Pepsi Throwback: An idea who's time has come...and gone.

I admit it. I love colas. Far more than I should. In fact, when I wanna lose weight (which is most of the time), I swear off them (or swear at them), as it’s a great way to eliminate empty calories from my diet. But oh, what I lose when I do so…that rush I get with the morning’s first intake of caffeine! The bite of the cola as it trickles across my palette. The joy of cola, indeed.

But since I was a kid, colas – virtually ANY colas – have become a mere shadow of themselves, thanks to bottlers’ ever-changing formulas designed to save a buck. I speak of the vile change from the traditional pure cane sugar to the concoction known as “high-fructose corn syrup,” A.K.A.: “HFCS.” If you have a can or bottle of your carbonated sugar water beverage of choice at hand, feel free to take a gander at the ingredients. I’ll wait…

…Back? Good. Did you notice the absence of “real” sugar and the substitution of high-fructose corn syrup in the ingredients list? Yep. Unless you’re drinking something from South o’ the border or a product of a micro-bottler (i.e.: Jones Soda), you’re getting the UNreal thing, regardless of brand. Bottlers made the big switcheroo years ago to save over the escalating price of cane sugar. That switch came with a steep price – first of all, the bite of cane sugar is not in any way replicated in corn sugar. Second, there are some fairly well-documented health concerns regarding HFCS in foods.

Now I’m not a doctor, research scientist, or some kind of eco-Nazi, on the warpath against “Frankenfoods.” I’m sure the folks over at the High-fructose Corn Syrup lobby are not bad people (call off the dogs, guys!) and their product is not the spawn of Satan, as some would have you believe. But I have a hard time swallowing (no pun intended) their argument that because corn is all-natural, that HFCS is every bit as natural, and therefore harmless.

You see, there have been some links noted between HFCS and increased cases of diabetes. Is this true? No idea. Should we ban HFCS without proof? Of course not. Should we study this more and not let a lobbyist group throw up a big smokescreen campaign to divert our attention from what could be a real health issue? Undoubtedly.

But I’m not here today to argue about the relative merits of HFCS and links to diabetes. I’m here to rag on Pepsi for a really stupid marketing idea.

Soda Cognoscenti the world over will tell you (and tell you, and tell you) that cane sugar makes for a vastly superior pour over beet sugar or corn sugar. End of discussion. They’ll also decry the day that bottlers made the switch, and claim they’d be happy to pay the extra coin to get that cane sugar rush back. And Pepsi has (temporarily) obliged, with the release of their “Throwback” line of beverages featuring REAL corn sugar.

I mean, if the Throwback cans contain (by their own admission, remember) “real” sugar, what in the Sam Hill have they been putting in the OTHER cans of Pepsi? That would be the aforementioned HFCS – one of those slightly mysterious ingredients you see in processed foods, like MSG or something else with an unpronounceable name that only a lab rat could love.

So if I’m a cane sugar fan, why do I object to this campaign?

Simple. It’s every bit as stupid and damning to their core product line as “Budweiser Select” is to Bud. You see, what Pepsi is acknowledging here is that their drinks used to taste better. A LOT better. And if you buy their “Throwback” Pepsis, Mountain Dews, et all, you’ll taste what I mean. There is an entire (Pepsi) generation of kids that have never had the oral pleasure of downing a cane sugar drink. What’s to be gained here for Pepsi?

Now I know that PepsiCo is King of the Line Extensions. They’ve never met a brand they couldn’t weaken by extending it one more direction. Pepsi. Diet Pepsi. Pepsi One. Pepsi Clear (you get the picture…not that Coca Cola is any better in this regard). So the Throwback line is completely in character for Pepsi. But I don’t get what they are trying to accomplish. It’s not being marketed as a premium pour. The ad campaign is hammering on the nostalgia theme. Huh? I mean, they are admitting (on the one hand) that the old-ways is the best-ways, and on the other, not doing a thing to try and protect their core products. Self-cannibalization is STILL cannibalization, after all. And what if demand is such that they are forced to either keep the Throwback line around, or end up going back to cane sugar all together? Unless sugarcane prices have plunged recently, I doubt that it’s cheaper than corn syrup, and I suspect the corn syrup lobby will NOT go quietly into that good night, especially as the Ethanol thing hasn’t quite worked out according to their master plan for energy domination.

