of standing for “Real Beauty.” What you might not have thought about was how this happened with virtually no product news or innovation. By using its marketing to create a cause, Dove reminded people that it existed in a meaningful way.

This second point is where I believe many, many companies should be moving their marketing dollars quickly. As I wrote in this Adweek article a few months ago, the old model of ordering up a new ad campaign is not enough, and as I wrote in this post a year ago, the brands that are able to be remembered and relevant are those that actually do something rather than just saying that they stand for something.

I recently read that Pepsi has chosen not to advertise in this year’s Super Bowl for the first time in 23 years. Instead, the brand is planning a $20 million marketing effort to “refresh” society in real ways. Not much is known yet, but this could be a big step in moving the marketing world away from interruptive reminders and further toward meaningful connections. Stay tuned for more…

Pepsi Cuts All Ad Spending: Consider the Possibilities

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

Onion Pepsi

A few weeks ago, one of the most re-tweeted links among us marketing geeks was The Onion’s article claiming “Pepsi to Cease Advertising.” The article is a classic, hilarious piece from the online newspaper equivalent of The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, and many of us had a short chuckle and went back to work. But on second thought, maybe this article isn’t so crazy after all….

This week I got to spend some time with Frederic Colas, Chief Strategic Officer for giant European digital agency, FullSIX. We both are former P&G guys who left to take similar roles in digital agencies. We were talking about our concept of Marketing with Meaning, and Frederic brought up this Onion article as something that was suggesting what meaningful marketing is all about: dumping the traditional, interruptive model  and moving all funds to something that consumers actually care about. As Frederic wisely said, “Any good satire has a kernel of truth and believability.”

So what if Pepsi started from scratch on its marketing budget and adopted an entirely new approach? What if it decided that the purpose of its marketing was not to simply remind people that the brand exists, is refreshing, and is something that celebrities love to (get paid to) drink?

What if, instead, the brand chose to put its marketing dollars into something that its consumers choose to engage with, and marketing that itself adds value to people’s lives? Imagine what the company could do to inject joy into people’s lives through marketing, rather than mentally brainwashing them into thinking that a sip of Pepsi will produce said joy. By creating real joy, Pepsi has a much better chance of earning loyalty beyond reason for life. As for where to put these dollars, I envision everything from social gaming to enormous global cause projects.

Pepsi certainly could use something different. Revenue for PepsiCo fell by 1.5% in the most recent quarter, which was worse than analysts expected. Brands such as Gatorade have struggled as the old model of catchy ad campaigns have failed in this new economy with this new consumer. On the other hand, the beverage unit could learn and embed lessons that are coming from its Frito-Lay division, where brands such as Doritos and SunChips are experiencing sales growth and tighter consumer bonds through meaningful marketing.

I wonder what the conversations were in the halls of PepsiCo when this article made the rounds through email. If even a handful of its marketers paused to consider this article as a possibility, then the seeds of revolution might have been sown.

Pepsi-To-Jump-R