Beyonce's $50 million endorsement of pepsi any opinions?

Hi- Beyonce is being paid $50 million dollars to be a brand ambassador for pepsi. Michael Jacobson and CSPI have come out against it, because it promotes child obesity, tooth decay and other problems. They have asked her to back out of the endorsement, or at least give part of the money received to a diabetes group or some group involved in fighting childhood obesity. What does everyone think about this? Here is the article concerning this on the CSPI website. I can't see her passing up that kind of money.

http://cspinet.org/new/201212181.html

BTW- This is not the first time she has been involved in controversy. She once did a concert for one of Gaddafi's sons, and was paid $2 million for it. She later donated the money to charity. Thanks, Nancy

This shouldn't be a controversy at all.

People get paid huge amounts of money to "promote" lots of things that are unhealthy if people choose to partake, from food and beverages to professional sports.

She's no different. Non-issue.

spanky wrote:This shouldn't be a controversy at all.

People get paid huge amounts of money to "promote" lots of things that are unhealthy if people choose to partake, from food and beverages to professional sports.

She's no different. Non-issue.

Agreed.

Still a free country-- No complaint from me.

The 1st, & only time, I wish I was Sasha Fierce!

NFriday wrote:Michael Jacobson and CSPI have come out against it

I read that as "Michael Jackson and CSPI have come out against it", which I feel makes him pretty hypocritical (also: dead). I wish I had read it as "Michael Jackson and C3PO have come out against it" -- that would be funnier. Maybe next time.

cilantro wrote:

NFriday wrote:Michael Jacobson and CSPI have come out against it

I read that as "Michael Jackson and CSPI have come out against it", which I feel makes him pretty hypocritical (also: dead). I wish I had read it as "Michael Jackson and C3PO have come out against it" -- that would be funnier. Maybe next time.

Michael Jacobson is co-founder of CSPI.

Whenever I see anything where the Center for Science in the Public Interest is involved, I skip reading or listening any further and look for something else.

I'm kind of like, it's a free country, so have at it, Beyonce. But I'm also like, it's a free country, so if I want to condemn Beyonce's judgment and question her moral compass for pushing sugar on kids and young adults, and how much more freakin' money does she need anyway, and if that makes me hold her in low esteem and cease consuming her artistic product in all its many forms, I'm gonna go ahead and do that.

So, she takes a risk. But I have to say, if you dangled $50 million in front of me, there is a list of things I wouldn't do for that money, but the list of things I would do for that money is longer. She's only human.

Cathy2 wrote:Whenever I see anything where the Center for Science in the Public Interest is involved, I skip reading or listening any further and look for something else.

Exactly! Those self-appointed do-gooder nannys disgust me.

stevez wrote:

Cathy2 wrote:Whenever I see anything where the Center for Science in the Public Interest is involved, I skip reading or listening any further and look for something else.

Exactly! Those self-appointed do-gooder nannys disgust me.

I find it is often junk science.

At a weekly meeting I no longer attend, there was a member who subscribed to them. She would get hysterical over everything, whether it was based on facts or not. My favorite was how Coca Cola was so corrosive that it dissolved nails. The following week, I brought a can of Coke and a jar of nails, which I poured on top and sealed. I brought this container for a few weeks to show no ill affects to the nails. She stopped reading SCPI to us as if it were a letter from God, which was exactly what I hoped would happen.

Cathy2 wrote:

stevez wrote:

Cathy2 wrote:Whenever I see anything where the Center for Science in the Public Interest is involved, I skip reading or listening any further and look for something else.

Exactly! Those self-appointed do-gooder nannys disgust me.

I find it is often junk science.

At a weekly meeting I no longer attend, there was a member who subscribed to them. She would get hysterical over everything, whether it was based on facts or not. My favorite was how Coca Cola was so corrosive that it dissolved nails. The following week, I brought a can of Coke and a jar of nails, which I poured on top and sealed. I brought this container for a few weeks to show no ill affects to the nails. She stopped reading SCPI to us as if it were a letter from God, which was exactly what I hoped would happen.

You're lucky. Some folks I know cling to their lunacy in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Hi- I am a big fan of CSPI, and yes they do go too far out on a limb, but I would not call it junk science. I could not find anything about CSPI advocating getting rid of coke because it causes rusty nails. They are against coke because it causes obesity., and they advocate that pepsi and coke get rid of the carmel coloring, because it has the potential to cause cancer. They advocate that Coke and Pepsi switch to a different coloring. If anything CSPI comes out against junk science. CSPI has come out against people such as Neil Bernard who think dairy is poison, and they don't think food irradiation is as bad as some people claim it to be. They feel that it is unnecessary if the factory practices sanitary conditions though.

They do their research before they post their views on any current study, and they consult with experts in the field. Yes, they do sue companies that they feel misinform the public, and some people wish they would quit being the food police. They did make people aware of how much saturated fat was in theater popcorn, and how many calories were in some restaurant dishes but I would like to know that my Chinese dish contains 1,600 calories before I sit down to it. Michael Jacobson is asking Beyonce to at least donate some of the $50 million, to a diabetes group, or to a group that is trying to get rid of childhood obesity.

When Beyonce performed a few years ago for one of Gaddafi's sons, and was paid $8 million, she received so much flack, that she gave all the money to charity. Thanks, Nancy

While CSPI is not always on the side of good science, their newsletter does draw attention to outrageous advertising claims made by many food outfits. You know the ones...the packaging proclaims "whole grain" in big letters when the product has enriched flour as its first ingredient and precious little of any redeeming things. Or the misleading calorie counts and sodium readings. Jacobson does, however, come off as a bug-eyed zealot on TV.

NFriday wrote:They are against coke because it causes obesity

I have not read their study, but let's assume that you are correctly stating their conclusion.
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie-- If you "burn up" as many calories in the course of the day that you are consuming, your weight will stay the same. While not nutritionally complete, a person can exist on Boston cream pie and drink Coke to their heart's content and not gain a damn ounce PROVIDED THEY GET OFF THEIR BUTTS and burn it off.

This person offers an intelligent and revealing critique of CSPI--
http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CSPInoScien ... erest.html

Beyonce isn't going to cause people who would not drink soft drinks otherwise to start drinking Pepsi. And she's not going to cause people who drink Pepsi to drink more than they would anyway. What she might do is cause people who want to be just like Beyonce* to switch from the soft drink they already drink to Pepsi-Cola. The battle isn't between Pepsi and some healthy alternative, it's between Pepsi and Coke.

*Are there fifty million dollars' worth of such people in the world?

I keep seeing this referenced as a $50MM deal for Beyonce, but one of the initial news reports on this (from the New York Times) suggested that the $50MM fee is what Pepsi Co is spending on the campaign overall, and that includes media buys and promotions (in addition to Beyonce's endorsement fee and funding for her creative projects). Most of what else I read seems to suggests $50MM is going into Beyonce's pocket (which admittedly makes for a better headline), but seems to potentially not be the case.

For $50M, I'd endorse White Castle.

Hi- I just want to respond to the person that stated that you can drink all the pepsi and banana cream pie you want, as long as you work it off. I just checked the stats at the National Institute of Health, and 35.7% of Americans are considered obese.
http://win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/index.htm. At least an additional 30% are considered over weight.

Yes, theoretically you can burn off all the pepsi and other junk food, and not gain any weight, but then why are 65% of Americans either overweight or obese? Personally when I eat a lot of junk food, which is not very often, I just feel lousy, and the last thing I want to do is exercise for an hour. I did cheat for about 4 days over Christmas, and I had some sour cream apple pie, a few slices of pumpkin pie, some low fat eggnog and a small amount of chocolate, but I also had lots of Swedish brown beans, turkey, this Swedish beet salad with potatoes and apples, and fruit.

Concerning the anti CSPI website that was referenced to in a previous post, I would not trust any website that quotes Elizabeth Whelan. Her group gets 30% of their funding from big business, and she has criticized Michelle Obama for having an organic garden at the White House.

I know that Michael Jacobson goes into extremes as far as diet is concerned, and it won't hurt you to go into McDonald's once a month, but having a big mac every day, is not healthy for anyone. I believe that anything can be eaten occasionally, even pepsi.

I agree that Beyonce will not entice very many adults to start drinking pop when they haven't before, but she could entice small children to start drinking it. I also question whether pepsi will get their $50 million back that they spend on this ad campaign.
Hope this helps, Nancy

NFriday wrote:Yes, theoretically you can burn off all the pepsi and other junk food, and not gain any weight, but then why are 65% of Americans either overweight or obese?

Because we eat a lot of crap and we're lazy

NFriday wrote:What does everyone think about this?

Here's what I think..... (opinion removed). Unless Beyonce's holding the kids down and pouring Pepsi in their mouths... (opinion removed).

Maybe all the do gooders should re-name the problem; 'parental neglect', instead of childhood obesity. The fat kids aren't working for the money they are spending on Pepsi... somebody is giving it to them, then turning their back on what they are spending it on. Maybe CSPI should donate a large portion of whatever/however they make their money to charity... seems fair to me.

It's like Happy Meals... the kids aren't driving themselves to McDonalds and buying this stuff....... an adult is there.

I'm tired of watching our freedoms erode one salt crystal at a time.......

(opinion reomoved)..... but somebody asked what I think......

Tim

Edited to remove my opinions that would be considered rude.... sorry guys, i was in a bad mood last night......

Man, I would have endorsed Pepsi for a paltry $5 million but my agent didn't call. I need a new agent.

Davooda

Hope her hair does not catch fire....

mhill95149 wrote:Hope her hair does not catch fire....

Agree...I was afraid to weave that into the conversation.

Not only is Michael Jacobson head of CSPI, he is also a Chicagoan and graduate of Morgan Park High School on the far south side.

Jacobson and CSPI were the front runners on labeling transfats which has resulted in (my guess) removal of 90+ % of hydrogenated vegetable oils. A lot of science was done around that issue, people I respect on both sides.

