The announcement of Pepsi's $50m partnership deal with popstar Beyonce has certainly not gone unnoticed in the marketing community. Headlines of the deal inclusions are:
- Beyonce to feature in the Pepsi Sponsored Super Bowl halftime show early in 2013
- Beyonce to feature in the Pepsi Super Bowl commercial
- Beyonce's face to appear on a limited-edition line of Pepsi cans
- In-store point of sale features
But the broad-strokes mask an even bigger and long term agenda. As Ben Sisario of the New York Times points out "Pepsi doesn’t just want to sign up the telegenic pop star for another TV commercial. It also wants to get into the Beyoncé business".
The partnership has been called a "hybrid project" that, apart from the standard items outlined above, will include a multi-million dollar "creative development" fund to support Beyonce's chosen creative projects. So, for instance, the partnership will include a blitz of promotion for her next album, which has no title or release date so far but is expected in 2013. It will also involve sponsorship of the artist's world tour in 2013 with full control over screening local talent as opening acts.
In short, it's the difference between being a conventional sponsor and what Sisario calls "an artistic patron"
According to Frank Cooper III, chief marketing officer of global consumer engagement for PepsiCo:
“It’s going to add up to great new music and fun new experiences for our consumers, helping them make the most of the moment they’re in. That’s what ‘Live for Now’ is all about and that’s what this partnership is all about.”
All this is very well but will it sell Pepsi and get the brand out of it's weak position vs. Coca Cola? Inspired by an article in Forbes, I staged an (imaginary) Q&A with contrarian marketing expert Jonathan Salem Basken:
Me:
Jonathan, do you think the deal will help solve Pepsi's volume woes?
JSB:
Let's be clear for the readers who run the risk of getting side-tracked by all the glitz and glamour: Pepsi’s branding is officially adrift. The company has been in denial of this for some time - experiments with ill-conceived social media projects like "Pepsi Refresh" are a case in point. But what’s still missing is what makes Pepsi real and relevant right now, in the present. The flagship brand is losing steam, having given away 2nd place in the cola rankings to Diet Coke and, as of the last quarter, reported a 3% sales decline on a 7% decline in net sales (yielding a 16% drop in operating profit for its Pepsi and Gatorade businesses).
Me:
PepsiCo execs have said that “consumers are seeking a much greater authenticity in marketing from the brands they love” - surely this foray into popular culture is as authentic as it gets?
JSB:
It might have been when it was tried back in 2002 but it is now an old idea. Pepsi first hired Beyonce in 2002 after Britney Spears fell out of favour. Coke similarly wasted many millions sponsoring Christina Aguilera (whose face appeared on cans just like Beyonce’s will next year). Christina would eventually swap sides and do promos for Pepsi internationally.
Me:
But isn't there a chance that the company has learnt more on how to leverage in the last 10 years.
JSB:
Possibly, but I don't think this partnership will sell one extra can of product. Executives will claim it does but they are misled. By the way, there’s absolutely no reliable data on whether Britney et al sold anything a decade ago, and no reason to believe Beyonce will now. The problem faced by big Cola companies like Pepsi and Coke is not an awareness one - it is the fact that it's getting harder and harder to sell global brands in increasingly segmented, discreet, and critical communities (just think of what’s happened to national beer brands). A sponsorship like this doesn't address that issue. There's an old saying... "just because you've got a hammer, doesn't mean every problem you encounter is a nail..." The only winner here is Beyonce herself.
For more information visit Branchannel
No comments:
Post a Comment