Super Bowl Series: Coke’s Social Engagement Effort Delivers Mixed Reviews

The third of BevWire’s 4-part Super Bowl Series focuses on Coca-Cola’s use of “second screen engagement” with the 2013 Super Bowl.  Along with the standard participation of Pepsi and Coca-Cola, this year we will also see Kraft MiO and SodaStream.  The Super Bowl Series will take a look at each of these beverage manufacturers’ involvement with the Super Bowl.

Click through the below links to read the other two parts of the BevWire Super Bowl Series.

Part 1: Did Pepsi’s Crowd-Sourced Halftime Show Add Any Value?

Part 2: SodaStream’s Banned Commercial Help Build Brand Recognition

Badlanders, Cowboys, and Showgirls all race toward the finish line for a bottle of Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola wanted viewers to vote at CokeChase.com to determine which group will win.  The winning group will be shown in the Coke ad after the Super Bowl game.

The general prognosis is that this year’s Coke Chase campaign was more successful than last year’s talking bears for the Polar Bowl.  Coca-Cola had released the original Coke Chase spot online before the Super Bowl, and also provided strong media support to hype it up.  There was even a spoof by Pepsi Next of the Coke Chase characters fighting to get a Pepsi Next rather than settle for a Coke.  All this led to a high level of buzz for the campaign, so much that it crashed the website as it experienced an unprecedented surge of site traffic.  AdAge’s Natalie Zmuda has a piece outlining how Coca-Cola decided what to do in real time during the Super Bowl to reconcile this problem here.  The ultimate goal was to have viewers vote for one of the three groups (badlanders, cowboys or showgirls) to win the race and the beverage at the end.  Coca-Cola would tabulate these results during the game and show the winning group getting the Coke following the game.

It was another effort by Coca-Cola to engage with viewers and communicate via the “second screen”, where users watching the television also simultaneously interact with  the advertising company or TV program through their mobile and computer screens.  Interact they did, to the tune of 1.3 million page views and over 900,000 votes for the different competing groups.  Despite these strong numbers, could this be deemed strong engagement by Coca-Cola with the audience this year?  Did most people stay to watch the Coca-Cola spot after the Super Bowl to see who won?  Were the results what Coca-Cola wanted?  See the original video:

My opinion is that the engagement exceeded expectations, and would have been even better had the server crash not occurred.  The amount of votes (900,000) certainly seems low considering the amount of sabotages (7.8 million), video views (3.8 million) and site visitors (1.3 million).  Everything was in the millions and the total votes were only 900,000?  I would expect voting to equal the amount of site visitors, or why else would you go to the website anyway?  If you were intrigued enough to visit the site, surely you would be engaged enough to vote.  However, this represents an enviable problem for Coca-Cola.  Interested viewers will keep on trying to log onto the site to vote, and this can be translated to a longer engagement period than simply logging on and voting in the first place.  The winning video generated about 50,000 views online, but there’s no definite way to quantify how many people saw it live even with the close game.  Here’s the winning video:

Since most people tune out after the game is decided, running a commercial following the game seems less likely to maintain their engagement.  However, voting and page views mattered more than the group wining the Coke at the end.  The end goal was to drive social engagement and  not to have one specific group win over another group.  The page view metric would be equivalent to that of over one million people viewing the original site, and clicking through another 6 commercials to sabotage the two other competing groups.  The winning video did not matter and the Twitter image below proves it: only 77 retweets and 57 favorites.

Note the minimal amount of retweets and favorites? Seems low for a Coke tweet considering the high profile nature of the Coke Chase campaign.

All in all, not too shabby for a company that was not the official sponsor of the event.  Think of how Pepsi always tries to insert itself into a Coca-Cola sponsored event (ie the Olympics) and there never being too much heard about them, at least not to the same extent.  Now think of how this was a Pepsi sponsored event and we often heard of Coca-Cola.  And parallel this with how the neon green Nike running shoes stole the spotlight during the 2012 London Olympics despite it being an Adidas sponsored event.

There will be many experts saying that Coca-Cola would have won this year’s cola war battle had it executed better.  This is likely true and will serve as a lesson for another broad scale event.  But being able to drive continuous engagement during a game, and getting over one million of these viewers to visit, vote, and click over six times to sabotage other competing groups is no small feat.  That itself already represents a win for Coca-Cola.

Mid-Calorie Sodas – Successful or Not?

