⚖️

The Tragic Pepsi Number Fever Contest

Apr 27, 2025

Pepsi Number Fever Contest (1992) Tragedy

Overview

  • Contest Name: Number Fever
  • Location: Philippines
  • Time: 1992
  • Mechanism: Individuals were to collect Pepsi bottle caps with numbers. Each evening, a winning number was announced, and the holder of a matching cap would win a million pesos.
  • Popularity: Extremely high; half the country's population participated.

Contest Extension and Error

  • Initial Control: Pepsi could control the number of winners by seeding two winning caps to bottling plants.
  • Extension: Contest extended by 5 weeks due to popularity.
  • Glitch: Computer error caused misprinting.

The Incident

  • Date: May 25, 1992
  • Winning Number Announced: 349
  • Problem: Number 349 was not supposed to be a winning number but had been printed extensively.
  • Effect: Over 600,000 349 caps circulated, causing mass "winners."

Aftermath and Riots

  • Initial Reaction: Massive street celebrations; people rushed to Pepsi factories.
  • Company Response: Offered only 500 pesos per cap (much less than the promised prize).
  • Public Reaction: Anger and protests leading to violence, riots, and unfortunate deaths.

Legal Actions

  • Coalition 349: Formed to sue Pepsi; led by preacher Del Fiero.
  • Claim: Attempted to sue for $400 million.
  • Counter Allegations: Some claims suggested Pepsi orchestrated violence to discredit protestors.
  • Legal Outcomes: Arrest warrants for nine executives; most cases dismissed.

Conclusion

  • Long-Term Impact: Traumatic effects on Filipinos; lasting negative sentiment towards Pepsi.
  • Pepsi's Final Statement: Expressed regret but distanced current management from the incident.

Reflection

  • Cultural Impact: The incident has left a scar on the community and continues to affect perceptions of Pepsi in the Philippines.

Lessons Learned

  • Corporate Responsibility: Importance of companies maintaining transparency and accountability in contests and promotions.
  • Crisis Management: Necessity for proactive and remedial measures to handle errors effectively to prevent public distress.