According to a 2009 CAF survey of UK CEOs, 40% think their community programme should be delivering more PR value and over 90% said the public undervalue their firm’s current community contributions. So events in the US, where Pepsi and Coca-Cola have been competing publicly in the community investment space, should have community managers here taking note.
Closer inspection of the way in which Pepsi, and to a lesser extent Coca-Cola, have handled their respective programmes reveals some useful lessons for community managers everywhere, even those without comparable budgets:
Firstly, the timing is right. By eschewing costly and ostentatious Super Bowl advertising, Pepsi has tapped into the public sentiment of more fiscally austere times. By supporting community regeneration programmes instead, Pepsi shows its understanding for social issues and the need to address them, particularly during the recession.
Secondly, the communications has been handled deftly. An estimated 97 million people watched the 2009 Super Bowl. It’s big news. By announcing its intention not to advertise some weeks in advance of the event, Pepsi has created a talking point, for both the media and individual consumers.
Thirdly, both the Pepsi and Coca-Cola programmes encourage online public participation. This gives people a greater interest in the initiative and the intention is that they will share this with others. Web links can be passed on in an instant by email, twitter and Facebook, creating a “viral effect”. Whereas once Pepsi would have had to connect directly with these people to communicate their message, this is now being transmitted organically by interested third parties.
Of course, both initiatives have been launched with great fanfare, but nothing yet has been achieved. For both programmes to have a lasting, positive effect on consumer brand association, the implementation of the programmes will need to match the hype