I found this story during this morning’s news crawl.
(EDIT: Story has moved to this location – 04 Feb 09)

::: boggle :::
It is definitely Pepsi’s right to choose whomever they wish as a spokesperson for their products. It is also their right to no longer use a given person to represent them. I understand companies’ desire to bee seen as “hip” and “with it.” My question is: Isn’t there supposed to be someone who does research to see who/whom best represents the company’s image? Or was it simply a matter of “Gee, the kids like this artist, get her/him signed up and on the job right now?” The official statement from Pepsi was “I don’t think we knew the extent” to which his material was sexually explicit, Casabona said, adding that the decision to drop the ads was “driven by the responses from our consumers.”

::: blink :::

It’s not like Ludacris didn’t have a body of work already on the market. It would have been a simple matter to go to the local music store, pick up a CD or two and give them a listen. And, I think that the consumers who were familiar with him already knew what his music and lyrics were like. Instead, Pepsi nearly has a corporate coronary when Bill O’Reilly calls them “immoral” for employing Ludacris… and then threatened to start drinking Coca-Cola products.

And, it seems that Pepsi has a precedent for this type of action: They dropped Madonna as a spokesperson in 1989 when people confused her ad for her “Like A Prayer” video.

For Pepsi to even consider authorizing a statement that contains the phrase “We didn’t know about…” is… well… ludicrous. How is it that a company over 35 years old (Pepsico was formed in 1965, but the Pepsi Cola® beverage is over 100 years old) doesn’t get something that, at least to me, is a basic idea in marketing research? Companies are always telling their employees to “do your homework” when looking into developing new products and strategies. How is it that this one got past them?

Or… did the dog eat their homework?