It’s been over a year that Pepsi Next has first launched in test markets, and almost six months since it’s been available nationally in the United States.  Dr Pepper 10 will also soon be lapping it’s one year national launch in the market place.  These national launches proves that Pepsi and Dr Pepper both believe in the viability of the mid-calorie cola segment.  However, what are the results of this launch, and can it be considered a success so far?

For Pepsi Next, results so far can be considered average at best.   Wall Street Journal reported the Next to have gained 1% market share on US dollars (link here), although product reviews indicate that the aftertaste (end part of the Pepsi Next’s taste curve) is unpleasant and definitely feels like the artificial sweeteners (link here).  In spite of all this, Pepsi has launched two (limited for the summer) line extensions of the mid-calorie soft drink: Paradise Mango and Cherry Vanilla (pictured above).  That said, the launch can be considered a success so far, but the real test is converting these initial trail users into returning customers.

The line extensions and the continued advertising support for Pepsi Next would be much needed in order to help the brand sustain its momentum.  After all, it takes some time for a product to be accepted in the market – remember that it took Coke Zero & Pepsi Max a few years and some trying rebranding and repackaging before it caught on with consumers?  Beyond that, let’s hope for more products to enter the mid-calorie segment, and bring more attention to the category.

For Dr Pepper 10, test results have been similar to Pepsi Next.  On the Dr Pepper 10 alone, sales nationally have been strong enough to offset the declines across Sun Drop and 7UP.  And as the one year anniversary  for Dr Pepper 10 approaches, they have already worked on releasing five additional 10 calories colas.  The 7UP 10, A&W 10, Canada Dry 10, SunKist 10, and RC 10 are currently in test markets and some of these flavors should make it national (my bet is on the 7UP, A&W, and Canada Dry).

Overall, it would appear that there are two main players in the mid-calorie segment right now between Pepsi Next and Dr Pepper 10.  Coca-Cola has been reported to be trying a mid-calorie version of Sprite and Fanta in key test markets as well.  This segment will only continue to grow as consumers become more and more health conscious.  However, in order to make it a success, the main issue of taste must be addressed, since consumers likely wouldn’t sacrifice taste for calories.

And beyond that, let’s hope it makes it way up north to Canada so we don’t have to drive across the border to find some mid calorie beverages.

Coke Follows Pepsi, Entering Mid-Calorie Soda Segment

With the recent success of Dr Pepper Ten and Pepsi Next, there’s been some renewed buzz in the carbonated soft drinks category recently.  Now Coca-Cola wants to get into the mid-calorie segment.  BevReview.com has a few links to other articles where sources have confirmed that Coca-Cola will be launching Sprite Select and Fanta Select in five U.S. test markets (link here).

As the linked article notes, both Coca-Cola and Pepsi have tried mid-calorie products before.  Both companies’ products failed to gain traction in the marketplace and were discreetly phased out from store shelves.  Given the technological advances and the successful-so-far products of Dr Pepper and Pepsi, is it time for Coca-Cola to come in with another mid-calorie product?  Will they succeed this time around?  And why try this with Sprite and Fanta, not with the trademark Coca-Cola product itself?

One issue would be to first determine what is “mid-calorie” and how this type of product is unique from the consumer’s perspective.  Arbitrarily, I’m defining this soda segment as with a limit of 70 calories per 12oz (355ml) serving, given Pepsi Next has 60 calories, and Sprite Select and Fanta Select will have 70 calories.  Dr Pepper Ten only has 10 calories per 12oz serving, so they fit the mold (Note: Dr Pepper Ten has 10 calories in both a 12oz serving, as well as 10 calories per 8oz serving, click through link to understand how).  Mid-calorie products are also categorized as those using natural sweeteners to bring the calorie count down below 70, featuring a combination of sugars, high fructose corn syrup, or some other form of sweetener in tandem with the natural sweeteners.  The purpose is to balance out the taste curve: from the moment the liquid hits the palette, all the way to the after taste.

Given that mid-calorie soft drinks like Coc-Cola C2 and Pepsi Edge of the early 2000s did not have the technology or cost-efficiencies before to insert natural sweeteners, they failed to catch on in the marketplace.  One decade later, the technology is in place , which makes it possible to give consumers a better-tasting (and better named) product.  The generally positive feedback toward Dr Pepper Ten and Pepsi Next would seem like an opportune time for Coca-Cola to enter the mid-calorie soft drink segment.  Similar to how Coca-Cola’s Dasani Drops may be entering the liquid flavor enhancers after Kraft’s MiO has tested the waters, Coca-Cola may have monitored the consumer reaction to mid-calorie products  (BevWire’s article on the Dasani Drops piece can be found here).  This lets Coca-Cola sit on the sideline to see what would happen without bearing the developmental costs until it’s been a proven success.

