![]() ![]() Granted, there aren't warning labels on soda pop cans, limits on where or how they can be advertised, or special sin taxes levied on them…yet…it's just not cool to regularly drink soda pop like it used to be, similarly to the way cigarettes lost their panache over time. Like cigarettes and cancer, the functional benefits of drinking soda pop are a contributing cause (though not consistently or only). It's a self-inflicted outcome of consumption choices. The functional benefits of sugar, caffeine, and nicotine were inescapable, but people tended to choose one brand over another because of the images associated with them. Mass media allowed brands to claim symbolic abstractions of happiness, independence, and success, and then repeat that positioning in evermore creative and compelling ways. Then, as the economy and culture empowered people to express themselves, soda pop and smoking were marketed as quick, rewarding ways to do so. Both were originally considered good for you, whether dispensed via pharmacy fountains or recommended by doctors to calm nerves. ![]() You can't separate soda pop or cigarette branding from the context of the 20th century. That's why it makes sense for Pepsi to hire a marketer who excels at things like "engagement" and "culture" instead of "selling products." Whether talking to a pack-a-day smoker or daily Big Gulp drinker, the branding challenge is to reaffirm the choices of existing customers versus making pitches to new ones. But then it hit me: The soda category is the 21st century's cigarette industry. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |