Power of Online 22 | SunMatrix Ramble

Oscar Mayer: Wake Up and Smell the Bacon

If you would like to wake up to the sound of sizzling bacon on the stove and its aroma drawing you out of bed, then head over to www.wakeupandsmellthebacon.com and answer three questions for a chance to win the special bacon-scented iPhone attachment.

The contest is being run by Oscar Mayer, and they are giving away 4700 bacon-scented iPhone attachments over the next month. Winners can then use a custom Oscar Mayer alarm app to automatically activate the iPhone attachment every morning.

How the stunt is engineered

The mechanism is a neat combination of utility and theatre: a giveaway device plus a dedicated alarm app. The theatre is the story-worthy prop that makes the idea easy to retell.

In FMCG marketing, a physical add-on that turns a brand promise into a daily ritual can outperform a one-off ad because it creates repetition without feeling like repetition.

The real question is whether you can turn a product cue into a repeatable moment people choose to replay.

This is a strong stunt because it earns replay inside an existing morning routine, not just in a one-time impression.

Why it lands

This works because the alarm app and scent attachment turn Oscar Mayer’s core cue into a repeatable, at-home sensory demo.

Extractable takeaway: Scent and sound work as marketing when they are attached to an existing habit. If the brand can own a repeatable moment in the day, the campaign shifts from impression to ritual.

It turns a product truth into a sensory demo. Oscar Mayer does not need to persuade you that bacon is appealing. It just recreates the cue that already does the persuading.

It makes the call-to-action playful. “Enter to win” is normally forgettable. Here it is a gateway to a story-worthy object, so the contest itself becomes shareable.

It upgrades branded content into branded utility. Branded utility here means a tool people use for their own sake. The alarm is not only entertainment. It is a behavior change, because the phone becomes part of a new wake-up routine.

Borrowable moves from the bacon alarm

Pair a simple app with a tangible artifact. Physical wins feel rarer than digital, which increases talk value, meaning how likely people are to mention it unprompted.
Design for daily replay. The strongest “stunts” are the ones that can be re-experienced without needing a second ad.
Make the entry mechanic frictionless. Fewer questions, faster entry, and the prize does the marketing.

A few fast answers before you act

What is being promoted here?

A contest for a bacon-scented iPhone attachment, supported by an alarm app that triggers the attachment in the morning.

Why does this qualify as more than a gimmick?

Because it converts a brand promise into a repeatable experience. The “demo” happens in the user’s real life, not just on screen.

What is the main behavior change the campaign creates?

It pulls the brand into a daily wake-up habit, which creates repeated exposure without needing repeated media placements.

What makes it shareable?

The object is inherently story-worthy. People can describe it instantly, and the idea is unusual enough to travel as a headline.

What is the key risk?

Link rot and platform change. If the app link, device compatibility, or contest site stops working, the core mechanic collapses.

Pepsi Max: Test Drive

Last year in March, Pepsi Max along with professional stock car racing driver Jeff Gordon performed a prank on an unsuspecting car salesman by taking him on a test drive of his life. Here, a “prank” is a designed real-world setup filmed to capture reactions, not a fully scripted spot.

The video since then got over 41 Million views on YouTube. Despite its viral success, automotive journalist Travis Okulski was not impressed and was pretty vocal in pointing out inconsistencies in the viral ad and calling it a fake.

So Jeff Gordon teamed up again with Pepsi Max to pull a similar prank on unsuspecting Travis Okulski, just to prove the authenticity of the original test drive video…

But even after all of that Travis Okulski is still not convinced and the video since its release last week has already gotten over 13 Million views on YouTube.

The real question is what you do when a viral stunt becomes a public authenticity debate.

Why this became a two-part story

The first video worked because the premise is simple, the escalation feels real, and the payoff is pure reaction. But the moment it went viral, it also invited scrutiny. Because the setup looks “too good to be true”, it triggers a verification instinct, which is why people rewatch, share, and interrogate the details. That is what makes the follow-up so interesting. The brand turned criticism into content by making the skeptic part of the narrative.

Extractable takeaway: When your entertainment idea can be framed as “real or staged”, plan a proof-driven sequel path up front, so the debate extends the platform instead of draining trust.

