CBS Bans Commercial That Disparages Coke & Pepsi, But Lets Them Disparage Each Other
from the no-disruption-allowed dept
Oh, the benefits of incumbency. Sodastream is a cool new company that allows consumers to make their own carbonated beverages at home. Given its popularity, largely due to its ease of use, SodaStream’s stock has been on a run the last few months. It also possesses the potential to disrupt to established beverage companies like Pepsi and Coke.
Not surprisingly, SodaStream would like to advertise this fact. In fact, it is so keen on advertising the relative benefits of its product over the more traditional route of buying pre-made soda from the store that the company ponied up for a Super Bowl commercial. Unfortunately for SodaStream, the ad was rejected by CBS, not because it was too risque, but because it “disparages” other major advertisers (which is apparently more objectionable than borderline softcore porn a la GoDaddy and Mercedes). As Ad Age reported:
The content of its planned commercial seemed to have concerned CBS because it was a direct hit at two other Super Bowl sponsors and heavy network TV advertisers: Coke and Pepsi.
We’ve discussed elsewhere CBS’s newfound affinity for the ban hammer, but this isn’t even the first time this has happened to SodaStream. British regulatory authorities yanked Sodastream’s first major advertising campaign for “being too disparaging towards soda manufacturers like Coke and Pepsi.”
How disparaging was SodaStream that its ads were pulled from television? Well, it simply pointed out that SodaStream was more environmentally friendly than drinking off-the-shelf sodas because, with SodaStream, “you could save more than 2,000 bottles a year.” Wow, that is incendiary. Not safe for public consumption!
It gets better. Clearcast, the NGO — funded by the British broadcasters — that pre-approves most advertisements for British television, reportedly offered this rationale for pulling the ad:
The majority decided that the ad could be seen to tell people not to go to supermarkets and buy soft drinks, [and] instead help to save the environment by buying a SodaStream. [SodaStream] was also told that it constituted denigration of the bottled-drinks market.
Hypocritically, U.S. broadcasters have allowed Pepsi to air Super Bowl ads that bashed Coke directly, as Ad Age also pointed out:
Interestingly enough, Pepsi has scored big points with viewers over the years by showing Super Bowl ads with Coke deliverymen abandoning their employer wholesale for a sip of a Pepsi drink.
Moral of this story: Pepsi and Coke can attack each other over trivial differences in their products, but don’t attack the business model of big incumbent advertisers.
Fortunately, there is an upside for SodaStream. All the controversy that these ads have stirred has generated a buzz around them. The SodaStream “banned Super Bowl ad” has already generated more than two million hits on YouTube in two days and generated a media buzz around the company itself. And that’s without having to splash $3.8 million worth of cash for a Super Bowl commercial. Another example of the Streisand Effect in action.
[SodaStream is running a commercial during the Super Bowl, but it was forced to replace Coke and Pepsi with fictional soda companies. However, that ad only has a little more than 17,000 YouTube views in the last two days.]
Cross posted from Project-Disco.
Filed Under: ads, commercials, competition, disruption, soda, super bowl, superbowl
Companies: cbs, coke, pepsi, sodastream
Comments on “CBS Bans Commercial That Disparages Coke & Pepsi, But Lets Them Disparage Each Other”
Cool "new" company?
I thought this item must be from the seventies when I read the first couple of lines. Sodastream has certainly been around that long in the UK at least.
But sticking to the point, CBS are clearly out for some form of award for making fools of themselves what with the CNET/CES affair and now this.
Re: Cool "new" company?
That was ‘new’ in the sense of quite old really.
Re: Cool "new" company?
Yup, they were founded in 1903.
Re: Re: Cool "new" company?
Corporations are people too! Except they don’t have a limited life span, so founded over century ago is still pretty new.
Think copyright. If founder was in their twenties when founded and received a copyright, the copyright is still an infant in its’ limited time, by todays standards.
Re: Cool "new" company?
Definitely not new… I had a Sodastream in London, England in the early 70s.
Re: Re: Cool "new" company?
