01/14/2008, 11:15am, EST
Monday, January 14thAmazon, Pepsi reveal Superbowl MP3 promo
Amazon and Pepsi this morning claimed a changing of the guard with word of Pepsi Stuff, a new promotional campaign bent on accomplishing for Amazon what 2004's iTunes promo did for Apple. Rather than hide complete giveaway codes under random bottle caps as with the iTunes campaign, the new promo guarantees songs based on the number of drinks: buyers instead claim points from each bottle that go towards free items. Five bottles are enough to qualify for a single song. Since every song comes in the unprotected and more universal MP3 format, nearly every user of a portable media player can claim the rewards from the campaign -- including iPhone and iPod owners, Amazon is keen to state.
Other items are available and include downloads from Amazon's Windows- and TiVo-only Unbox video service, electronics, and physical media such as CDs or movies. Every bottle labeled as a Pepsi drink will qualify for the campaign.
Further echoing past collaboration between Apple and Pepsi, the Amazon campaign will debut with the Superbowl on February 1st and is widely anticipated (though not confirmed) to begin with a TV spot to air during the Superbowl. Neither Amazon nor Pepsi has yet said if or when the campaign will end.
The revelation marks a second significant victory for Amazon versus Apple in as many weeks, with Amazon having secured all four major labels in a protection-free agreement last week by adding Sony BMG's catalog to its music collection. Apple so far has only enlisted EMI and has reportedly been deliberately rebuffed by Universal and Warner when asking for new long-term contracts for the iTunes Store. Both labels are said to be looking for more flexible per-song pricing from Apple as well as a chance to undermine the iPod manufacturer's majority stake in online music sales.
Filed under: iPod, industry, Apple
Other story tags: iTunes, Amazon, Pepsi
, 
, 11
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
Top
subscribe to comments
for this article
regular Pepsi - waaaaay too sweet, no bite like Coke has.
BTW the article is confusing, it makes it sound like the Super Bowl is on 2/1, it's really on 2/3.
And this "add up your caps" crap? Before you could stop buy a gas station and once in a while you'd get a freebie song. Certainly, chances were about the same, but you didn't have to invest in 'X' amount of drinks to get a song. You could just radomly get a bottle, and get a free song. Now you HAVE to buy 5 drinks. It'll be interesting to see which gets people to buy fore bottles.
On that note, we can't really say which store, Amazon or iTunes, sells more soda. The "giveaway" models are different. It's too bad really, else something could be said about the results.
Whoop...
This will be anemic compared to the iTunes deal.
Does any of this remind you of the MS strategery...
I guess in the old days you liked it when your only choice to buy a CD was Sam Goody at the mall, too.
Competition is a GOOD thing (whether its competing with Apple or competing with Amazon). It helps keeps prices down and service up
perhaps. perhaps not. your speculation is better in what way exactly?
I wouldn't say I was speculating, just offering another option. But, if it were speculation, I'm not saying it's better, just different.
But, consider the fact that
(a) Amazon didn't leap into the field without any real competition, like Apple, and thus had a price point to compete against.
(b) Amazon already had much of the infrastructure (servers, billing, accounts, etc) such that their start-up costs would be lower
(c) the labels already had their content converted to digital, so they have more to play with (within the restrictions of DRM-free, of course), so any cost they might have had to endure to perform this themselves, or 'pay' the labels to do, would be neglible
(d) no advertising (that I've seen)
(e) no DRM to deal with, which means no costs trying to find better ways to lock down your music, fixing holes or workarounds in the DRM, etc.
To sum up, then, there's every reason to think their overall costs would be less then apple, and would have no problem charging less.
But I know, it's so much easier to think anyone competing against apple, and charging less, is doing it at a loss to drive Apple out of business. Makes for a more interesting read.