I have been having fun watching Tom
Moradpour and Shiv
Sigh on the Twitter live Tweeting during X Factor the last 2
months when my Twitter time coincides with the show. I joke with Tom
about being a good company man and asked if his bonus is tied to his
Tweeting, which made him laugh.
it seems the sponsorship has garnered Pepsi a bump in Social Media
Chatter. Being a Pepsi fan I am happy about this. But the reporting
proves why Advertising/Marketers have such a hard time proving the
money invested shows a direct pay off. There is no mention if Pepsi
sales are up due to the extra chatter from the X Factor. I am not
saying there isn't. But why doesn't Ad Age ask this question?
am used to sites like Mashable being softies and side stepping the
nit and grit of business.Just like People Magazine side steps the
same tough questions when they cover Celebrities. But no one takes
Mashable seriously. At
least none of the smart people. But Ad Age is the premier
Advertising Trade Publication for Print and Online. The only other Trade Publication I have full respect for is Media Post. The rest have very shoddy reporting standards.
it does a disservice to the industry to not hold us accountable for
growing sales or at least showing some sort of correlation with what
we do. When Pepsi came out with the Refresh Project and bowed out of
the Superbowl someone who I will not name who works at their Agency
of Record told me the purpose of the Super Bowl spots is to have
people talk about your brand. I called Bullshit on that and still do.
The purpose is to sell and if you refuse to sell don't take the
business. So last year after the spots with people assaulted
by Pepsi cans I called for Pepsi (and still do) to find a new
creative shop because they are being hurt by their current one (sorry
and I respect the incumbent but they are failing their client in my view).
who pushed for the X Factor sponsorship and is this turning into
sales? That is the important missing link for this campaign and for the reporting by Ad Age.