Yep we had one when I was a kid in 70’s in Australia too.. Loved it and always “Got busy with the fizzy” 😉
Bought one last year after they ‘re-invented’ the brand here and basically the only time we buy coke (never pepsi) and other name brand soft-drinks/sodas is for parties or other major events.
Re: Re: Re: Cool "new" company?
Ha, I’d totally forgotten that ad… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFeV0CbvHG8
I may have to buy one of these…so I stop having to resort to apple juice and whiskey.
Re: Re:
Just skip the apple juice all together.
Re: Re: Re:
But…my stomach can’t handle that spicy booze!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh.
I.V. drip maybe? LOL.
Yeah when I hit 30 a while back the heartburn started for me. No more cheese steaks, Stromboli’s, and poppers after 10PM anymore. I can sill have them, just not too late.
What a drag it is getting old.
🙂
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
ha, maybe iv is the way to go but yeah cant drink like use to!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
ha, maybe iv is the way to go but yeah cant drink like use to!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I just can’t drink whiskey like I useta could. Gives me the shits everytime now doncha know.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It was 35 for me, the combination of crappy municipal water (downtown Dallas, TX area), medical treatment for a back injury sustained in an auto accident (the drugs, man), and just getting older did it for me.
Today, it’s like the old Diet Dr Pepper ad: http://www.adweek.com/video/diet-dr-pepper-retirement-village-people-123601?auto
I have to eat at 4:30pm these days if I want to have a decent full meal, and not have reflux all night long afterwards. 🙁
Re: Re:
Technically, you can use it on juice and koolaid to give it that soda fizz.
Re: may have to buy one.
I received an unsolicited one for Christmas.
I have used it sparingly (I’m counting calories) but I like that the cola is 53 calories for a 12oz serving vs 140 for Coke. It tastes pretty close to Coke and is made with sugar instead of HFCS for those who care.
My daughter tried their Dr. Pepper substitute (I won’t drink carbonated prune juice ;)) and she approved of it.
Rumor has it that the energy drink is supposed to be almost exactly like Red Bull.
Oh, and there is a whole sub-market of mods to convert the machine to use paintball Co2 tanks to further lower costs.
My wife has used it to carbonate some other beverages with mixed results.
My only complaint is the sticker on the Co2 cylinders claiming that you have only leased it from them and they actually own it so you cannot modify it. I suspect they do this to keep people from refilling them, and again there are lots of options online for doing exactly this.
Re: Re: may have to buy one.
Egads, I don’t know what flavors you are drinking, but they are all awful. ALL of them contain artifical sweetner, a huge no-no in my book. Still, the seltzer I make with filtered tap water is cheaper and tastes better than store-bought. And there’s nothing stopping you from buying other syrup or making your own.
Re: Re: Re: may have to buy one.
Actually, they have a line on flavors that have all natural sweeteners. They use cane sugar instead of HFCS.
Re: Re: Re:2 may have to buy one.
Or you could get a wholesale carton of Pepsi/Coke syrup.
Re: Re:
Naw, stick with the apple juice and whiskey
Re: Re: Re:
bu what about the shame/?
So tempting
I don’t drink soda (I can’t stand 99% of it), but I’m almost tempted to buy sodastream just to stick a thumb in the eye of CBS, Coke and Pepsi.
Re: So tempting
That’s just what they want you to do!
Re: Re: So tempting
Yeah, but I won’t. If I was a soda drinker, I’d just build my own form of what soda stream is doing. It’s pretty simple and cheap equipment, and all of the consumables (CO2, syrup, and water) are easily and cheaply available.
Obvious ploy
I’m sure they knew they wouldn’t get their ad approved, so they get the publicity (“We are outraged!”) plus they save their advertising dollars. Brilliant!
Re: Obvious ploy
Because any sane person watching that add would think ‘well obviously this would get pulled…’
I got a soda stream for christmas, it’s awesome.
Off-topic question
How the hell did SodaStream decide that you can save 2000 bottles per year? I realize that some people drink a lot of soda, but that breaks down to 5 1/2 sodas per day, every day.
