Integrated Branding Blog | Movéo

I like the taste of Pepsi, but I’ll have a Coke - neuromarketing revisited

It’s been hard not to notice the massive branding efforts that Pepsi has put forth in the past few months. New cans, new logos, new ads. I’m intrigued to see how this affects their place in the market.

Image courtesy of Adrants

It's not the first time that Pepsi has made dramatic strides to gain market share from it's biggest rival (no, not RC Cola) - Coke. The classic example of neuromarketing research involved the Pepsi Challenge campaign of the ‘80’s. Researchers wanted to know why taste tests showed that most people preferred Pepsi, while Coke dominated the market share.

In short, we don’t always rely on logic to make our decisions. Many of our product purchases are triggered by emotion and how we feel about a brand. Therefore, you can say that many of us choose Coke, not because we think it tastes better, but because of its brand or the marketing behind it.

Before neuromarketing, this argument may not have carried much weight. But by using brain scanning technology, neuroscientists found that in the blind taste test, subjects were using the front lobe of their brain to logically decide which drink they preferred. However, when subjects were asked to choose a drink knowing which was Pepsi and which was Coke, the large majority chose Coke and used a different part of their brain to make that decision.

But who says our decisions and purchases have to be logical? Pepsi was assuming that taste is the only influence that drives a beverage purchase. As if there’s a large database in our brains that ranks the order in which we like the taste of a soda and that’s how we claw through the clutter. The fact is that many of our purchases are driven by emotion and that is why branding is so vitally important. In a market with many similar products - the best branding is sure to come out victorious.

I mean, is there really that much difference to a typical consumer between laptops such as Dell, HP, Sony, Toshiba, etc? Not really. One person might buy a Sony notebook that lasts them for years and the next person might buy the same notebook and have it bunk out in a year. The difference in who wins the market share is branding.

If you’re interested in reading more about neuromarketing, I suggest picking up Buyology by Martin Lindstrom. It's full of terrific examples.

Will Pepsi's new brand efforts make them more competitive with Coke? What are your thoughts on neuromarketing?

Viral marketing...just what the Dr. ordered

You didn't hear it here first. In fact, you've probably already heard it online, on the radio, on tv, and in print. In March, Dr. Pepper sent out a press release stating that if Axl Rose (Guns N’ Roses leadman) released his record, Chinese Democracy, in 2008 that they would give a free can of Dr. Pepper to everyone in America - except former GNR guitarists Slash and Buckethead. The album had been in development for well over a decade due to Rose’s tired rock star antics.

The story died down after a few weeks of viral buzz and media attention, but it resurfaced when the record was indeed released last month. In an attempt to comply with their end of the bargain, Dr. Pepper allowed customers to visit the Dr. Pepper Web Site within a 24-hour period to claim a coupon worthy of one can of soda. The site eventually crashed due to an inability to handle the flurry of hits it was receiving. Dr. Pepper extended the window of opportunity an extra 24 hours because of the chaos.

Now, Rose is threatening legal action. He's claiming not only did Dr. Pepper not hold up their end of the bargain, but that this stunt "ruined" the release day of their new album.

Dr. Pepper's reply to legal threats by Rose and his lawyer:
"We simply commented on the delayed release of Chinese Democracy and openly encouraged the band to release it before the end of the year. Axl even expressed support for our efforts earlier in the year. We are disappointed that GNR's lawyers are turning a fun giveaway into a legal dispute."

In my opinion, this debacle of a marketing campaign benefited both parties. Rose is living in paradise city because of the publicity that has bolstered his album to the No. 3 selling record in America. Dr. Pepper's case is more interesting. Some have criticized Dr. Pepper saying that in the end, Dr. Pepper looked ridiculous. An article in Brandweek, one of my favorite sources for branding news, said “All in all, they came off looking pretty dumb.”

This, however, simply isn’t true. From a marketing stand point, Dr. Pepper has been a pop culture topic for almost an entire year. The mocking press release has traversed through the online community and has appeared in almost every major media outlet at some point since its release. This is the kind of marketing you can’t pay for.

Dr. Pepper had a plan all along. They didn't wake up one day and say “I despise Guns N’ Roses. Let’s send out a press release to mock the production of their latest album on behalf of our company.” Instead, they wanted to reach their target consumers by producing a press release that they would find humorous - giving them a brand image of young and fresh. I’m not sure if they really thought that this would fuel the band to finish the album, but the end result was almost a year’s worth of publicity for Chinese Democracy and Dr. Pepper.

If anything is in order here, Axl Rose should be thanking Dr. Pepper’s marketing team for sending out the press release that eventually led to all of this buzz. If it wasn’t for them, I’d be willing to bet you a Dr. Pepper that Chinese Democracy wouldn’t be listed as the No. 3 selling record in America right now.