While it appears that these products have received positive reviews, it appears that Coca-Cola is still hesitant with this segment.  These reservations makes the pilot testing with Sprite and Fanta that much more important.  Coca-Cola would not want to put the trademark name on something that they don’t fully believe in, only to see it fail like last time.  A second failure with this segment would have implications such as losing brand equity or showing that the soft drink manufacturer does not understand its consumers.

A factor that would aid in their success, as well as supporting the successes of Dr Pepper Ten and Pepsi Next are consumer trends.  Consumer trends have shifted toward a stronger focus on health consciousness.  No longer are consumers willing to sacrifice calories for taste.  However, not all consumers are  prepared to sacrifice taste for zero calories either, which provides the opportunity for the Pepsi Next, Dr Pepper Ten, and the impending launches of Sprite Select and Fanta Select.

In this regard, there would appear to be a market for mid-calorie soft drinks, albeit a small market for now.  The consumer trends and the technological advances will help to make this a success this time around.   If history does end up repeating itself, it would certainly guarantee that Coca-Cola will not be testing any more mid-calorie soft drinks.

Second Dr Pepper Ten Commercial: Just As Manly

Dr Pepper has put out their second commercial and it’s just as male-focused as the first one.  Using other stereotypical testosterone-based examples, such as drill bits, desert target practices, and big TV screens, the commercial further enforces the point that it is a man’s drink.  The tagline remains the same, ending with “It’s Not For Women”.

As Dr Pepper spokepeople and industry insiders indicate that the low-calorie soft drink is a success at gaining new trial users at minimal cannibalization, Dr Pepper needs to remind consumers that it’s a better option than some of the more calorie-heavy drinks – it needs to increase its repeat consumption among men.  It’s main competition right now appears to be defending against the Pepsi Next launch, which was launched nationally in U.S. late last month.  At a point when awareness is high and feedback for Next isn’t completely positive, Dr Pepper inserts their low-calorie offering into Next trial users’ consideration set to let them know there is an alternative out there.  One that may taste similar on the taste curve (full flavor sweetness on the initial palette, followed up sour aftertaste from the aspartame sweetener).

On a pure business and marketing standpoint, it seems as if the launch of the second Dr Pepper 10 commercial came at the best time possible.  Not only because it seems to be a blocker/flanker-type to remind people that Dr Pepper’s low calorie offering is better than Pepsi Next, but also from an expansion and continuity perspective. While they may not reach the same levels of awareness and trials as their first commercial, the product is now available nationally and can translate sales in more U.S. markets (larger market size may equal lower awareness levels, but generate more sales dollars because of the sheer size).  For continuity, it also halos off their first commercial with the same shocking tagline of “It’s Not For Women”, so there will be some viewers that are reminded it is a male-specific soft drink like the first one.

One of the key sales barriers may be that the  grocery shopper of the household is still the mom or wife, not the men that the product is targeting.  It may ultimately serve a purpose similar to the H&M David Beckham 2012 SuperBowl commercial, which targets women to buy the undergarments for their men.  For the most part, the men might now take part in putting the product on the weekly grocery list, or are moved to purchase the product themselves when they make the rare supermarket trip (although not that rare anymore according to Ad Age – article link here).

So why hasn’t Canada received the Dr Pepper 10 yet?  The Canadian market still only has Pepsi Max and Coke Zero competing in the zero-low calorie soda space.  One would suggest that given the healthier trends penetrating the Canadian market and our affinity toward lower calorie alternatives, that Dr Pepper should launch Dr Pepper 10 in Canada.  Alas, the situation is not that simple because Dr Pepper does not have it’s own distribution network here in Canada.  As per their distribution agreement with Coca-Cola and Pepsi, Dr Pepper Snapple Group’s various liquid refreshments come off of both manufacturer’s delivery trucks in Canada.  That said, Dr Pepper 10 may have a good chance to make it on the delivery trucks once the distribution contracts are up for renegotiation, or they find a tertiary distribution network if the contracts permit that.

Until then, Canadians looking to try Dr Pepper 10 will likely have to look toward grocery stores that bring their product in from south of the border, or make the trip down south themselves to find the product.