PepsiCo to Revive Crystal Pepsi Through Oregon Trail
Pepsi is launching the return of its iconic 90's drink, Crystal Pepsi in collaboration with another 90's icon; the Oregon Trail game. The revival will only last a limited time and is said to launch in Canada on July 11, and in the United States on August 8. The brand plans to combine the two icons by launching a Pepsi inspired version of the game Oregon Trail on its website, called The Crystal Pepsi Trail. In this game, consumers and players alike can venture on a journey in a virtual station wagon to bring the cola bottles back. Senior Director, Marketing, Stacy Taffet said in a statement "we've always had a special place in our heart for Crystal Pepsi, and there has been a huge groundswell of support to bring it back..." According to The Wall Street Journal, the return is an attempt to fix falling profits as the brand sales fell 2% and continues to be the second place soda behind CocaCola. PR Daily explained that although the company hopes the nostalgia will boost revenue, not everyone is on board and have even taken to Twitter to express their lack of interest.
Not only is the campaign reviving an old drink, but launching a game on its website to promote the product. As a PR professional, there are a few factors to keep in mind. First, is there a need to revive this product? Do consumers want this specific discontinued drink back, or was there a better more effective campaign to boost revenue? Second, is there a possibility of a lawsuit from the makers of the Oregon Trail game? Depending on the extent of similarities in the new Pepsi backed game, Oregon Trail could potentially file a lawsuit. It is important to remain loyal to your brand, and know who you are as a brand; as a PR professional in this campaign the goal is prevent backlash and take every precaution to produce a successful campaign.
Snapchat Under Scrutiny for Speed Filter
A lawsuit has been filed against Snapchat for negligence, and allegedly enabling users to use the app while driving. The lawsuit was filed by Wentworth Maynard, an individual involved in a severe car crash that resulted in a "severe traumatic brain injury" according to Maynard's lawyers. Though still under investigation, the story remains that then 18 year old Christal McGee was using a filter provided by the app that allowed her to gauge her speed, while behind the wheel. At the time of the crash, McGee was traveling at least 100mph and continued using the app to take photos of herself immediately after the crash occurred, according to The New York Times. Snapchat officials have not made many comments regarding the lawsuit, however the day the lawsuit was filed, the app added a filter that said "I won't Snap and drive." In a statement to PR Week, a Snapchat Spokesperson stated "No Snap is more important than someones safety, we actively discourage our community from using the speed filter while driving." Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel emphasized against Snapping and driving in interviews when the speed filter launched in 2013, as well as included an in- app notice and clause in the terms and conditions of the app warning against distracted driving. This is a potential defense for the company.
In this situation, a Crisis PR professional would be called in for help. From a PR standpoint, Snapchat covered its bases by including the warnings in their notices, and terms and conditions. Keeping comments on the matter minimal, is a very strategic move by the company as saying both too much or little could potentially have very serious negative consequences. In this situation, the PR professional and the company's lawyers will have to work together to minimize long term damage to the company.
Taylor,
ReplyDeleteI think your story about the Snapchat filter is something that a lot of people will be interested in. Before reading your post I didn't see a problem with the filter, but now I see how many people may use the filter irresponsibly. I really liked your explanation and analysis of how Snapchat handled the incident as well. Great job!
Thanks Kaitlyn! I was the same way before I read the articles, I had no idea that filter could be a problem. It is so unfortunate that people can not be responsible with something as trivial as a filter on an app. I thought the way Snapchat handled the situation was professional and just enough to show they are concerned with fixing the problem without going overboard.
DeleteHi Taylor,
ReplyDeleteI liked your post on the new Pepsi campaign! I hadn't heard about that campaign until now. I personally think it's a great idea! It will interest the company's target market and hopefully encourage them to buy the drink. I do agree that they would have to be careful not to become involved in a lawsuit with Oregon Trail, however, I do think it will be a success as it combines nostalgia with an online campaign.
