After submitting an idea, it is then the job of the individual or organization to promote and to encourage others to vote or them to win the grant (Ibid 2012). There where four grant sizes, from $k, $1 k, $ask, and $ask with a total of 60 awarders a month. All ideas were submitted to the website whom. Refrigeration’s.
Com. Pepsi made the website user friendly and gave insightful tips and insights about promoting ideas. The website encouraged people to find creative ways to get votes and made the process of submitting and promoting an idea simple and creative.Consumers could also purchase specially marked products, which contained “power votes” (Hendrix 201 0) which they could use to boost the number of totes for their ideas. The campaign was pushed through social media networks (Backbone and Twitter) as well as print ads and television ads. Pepsi spent heavily on major ad space and collaborated with celebrities and performing artists to encourage the youth to participate. Living in North America at the time, I mostly came across the campaign on television and online.
It took place in early 2010 and a US based campaign (Ibid 2010).The original aim of the campaign was to align the company’s biggest brand and consumers’ interests with its “Performance with a Purpose” commitment. The aiming aimed to raise general awareness and interest in PR by generating a steady stream of media buzz and increasing brand awareness. They wanted to encourage a positive affect on brand attributes including affordability, trust and intent to purchase (APRS). Lastly, PR was aimed at driving people to Refrigeration’s. Com where they could advertise new product releases and create a community amongst their consumers.They wanted a forum that facilitated a conversation between the consumer and the brand, as well as align the brand with a new image that moved away from pop culture and awards an image of a company driving positive social change. PR wanted to capitalize on the changing climate in which people where communicating by using social media to drive their public relations.
Publics: 1. End consumers – typically ages 16-35 years old who are active on social media and are exposed to a lot of pop culture. 2. Nags- MONGO Organizations used the PR to get grants to fund their causes 3.
Educational institutions 4. Governmental organizations 5. Media -? print, television, Internet, news outlets 6. Stakeholders, shareholders and investors 7.
Employees (internal publics) – need to believe in the brand and align their thinking with new brand image. 9. Suppliers, bottler, distributors also need to align their image with the PR campaign In many ways the campaign could be seen as a success. In their first objective of raising awareness and interest in PR, Pepsi had succeeded Pepsi became one of the most talked about brands in the Super Bowl despite not having ad space (Hendrix 2010).Research done during the PR campaign suggested that 37% of Americans were more aware of the PR crowd sourcing campaign as compared to 12-21% for a similar cause marketing program. Pepsi surpassed their media impression goals by 12 fold, generating 3 billion audience impressions in eight months (APRS). After a year of the campaign there was over 140,000 Tweets, while Backbone “likes’ increased by more than 600% (300,000 likes to over 2 million). Interaction with their website Refrigeration’s.
Com had significantly increased.There where over 18 million unique visitors to Refrigeration’s. Com from January to November in 201 1 and over 1 2,000 projects received votes. In this time frame 76 million votes were cast and 2 lion online comments where made September of 2011 (APRS). Pepsi, through Hispanic and English language press, was able to reach a wide variety of its consumes.
They also successfully collaborated with employees, bottling and retail partners to generate local news angles and continuously drive awareness.However, despite these successes many argue that the PR campaign was a failure. This can be seen as the Pepsi slogan today is “Live for Now” as the company has shifted back to a heavily entertainment focused campaign, putting Pepsin’s brand image back to where it was before launching he PR campaign. Pepsi made a bold move stepping away from Super Bowl ad spending to redirect funds towards positive social change, but now has reverted entirely back to its “all-about-me” marketing (Ibid 2012).
During the campaign Pepsi also consistently lost market share and volume, falling third behind Coke and Diet Coke. While Pepsi was able to create a lot of media buzz and lots of traffic on their website, there were several factors that made the campaign an unsuccessful strategy. Despite PR being innovative in its use of crowd sourcing voting and relevant by tapping into the increasing nonuser desire for a cause, it failed to realize important factors involved in launching such a campaign.Because the campaign was so widespread and focused on various smaller issues, versus aiming at one large cause the success stories had little impact. Also with so many Nags participating it became difficult for the company to properly vet organizations leading to accusations of fraud.
Furthermore despite having the “power vote” cans, Pepsi did not integrate their product into the campaign directly which could have led sales to decline. Most importantly however is that when doing a campaign focused on costive social change, Pepsi should have stood behind one cause.Despite spending almost 25 million in grants it was hard to determine what the program was really about.
I cannot say that the PR was a complete fail but looking back on it, the campaign seems to have been more of an innovative PR experiment that did not achieve the impact it had originally intended to. Think the campaign highlighted strengths of using crowd source voting and online marketing to drive two way communication but also showed the importance of focus and clarity when implementing such a PR strategy.