What is Pepsi’s game plan here? (Artificially) Color me “mystified.” While I vastly prefer cane sugar over corn (not to mention Coke over Pepsi – sorry, guys), I just don’t get it. And this is coming from a guy who willingly pays over a buck per king-sized bottle for “Mexican Coca-Cola,” made with REAL cane sugar. (I figure they taste better, and the additional cost keeps me from downing more than one per day.)

If anybody can shed light on Pepsi’s end-game, I’d be fascinated to hear about it. Without some inside knowledge, I’m afraid that their “Throwback” campaign is going to do little more than “Throw Away” their level playing field with their competitors, at a premium price for cane sugar. On the other hand, if this somehow results in Pepsi, Coke, et all, returning to their sugarcane roots, I’ve but one thing to say about it.

Sweet!

In recent years, we’ve seen spin that would make a top envious from organizations like the tobacco growers, automobile makers, and scads of politicians (who virtually invented spin). Last night, I saw a TV spot for a group that has decided to take spin to a new level, proactively seeking to change the hearts and minds of the great unwashed before they even get their hackles up regarding the group’s product.

Know much about sweeteners? If you like sweets, sodas, bread products, or cereals and think sugar (cane sugar or beet sugar) is a major part of your diet, think again. Most foods today use what’s called High Fructose Corn Syrup (a.ka.: HFCS) as their sweetener of choice, instead of cane or beet sugar. Why? It’s cheaper and easier to transport than cane or beet sugars. Recently, a number of groups have raised questions about HFCS and health issues. These concerns have not yet gotten a lot of traction in the media or penetrated the conciousness of the general public. Which makes the nationwide TV/Web campaign currently being mounted by the Corn Refiners Association really interesting.

Before we go any farther, let me get a couple of things out of the way, in the spirit of full disclosure. I love soft drinks. I don’t drink diet drinks (I hate the after-taste), and while I try and watch what I eat (sort of) I’m not a crusader against food additives, genetically modified foods, irradiated foods, or anything else. If there’s something to concerns about HFCS, I’d like to know about it, but until I see some proof, I’m not up in arms about this. I’m not concerned about HFCS, aspartame, Olestra, saccharin, or anything else the scaremongers would have me believe will kill me.

Having said that, my big gripe about HFCS is that it doesn’t taste as good as cane sugar, at least in my vice-of-choice, Coca-Cola. In fact, I’ve taken to buying what we refer to around here as “Mexican Cokes” – Coca-Cola that’s bottled South of the border, where for some reason, they still use cane sugar.

Cane sugar has a ‘bite’ to it that HFCS just doesn’t have. Cokes made with HFCS taste better. Given that they are also more expensive, I drink fewer cane sugar Cokes, which is a happy thing for me and my wasteline. (Pun intended. A waist is a terrible thing to mind.)

Since I hit my fifth decade on Planet Earth, I’ve begun paying more attention to what I put in my body. I’m a believer in the idea that the less you screw around with additives and processing, the better off you are, at least in general. Given that cane sugar Cokes taste better, drinking fewer HFCS Cokes was an easy decision. What’s somewhat worrisome for me, though, is that some of the groups hitting the alarm button (including the USDA) claim that studies show that HFCS could be contributing cause of the increase in reported cases of diabetes. Since I have a number of friends that have been stricken with diabetes (and if you count all the diabetes products commercials on TV, I’ve got to believe that diabetes control is a growing business), this is worrisome. Of course if you want to eliminate HFCS from your diet – good luck. Fountain drinks aren’t available with cane sugar. Cake mixes, breakfast cereals, and thousands of other products are made with good old HFCS. You can run from HFCS, but I don’t think you can hide.