I thought it was really cool too! Especially because reviving classic's is such a trend right now. Vintage is in, and using the Oregon trail to promote a throwback product is a very strategic marketing ploy.
DeleteVery newsworthy articles! I have heard about the new Crystal Pepsi, but this is the first I've heard of their campaign including the Oregon Trail. I used to be OBSESSED with the Oregon Trail. I didn't really go outside for an entire summer when I first got it. I think it is a great idea to link the two! As a PR professional I would be wary, as with all campaigns a lot could go wrong. I will definitely be checking out this new game.
ReplyDeleteNice Post!
-Bridget Murphy
I agree, I do not think I would want to be a PR professional working on this campaign simply because so much could go wrong. Though vintage is trending, reviving a discontinued drink is risky as there is a reason the company stopped producing it in the first place. There is definite possibility of a lawsuit from the makers of Oregon Trail as well so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
DeleteTaylor-
ReplyDeleteNice story choices. The story you chose about Snapchat is really interesting and one I have not heard about. Though the filter can serve as a distraction (and personally, I'm not really sure why they need a speed one, but that's just me), I don't see the filter as the actual problem. A person puts him/herself and others at risk if they decide to be on their phone at all while driving. To me, that's just common sense.
Great job on these stories! They're very well written.
I completely agree! I do not think Snapchat should be held liable for an individuals irresponsible actions. Of course not being a Snapchat employee, I don't know the intentions behind creating a speed filter but I can't imagine that they would have intended for people to use it behind the wheel.
DeleteTaylor-
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you chose this topic because out of the millions of people that use Snapchat, this can't be the first accident to happen while using it. With that being said, I don't agree with the individual filing a lawsuit against snapchat because they didn't make the teenager open the app while driving. The teenager made the decision to use it herself.
I completely agree. Snapchat took the necessary precautions by putting statements out into the media when the speed filter was released, cautioning people and advising against using it while driving. I am sure there have been other similar instances and it would be irrational to think Snapchat itself should be blamed for an idividual's irresponsible behavior.
DeleteI find the article on the PepsiCo interesting because they are reviving an old product but they have a good strategy for it. One thing I don't understand is the reason I haven't heard of it before reading your article. From a PR standpoint, the company should always advertise the product heavily. This product probably won't sell much but I agree with you because I question the relevance of it. Unless this product brought in major revenue in the 90s, then it shouldn't be re-released.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't heard about it either until I saw the article, but I agree that the company is not doing much to promote the campaign. Being such a risky move as it is, they would benefit from getting as much exposure as possible. Word of mouth is the best form of advertising, but they are not doing much to get people talking.
DeleteYes, on the Snap Chat issue.I am sure they have been advised to keep their comments to a minimum do to the lawsuit. People who use any mobile device while driving are risking their lives and the lives of others. Anytime a life is taken or injured while using technology it becomes a big matter for any PR to handle. It's how you handle the initial statement that can keep your situation out of the media beyond the incident. By not saying much at all and also by stating the te2rms and conditions clause helps their case too.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think it was very strategic to have included a disclaimer before that feature was launched because of the possibility of misuse and reckless behavior. It is so sad that people can not be trusted to handle technology appropriately.
DeleteTaylor,
ReplyDeleteI loved your first story. It made me feel all nostalgic. While it wasn't the major headline of the week it was interesting and it grabbed my attention. Thanks for sharing!!
Hi Taylor. I am interested in your first article. It is confusing to me why Pepsi would choose Oregon Trail as a game to launch. I am questioning the ties to this old school game, when the old drink isn't even the same timeline as the game. I can see the craze about "games" lately with the success of Pokémon Go, but again I am confused as to the companies thoughts behind this campaign. I am curious to see how successful this is.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I definitely feel like it was a risky move on their part. It's possible that they tried to connect the nostalgia of that game to their throwback drink as a way to hype the drink up again. I absolutely see where you're coming from though because the timing does not match and they were not affiliated. I am interested to see how this campaign pans out as well.
Delete