The research paper compares adverts from two global giants, Starbucks and Pepsi. Starbucks and Pepsi are not in the same industry, but they are related because they sell non-alcoholic drinks to millions of consumers in the US and across the world. Starbuck’s ‘race together’ campaign and Pepsi’s ‘Jump in’ campaign are two controversial adverts focusing on the theme of social justice. Starbucks and Pepsi created the adverts to comment on social injustices in the society, but they were not received well. The purpose of the research paper is to compare the persuasion strategies and tools used in the adverts to determine which advert was more successful.
Introduction
Advertising stems from two major areas of business: communication and marketing. Advertising is a form of communication used to promote a product, a service or a cause (Nichifor, 2014). Like communication, advertising has evolved with time. Advertising is a complex form of communication that uses different channels to reach out to different target audiences. Adverts are only effective when messages are carefully prepared and delivered using the right channel. Effective adverts have the potential to influence purchasing decisions; which is why companies spend a lot of money to create the best adverts.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Pepsi and Coca-Cola are the two main players in the beverage industry. According to Ladipo et al. (2018), Coca-Cola and Pepsi have engaged in century-long advertisement war through print and video adverts with each trying to stay on top of the other. Both Coca-Cola and Pepsi make fun and happy adverts targeting young people who are the primary consumers of carbonated drinks. Both brands heavily rely on celebrity endorsements. Pepsi is known for making fun adverts with famous celebrities such as Michael Jackson, Beyoncé, David Beckham, and Shakira among others to attract viewers. The latest Pepsi advert in 2017 was no different; Pepsi collaborated with Kylie Jenner. Kylie Jenner is a popular celebrity in her own right, and Pepsi wanted to capitalize on the Kardashian buzz, but the advert failed miserably.
Alternatively, Starbucks is a coffeehouse chain known for instant hot, cold drinks and snacks. Starbucks was formed in 1971, and it has grown rapidly to more than 22,000 locations in the US and across the globe in 2018. Starbucks’s impressive growth comes from the company’s quality products, diverse products, strategic locations, and effective marketing. Starbucks has a different approach to marketing in comparison to other coffeehouses and fast-food chains. Starbucks has cut down the advertising budget on many occasions to minimize cost. Instead, Starbucks focuses on employee benefits and motivation. Starbucks tends to focus on direct marketing, in the form of loyalty programs, engaging employees, and sometimes using their products to advertise. In 2015, Starbucks came up with the “race together” advert to spark conversation on all issues about race in America.
Description of the Two Adverts
The controversial Pepsi ad titled “Jump in” was created with the aim of spreading a message of unity, peace, and understanding. Pepsi referred to the advert as a short film because it is 2-minute-39-seconds long. The advert features reality star Kendall Jenner who is the middle of a photo shoot. Kendall Jenner appears restless because she is aware of the protest/march taking place outside the building (Friedman, 2018). Jenner walks out of the photoshoot, shares nods and fist bumps with fellow protestors before handing a police officer a can of Pepsi and protesters start celebrating and hugging each other as if they have accomplished their mission. In just two days, the video had 1.6 million views on YouTube and five times downvotes in comparison to upvotes because the viewers did not like the advert.
Starbucks’ “Race together” campaign aimed at sparking a national conversation about race in Starbucks stores between baristas and customers. Baristas wrote #race together on cups and engaged in conversation with customers about race as they served them their orders. The public responded to the campaign immediately, with more than 2.5 billion responses on social media in two days about the campaign.
Analysis & Comparison of the Two Adverts
Starbucks’ #racetogether campaign uses a direct approach where baristas engaged with customers about race. This is a unique and risky form of advertising and Starbucks knew that the chance of failure was high. First of all, race is a controversial subject in America, and the timing of the campaign was bound to ruffle some feathers. The campaign was launched on March 16, 2015, to respond to racial tragedies in the US such as the killing of Michael Brown. Howard Schultz, Starbucks CEO wanted the public to engage in conversation about race, and since most Americans frequent Starbucks for coffee, the baristas would engage them in a conversation. The campaign attracted various positive responses and equal or even more negative responses. The campaign lasted for six days only, and on March 22 Howard Schultz wrote to his employees to tell them it was no longer mandatory to write ‘#race together” on cups.
Adverts use persuasion theories to convince the target market to listen to the message and buy the product. Persuasion is the use of psychological and emotional strategies to make the message more believable (Borchers, 2012). Persuasion involves knowing the needs of the target market and using different approaches to meet their needs and influence behavior. For example, the theory of reasoned action argues that people have attitudes and subjective norms that influence behavior. On the other hand, the elaboration likelihood model proposes two different ways of changing consumer behavior: the central route and peripheral route. The central route refers to the attitudes formed during the analysis of the arguments presented in an advert whereas the peripheral route relates to the attitudes from nonargument cues such as mood, source attractiveness, and heuristics that advance the message. Advertisers also rely on a host of behavioral theories such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to attract the target market and generate sales. Both Pepsi and Starbucks adverts can be understood using the elaboration likelihood model. Both adverts use the central route and the peripheral route to influence viewer attitudes.