HFCS is big business for “Big Corn.” Aside from the windfall from the recent, misguided push towards using corn to make Ethanol, corn growers make big bucks from crops destined for HFCS production. (For every winner there must be a loser – sugar producers are taking it in the shorts as manufacturers move away from cane sugars and towards HFCS.)

So I suppose it’s logical that the Corn Refiners Association has come out, guns blazing, to convince people that HFCS is a beneficial, safe way to sweeten foods. And what better way to do so than with a TV campaign rife with a wholesome girl-next-door, a somewhat dense and inarticulate boyfriend, and a phallic symbol?

In the spot entitled “Two Bites,” we see a young, attractive couple on a picnic. The girl (we’ll call her “Eve”) proffers a juicy, red Popsicle to her guy. He resists, saying “that’s got high fructose corn syrup in it…and you know they say about that!” She smiles her knowing smile, professes ignorance of what “they” say. He fumbles about for a bit, not able to recall what “they” say, either (but he knows it was bad). In her best Socratic manner, asks “What? That it’s made from corn? That it has the same calories as sugar, and honey, it’s fine in moderation!” The guy (we’ll call him “Adam”) responds, “You only brought one?,” and happily accepts the treat, dripping with HFCS and symbolism, from his temptress girlfriend. The spot then ends with a tagline: “Get the facts…you’re in for a sweet surprise.” along with a URL for SweetSurprise.com, where you can learn “factual information about common sweetners like sugar, honey, and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).”

The spot accomplishes a number of things you learn in P.R. 101:

1. Confront the problem – HFCS is starting to get a bad rep. The spot acknowledges this.
2. Don’t give credence to the problem by explaining it – The spot cleverly mentions the idea that HFCS is somehow ‘bad’ – but never offers any details or evidence that it is, thus discrediting it by discrediting the person in the spot espousing that opinion.
3. Explain your position/state your claims in a simple, factoid fashion – The spokesbabe cleverly works her three talking points into her answer – it’s natural (made from corn), just as sweet – and no sweeter – than (cane) sugar, and okay to eat in moderation.
4. Offer a tease/call to action to provide more ‘facts’ to buttress your argument – the URL and tag line lead the viewer to believe that they’ll be ‘rewarded’ when they learn the ‘truth’ about HFCS.

The site offers a number of things – a quiz, access to the media campaign, and a FAQ that is heavy on pro-HFCS data, but conveniently skirts any mention of a connection between HFCS and diabetes.

Is HFCS a danger to public health and a cause of diabetes? I dunno. I’m not a scientist. However, I’d like to know more – a lot more – about this, and not just take the word of an organization that has a vested interest in convincing me that HFCS is a safe alternative to cane and beet sugars.

In the spirit of providing as much information as possible, here are some links I found by searching Google for “high fructose corn syrup”:

The Murky World of High-Fructose Corn Syrup

WestonaPrice.org article on the “Double Danger of HFCS

Mayo Clinic article on HFCS

LA Times article on HFCS

WaPo article on HFCS

SF Chronical article on HFCS

www.sprol.com

http://www.sweetsurprise.com

I’d suggest you read what you can, and then make up your own mind HFCS. No matter what you hear, or who you listen to, remember that everybody has an agenda. (Mine is to talk about marketing and how it relates to the world in which we live.)

Getting back to the matter at hand, kudos to the lobbyists, PR team, and marketers behind Big Corn. They’ve crafted a campaign that doesn’t miss a trick, and worked proactively to try and shut down the arguments against HFCS before they get enough play in the news to become a danger to their profits. That’s the way to use marketing effectively. Is that an ethical use of marketing? I don’t know. If HFCS is proved to be safe – yes, it is. If not, there’s gonna be a whole bunch of marketers burning in Hell, come the judgement day.