5 ms·
Part of the claim is that the people who are checking are ad execs who, if PepsiCo stopped buying ads, would shortly be out of a job (or have their budget and i
by likpok 6y ago
Part of the claim is that the people who are checking are ad execs who, if PepsiCo stopped buying ads, would shortly be out of a job (or have their budget and influence slashed). A counter to this might be that different advertising channels are likely not identically effective, and a TV ad exec has a big incentive to poke holes in non-TV ads.
- otabdeveloper4 6y agoPepsiCo has third-party auditors that they employ to check the checkers.
- soared 6y agoYeah that is what is usually given as the reason so I was getting at a gung-ho CEO, CFO, CRO, Consultant, etc.
- toast0 6y agoSee the Pepsi Refresh Project of 2010. Where Pepsi redirected a sizable amount of ad budget (including super bowl ads) to community projects. They abandonded this strategy after a while because they lost market share. This is the biggest large scale test of advertising I'm aware of. But it probably doesn't apply to all products.
- amelius 6y agoThey only lost market share because everybody else was still using advertising. Therefore, this is not a test in favor of advertising (only in the prisoner's dilemma sense).
- pkalinowski 6y agoSo advertising works? If it didn't, those buying ads would not take the pepsi market share
- rocqua 6y agoIf advertising is an arms race with more total cost than total benefit, that would be an argument that advertising works. Because anyone, at any given time, will benefit from running advertising. It also means advertising is a net loss to society, but that is separate from the question 'does advertising work'
- andrewflnr 6y agoIf you're running a company, "just stop being in a prisoner's dilemma" is not one of your options.