JANUARY 5, 2013, 2:00 PM
Why Do Stars Think It’s O.K. To Sell Soda?
By MARK BITTMAN
Beyoncé Knowles would presumably refuse to take part in an
ad campaign that showed her carrying a semiautomatic rifle.
But she's eager, evidently, to have the Pepsi logo painted on
her lips and have a limited-edition Pepsi can bearing her
likeness.
You'll soon see her on Feb. 3 at the Pepsi Super Bowl
halftime show, where she'll be introduced by 50 of her
luckiest and best-gyrating fans who have been selected
through a contest. (Yes, you can try out!)
For this and other efforts, Pepsi is spending $50 million, part
of which will support her "creative projects." And unless
she's donating some or all of that money, this is an odd move
for a politically aware woman who, with her husband, Jay-Z,
raised money for President Obama and supported Michelle
Obama's "Let's Move" campaign, meant to encourage
children to exercise.
Knowles is renting her image to a product that may one day
be ranked with cigarettes as a killer we were too slow to rein
in. From saying, as she once did in referring to Let's Move,
that she was "excited to be part of this effort that addresses a
public health crisis," she's become part of an effort that
promotes a public health crisis. I suppose it would be one
thing if she needed the money or the exposure but she and
Jay-Z are worth around $775 million.
Nor is she alone: a partial list of soda shills has ranged from
LeBron James to Madonna to the "frenzy-inducing" One
Direction, and on: Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey, Elton John,
Christina Aguilera and David Beckham. Seemingly, no
celebrities turn down endorsement deals for ethical reasons.
(The Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Miles Austin was once
rumored to have rejected a six-figure deal with Red Bull, but
only because he reportedly didn't want to pose next to a
romantic rival, Reggie Bush.)
Pepsi is the leading but not the only producer of sugarsweetened beverages to play on celebrity desire for dollars:
Coke is right up there; the esteemed Michael Jordan shills
for Coke, as have Elton John, Bill Cosby and, back in the day,
Elvis.
Nor is direct advertising the only vehicle: product placement
has become so ubiquitous that most of us don't notice. A
Pepsi can topped the microphone-shaped trophy received by
a recent victor on "X Factor," Simon Cowell's follow-up to
"American Idol." My friend Laurie David counted 26 on-air
shots of Coke during last season's "American Idol" finale and
an incredible 324 shots of Snapple in a June episode of
"America's Got Talent." ("There are Snapple cups placed in
front of each judge," she wrote me. "I counted every time I
saw a Snapple cup.")
To those jaded enough to ask "So what?" I'd reply that's a
measure of how successful these kinds of campaigns are.
(Would everyone be O.K. with a head shot of me at the top of
this column innocently sipping at a can of Pepsi?)
Some will say that soda is food and that there's no smoking
gun as there is with tobacco. But food provides nourishment,
and soda doesn't. In fact it packs calories that provide no
satiety and directly cause weight gain, and despite the recent
Journal of the American Medical Association meta-analysis
questioning the link between obesity and early death, we
know there is a link between obesity and diseases like
diabetes.
Two things can slow down this machine: anti-tobacco-style
legislation and public opinion. Because for the beneficiaries,
the current system is working great: every aspect of the
media industry that can pull in soda money is happy to take
it, and Pepsi will undoubtedly enjoy something like 110
million viewers of the halftime show. (Last year, Madonna
drew more viewers than the game itself.) Whether Knowles
really believes in Pepsi's public statement about what it
stands for, about its "unique commitment to sustainable
growth by investing in a healthier future for people and our
planet" (Pepsi's words, obviously) is impossible to know.
(Her publicist did not respond for a request to comment for
this piece.) In a statement she gave to the The Times upon
the announcement of the deal, Knowles said: "Pepsi
embraces creativity and understands that artists evolve. As a
businesswoman, this allows me to work with a lifestyle brand
with no compromise and without sacrificing my creativity."
But an organization that works for healthy food was quick to
criticize her: last month, the Center for Science in the Public
Interest urged her to abandon the deal, writing in an open
letter to the star: "Your image is one of success, health,
talent, fitness, and glamour. But by lending your name and
image to PepsiCo, you are associating those positive
attributes with a product that is quite literally sickening
Americans." (She did not respond.)
I'd note that as one of the top moneymakers in music, she
could take some of her creative time and produce a public
service announcement that would positively affect the
attitudes of millions of children and teens on the subjects of
health, self-image, nutrition and exercise.