Pepsi's Refresh Project 2010: when skipping the Super Bowl for cause marketing cost market share
In early 2010, PepsiCo made a bold move: instead of buying Super Bowl ads, it would spend $20 million giving away grants for community projects through online voting. The Pepsi Refresh Project ran for two years, generated significant earned media, funded 1,000+ community projects, and is taught in business schools as a cause-marketing milestone. It also coincided with Pepsi dropping from the #2 to the #3 carbonated soft-drink brand in the US for the first time since the early 1980s, ceding the spot to Diet Coke. Whether the campaign caused the decline or simply coincided with it is debated, but PepsiCo returned to traditional advertising in 2011.
- Story: In 2010, Pepsi skipped the Super Bowl for the first time in 23 years and spent $20M on the Refresh Project, a cause-marketing campaign funding 1,000+ community projects via online voting. Engagement was huge: 60M+ votes, hundreds of millions of earned impressions. The same year, Pepsi fell from #2 to #3 in US CSDs, passed by Diet Coke. Pepsi returned to traditional advertising in 2012.
- Why it matters: The Refresh Project is the worked cautionary tale about treating cause marketing as a replacement for core brand-building rather than as an additive layer.
- Takeaway: Cause marketing should add to core brand spend, not replace it.
- Takeaway: Engagement metrics and market-share metrics can move in opposite directions.
- Takeaway: Skipping the Super Bowl was the loud signal; reduced overall brand investment was the underlying issue.
Pepsi Refresh Project — the four-step story
Pepsi Refresh at a glance
Quick facts
The bet: cause marketing instead of Super Bowl
In late 2009, PepsiCo announced it would not run Super Bowl ads for the Pepsi flagship brand in February 2010 — the first time the brand had skipped the game in 23 years. Instead, the company committed roughly $20 million to the Pepsi Refresh Project: a program that would give grants of between $5,000 and $250,000 to community projects, with winners chosen by online voting.
The thinking, articulated by then-marketing chief Jill Beraud and the agency TBWA\Chiat\Day, was that Millennials and Gen X consumers cared more about brands that did good than about traditional advertising. Letting people vote on which causes Pepsi would fund would create deeper engagement than a 30-second Super Bowl spot. The campaign would generate earned media (news coverage of the projects, social shares of the voting) that would multiply the paid spend.
The execution and the engagement metrics
Pepsi Refresh ran with monthly grant cycles. Anyone could submit a community project idea (a playground, a youth program, an environmental restoration), and the public could vote daily on the proposals. Projects got tens of thousands of votes; the program received over 60 million votes in total. Media coverage was extensive: TV news ran feel-good segments on grant recipients, social media shares spiked, and the campaign won industry awards.
- Earned media estimated in the hundreds of millions of impressions — vastly exceeding what $20M in paid ads would buy.
- 1,000+ community projects funded across two years, with documented community benefit (parks, schools, programs).
- Pepsi Refresh became a case study in cause marketing taught at Harvard Business School and others.
- Industry awards including Cannes Lions and OMMA recognized the campaign's creativity and reach.
- Brand sentiment metrics (surveys) showed favorability gains among younger consumers during the campaign window.
The market share problem
While Pepsi Refresh was generating engagement, something else was happening in the carbonated soft-drink (CSD) market. Beverage Digest's annual rankings of US CSD volume showed Pepsi fall from #2 to #3 in 2010, passed by Diet Coke. It was the first time Pepsi had not been the #2 CSD in the US since the early 1980s. Coca-Cola Classic remained #1.
Multiple factors contributed: the overall CSD category was declining as consumers shifted to bottled water and other beverages, Coke had been investing heavily in traditional advertising (including its own ongoing Super Bowl presence), and the Pepsi brand had been losing distribution and shelf placement. But the timing — Pepsi pulling back from Super Bowl and traditional brand-building in the same period it lost market share — raised pointed questions about whether the cause campaign had come at the expense of core brand maintenance.
In 2011, PepsiCo's marketing leadership changed. By 2012, Pepsi was back on Super Bowl ads. The Refresh Project was sunset. Indra Nooyi, then CEO, defended the program publicly but the company quietly shifted budget back to traditional advertising and trade promotion.
How RGM thinks about cause-marketing budget allocation
When clients ask about cause-marketing campaigns — especially trade-offs against core brand-building spend — we cite Pepsi Refresh as the cautionary template. The campaign was creative, well-executed, and generated measurable engagement. But it also coincided with measurable market-share loss in the category Pepsi was supposed to be defending.
Our honest take: cause marketing works as an additive layer on top of strong core brand and product marketing, not as a replacement for it. The Refresh Project's framing — we don't need Super Bowl ads, we'll do good instead — created an either/or that was probably never required. Diet Coke didn't pass Pepsi because Pepsi did cause marketing; it passed Pepsi because Pepsi reduced presence in the traditional ad channels where CSD brand preference is built. The lesson for any brand considering similar trade-offs: do both, or have a clear-eyed view of what core-brand investment you're trading away.
Frequently asked questions
Did Pepsi Refresh actually cause Pepsi to drop to #3 in CSDs?
Causal attribution is debated. The market-share decline coincided with the campaign window, and the campaign coincided with reduced traditional brand-building spend. Diet Coke's rise was driven by Coca-Cola's investment in the diet-soda category and overall CSD market changes. Most marketing historians treat the Refresh Project as a contributing factor (an opportunity cost), not a direct cause.
Was Pepsi Refresh successful by any measure?
Yes, by several measures: engagement (60M+ votes), earned media (hundreds of millions of impressions), community impact (1,000+ funded projects), and industry recognition (multiple awards). The case for it as a successful cause-marketing campaign is strong. The case against is that it didn't translate to the business metric that matters for Pepsi: CSD volume share.
Did PepsiCo learn from this?
PepsiCo returned to traditional advertising and Super Bowl presence in 2012 and has maintained core brand-building spend since. The company has continued cause-marketing programs (PepsiCo Foundation, sustainability initiatives) but as additive layers, not as primary brand advertising replacements. The pattern shift is consistent with a do-both-not-either-or learning.
Is cause marketing still a viable approach?
Yes, cause marketing works well when (a) it aligns with brand purpose authentically, (b) it adds to rather than replaces core brand-building, and (c) it has measurement that includes both engagement metrics and business outcomes. Patagonia, Bombas, and others run successful cause-marketing programs alongside strong core marketing. The failure mode Pepsi Refresh illustrates is treating cause as a replacement for traditional brand investment.
What happened to TBWA\Chiat\Day after the campaign?
TBWA\Chiat\Day remained on the Pepsi account through the early 2010s and continues to be a major creative agency. The Refresh Project remains a celebrated piece of creative work in their portfolio even though its business outcomes are debated. The agency's reputation was not damaged by the campaign's mixed business results.
Sources & references
- Pepsi Refresh Project retrospective — The Drum analysis of campaign outcomes.
- Beverage Digest annual rankings — Historical reference for US CSD market share data.
- Harvard Business School case — HBS treatment of the case (search reference).
- Ad Age coverage — Trade-press coverage during the campaign window.