There's some great thoughts that are being brought up here, and I do want to get to the bottom of them. It's not enough, for me, to say “there's a balance”, I want to know where the balance is!

This was very insightful to read. You highlight the difference between 'local' authenticity and 'global' authenticity – I'm keen to learn how they differ, and how they are both sustained!

Corporates have been doing it for years already, Tescos computers for schools to name but one. In the past though, this has been a tertiary marketing tactic and perhaps all that Pepsi are doing now is bringing that marketing tactic to the forefront of their marketing approach cos' the other stuff ain't working anymore!

It's an interesting development though, but it lets not get carried away it really is only a marketing tactic. I don't think there is any authentic motivation at all from Pepsi. However, if it means that social and community groups benefit, what the hell, its far better on many fronts than David Beckham or three skateboarders shouting at me from the corner of my sitting room!

Companies, I believe do have a responsibility for social change and the communities they are involved in. We have past examples Rowntrees, Cadburys and Jacobs. That said, companies must make profits, so it's perhaps not what you do it's how you do it?

People buy from people, even when a mass product is involved. Companies have been rumbled and people are seeking out 'real' experiences with transparency and authenticity heading up the approach. It means closing the gap between image and the reality. And, thats actually about reputation, which, perhaps is Pepsi's motivation at the end of the day!

As a small business owner, authenticity is essential and I wouldn’t be able to survive and grow if our values, products and services were inauthentic. Why? because most of our business development is peer to peer, face to face, word of mouth and reputation based. We must be transparent, up-front and honest. My brand is me, my people and the quality we provide, which I think falls more closely in to the Platform is the product model.

For bigger brands (and we can look at Pepsi, although I’m fighting the temptation to use “the real thing” slogan) authenticity is measured and judged in an entirely different way; and here I am thinking with the mind of a consumer. Do I care about the altruistic nature of a brand when engaging with a product? In all honestly, probably not – and certainly not as much as I should do. I would assume that until there is a major cultural shift, that consumption is still the driving force behind most buying decisions. We’d like to say that ethics are the driving force, but for the mainstream they are not. There are too many examples of consumers engaging with and buying from “bad” brands.

So, perhaps for Pepsi’s consumers, an expression of authenticity is an authentic taste. If Pepsi loses its authentic taste, it loses its customer base.

Will Pepsi’s shift in to cause marketing work? Probably yes, purely by the virtue that is a cynical blunder into an (as yet) unexploited brand space (I agree with Cathy Debenham’s comments regarding devaluing charity brands). Is it authentic? No, because it is not backed up by a broader and sustainable set of brand-wide values. Neither is it the start of Pepsi’s intention to take a long-term shift to being 100% altruistic. Will consumers care? In the mainstream no.

Good comments – glad you're reading

So in the case of Pepsi I agree with Chris Hall's comment that Pepsi will probably do fine out of it. People may see it in a new, warmer, fuzzier light. Although if they associate Pepsi with jumping off canyons and the other extreme sports featured in the Pepsi Max ads, they may be confused.

As to the beneficiaries: if they're small community based groups I'm sure they will be very happy to have the money. If they are larger charitable organisations I'd advise them to look closely at how well their brand values match Pepsi's before getting into bed with them.

Saying “the whole thing will pass on through their own social networks what they're doing – word of mouth, facebook, youtube, twitter, email etc etc. ” isn't good enough – we need to now how it will, how like it is that it will, and if it will. This sharing doesn't just happen!

Knowing these things, those of us who are practitioners can better learn and do likewise.

I wholeheartedly agree with the message and the concepts of authenticity/platforms & causes. I think it's important to realise that Pepsi's strategy isn't about shifting cans to the people who engage in the social causes but to implant, subconsciously & subliminally the pepsi mantra: that it's a good company and next time I want a cola (notice I didn't say the other brand name cos that's the point of what pepsi is doing) that I'll buy PEPSI. Bingo!

It will also work 'socially'. People engaged with the whole thing will pass on through their own social networks what they're doing – word of mouth, facebook, youtube, twitter, email etc etc.

I suspect Pepsi will gain $100 million dollar return from their $20 million investment. Way more than through the traditional, and less spreadable, route of TV.

I'd rather a brand presented a campaign based on this type of approach than previous methods. At least the audience can engage and in some way collaborate with the brand. And if it does some good then it may just be a win-win for all.