6 ms·

Interesting story, but the clickbait headline is not needed here. Story ends with: > At the end of everything, Pepsi’s total combined losses, between physical,

Interesting story, but the clickbait headline is not needed here. Story ends with: > At the end of everything, Pepsi’s total combined losses, between physical, legal, and brand equity costs, would top $20M. Their market share would plummet and take years to rebound. The "$32 billion" seems to come from the amount of bottles who would win the prize, but Pepsi didn't actually pay out the promised amount, so it didn't cost them $32 billion in the end.

cat199 6y ago
Don't think this is really that clickbaity - the typo amount accounted to 32B, and the outrage caused by that non-existent 32B lead to riots in which people died, in other words, deadly riots. sometimes things are legitimately outrageous and worthy of an emotionally charged headline.
- capableweb 6y ago
  It is clickbaity. There was no "typo" (Pepsi said it was a "system error") and there was nothing that cost them $32B. The only true parts of the headline is "Pepsi" and "caused deadly riots", which I agree with you, is outrageous and should never have happened. But we don't have to lie about the content of a story in order to make this outrageous, it's already outrageous enough with the facts.
  - abofh 6y ago
    Pepsi's typo didn't cause 32B of loss to them, but by some measure, there was a tiny, brief window where the country thought it was 32B richer. And this was before the extensive use of the internet, so it probably took weeks for people to discover that they shouldn't have bought that car/house/whatever. So yes, Pepsi's typo didn't cost them 32B, but 32B of economic value was instantaneously created, and then, after some time, destroyed. Was its total economic cost 32B? No, but was 32B a reasonable number to state? Sure. Pepsi's 20MM mistake over 32B caused riots seems a lot more wordy, no?
  - jrochkind1 6y ago
    If it was only $20M, they probably just would have paid it, avoiding riots. What caused riots was their unwillingness/inability to pay the $32B they had inadvertantly promised. I think the $32B is appropriate in the headline, it's the number that they accidentally promised, and could not deliver on, causing the riots. But yes, the headline is written in a way to attract clicks, as all headlines are these days. I might have written it slightly differently. I don't think it's especially misleading.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > But yes, the headline is written in a way to attract clicks, as all headlines are these days. Except that the attracted readers wouldn't lierally click on anything until news moved to the web, that's been the point of headlines forever.
  - hnlmorg 6y ago
    It's not a lie though. All the title says is $32B of wealth was accidentally advertised (in this case, prize money based on numbers in a bottle caps). The headline doesn't say it cost Pepsi that amount, it just says the typo (ok, that bit isn't strictly accurate) was for the amount of $32B. A typo isn't the same thing as a payment. Anecdotally the article was pretty much what I expected from the title: a large amount of wealth was accidentally promised (I assumed by physical property worth $32B and where the quantity was accidentally an order of magnitude more) and Pepsi, like all successful businesses, wormed out of delivering. As it turns out the story was more absurd than the headline lead me to believe but largely it was accurate to my assumptions based on the title. Moving on from the title: this article did make me wonder what would have happened to the Philippine economy had Pepsi paid out (assuming they had the money to do so). With 800,000 people suddenly winning enough to buy a luxury house, I bet that would have caused house prices to rise massively and likely did all sorts of other massively disruptive things to the economy. Any other theories on this "whatif" scenario?
- darepublic 6y ago
  I mean, I don't like Pepsi and understand people being pissed, but going out to protest with hundreds of other 'winners' when its obvious this must be a big mistake is pretty ridiculous. The fact that Pepsi regained market share only shows that its easier for people to bust shit up then boycott a soft drink.
- csomar 6y ago
  Unless OP changed the title, there is nothing that infer that Pepsi lost $32Bn in the process. Just that the size of the mistake was $32Bn.
stickfigure 6y ago
This critique is unnecessarily pedantic. If I issue you a $200 check and (through whatever error) it ends up being written for $200,000,000, we would fairly call it a "$200MM typo" despite the fact that it would bounce. The headline delivered exactly the story it promised. I was surprised I had never heard about it before.
- cdubzzz 6y ago
  Eh, I think it's debatable and not pedantic. I literally clicked on the link because I inferred the headline to mean that Pepsi made a typo that somehow cost them $32B. And re: your example, I would not call that a "$200MM typo", I would call it a typo. If I intended to write a check for $200 and later when it was cashed found I had accidentally wrote it for $220, I would call that a $20 typo.
  - antris 6y ago
    How's "Pepsi's mistake cost innocent lives by an exploding grenade"? Technically correct, but sounds even more horrendous and catastrophic, while technically 100% correct. If your argument is that the title is trying to be click-baity they could've probably done a lot worse even while staying with the strict facts. I really don't think the author meant to clickbait.
  - quietbritishjim 6y ago
    I inferred the headline to mean what it actually did, and was surprised to find comments here like yours. I would even argue that is the true literal meaning. The fact that it caused riots was especially a giveaway. If Pepsi had actually paid out after making their mistake, why would there be riots? Yes I can imagine situations (e.g. they only paid out after there were deadly riots) but it still leads you to the right interpretation. BTW I agree that your example is a $20 typo, but that seems unrelated. I would still call it a $20 typo if you then didn't cash in that cheque.
    - cdubzzz 6y ago
      Taken a whole, I can see what you mean about the article title. I think this is a just bad title, but titles are hard (: > I would still call it a $20 typo if you then didn't cash in that cheque. Interesting. To me calling something a "$XX [typo|mistake|error|etc.]" means that the typo/error/mistake resulted in a loss of $XX. Any other way to read that feels confusing.

