Advertise Like You Give A Damn
Pepsi and Irony Credit: Photo by Russ Beinder
It’s nearly the end of the first month of the Pepsi Refresh Everything contest and after a few weeks of vying for a $25,000 grant by pimping my organization through Facebook, e-newsletters and hastily written personal pleas I’ve got a bad taste in my mouth. Something like the aftertaste of swallowing too many virtual cans of high fructose corn syrup, caramel color, citric acid and other good ole chemicals. How’s that for refreshing?
Aaah, I can almost feel the phosphoric acid burning my tongue again.
For those of you who don’t know about the Refresh Everything contest, the presumed concept behind it is this: Regular advertising — ie. 30-second ads during the Super Bowl— is kind of tacky and wastes money that could otherwise be spent better — ie. supporting people and groups that are doing some good in the world. Since Pepsi figured it would also look hip and benevolent if it supported do-gooders, it teamed up with GOOD to devise a way to dole out cash.
But did you think Pepsi was just going to throw money at the world’s problems? No — to compete for grants of $5k, $25k, $50k, and $250k, hundreds of individuals and organizations submit proposals and then, more importantly, have to corrall as many people as possible to vote online for their projects. Can you advertise like you give a damn?
Throughout February these folks who obviously have better, more important things to do have been saying Pepsi, sending emails with Pepsi in their signatures just above their contact info, and listening to that freaking Pepsi can open each time they vote for Pepsi — I mean, when they vote for thoughtful, world-changing projects. People like myself who wouldn’t drink a Pepsi even if it were free, suddenly tried to convince friends to help spread the word. It’s not so bad! Just log in and post a Pepsi can to your Facebook page!
But it was that bad. Instead of Pepsi doing its advertising, paying for it, being honest about the transaction that occurs when a company advertises something, it did one worse than seductive marketing or product placement — it co-opted well-meaning folks to do its advertising and piggy-backed on good ideas it really had nothing to do with. The contest requires voters to submit their email addresses and birthdays — a log-in that’s not just tedious to deal with on a daily basis, but a reminder of how crudely Pepsi is measuring the outcome of its contest, not by the merit of the proposals but by the number of email addresses and website visits amassed.
But online voting is democratic! I can hear a Pepsi ad exec saying. Not really — according to our annual survey of Next American City readers, 100 percent of our readers voted in the last political election. Maybe 10 percent of these readers went to the polls for the Refresh Everything contest. It’s no surprise that the folks winning the contest are teams of youngsters, or those associated with large organizations like fraternities or the Army.
After a month of feeling sort of awkward about participating in this program, I’m left wondering why GOOD consulted on this project. I mean no harm, GOOD, I just want you guys to do what you set out to do — change the world, not change corporate advertising. Why actively participate in complicating the advertising process? Why help blur the boundaries between an advertising campaign and philanthropic support? I can’t help think that for all the money that Pepsi is giving away, it’s just creating a new problem that GOOD should be guarding against — not the all-too-common “greenwashing”, but “goodwashing.”
What could Pepsi have done instead?
One thought — how about engaging in the wildly contentious and exciting discussion about food, drink and sustenance? These are topics that Pepsi is intimately involved in. Instead of giving Teach for America (an $189-million budget organization) an extra $250,000, why not help those TFA teachers out, by supporting schools with fresh food? One of the biggest problems teachers face in educating students is their students’ lack of attention due to a lack of decent food. A government-paid free lunch costs just $2.57 — how many lunches would Refresh Everything’s entire campaign buy? Instead of sending Girl Scout cookies to troops in Iraq, why not use GOOD’s snappy graphics to create an online toolkit for students so they can learn more about the debilitating lifelong effects of childhood obesity and diabetes?
I’m not saying that the winners on the website aren’t worthy — they’re a pretty good, pretty diverse bunch of projects that Pepsi should be proud to support. But I can’t help feel like there was a missed opportunity to build Pepsi’s philanthropic legacy, to start a meaningful initiative that might have led the way for other corporations. The outcome of this project isn’t so bad, but it doesn’t quite justify the means.
Pepsi missed its chance to get smart, generous people to have a little faith in corporate philanthropy. It can revel in the fact that it got a lot of people to push its product, but it sure didn’t get our votes.
Diana Lind is editor in chief of Next American City.
Issue 28 Preview: Who Rules the Schools?
Jeff in St. Louis on Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:38pm
What a thoughtful post, Diana! I voted every single day for Next American Vanguard, but I admit it was annoying and tedious. And after 28 days of logging in to the alluring sound of Pepsi fizz, not once did I have the slightest inclination drink one. In that regard, Pepsi’s sneaky tactics fell FLAT.