Adverts rely on different tools of persuasion to spread the message. As for the Starbucks campaign, employees engaged with customers directly about race. Starbucks customers are used to making small talk with their baristas, and they are not used to controversial topics such as race. When baristas asked the customers about race, customers were shocked, and they shared their immediate reaction about the subject. Starbucks took advantage of the wait time to engage customers in a conversation. Starbucks’ direct strategy works because it was guaranteed that the target audience (customers) would receive the message.
The message in the Starbucks campaign was the most challenging aspect of the campaign. Baristas used a number of strategies to engage with customers such as expressing interest, building trust and credibility, exposing profound truths and confidence. Most Starbucks customers visit the same Starbucks location for their cup of coffees or cold beverage, and they have interacted with the baristas before such that they have built credibility and trust. When baristas engage with their regular customers about the issue of race, the customers might be taken aback, but they will participate because they know the baristas. The baristas exposed deep truths by talking about race; a subject that many businesses shy away from. By talking about race respectfully, the baristas made the customers share their views about race. Confidence is another persuasion strategy in direct marketing approaches. According to Borchers (2012) when a marketer conveys the information with unwavering belief, the consumer attitude changes. Baristas who approached the topic with confidence got through to their listeners as they appeared knowledgeable about the issue.
Pepsi’s “Jump in” commercial targets millennial. After conducting the market research, advertisers found out that millennials respond to social activism which is why Pepsi used the concept of social justice. The main difference between Pepsi’s advert is the fact that it uses video while Starbucks uses the direct approaches. Pepsi commercial used different tools of persuasion to reach out to the audience. Friedman (2017) asserts that the advert targets young demographics who are moved by images and action more than the message of the advert. The advert is designed to connect with the viewers emotionally. Viewers are more likely to buy the product when they connect with the advert emotionally. According to Nichifor (2014), the beginning of the advert is critical, and it should be created in a manner that sparks interest. Pepsi’s video starts with an aerial view of the city before the camera zooms into the cello player and this encourages viewers to watch the rest of the advert. The advert managed to convince the millennials.
Pepsi advert has many components that make the viewers wonder how they are related. The advert starts with a cello player on top of a rooftop; the scene and the music immediately attract the attention of the viewers. The cello player plays with intensity, and this scene is contrasted with the many protesters holding placards. The advert also features a young photographer editing pictures, but she seems distracted because of the noise from the protest. The photographer has a can of Pepsi on the table. The camera then moves down to the building facing the protest, where Kylie Jenner is in a photoshoot. Jenner is also distracted by the noise from the protest, and she appears impatient. At this point, viewers are interested in knowing the main cause of protest, and how the individual who was playing the cello, the photographer and Kylie Jenner are involved in the protest. The advert has many moving parts that attract the attention of the viewers as the viewers want to know what happens in the end.
Lastly, the advert uses raw emotions to communicate its message. Individuals in the advert starting with the young man playing the cello, the photographer, the protestors, and the dancers have raw emotions all over their faces. The cameras use slow motion and zoom in to show the raw emotions on the faces of the characters. The cello player plays with sheer intensity such that the viewers are moved; and this emotion is contrasted with the energetic protestors marching, engaging in conversations, and holding placards. The viewers can understand why Kylie Jenner cannot wait to be done with her photo shoot because she wants to join in on the excitement.
Pepsi and Starbucks’ campaigns use different channels; hence, it is difficult to compare and contrast the two adverts. Nonetheless, the Pepsi advert is more convincing as the creators have taken the time to plan the concept and execute it. Pepsi’s campaign is a hit among millennials; it starts with an idyllic scene then it moves on to a young Muslim lady who is drawing, and then the bustling street lives with protest activities. Pepsi calls the campaign a short film because it takes 2-minutes and 29-seconds, and every part of the advert is well-thought after, aside from the ending which was the reason for the backlash. There are many protestors from different walks of life; including minorities such as African-Americans, women, transgender, among other demonstrators holding different placards for various causes. The campaign would have been more successful if the creators took time to create a better ending.
On the other hand, as for the Starbucks campaign, baristas are seen talking to customers about races and the importance of all races getting together. Starbucks uses a direct approach to get an immediate response from the target market, but the campaign fails to take into consideration various factors that make up a campaign such as the methods of delivery and how to persuade customers. The Starbucks campaign would have convinced the customers better if the individuals taking about race were authority figures. According to Huhnke (2016), Starbucks Executives could have publicly shown support by visiting different locations and engaging with customers about race alongside baristas. Executives are knowledgeable, powerful and they are in a position to make real change in comparison to baristas. The topic of race is divisive and controversial, and nobody wants to talk about race on a Starbucks line when waiting for coffee. Starbucks had the right intention, but the strategy used did not sit well with the public. The public complained that Starbucks should avoid using serious issues as PR campaigns to market products. Starbucks could have created promotional messages in the form of flyers, videos, and even social media campaigns rather than writing ‘#race together’ on plastic coffee/ juice cups which minimizes the issue.
