PepsiCo will not be advertising beverages on the Super Bowl this year, according to an article by Suzanne Vranica in the Wall Street Journal today. This means no Pepsi, no Diet Pepsi, no Gatorade, and no Sierra Mist on the big game in February.
This is a huge shift for Pepsi; the brand has been a core Super Bowl player, with spots running in the last 23 games.
Apparently Pepsi will be investing in an Internet-based, cause-related marketing effort instead of spending on Super Bowl advertising.
I’m not clear why Pepsi is making this sort of a move. Why walk away from a proven marketing tactic?
The decision certainly isn’t about the money; while a Super Bowl spot is expensive, in the scheme of Pepsi’s advertising budget it isn’t a huge matter.
One potential issue is that PepsiCo has struggled in recent years to create winning Super Bowl spots, airing a mixed bag of commercials. While some worked well, others were rather weak, including one astonishing Gatorade spot that showed a dog slurping away for 30 seconds.
Another potential issue is that Coke has been successfully challenging Pepsi on the Super Bowl in recent years and apparently is continuing to invest heavily in the event. By stepping aside Pepsi leaves the field to Coke. That is one way to avoid negative comparisons.
PepsiCo is making a lot of changes these days in the beverage area. Earlier this year the company introduced a new look for Pepsi, redesigned Tropicana and repositioned Gatorade. At least two of the three were less than successful.
It will be interesting to see how Pepsi does sitting out the game.
Tim Calkins
Hey Tim, Googled my way to this blog via your comment in this WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204574600322164130250.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter
“I think there could be a bit of backlash.” I was wondering if you could expand on that. Personally I already see it as a win for Pepsi. It’s already generating mentions this far out from the games and to me, largely positive coverage. I could see Pepsi’s shift reducing brand awareness, but backlash? Not sure how that would come about. According to your article above, they were already getting negative feedback with their commercial spot failures.
DC—Thanks for the post. I think Pepsi might see a backlash in two areas.
First, retailers may well reduce merchandising support for Pepsi leading up the Super Bowl, since the brand is no longer advertising on the game. This could help Coke substantially.
Second, Pepsi’s absence could make consumers wonder “What happened to Pepsi?” Coke will be very visible this year and I think Pepsi’s absence will be notable.
I would be surprised indeed if people said “I’ll drink more Pepsi because that brand isn’t advertising on the Super Bowl.”
The folks at Pepsi clearly believe they have something better to spend on, and that may well be the case. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
I really hope it turns out well and paves the way for more cause-marketing at this level. But the catch is that if more companies turn to cause-marketing it may just become noise with no one really standing out anymore if they decide to go that route.
Very good point regarding the retailers, wonder what steps Pepsi is taking to address their concerns.