VOX UNPOPULAR

— Financial Times, December 30, 2008

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Pepsi Max just killed this ad featuring a calorie committing suicide.

Why?

Because voices on Twitter began a ‘mass’ condemnation that resulted in Huw Gilbert, communications manager for PepsiCo International, eventually posting this response:

"Huw from Pepsi here. We agree this creative is totally inappropriate; we apologise and please know it won't run again."

Many have lauded Pepsi for being responsive to public opinion. And many similarly praise Twitter for allowing an expedient forum between company and consumer.

Nevertheless, the episode leaves me queasy.

For one, if the ad is so ostensibly ‘offensive’, how was it allowed to run in the first place? (I’m not saying it is offensive. Or bad. Or good.) Have the Pepsi people lost control?

Now, while it’s inarguably prudent to have an ear to public opinion, should a company fall on its knees at any provocation?

Companies have always received correspondence critical of their product or practices. It sometimes befell upon me to respond to these offerings. While some seemed admittedly sincere, too many were clearly products of minds otherwise unoccupied. Expressions of false outrage. In short, crank.

With Twitter and other mediums, voices that deserve to be heard now have equal status with those that aren’t worthy of being directed towards a box of cats. Unlearned opinions can now so easily escalate into huge non-issues.

And here’s a thought: Who really starts these groundswells? Twitter and its ilk afford an easy vehicle for corporate sabotage. What a simple and anonymous way for any of Pepsi’s competitors to initiate an embarrassment sufficient to cause a company to publicly slit its own wrists.