Jacobson coined the moniker "snickers bar in a can" for soda over ten years ago. I liked it then and think it's a fair assessment now.

I don't always agree with CSPI but I respect them, believe that their hearts are in the right place and they do not trod ignorantly over science.

milz50 wrote:

mhill95149 wrote:Hope her hair does not catch fire....

Agree...I was afraid to weave that into the conversation.

I see that joke about the weave. Very funny.

But seriously, as long as we are a capitalist society, & my name is not Sasha Fierce, let her make that money for Blue Ivy .

That said, as a traitor to the Carolinas (I loathe Pepsi & choose Coke if Dr. Pepper isn't readily available) I would gladly endorse Pepsi for an amount of money that puts me in the 1%.

I just got off of Skype with Sasha Fierce regarding a previous poster's question regarding how much money is too much money, the answer is Sasha Fierce hasn't made enough to know that she has too much, but when she does have too much money she & Jay-Z will hold a press conference and bankroll Nick & Lydia's expansion of GNR Great Lake.

auxen1 wrote:Jacobson and CSPI were the front runners on labeling transfats which has resulted in (my guess) removal of 90+ % of hydrogenated vegetable oils. A lot of science was done around that issue, people I respect on both sides.

Jacobson coined the moniker "snickers bar in a can" for soda over ten years ago. I liked it then and think it's a fair assessment now.

I don't always agree with CSPI but I respect them, believe that their hearts are in the right place and they do not trod ignorantly over science.

I'm with you on all of that. We subscribe to their monthly Nutrition Action Newsletter. It's mostly a good, factual, consciousness-raising guide to foods whose fat, salt, or sugar levels (or all three) are off the charts. As well as being a guide to foods whose fat, salt or sugar levels (or all three) are not off the charts. They are not telling anybody what to eat or not eat. They are not telling anybody that he's a "bad person" for eating foods with unhealthy levels of fat, salt or sugar. They're mostly just putting information out there. With a point of view behind it, yes--which is that Americans would be better off if they ate healthier--but I don't see a whole lot wrong with that.

Hi- I agree that CSPI does go off on tagents on occasion, but they do mean well.. They don't tell you that you must not eat transfat. Instead they tell you how bad it is for you, and let you decide if you want to eat it. McDonald's now posts nutritional content, and actually tells you which items have less than 300 calories on their menu. I don't know if they would have done that without pushing from groups like CSPI. At least people know now that there are lower calorie options available at McDonald's. It is up to the individual customer to decide what they will do with that information.

FYI- All of CSPI's money comes from subscriptions to their newsletter. They currently have 2 million subscribers. They have a staff of 70, and have an annual budget of $17 million, which is probably less that what the CEO of Pepsi makes in a year.

I read the article from the NYT, and it sounds like Beyonce is getting nowhere near $50 million dollars herself. Pepsi is promoting her next album, which is due out sometime in 2013, and they are sponsoring her next world tour, but the majority of the money is being spent on ads. They are also sponsoring the half time show on the super bowl, which will feature Beyonce. Her face is also going to appear on some cans of Pepsi.

Yes, she is making a lot of money off the deal, but this is going to be a year long campaign, and she is not going to make anywhere near $50 million. Thanks, Nancy

NFriday wrote: .... FYI- All of CSPI's money comes from subscriptions to their newsletter. They currently have 2 million subscribers. They have a staff of 70, and have an annual budget of $17 million, which is probably less that what the CEO of Pepsi makes in a year....

According to the Huffington Post/March 2012:
"PepsiCo Inc Chief Executive Indra Nooyi had total compensation worth $17.1 million in 2011, up 6 percent from 2010, even as the food and drink company failed to meet its key internal performance targets.
The increase is largely due to a 23 percent jump in Nooyi's base salary - her first raise in five years as CEO - and a gain in the value of her retirement benefits.
Nooyi, 56, has come under pressure from Wall Street for allowing PepsiCo's North American soft drink business to languish while she focused on healthier products.
Nooyi got a base salary of $1.6 million in 2011, up from $1.3 million before. The new salary is more in line with that of her peer group, PepsiCo said in its annual proxy statement, filed on Friday."

Emphasis added to third sentence. I don't think the 2012 numbers are in yet.

NFriday wrote:FYI- All of CSPI's money comes from subscriptions to their newsletter. They currently have 2 million subscribers. They have a staff of 70, and have an annual budget of $17 million, which is probably less that what the CEO of Pepsi makes in a year.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/cspi-fy2012- ... ements.pdf

For the year ending June 30, 2012, CSPI had total revenue of $16,578,858 of which $9,822,232 were membership dues. The remaining $ 6 mil+ was from CONTRIBUTIONS and other sources. According to my limited math skills, subscriptions accounted for only 59.25 % of their revenue.

People are entitled to worship at any altar that they choose, however I am suspicious of such a holier-than-thou "truly altruistic" organization. Believe me, they are also agenda-driven.