Another problem with Starbucks’ campaign is that there was no way to customize the message ahead to suit the needs of the specific customer/ target market. Baristas at Starbucks decided on how to approach the subject based on the interaction with the customers. Some of the approaches worked, and customers engaged well with the baristas while other customers did not want to engage with the baristas at all, probably because of the way the baristas approached the topic or because of the #race together message.
Pepsi could use the approach used by Starbucks to communicate about social change. In a direct approach, Pepsi would have representatives in different stores talking to customers about the social change in America and different causes such as black lives matter and LGBT movement. If Pepsi uses the same approach as Starbucks without making the necessary changes; it will probably face a backlash from the public. Talking about social injustice in stores is frowned upon by the society as there are better-suited approaches such as supporting organizations fighting for social justice. On the other hand, Starbucks could use the video advert as used by Pepsi to educate viewers on race, but it will have to address some of the mistakes made by Pepsi. Associating the Pepsi/ Starbucks brand with serious issues such as race does not sit well with viewers who argue that companies should not make serious societal problems as marketing themes to boost product sales.
Both campaigns failed to convince the target market successfully. Starbucks’ race together campaign received positive and negative reviews from the target market. Many viewers took to social media to complain about the campaign. Starbucks wanted to ignite a public debate on race, but in the end, the public ended up debating whether Starbucks was the right location to engage in a conversation about race (Logan, 2016). Additionally, some customers are not comfortable with discussing the issue of race. Logan (2016) refers to some of the campaign analysis conducted to evaluate response to the Starbucks campaign. The campaign increased discussion about race by 266 percent on the first day, but one-third of the mentions were classified as “hate,” and 60 percent of the responses were negative (Logan, 2016). Only seven percent of the discussion was considered positive. On the second, online discussion about race rose to 408 percent, but 62 percent of the mentions were negative (Logan, 2016). By the end of the campaign, Starbucks had sparked a debate about race among customers and the public, but Starbucks was no longer in charge of the discussion. There was so much negativity about race and the campaign in general such that Starbucks ended the campaign after six days. This was a lesson to Starbucks on how to run a social campaign in future. The overwhelming backlash was a sign that Starbucks chose the wrong strategy and persuasion tools for the campaign.
The Pepsi commercial received negative backlash just like the Starbucks campaign, but it managed to convince the audience to some extent. The scenes in the advert are well curated, starting with the cello player on the roof. The protestors are in color-coordinated outfits with placards, and then the Muslim woman who engaged in her drawing. The campaign has all the typical qualities to attract millennials; including the multicultural cast, good music, a celebrity, and protestors breaking into a dance among other features. According to Friedman (2017), the campaign starts well but ends up telling a preschool-level story about activism. The advert oversimplified resistance and social justice movements as if it was making light of the real concerns facing different groups in the society. Even the millennials, who are the target market for the commercial did not agree with how the commercial ended. The audience wondered of the campaign was created by young individuals who naively wanted to make a change but failed to do their research well.
In conclusion, Pepsi and Starbucks campaigns had similar themes but used different vehicles of communication. Starbucks used a direct approach while Pepsi used celebrity endorsement in its commercial. Both campaigns used various tools of persuasion appropriate to the different vehicles of communication. Starbucks baristas attempted to engage many customers as possible on the topic of race, whereas the Pepsi advert used visual, audio, celebrity, emotional appeal to attract viewers. Pepsi advert appears more successful because it uses many persuasion tools that appeal to the millennials. Nonetheless, both campaigns were pulled down in less than a week due to negative backlash. The two campaigns have provided valuable lessons to Pepsi and Starbucks. When organizations want to tackle larger societal issues such as race and social injustice, they should do it genuinely to avoid making light of serious problems affecting many individuals in the society.
References
Borchers, T. (2012). Persuasion in the media age . Waveland Press.
Friedman, N. (2017, Apr. 6). A Pepsi Commercial’s Lesson for Advertisers. New York Times. Retrieved from : https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/opinion/a-pepsi-commercials- lesson-for-advertisers.html
Huhnke, J. (2016). Recommendations for Starbucks’ Race Together Movement. Retrieved from http://jessikahuhnkedesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Individual-Case-Analysis- Outline- Final-web-1.pdf
Ladipo, P. K. A., Oniku, A. C., Akeke, O. S., & Chileuwa, C. C. (2018). Celebrity Endorsement and Sales Performance of Cola Soft Drinks in the Entire Marketing Process. Academic Journal of Economic Studies , 4 (3), 53-62.
Logan, N. (2016). The Starbucks Race Together Initiative: Analyzing a public relations campaign with critical race theory. Public Relations Inquiry , 5 (1), 93-113.
Nichifor, B. (2014). Theoretical framework of advertising-some insights. Studies and Scientific Researches. Economics Edition , (19).
