Related Posts
More From This Category
- Esurance’s New Ad Campaign: Pushing All The Right Buttons
- The One Very Important Thing You Can Learn From “Back to School” Marketers
- Friday Fun: Alan King Tells Us Why Marketing To Women Is Important
- When Free Isn’t Free Enough
A small ruckus was raised this past week over Pepsi’s new iPhone app Before You Score. Promoted as a marketing gimmick for the AMP energy drink, the app provides users with pick-up lines and inside info on 24 “categories” (otherwise known as “stereotypes”) of women.
Lots of folks are pretty peeved, evidenced by the comments on YouTube and Twitter. And therein lies the beauty of “controversy branding.” Pepsi’s milquetoast apology a few days ago seems to be its way of saying, “Sorry, suckers – the app is a HUGE hit and getting a lot of attention. If you think we’re gonna pull it down, you’re crazy.”
A confession: I downloaded Before You Score. And while I consider it to be on par with the fart machine app, I have to say that the creators did an impressive job with cross-referencing technologies. If Pepsi was smart, they’d use this expertise to create a kick-ass app that boasts some value power for its female customers.
What do you think of the Before You Score controversy? It seems to have rung the “get attention” bell for Pepsi. In the long run, will it be worth it for the company? Did the company achieve the balance of controversy vs. short-term memory of the consumer?
Michele Miller is a writer, speaker, and consultant on ways to capture the heart of the female customer. The co-author of The Soccer Mom Myth, she consults with businesses of all sizes across North America
I’d be more alarmed if Pepsi seemed to take these stereotypes seriously, but it seems like they put a lot of effort into making it funny rather than offensive. And, really, shouldn’t we be happy that they had 27 stereotypes? Instead of three? I’m also impressed with the usefulness of the information provided within the gimmicky package.
As for their response…making a tag for Twitter was a mistake. Especially with Pepsi, rather than AMP. In the long run, though, I think this one will blow over pretty quickly. It was more stupid than dangerous to women and there are bigger battles to wage.
Who’s being stereotyped here — the female “types” in the app, or AMP’s 18-30 male target segment?
Honestly, how many products are gunning for those emotionally-immature-wannabe-ladies-man dollars?
Real men know their type when they see it, and they don’t need to tell them how to speak to women. That said, this is harmless. If it were reversed, I’m sure we could all come up with just as many stereotypical male profiles, and they’d be equally (albeit marginally) funny.
(“…they don’t need an app to tell them how to speak to women” is what I meant to write in that last paragraph.)
The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that they missed the mark because the DIDN’T create the same app, only for women. That would have been a great balance, and an even bigger hit for Pepsi.
Another tempest in a teapot that leaves this 60 year old boomer totally underwhelmed. I’d just as soon get all worked up over an offensive prize in a box of cracker jacks –now that really does date me doesn’t it. I think the biggest problem for Pepsi may be that no one with more than two brain cells gives a hoot and the marketing “controversy” will hover somewhere between slim and none. Now what was that we were talking about–I seem to have forgotten…
Now that you say it, Margaret, I AM more upset about the toy I got in my last Cracker Jack. A puzzle piece. ONE puzzle piece. Like I was going to drive all the way back to Salt Lake City to get 30 more boxes of throwback Cracker Jack boxes in order to finish their stupid puzzle. I WANTED A RUBBER BAND HELICOPTER!!!