We live in a world where anyone can hijack a brand and put it on the Internet with their own views, positive or negative (image by Brent Nelson). Brand control no longer exists, in large part because of widespread fragmentation of traditional and citizen-created media. The resulting brand distortion creates a situation where communicators attempt to paint the abstract.
The abstract takes pieces and puts them together to create a larger picture. Sometimes the pieces are clear, other times they are not. In the case of fragmented branding, some pieces are issued by corporate, others are the expressions of stakeholders, positive and negative.
There’s no greater example than the current Pepsi Refresh campaign. A brief recap of the initial Buzz Bin post: Pepsi has opted out of the Super Bowl in favor of a $20+ million integrated campaign that features crowdsourced charitable giving, a contest form of corporate social responsibility.
Ironically, given the quality of this year’s ads, this may have been an incredibly brilliant coup. Both Richard Laermer and I dubbed the campaign an instant success on our podcast, simply because of the many conversations it has created. See Richard’s breakdown above in this video.
The conversations aren’t all positive. In fact, the nonprofit community has doubts and questions, many of which are legitimate concerns about the viability of the contests and the sustainability of the program choices. Pepsi acknowledges these criticisms and has engaged in dialogue. I like that they aren’t running, in spite of valid criticism.
And why should they? In spite of cause-based and marketing critiques, to the common American this is a huge investment in society and a big statement. The abstract brand picture, even with the smudges, is a pretty strong one for Pepsi. In fact, without the criticism one could argue that the conversation would be less believable and loud. Brand fragmentation in the form of generosity and community contribution works.
It should be noted that Pepsi did not just launch a social media campaign. The Super Bowl ads are missing, but the company has not left the abstract painting strictly in the hands of folk artists. There’s been serious PR as evidenced by stories like the CNN piece appearing in every major media outlet, as well as substantial advertising to notify citizens of Pepsi’s Refresh America attempts.
Welcome to the fragmented brand marketing of the 21st century: A combination of mass campaigns featuring traditional advertising and PR mixed with corporate social responsibility efforts as well as authentic social media that enables both good and bad conversations. There’s no call to action beyond doing good, because Pepsi simply wants to refresh its brand. And in this case, it’s a win. I guarantee you that people — as in the people who walk into Safeway with a grocery list — will think about Pepsi again, and in a new light. Fragmented branding measures the composite view — not the individual wins or Monday morning quarterback complaints — to determine success.
Three Additional Musings for Those About to Experiment
1) Pepsi is relatively early in the crowdsourced social philanthropy game, but not the first. What was notable in this project was the size of the purse, as well as the opt out of the Super Bowl. Copy cat marketing efforts are sure to arise, and less successfully so. Less money + me, too copycat = a yawn.
2) Corporate social philanthropy needs to be authentic to the core of the company. Customer-centric efforts with crowdsourcing efforts are cool, but ultimately represent a novelty especially for niche brands that are not serving mass markets. They will be better served building programs around the corporate culture or strategy. For example, if one is a software company, one might focus on digital freedom, transparency, developing programming jobs in the U.S., as well as technical education in high schools and universities.
3) Contest fatigue is setting in. And criticism of cause-based contests is also on the rise. Make sure this is the right tactic as opposed to engaging your community in a different, more sustainable way.
All in all a terrific analysis, Geoff.
Here’s one thought:
You said, “The resulting brand distortion creates a situation where communicators attempt to paint the abstract. The abstract takes pieces and puts them together to create a larger picture. Sometimes the pieces are clear, other times they are not”
I agree but say it is obvious that the phrase “brand distortion” is from the perspective of the brand “steward” (i.e., the marketer) However, since we marketers preach that a brand is a “promise of an experience,” maybe we need to open our eyes and see that the “distortion” and “abstract” is actually the audience telling the marketer what that promised experience actually is or should be for them. After all, it is the audience that experiences the experience, not the marketer.
Yes, there will be extremes on the positive and negative side – but think of a Bell Curve and how you determine an average or median. With with network-centric tools such as behavioral and sentient analysis being developed, marketers will be able eventually measure whether their branding messages are syncing with the average or mainstream dialogue of their audience, whose dialogue is usually telling us what they need or prefer; the question now is if marketers will be willing to tweak their messaging in a way that changes how they think the brand should be communicated. Marketers that accept the loss of control of the message are more likely to succeed than those that do not listen to their audience and loosen control of the messaging.
Thanks for the terrific case study too!
Nice, Geoff. Nicely struck balance of specifics and big picture. Pepsi et al have indeed triggered a lot of conversation, though my sense is that those conversations have thus far skirted around the core of the matter, or dive in too far on a particular question while missing the whole.
I particularly like this…
Fragmented 21st century marketing: “A combination of mass campaigns featuring traditional advertising and PR mixed with corporate social responsibility efforts as well as authentic social media that enables both good and bad conversations.”
What draws my attention is the embrace of “good and BAD conversations” – especially in Pepsi’s case. In this case, the engagement with concerns from the public has swayed my opinion of the campaign overall. My initial reaction to the campaign launch was personally, “this is just another ‘me too’ campaign from a national brand that will try to take advantage of nonprofits to sell X.”
I would still feel that way were it not for Pepsi’s engagement with nonprofit stakeholders acknowledging their questions and concerns. They’ve got me thinking twice both about their intentions in the community as well as their product.
Nice post Geoff, thanks. Useful.
Companies, individuals and groups using branding have always used different platforms to get their message out. From a charity view, going green and sustainable, supporting sport and claiming to be a winner and “We are number one” customer service. Some companies have become so fragmented that who know what their identity is, as they have supported some many view points and stories today in the media.
HR Directors from Top Multinational Companies share their thoughts and proven key strategies to building a strong corporate culture: -
- Hugh Hood, HR Director, BT Wholesale
- Danny Kalman, HR Director Europe, Panasonic
- Christopher McLaverty, VP Global Leadership Development & Learning, BP
- Grzegorz Puczylowski, Central & Eastern Europe Rewards & Recognition Director, PCW
- Ellyn Shook, Global MD for HR, Accenture
Watch this informative video interview @ http://bit.ly/hLdi8I
Great story over again. I am looking forward for more updates=)