The latest Pringles can… Can a bizarre idea create marketing value?

When we think of advertising campaigns by food companies, we usually expect discounts, new flavors, or a collaboration with a celebrity. But this time, Pringles chose a completely different idea.

For Halloween, it launched a campaign giving one fan of the brand the chance to win a commemorative ash urn designed to look like its iconic can, along with a prize equivalent to 200 years’ worth of Pringles products.

The idea may seem strange, but it didn’t come out of nowhere. In 2008, the creator of the Pringles can requested that some of his ashes be placed inside the can he designed, inspiring the company’s new campaign.

That got me thinking about a different question:

Does a company need to spend huge sums to create a successful campaign, or can the idea itself matter more than the size of the budget?

When the product becomes part of the story

What stands out about the Pringles campaign is that it didn’t rely on launching a new food product or discounting an existing one.

Instead, it used something that has been around for years: the shape of the can. The distinctive tube we all recognize became more than just packaging for potato crisps—it became the focus of an entire marketing story. This illustrates the importance of what is known as brand identity.

A company with a product consumers can recognize just by seeing its shape can use that advantage in ways that go beyond traditional advertising.

In my view, Pringles wasn’t so much promoting a new can as investing in something it had built over many years: the association between the can’s shape and the brand.

Can strangeness help reduce the cost of generating buzz?

  • One of the biggest challenges companies face today is capturing consumers’ attention.

Users see dozens of ads and videos every day, and many pass by without leaving a clear impression.

That’s why some brands may turn to unexpected ideas to make people stop and talk about them. In Pringles’ case, the idea is strange enough to become a topic of conversation, even among people who weren’t planning to buy the product.

This creates an important marketing opportunity. When people share a campaign themselves, or news outlets and social media accounts talk about it, the company may reach more people than it would through ads it paid to run directly.

But that doesn’t mean the buzz is entirely free. The campaign still requires content production, design, execution, and collaboration with marketing partners. We also don’t know the campaign’s total cost from the report, so we can’t conclude that it was cheaper than traditional campaigns.

What we can say is that an idea people want to share can increase the attention a company gets for its marketing spend.

A prize for one person… and a conversation among thousands

The Pringles campaign invites people to enter a contest running from October 13 to 22, with the winner to be announced around Halloween.

One person will receive the unconventional prize, while the campaign aims to attract the attention of a much wider audience than just the winner. That’s the marketing idea. The prize may go to one person, but its value to the company isn’t limited to that person.

Every entry or discussion about the campaign may help people remember the brand, even if it doesn’t lead directly to a purchase. This illustrates the difference between the prize’s direct value and the campaign’s potential marketing value. But the real challenge remains: how can the company tell whether this interest delivered results worth the money it spent?

Buzz isn’t revenue

It’s easy to consider a campaign successful when it gets a lot of views or spreads across social media.

But from a business perspective, buzz is just one part of the picture. Millions of people may talk about an advertising campaign without sales changing significantly.

Conversely, a campaign with less reach may generate more sales because it reached the right audience.

That’s why I believe companies need to distinguish between two different goals: first, increasing brand awareness; and second, turning that awareness into business results.

Not all results need to appear immediately. Some campaigns may aim to strengthen a brand’s place in consumers’ minds and maintain its relationship with its audience—an effect that may emerge over the long term.

But even these kinds of goals need metrics to help a company evaluate success.


What does the accountant see?

When the marketing team sees a campaign that has generated widespread buzz, it may focus on views, shares, and engagement. An accountant, however, will ask additional questions:

How much did the campaign cost to design and execute? What was the value of the prizes? How much did it cost to reach the audience? And did the interest translate into sales or customer loyalty?

This brings us to an important concept: marketing return on investment (Marketing ROI).

A company needs to know not only how much engagement a campaign generated, but also the financial value that can be attributed to it relative to its cost. However, measuring this return can be difficult, especially when the goal is to build awareness and affinity with the brand rather than generate immediate sales.

In my view, the Pringles campaign shows that marketing is no longer just about persuading consumers to buy a product; it’s also about creating a story they want to share. But a story’s success in the media doesn’t necessarily mean it is financially successful.

The real test will be whether the company can turn this interest into brand value and better business performance. So perhaps the most important question isn’t:

How many people talked about the Pringles campaign?
But rather:
How much value did the company create for every riyal it spent getting people to talk about it?

Disclaimer: This material was prepared under the supervision of a “Yamamah Insights” editor with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools for financial education purposes. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security, and it expresses the views of its authors, not those of the platform.