FreshNetworks Blog

Having already looked at the Facebook engagement and content strategy of two large rival consumer brands (Unilever’s AXE v P&G’s Old Spice) we thought it would be interesting to use social analytics tool Socialbakers to look at the engagement levels for another two rival consumer giants – Coca-Cola and Pepsi.

1. Fans

At face value, Coca-Cola has 29,368,850 more fans than Pepsi. Coca-Cola’s fan total stands at a whopping 35,454,838:

During October Coca-cola’s fans grew by 1,020,439  and Pepsi’s only grew by 188,349.

2. Engagement

We’ve always believed in building real engagement rather than “likes” or fans and so, to us,  the really interesting analysis comes when looking at the activity of Coca-Cola and Pepsi in terms of engagement.

Using Facebook’s “Talking About” metric, during October significantly more people were “Talking about” Coca-Cola instead of Pepsi:

While the people “Talking About” metric  seems to be fairly consistent for Pepsi, the increase and subsequent peak in people “Talking About” for Coca-Cola on 29th October could be because tickets for the Coca-Cola sponsored NASCAR Sprint Cup Series race at Daytona International Speedway  went on sale on Saturday October 29th.

However, even though more people were “Talking About” Coca-cola during October, in terms of other engagement metrics is appears as though Pepsi has the advantage:

Pepsi has an average engagement rate of 0.06% versus Coca-Cola’s 0.04%.  What’s more,  Pepsi has a total of 180,050 interactions (posts and comments) to Coca-Cola’s 117,964, again proving their higher engagement levels. Part of the reason behind this is that Pepsi used a lot of pictures and images to engage with its audience during October, rather than just links and text, thereby helping to generate a lot of interactions with the page.

Also, throughout October, Coca-cola made 21 posts, while Pepsi bordered on almost three times the activity with 53 posts, often posting twice daily. Updating and refreshing content on a regular basis is likely to have helped with Pepsi’s engagement rate.

So it seems that although Coca-cola has the more ‘famous’ Facebook page, with by far the most number of fans, in terms of engagement during October it seems that Pepsi is the winner.

It would be interesting to track this trend over a longer period of time than just a month to get a real understanding of the levels of engagement on each page.

One question brands frequently ask themselves is why should people want to discuss their brand online in social media? With some brands that is true, certainly if they want to develop a sustained online conversation over time.

Corporate and Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives using social media are not new. Brands that have aligned to a pursuit or a cause have found that the online conversations are more purposeful as their brand is seen in a new light.

Recently Pepsi has caught the attention of social media commentators by going one step better and much bigger. By shifting $20m of event based traditional advertising budget (from the Superbowl) Pespi launched the Pepsi Refresh Project.

Bonin Bough (Global Director Digital and Social Media at PepisCo.) described it on Beth Kantor’s non-profit focused blog:

For those who don’t know, the Pepsi Refresh Project is a new effort to empower individuals to make a positive impact on the world.  We’ve pledged to award more than $20 million to support innovative ideas that move communities forward. Anyone can apply for a grant and the public decides who wins.

Each month, Pepsi will award grants up to $1.3 million to the winning ideas across six categories, including: Health, Arts & Culture, Food & Shelter, The Planet, Neighborhoods and Education.

The interesting question is that Pepsi has first mover advantage is repeating this type of campaign possible in the future? i.e. can they (or for that matter anyone else) do the same sort of crowd sourced campaign next year and expect to get the same media exposure?

The longer term impact of the Pepsi Refresh Project partly depends on whether the causes that benefit will talk or continue to talk online about Pepsi.

This is our first post in a new series on social media and not-for-profits

In Russia, there is a generation of people known locally as Generatsiia P (Generation P). These is the generation who grew up during a period of increasing openness to the West, when products like American soft drinks were available in shops. But there was still no choice – if you wanted a cola drink you could only buy Pepsi, not Coca-Cola. Your choice was restricted to what somebody else had decided for you. Whilst you could choose a cola based drink (and an imported one at that) over another type, your ability to choose stopped there.

I was thinking of this analogy early this week when we were talking at FreshNetworks about the benefits that social media and web 2.0 technologies bring to the way brands interact with customers. Whether for marketing, to engage them or for research, social media tools like online communities give the consumer real choice about what they interact with and when. They are in control.

With last.fm for instance, I can listen to music when I want and where, I don’t have to rely on the choice of a dj at a national station to predict what I listen to. I also don’t have to limit myself to music I personally own. I have much greater control of what I listen to, rather than relying on people to push out music at a time that suits them, I pull on this music when I want to. I have more control.

So it is also in online communities. In our communities we see people take part at a time that suits them. Some people may never use the forums but always read and comment on blog entries. Others may do neither of these things but will upload media and comment on that. When you are developing your strategy you need to recognise this and make sure you cater for the people you want to be in the community, and cater for the things they choose to do in it.

Of course this choice on the part of the community member can also be used as a benefit. In our online research communities, for example, this freedom to choose is a significant advantage over other research methods. When you expect people to answer a survey or be insightful when you call them or at the time you run a focus group, it may not be at a time that they have the insight you want. They may need time to reflect, their first answer may not be their fullest, they may work better if they get to read other responses then spend time thinking about this. Traditional research works by recognising and dealing with this. Online research communities can really capitalise upon the choice you give the respondent over when they say. They are very much in control of their responses as they can come back at any time and add to them or change them as they see fit.

This kind of choice is empowering. I can contribute to discussions when I want to. I can watch videos at a time that suits me. I can listen to the music I want, when I want to. I can chat to my friends when we’re both online. Social media allows me real choice and as such I think you get a better quality of interaction with people. By giving us the choice to take part when we want, and the means to take part how we want to, you give me all the tools I need to engage with you. You don’t decide how or why I take part, I do. You don’t just offer me Pepsi, you give me a choice of soft drinks and I choose the one I want when I want it.

Some more reading

• The Paradigm Shift of Social Media and Time Management
• Requirements for a social media network
• The Tactical Road To Enterprise 2.0
• Your own branded online community vs advertising on Facebook
• Miss Manners We Need You
• Do we really need a Facebook magazine?