unit 20-m1

 Live for now

"Live for Now" was a global campaign launched in 2012. The goal of the campaign was to reposition their brand and appeal to a younger demographic and present themselves as a fun brand. The campaign included television ads, digital content, and experiential events that highlighted the excitement and energy of living in the moment. The "Live for Now" campaign also had several celebrity endorsements, including Nicki Minaj, One Direction and Beyoncé, and Kendall Jenner. Those celebrity partnerships helped turn the campaign around. Despite public backlash over its 2017 ad featuring Kendall Jenner, Pepsi retracted it and issued an apology. Reasons why Live for Now was unsuccessful: Lack of Connection: The campaign's focus on living in the moment and promoting a carefree lifestyle may have felt superficial to some consumers, especially given the social and economic challenges many people were facing at the time. 

Celebrity Overload: The campaign relied heavily on celebrity endorsements, featuring multiple high-profile celebrities across different advertising formats. While these endorsements may have helped to generate initial interest in the campaign, they may have also made it feel overly commercial and disconnected from real life. Unattainable Lifestyle: The campaign's focus on living in the moment and enjoying life to the fullest may have felt unrealistic and unattainable to many consumers. Political/Controversial Theme: Most ads with a controversial theme receive flak, and Pepsi is no exception. They tried to appeal to a certain group, and it mirrored the Black Lives Matter movement and added their fun theme to it, which infuriated many people worldwide by minimizing the movement. From this, I see them trying to recreate the peace, not war campaign in the 70s, which was not scripted and became very famous all over the world.

Consistency

While the campaign was a very poor way of showing the issues in the world at that time, they were very consistent with the celebrity endorsement using many famous people across billboard adverts and many other, however a lot of people thought they were used too much as the billboards and adverts were there with these big flashy people grinning like the world isn't affecting them and many people thought it portrayed a very unrealistic and fake persona to the public, which i agree with so while it was very consistent and they stuck with the branding they chose it was also very overloaded and unrealistic leading people to have foul opinions on it.

Share a Coke

"Share a Coke." First launched in Australia in 2012 and then in the UK in 2013, the campaign sees Coca-Cola print popular first and last names and nicknames on bottle and can labels, encouraging people to share a Coke with someone. In India, Coca-Cola took a different route to creating an emotional connection by replacing its logo with Coca-Cola bottles and cans with the words "Papa", "Didi", and "Bhai" engraved on them. It was successful in attracting customers and driving Coca-Cola sales, and the "Shake Coca-Cola" variation was another creative way to keep the campaign fresh and exciting. As a result, 1 billion impressions, global Coke sales soared phenomenally high. Reasons for the "Share a Coke" campaign’s success: Emotional/personal connect: Consumers are attracted to goods and services that give them a personal experience. People were excited to find their own name or the names of their loved ones on the bottles. Social media buzz: The campaign was highly shareable on social media, as people posted pictures of themselves with their personalized bottles and cans. This generated a lot of organic social media buzz and helped spread the word about the campaign. Campaign is regularly updated: The campaign went for several years and it was constantly updated and was localized as per the country, In India it featured its bottle with 11 regional Indian languages Multi-channel marketing: Coca-Cola used a variety of marketing channels to promote the campaign, including TV ads, billboards, social media, and in-store displays. By using a multi-channel approach, Coca-Cola was able to reach a wider audience.

Consistency

The consistency of the "Share a Coke" campaign varies throughout, like with the billboards, they don't use celebrity endorsement, they use personal pictures of perfectly average people that have been uploaded online, some of which having no pictures at all and are very plain whereas all of the adverts they all have celebrity endorsement and famous people to showcase it which I believe they shouldn't have done and should've stuck with the theme of celebrities they originally chose, however I also think that using members of the public to promote it can also make it quite personal and shows the amount of people that like it and how many people it can bring together some people even making new friends online after posting a picture drinking coke with someone else's name, some people could also argue that that is dangerous as meeting new people online can be quite dangerous as they might not be who you think they are.

Conclusion

Both campaigns had their ups and downs and their moment in the sun, one being more victorious than the other. The better one being share a coke because the live for now campaign had the funding and celebrity endorsement however the concept of their ad was completely unethical and quite malicious to certain ethnicities and races showing Kendall Jenner "fixing" the BLM movement by grabbing a drink which is disrespectful to the race culture and so many other things that just caused an abundance of backlash for the brand whereas the share a coke campaign is all about inclusivity showing that by displaying peoples name on the cans and or bottles, no matter who they are.