Monday, July 26, 2010

Where are all the PepsiCo Complaints Now?

After being hounded out of town by uppity bloggers like David Dobbs, PepsiCo wisely started their own blog at http://foodfrontiers.pepsicoblogs.com/ . (Though unwisely they have not updated it in at least a week. Bad blogging, guys.)

What egregious corporate propaganda have they put up?

None that I can see. They even admitted that excess sodium is not a healthy choice!

I assume that David Dobbs undertook multiple back fllips at that point, which accounts for his lack of response.

In fact, as far as I can tell Dobb's hasn't paid PepsiCo's new blog any attention whatsoever, even though he was sure they would be the voice of the devil.

Funny. Where are all his objections. Or Rebecca Skloot's?

I mean, PepsiCo's posts must be crawling with compromises, right? Yet not one of these high-handed bloggers can find their way to even reading PepsiCo's science blog, it seems.

Which is exactly what I was talking about -- Dobbs et al are all talk and no action.

4 comments:

Steve Bloom said...

To be fair, Pepsi will have to stay on their best behavior for a while. We shall see.

David Dobbs said...

You get both your facts and your accusations and characterizations wrong.

Pepsi did not "start their own blog" at Pepsicoblogs because they were hounded out of SB by bloggers. The same blog existed at Pepsi before, and I read some of it, and it was full of fairly unremarkable stuff. They simply moved their unremarkable stuff back to their home base, which is the more appropriate spot for it.

As to my position on Pepsi, you so consistently misrepresent it's just stunning. I've stated several times in several spots that the problem was not Pepsi, or anything Pepsi's scientists would say or write on the blog, but the fact that Seed sold them the spot to write it in. That's clear in every one of my posts and in my Guardian rebuttal of your fabricated argument there. I wasn't concerned about Pepsi being the devil and never said or wrote anything that indicated I was. This too is your fabrication.

My problem isn't and wasn't with Pepsi. It was with Seed for selling them the spot. It's that simple. Yet you insist on trying to make it sound as if I was trying to silence Pepsi -- and violate their rights! -- because I thought them the devil.

You should rant about stuff that actually happened.

David Appell said...

David Dobbs wrote:
> I've stated several times
> in several spots that the
> problem was not Pepsi, or
> anything Pepsi's scientists
> would say or write on the blog, but > the fact that Seed sold them the
> spot to write it in.

OK.

And Seed sold your spot to you.

What is the difference? From PepsiCo's blog, I can't see any.

You are presenting your POV as best you can. So are they, no?

David Appell said...

David Dobbs wrote:
> My problem isn't and wasn't
> with Pepsi. It was with Seed
> for selling them the spot.

You never, ever gave PepsiCo a change to earn their spot.

You simply assumed that, because they paid Seed a certain amount to have a blog, that their blogging would be worthless.

Why? You prejudged them: pre-pay must mean their words are worthless. You never even gave them a chance.

But more than that: Are you really so naive as to think that Seed would commission you to write a blog for them if it didn't make them some money? Perhaps it wasn't as blatant as PepsiCo's up-front payment. But Seed certainly expected you to make them money.

What's the real difference?