cat199 6y ago

Don't think this is really that clickbaity - the typo amount accounted to 32B, and the outrage caused by that non-existent 32B lead to riots in which people died, in other words, deadly riots. sometimes things are legitimately outrageous and worthy of an emotionally charged headline.

capableweb 6y ago
It is clickbaity. There was no "typo" (Pepsi said it was a "system error") and there was nothing that cost them $32B. The only true parts of the headline is "Pepsi" and "caused deadly riots", which I agree with you, is outrageous and should never have happened. But we don't have to lie about the content of a story in order to make this outrageous, it's already outrageous enough with the facts.
- abofh 6y ago
  Pepsi's typo didn't cause 32B of loss to them, but by some measure, there was a tiny, brief window where the country thought it was 32B richer. And this was before the extensive use of the internet, so it probably took weeks for people to discover that they shouldn't have bought that car/house/whatever. So yes, Pepsi's typo didn't cost them 32B, but 32B of economic value was instantaneously created, and then, after some time, destroyed. Was its total economic cost 32B? No, but was 32B a reasonable number to state? Sure. Pepsi's 20MM mistake over 32B caused riots seems a lot more wordy, no?
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  If it was only $20M, they probably just would have paid it, avoiding riots. What caused riots was their unwillingness/inability to pay the $32B they had inadvertantly promised. I think the $32B is appropriate in the headline, it's the number that they accidentally promised, and could not deliver on, causing the riots. But yes, the headline is written in a way to attract clicks, as all headlines are these days. I might have written it slightly differently. I don't think it's especially misleading.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > But yes, the headline is written in a way to attract clicks, as all headlines are these days. Except that the attracted readers wouldn't lierally click on anything until news moved to the web, that's been the point of headlines forever.
- hnlmorg 6y ago
  It's not a lie though. All the title says is $32B of wealth was accidentally advertised (in this case, prize money based on numbers in a bottle caps). The headline doesn't say it cost Pepsi that amount, it just says the typo (ok, that bit isn't strictly accurate) was for the amount of $32B. A typo isn't the same thing as a payment. Anecdotally the article was pretty much what I expected from the title: a large amount of wealth was accidentally promised (I assumed by physical property worth $32B and where the quantity was accidentally an order of magnitude more) and Pepsi, like all successful businesses, wormed out of delivering. As it turns out the story was more absurd than the headline lead me to believe but largely it was accurate to my assumptions based on the title. Moving on from the title: this article did make me wonder what would have happened to the Philippine economy had Pepsi paid out (assuming they had the money to do so). With 800,000 people suddenly winning enough to buy a luxury house, I bet that would have caused house prices to rise massively and likely did all sorts of other massively disruptive things to the economy. Any other theories on this "whatif" scenario?
darepublic 6y ago
I mean, I don't like Pepsi and understand people being pissed, but going out to protest with hundreds of other 'winners' when its obvious this must be a big mistake is pretty ridiculous. The fact that Pepsi regained market share only shows that its easier for people to bust shit up then boycott a soft drink.
csomar 6y ago
Unless OP changed the title, there is nothing that infer that Pepsi lost $32Bn in the process. Just that the size of the mistake was $32Bn.

stickfigure 6y ago

This critique is unnecessarily pedantic. If I issue you a $200 check and (through whatever error) it ends up being written for $200,000,000, we would fairly call it a "$200MM typo" despite the fact that it would bounce. The headline delivered exactly the story it promised. I was surprised I had never heard about it before.

cdubzzz 6y ago
Eh, I think it's debatable and not pedantic. I literally clicked on the link because I inferred the headline to mean that Pepsi made a typo that somehow cost them $32B. And re: your example, I would not call that a "$200MM typo", I would call it a typo. If I intended to write a check for $200 and later when it was cashed found I had accidentally wrote it for $220, I would call that a $20 typo.
- antris 6y ago
  How's "Pepsi's mistake cost innocent lives by an exploding grenade"? Technically correct, but sounds even more horrendous and catastrophic, while technically 100% correct. If your argument is that the title is trying to be click-baity they could've probably done a lot worse even while staying with the strict facts. I really don't think the author meant to clickbait.
- quietbritishjim 6y ago
  I inferred the headline to mean what it actually did, and was surprised to find comments here like yours. I would even argue that is the true literal meaning. The fact that it caused riots was especially a giveaway. If Pepsi had actually paid out after making their mistake, why would there be riots? Yes I can imagine situations (e.g. they only paid out after there were deadly riots) but it still leads you to the right interpretation. BTW I agree that your example is a $20 typo, but that seems unrelated. I would still call it a $20 typo if you then didn't cash in that cheque.
  - cdubzzz 6y ago
    Taken a whole, I can see what you mean about the article title. I think this is a just bad title, but titles are hard (: > I would still call it a $20 typo if you then didn't cash in that cheque. Interesting. To me calling something a "$XX [typo|mistake|error|etc.]" means that the typo/error/mistake resulted in a loss of $XX. Any other way to read that feels confusing.