But is this just a publicity stunt?
Pepsi's new plan reminded me of Monsanto's sponsorship of PBS. Monsanto was just trying to create positive connotation with their name, is Pepsi trying to do the same by encouraging children to have a healthier diet? By removing some of their drinks, is Pepsi actually trying to promote healthy choices or are they just trying to advertise?
That's interesting. I would bet that pepsi is just trying to advertise their product, but I feel like removing their product from schools would hurt their business not help it. Shouldn't they be trying to push for their business to be everywhere or at least come up with a "healthy" pepsi drink instead of removing their drinks?
ReplyDeleteVery good question Katie. I can only possibly add one thing. Pepsi owns more than just Pepsi. According to a wikipedia article about PepsiCo, it owns a large variety of brands, such as some reputed as health foods. For example PepsiCo owns Tropicana, Naked, Gatorade, and Quaker Oats. By removing Pepsi and promoting healthy choices, the company is promoting some of its other brands in addition to its publicity stunt that will promote Pepsi. This way, they win from all sides.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting topic Madelaine, and I think that while Pepsi might have an inkling of good intentions, this is more a publicity stunt than anything. As we discussed with Monsanto, they are trying to generate positive buzz around their products. As we read in "The Why of Buy", Coke has a leg up on Pepsi in the mind of the average American, and Pepsico is most likely trying to find ways to get people to pay attention to them.
ReplyDelete