Re: Off-topic question
Watch this (and yes it’s an ad for Soda Stream but highly factual) and you might understand how
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f05l4pFGWk
Re: Off-topic question
They calculate the 2000 bottles by family… Avg size of 4. Not unreasonable for 1.25 bottles per person per day…
Re: Off-topic question
5.5 cans of carbonated sugar-water a day is why America is so FAT.
Maybe...
they pulled it since the Company is called soda “stream.” We all know that streaming is done by pirates, so these must be the soda pirates. Better to not associate with pirates.
Re: Maybe...
Yet Coke is fine.
Re: Re: Maybe...
of course coke is fine, its namesake is its primary active ingredient.. cocaine!
ah, history, how thee makes me chortle.
Advertising dollars are the only thing animating the corpus of these zombie media corporations. How much money does Pepsi/Coke throw at them compared to SodaStream?
A strange sort of kudo must be given to CBS for at least being honest about it…
Just watched it, liked it, and shared the link with others telling them to learn why it was banned.
Dish Network Style
Obviously CBS would reject one of these too if they tried to put it up for the broadcast but they should go “Dish Network” style with another set of ads running in other markets simultaneously and afterwards. I can’t see the other networks rejecting them.
Fizzy Cordial
Off topic, but we had a SodaStream back in 1985 (Australian). Cool product. Easy to use. And yummy. But their Australian ads for it are terrible and nowhere near as creative.
Re: Fizzy Cordial
Yeah not like the old ones I remember (the fizzy!!!) though even coke ads are cruddy nowadays in my opinion. Actually most ads nowadays aren’t that good anymore. Not happy Jan! 😉
Kmart are selling the new started kit for about $60 (think it was on special over xmas fopr less) and it has a lot more flavours then when we had it as kids. And I’m positive there creaming soda variety tastes exactly the same as the Kirks one.
So is CBS’s new strategy ‘promotion of products through reverse psychology’ or something? First they retract a glowing review of the Dish product, backfiring hilariously and increasing awareness of the product enormously, as well as torpedoing CNET in the process, and now they pull a super bowl ad, again increasing awareness of a product enormously.
Still, I have to hand it to CBS, they are doing an excellent job of pointing people to products they should check out, by doing their (laughably) best to keep people from hearing and reading about them.
“[SodaStream is running a commercial during the Super Bowl, but it was forced to replace Coke and Pepsi with fictional soda companies. However, that ad only has a little more than 17,000 YouTube views in the last two days.]”
That’s actually just a copy of their regular TV commercial, which has over 2 million views too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE9U4mMqKP4
I can’t say I appreciate the byline about setting the bubbles free when we’re talking about a product that uses proprietary gas cartridges exclusively so you’re locked into buying their recharge subscription service. If you really want to set the bubbles free hack one to work with standard cartridges or, better yet, buy one that uses them off the shelf.
So if a supermarket advertised that it sold food that you could cook at home, would Clearcast ban that commercial because it “constituted denigration” of the restaurant market? What the fuck is happening in this world?
I doubt this is the real reason
The real reason they likely pulled it is not because it mocks Coke or Pepsi but because of public outrage over the conditions under which the SodaStream machines are manufactured. The SodaStream units are made in Israeli-occupied Palestine in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, which states that occupying countries may not take advantage of seized land or people for economic benefit. There’s still an active boycott going on: http://sodastreamboycott.org/
Re: I doubt this is the real reason
The real reason is because both Coke and Pepsi have agreed that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
sodastream
We had a sodastream in the 70’s too. Fascinating as the discussion on free speech is , I’m much more interested in finding out who was the first techdirt reader to use a sodastream . We definitely had ours by 1978.
Re: sodastream
I can’t come close… I’ve had mine since 2008…
I doubt this is the real reason
That so-called boycott site looks like a clear fake. There are no links to evidence and it’s clearly impossible that the main production facility for a worldwide product is in a small village. I think I know who sponsors this!
Heh. Blatant example of the deeper pockets being favored. If Coke or Pepsi starts selling the same product along with “syrup” to make “home brew” cola soft drinks nobody will complain. But it’s a smaller unknown company eh?