Viral hook. A familiar setting, then a sudden reveal of unexpected capability.
Credibility challenge. A public critique that reframed the conversation as “real or staged”.
Response as sequel. A second execution aimed at the critic to re-earn belief.

In mass-reach consumer campaigns, “real or staged” scrutiny is part of distribution, so the sequel has to protect credibility without changing the core promise.

What to learn from the backlash

If doubt becomes the headline, leaning in with credible proof beats going quiet. When stunts travel, authenticity becomes part of the product. If the audience starts debating “is it real”, the brand can either go silent or lean in. Pepsi Max leaned in and used the debate as fuel, which extended the lifecycle and kept attention anchored to the same brand platform.

Design for verification. Build in moments that can withstand frame-by-frame scrutiny.
Turn skeptics into structure. If a credible critic challenges you, make the response the next chapter, not a defensive footnote.
Keep the platform constant. Address doubts without drifting into a different promise or tone.

A few fast answers before you act

What is Pepsi Max “Test Drive” with Jeff Gordon?

It is a prank-style stunt video where Jeff Gordon takes an unsuspecting car salesman on an extreme test drive, created as part of Pepsi Max’s viral entertainment approach.

Why was there controversy around the first video?

An automotive journalist publicly pointed out inconsistencies and argued it was staged, which sparked debate about authenticity.

Why did Pepsi Max do a second video?

To address the credibility debate directly by repeating a similar stunt and making the outspoken critic part of the execution.

What is the transferable pattern for viral campaigns?

Expect scrutiny, especially when the content looks “too good”. If doubt becomes the story, design a credible sequel that engages the criticism rather than ignoring it.

Pepsi Max: Human Loop

Last year, Pepsi Max for its ongoing #LiveForNow campaign created an unbelievable bus levitation stunt. Now continuing this “unbelievable feats and experiences” brand positioning, they challenged daredevil stuntman, Damien Walters to do another unbelievable stunt for them. Here, positioning means the single promise the brand wants people to remember and retell.

Pepsi Max provided Damien with a human-sized loop-the-loop in an abandoned warehouse and then got him to defy gravity for them…

In global FMCG marketing, stunts like this earn value when they reinforce an existing brand platform, not when they try to create one from scratch.

Why this stunt fits the brand

The mechanism is simple. A clearly defined physical challenge, executed by credible talent, makes the “unbelievable” promise feel real because the payoff is visible without narration.

Extractable takeaway: If your positioning is a claim, design one repeatable moment that functions as proof, then film it so the viewer can verify it without explanation.

It commits to the promise. “Unbelievable” is not a line here. It is the product.
It is instantly legible. You understand the challenge in one second, then you watch to see if it is possible.
It is built for replay. Stunts invite rewatching, pausing, and sharing because people want to verify what they saw.

How to make the stunt behave like proof

The real question is whether your brand promise can be proven in one obvious moment on camera.

This kind of spectacle earns its keep only when it is a direct proof point for an ongoing platform, not a disconnected attempt at “random viral”.

If your positioning is about experiences, you need executions that behave like proof. This kind of spectacle works when the idea is simple, the talent is credible, and the payoff is visible without explanation.

Make the promise behave like proof. If positioning is about experiences, the execution should demonstrate it, not describe it.
Keep the idea simple and the payoff visible. The viewer should understand the challenge instantly and see the outcome without explanation.
Use credible talent, then shoot for replay. Stunts invite rewatching, pausing, and sharing when people want to verify what they saw.

A few fast answers before you act

What is Pepsi Max “Human Loop”?

It is a Pepsi Max #LiveForNow stunt featuring Damien Walters attempting a human-sized loop-the-loop setup inside an abandoned warehouse.

Why does a loop-the-loop stunt perform so well in video?

The challenge is obvious, the risk feels real, and the outcome is visually conclusive, which makes it highly shareable.

What is the core pattern behind this kind of campaign?

Make the brand promise measurable in one moment, then capture it cleanly so the viewer does not need context to understand it.

How do you keep stunts from feeling like “random viral”?

Anchor them to an ongoing brand platform, use consistent talent and tone, and make each execution feel like a credible next chapter.

When should you avoid a stunt-led proof moment?

Avoid it when the idea cannot be understood instantly, the talent is not credible, or the execution does not ladder up to an ongoing brand platform.