Just a few weeks ago, we blogged about the Super Bowl vs. Social Media question and how Intel and Pepsi had answered it. Now that the Super Bowl and its commercials are over, let’s take another look. Who made a splash? How did the commercials attempt to engage beyond their 30-second ad spots?
Here’s what we saw on Sunday:
- Pepsi’s withdrawal from the Super Bowl time slot meant an easy monopoly for Coke. Coke ran two ads during the game as well as sponsoring the Hulu.com AdZone 2010 (for those lacking televisions) and running a philanthropy-based promotion on Facebook. As the New York Times’s Stuart Elliott put it, “Coca-Cola is telling Pepsi-Cola that when it comes to Super Bowl advertising, you can walk and chew gum at the same time.”
- Much of the post-game ad-analysis focused on pants (or a lack thereof) and alleged misogyny. In ads for Budweiser, Dockers, GoDaddy, Chrysler, and even Dove, gender stereotypes were trotted out and replayed for laughs or titillation. Unsurprisingly, those ads were also the ones that showed up embedded in critical and defensive blog posts, roundups, and rants. One way to engage people through social media, it seems, is to give them something to be mad about.
- Other companies—like Intel, who we’d discussed in the past—opted for much safer, less potentially offensive material. A cute lunchroom robot and a pair of geeky friends made for amusing, appealing spots that highlighted the passion Intel inspires in nerds.
But what about Pepsi? Did they miss out by shifting their energy to social media?
Instead of spending on Super Bowl ads, Pepsi invested $20 million ($13 million less than they spent on the 2009 Super Bowl) in the Refresh Project, which will donate that money to social causes nominated and voted on by fans. According to Nielsen Co., Pepsi received over 20% of online chatter about Super Bowl advertisers over the last two months—not a bad percentage for a company without an ad spot.
But to gauge the real impact, we’ll need to watch what Pepsi does with the Refresh Project going forward. Will they give away the $20 million to deserving causes and resume TV ads as usual? Or will they use Refresh Project as a way to transform the way they reach consumers? For instance, what if Pepsi were to film the idea owners and the people they help to show how this $20 million dollar investment changed the world? And what if that inspired others to donate money or create new efforts to help people?
tags: advertising, communities, engagement, media
February 9th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
I hadn’t thought of the contrarian approach to social networking, that’s very interesting. I still don’t understand the metrics for judging efficacy of social netowrking investments, so looking forward to any thoughts you have on that! But in general, I imagine the more friction you generate the better — smooth goes unnoticed on the Web. Thanks.
February 10th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Richard, I don’t think that the rule “no attention is bad attention” is the right way to think about social media awareness. The goal is to have real conversations with customers and community members, to listen to their input, and evolve your product or service based on their input. In that sense, you are really in trouble if you use “shock value” to move the meter. You will end up moving your customers to another provider.
Another thing to consider is that less is more. It is better to connect to fewer, relevant people than to stray off topic to reach a bigger audience.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Pepsi is in a real panic. They got a late start on social media and could have been listening to the ‘Groundswell’ way earlier on.
Stats on their respective Facebook Fan Pages as of 4:28 PM P.S.T.:
Pepsi Fans – 557, 395
Coca-Cola – 4, 998, 014
Ouch. Coca-Cola has an interesting story about their Facebook page too. It was started by two Coca-Cola drinkers who had no ties to the company. They loved Coke so much that they started a fan page. Coca-Cola later found out, claimed the page for themselves and allowed the two to continue to maintain it.