On SMS Text News yesterday I saw a post about Pepsi’s new Bluetooth campaign run by Qwikker.   The concept is that several bus shelters and pay phones in Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Denver, Orange County, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia will give consumers with a Bluetooth device the ability to download free video clips.  It’s considered the largest Bluetooth marketing campaign to date.

Very cool and all the press I read about it agrees.  But I’m confused.  Having been talking about the power of virtual worlds for the better part of six months now, the main objection that marketers have is the reach (or the perceived lack thereof).  In Second Life in particular, with only 40,000 to 50,000 people “in-world” at any given time, it’s hard to get the reach that you would get from most other interactive marketing campaigns.

How is this Bluetooth campaign by Pepsi any different?  How many people can they really expect on a daily basis to a) stop at one of these few locations, b) have a Bluetooth device, c) know how to use it properly and d) want to download a Pepsi video?  And knowing there’s very little chance this campaign is less expensive or time consuming to create than a Second Life presence, I doubt the ROI is going to be any better.

And the second thing I hear most about Second Life’s downside is that you can’t really have more than 30 to 40 people in any given area without experiencing serious lag and decreased productivity.  Last time I checked, there weren’t a lot of phone booth’s that could hold that many people (though try as they may).

Am I missing something or should the same people that chastise Second Life also be chastising this Pepsi campaign?