Q1.

Should the Pepsi brand continue to fund the Pepsi Refresh Project in 2011? Why/why not?
Yes, Pepsi should continue to fund the Pepsi Refresh Project for the following reasons:
The project was a success in 2010 and it created a lot of positive buzz for the brand.
Abrupt discontinuation of the project can damage the brand equity created
Creates a local and national buzz around the brand Pepsi
Indicates to the public that Pepsi is a socially responsible brand, enhancing its
goodwill
The public feels that it is directly involved in the decision-making process of Pepsi,
increasing their belongingness
Provided a platform to people who wished to make a change to bring their ideas to
reality but who did not possess the resources

Q2.
If the Pepsi team continues with Pepsi Refresh in 2011, what changes would you make to
the programme to better achieve the brand objective?
Should split the budget so that funds can be allotted to both Refresh Project and
sales-enhancing activities.
Since the project left other aspects of the brands equity at risk and involved a lot of
the employees time, the scale of the project can be reduced to 6000 ideas per year
The Refresh Project should be advertised in public media, like the SuperBowl, so that
sales can be increased. Since this is the second year of the project, awareness among
the public will be high
Special advantages given to Pepsi users to increase votes for their ideas
The project was flawed as Pepsi attempted to support a wide variety of communal
projects which led to scattered results and difficulties in deciding which cause to
vote for. There was no direct relation to any specific issue. In 2011, Pepsi should
increase control and focus on specific causes and drive positive results in those
directions.
To harness the power of social impact, Pepsi should build off their enduring
connection to pop culture and should focus more on funding and advocacy in the
arts and music sector.

Q3.
Is the Pepsi brand team focussed on the right metrics to measure success? What is the value
of consumer engagement? How should they calculate the value of Facebook fans, Twitter
followers, and the billions of impressions generated by the Pepsi Refresh Project?
The first major objective was to raise awareness and interest in PRP and to position
Pepsi as a platform for making a change. The metrics that they used was the number
of ideas submitted on the website as well as the number of votes received, which
was the right way of evaluating success since in just 72 hours, the site reached the
1000 idea submission limit for the first month with at least 1 submission from every
 state. More than 141000 votes were cast in the first 3 days of voting, signifying that
a lot of awareness was created.
Talking about consumer engagement, Pepsi was highly successful in audience
involvement as they connected with their consumers in a way that would help them
bring positive changes to issues that the public considered important. This enabled
the public to feel like they were a part of the Pepsi family and created a goodwill for
the brand. The project gave a good social ROI and increased the brand equity.
Consumers felt that Pepsi was a brand that cared about the community and
provided Pepsi with the perception of a forward-thinking, innovative brand.
During 2010, the project added 3 million Facebook fans and 53000 Twitter followers.
Also, 3.24 billion media impressions were generated, which were estimated to be
worth $66 million in earned media value. Although the number of followers
increased, there was no significant increase in sales

Q4.
Do you agree with Pepsis decision to not advertise during the 2010 Super Bowl? Why?
What did the gain and what did they sacrifice by moving advertising dollars from traditional
advertising? Should they advertise the Pepsi Refresh from project in the 2011 Super Bowl?
30 second ads costs $2.5 Mn during the 2010 super bowl which was expensive as
compared to the refresh project.
Even though pepsi did not advertise in the Super bowl they were the second most
talked about brand during the 2010 Super bowl
Coca Cola on advertising got 390000 followers on social media whereas Pepsi
without advertising could manage 300000 followers.
Hence, with the refresh project doing well, it was a good decision to not advertise
during the super bowl
What pepsi sacrificed was that they could not manage to increase sales without
advertising. As the strength of traditional advertising was underestimated by Pepsi
They sacrificed awareness but gained authenticity and credibility
For 2011 super bowl, pepsi should advertise and manage funds well to continue with
refresh project and the super bowl advertisements.

Q5.
Is Pepsi the right brand for a cause marketing programme like Pepsi Refresh Project? Why or
why not?
No, Pepsi was not the right brand for this project. Cause marketing needs to clearly link back
to a brands mission, which was lacking in this case. Although well-intentioned and
innovative, the lack of direction and the huge logistical challenge involved in this project
created an obstacle in making it a success. Pepsi also did not have any expertise in this field
and has always been associated with pop culture. The project was not entirely brand
relevant, and thus added little value to the brands core equity. It was risky to build an
entire campaign around a cause that did not give any tangible reason to consume the
product.