Coke, please!
Anne in Baltimore on Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:50pm
Thanks for writing this! I’m glad someone is pointing out this do-gooder sham. If anyone doubts that this Pepsi giveaway as about anything other than advertising, take a quick look at the current frontrunners. If Pepsi truly cared about donating its money to worthwhile, grassroots causes, it would have taken the time to screen the contenders. There is no doubt that everyone who submitted their cause meant well, but some of these ideas are seriously flawed. They either ask Pepsi to simply shuffle a few grand to already well-funded non-profits or—worse!—corporations, or they intend to use the money in a way that is truly inefficient. Shame on Pepsi for patting itself on the back (and taking that tax write-off!) for such a blatantly wasteful and self-promoting enterprise. And shame on some of the soon-to-be beneficiaries of Pepsi’s largesse for allowing Pepsi to pay them to do things they should be doing anyway. Those outside Girl Scouts of America should not have to raise money to mail their cookies to troops overseas; Georgetown University students should not be raising bribe money so Boy Scouts of America will support inner-city youth; Apple can certainly afford to donate educational products to sixth graders without compensation.
Paulette on Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:30pm
I may or may not be in love with the products, but there are many organizations who just don’t get a seat at the table for an opportunity for grants like this. Many are working hard to bring about change and do things in the community, and are appreciative of this opportunity. Pepsi is a corporation, I’m not surprised by the adverstising “scheme”, but I know I am throwing my hat in the ring for a project in a low income community thay effects my family and some friends. And I’m not mad about it. Neither are the youth who are joining in building coalitions to get ready to vote for their project. So, whatever…folks can share their opinion. This one is mine.
Diana Lind | Next American City on Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:11pm
I agree, Paulette — having the opportunity to compete for money, especially when it’s sorely needed, is a great opportunity. That said, I’m not surprised young folks are unmoved by having to plaster Pepsi all over the place — they’re accustomed to a constant corporate involvement in their social activities, and I think that’s a shame. There are a lot of grants out there for low-income communities, particularly from local funders, which don’t require advertisement as part of the deal. I’m also curious to know if you and your team have already participated in this project or are gearing up for the March competition — as suggested in my blog post, I was pretty excited about the opportunity at the beginning but my enthusiasm waned and opinion changed as the weeks went on.
Randy in St. Louis on Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:53pm
Diana, you are great! I wonder if you can expect to get a ‘canned’ response from Pepsi.
Kat Goron in Palo Alto, CA on Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:37am
Diana, I wish you had been at the OMMA Global conference in SF this week. The team from Pepsi did a presentation about the Refresh campaign and your thoughts would have been an interesting counterpoint during the open mic portion. I, for one, questioned them about their tagline “Refresh the World” when all the charities had to be domestic.
Despite the campaign’s less than perfect execution, I am still encouraged by its existence. If you’ve ever worked in advertising, you will know what an enormous departure this is from normal client behavior. Having a huge brand funnel money away from slick TV spots and into communities is a step in the right direction. Now it’s our job to show them how to evolve the program to make it really ground-breaking. Thanks for lending your voice to this important dialogue.
Diana Lind | Next American City on Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:18pm
Thanks for this comment, Kat. But I guess the point I was trying to make is that I don’t think this is any improvement on slick TV spots. Slick TV spots are pretty upfront about their purpose and function and at least society has developed some media literacy to manage them. Ads also finance the existence of media organizations and the jobs they provide. We sort of need ads for capitalism to function. Yes, Pepsi is giving money to nonprofit organizations and well-intended individuals — but it shouldn’t be thought of as giving money away or philanthropy. It’s basically paying a few organizations a marketing fee. Most corporations have some corporate responsibility money and they all give money to nonprofits, but their decision process is a) merit based and b) a traditional form of sponsorship that doesn’t require people to advertise for the corporation beyond placing a logo somewhere and giving recognition of support.
Chris L in Los Angeles, CA on Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:19pm
I have one question for you Diana. Would you have still written this post if Next American City had succeeded in winning a grant from Pepsi?
Diana Lind | Next American City on Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:02pm
This is a hypothetical question that is impossible to answer! The point of the post was about why Next American City lost this contest and what that losing meant about the contest’s design. I was saying that if these are the rules of engagement, I don’t want to win. So Next American City stopped campaigning to win the contest, so it would have been impossible to win the grant.
But if you’re asking whether I’d bite the hand that feeds me, the answer is yes.
Michael Isla in 3104839258 on Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:09pm
In My perspective your are right Diana LInd, Design is much more than winning.