3 ms·
They had a draft version that was obvious a joke and set the price 100x higher. They lowered it to get people excited about the prospect of actually getting th
by nullc 3y ago
They had a draft version that was obvious a joke and set the price 100x higher. They lowered it to get people excited about the prospect of actually getting the jet.
In other countries, like Canada, they also ran with a disclaimer.
It wasn't obviously a joke. At the time the expenditure on actually providing it would have been ground breaking, but not too many years later marketing spends were high enough that it would have been a reasonable cost of business (and a phenomenal promotion to actually do it). There are even insurance programs now that focus on fringe outcomes in marketing campaigns, specifically so you can have unlikely to be claimed grand prizes at a managed level of risk.
In fact, I believe Pepsi's loss on the jet would have been pretty similar to the Taco bell 2001 MIR splashdown promotion (where they offered free tacos to every American if MIR hit their target).
- morelisp 3y ago> it would have been a reasonable cost of business There's no universe where a business sells $37000000 jets for $700000 and it's reasonable.
- Dylan16807 3y agoNot "jets", but "jet"? $30M is totally a plausible price for that scale of marketing stunt.
- nullc 3y agoExactly.
- morelisp 3y agoNo it's not. Maybe if you're talking about a contest, but if you're talking about straight up exchanging cash for the jet like the kid tried, it's obviously a joke. Even by your logic: Do you also think there was only one pair of sunglasses? One duffel bag? So why one jet?
- Dylan16807 3y agoIt doesn't need to be a contest to get huge amounts of press attention. > obviously a joke They decided to alter the campaign to make it look less like a joke, because that would market better. Imagine the marketability if it wasn't a joke! > Even by your logic: Do you also think there was only one pair of sunglasses? One duffel bag? So why one jet? More expensive items have smaller stocks. Much more expensive items have much smaller stocks. Is this not obvious? If something had to be equal between prizes types, I would expect it to be total value, not quantity.