{"id":43,"date":"2023-04-04T14:30:30","date_gmt":"2023-04-04T18:30:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/prcasestudies\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=43"},"modified":"2025-08-27T14:54:38","modified_gmt":"2025-08-27T18:54:38","slug":"case-study-12","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/prcasestudies\/chapter\/case-study-12\/","title":{"raw":"Case Study #12: Pop Off: When Influencer Hype Fizzles","rendered":"Case Study #12: Pop Off: When Influencer Hype Fizzles"},"content":{"raw":"By: Alexandra Liguori, 2025\r\n\r\nIn early 2025, the prebiotic soda brand Poppi launched a bold influencer campaign during Super Bowl weekend. As part of the activation, the company gifted full-sized branded vending machines stocked with Poppi sodas to influencers across the U.S. (Caruso, 2025). These creators, including social media icons such as Jake Shane and Rachel Sullivan, posted content flaunting the personalized machines, presenting the campaign as quirky, exclusive, and over the top.\r\n\r\nBut online, the response was far from celebratory. Social media users criticized the campaign for being out of touch, pointing out that Poppi could have sent machines to community members, frontline workers, or schools instead. Some creators even posted critiques of the company\u2019s approach, arguing it lacked heart and overlooked more potentially meaningful opportunities to support communities, schools or frontline workers (Craighead, 2025). The campaign, designed to go viral and feel fun, instead sparked backlash and broader conversations about privilege, brand values, and wastefulness in influencer marketing.\r\n\r\nDespite Poppi\u2019s attempt to clarify its intentions through a TikTok response from founder Allison Ellsworth, the brand\u2019s image took a hit. This case study explores how an influencer-heavy campaign with little public framing or value alignment turned into a reputational challenge for a fast-growing cola alternative.\r\n<h2>Context<\/h2>\r\n<strong>Poppi<\/strong>: A fast-growing health beverage company marketing prebiotic soda as a trendy alternative to traditional soft drinks. Known for pastel branding and viral influencer support.\r\n\r\n<strong>Influencers and Creators<\/strong>: Popular TikTokers and Instagram creators who received the vending machines and shared them online.\r\n\r\n<strong>Audiences:<\/strong> Segmented groups of consumers, social media users, and online communities who responded critically, questioning the campaign\u2019s purpose, impact, and tone.\r\n\r\n<strong>Olipop<\/strong>: A direct competitor to Poppi that stoked the controversy further by spreading misinformation about the campaign\u2019s cost and intent.\r\n\r\nAs part of the campaign rollout, Poppi sent out dozens of vending machines to influencers with the goal of amplifying brand visibility during the Super Bowl. The push also included a high-profile Super Bowl commercial, reinforcing the brand\u2019s influencer-heavy strategy and maximizing reach across both digital and traditional media. The campaign was rooted in Poppi\u2019s long-standing use of influencer marketing, but the execution came off as insensitive. Many viewers questioned why a health brand that prides itself on community would send expensive equipment to creators who already have access to perks and products. The narrative only worsened when rival brand Olipop publicly claimed the machines cost $25,000 each, a figure Poppi later stated was inaccurate (Caruso, 2025).\r\n<h2>Goals of the Campaign<\/h2>\r\nPoppi\u2019s campaign set out three main goals:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Drive brand awareness during one of the year\u2019s biggest marketing moments: the Super Bowl.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Activate influencer marketing through memorable, visually striking content.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Reinforce Poppi\u2019s identity as a cool, community driven cola alternative.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nAs <em>People <\/em>reported, the campaign aimed to \u201csurprise and delight,\u201d but for many online viewers, it had the opposite effect (Caruso, 2025).\r\n<h2>Actions Taken<\/h2>\r\nPoppi launched the campaign by delivering branded vending machines to high profile creators. The influencers were encouraged to share unboxing videos, comedic skits, or reaction clips that showcased the machines in their homes. The goal was to flood social feeds with user-generated excitement and associate Poppi with fun, Super Bowl-style extravagance (Phillippi, 2025).\r\n\r\nBut shortly after the content went live, backlash spread quickly across TikTok and Instagram. Thousands of critical comments and several viral videos reframed the campaign as excessive and out of touch, overshadowing Poppi\u2019s intended message. Critics argued the campaign was excessive and misdirected, with commenters asking why such machines weren\u2019t sent to teachers, nurses, or schools (Ray, 2025). One TikTok creator summed up the sentiment in a now-viral video: \u201cLet\u2019s stop with the out of touch BS, please\u201d (Miller, 2025). The narrative quickly shifted from \u201chow cool\u201d to \u201chow disconnected.\u201d\r\n\r\nAdding fuel to the fire, competitor brand Olipop began commenting under the videos, alleging that each machine cost $25,000. The actual cost of the vending machines was never disclosed, but Poppi asserted the price was incorrect (Caruso, 2025). Still, the damage was done. The campaign became less about soda and more about brand values or the lack thereof.\r\n\r\nIn response, Poppi founder Allison Ellsworth posted a TikTok video addressing the backlash. She clarified that the campaign was always meant to celebrate creators and their communities during the Super Bowl and denied the $25K price tag. While she acknowledged consumer feedback and promised to \u201clearn and do better,\u201d critics still viewed the response as reactive, not proactive or people centered (Miller, 2025).\r\n<h2>Outcome<\/h2>\r\nThe campaign drew major attention, but not in the way Poppi intended. As <em>Vice<\/em> noted, Poppi \u201cbecame the villain of its own marketing campaign,\u201d with social media users questioning the brand\u2019s authenticity and priorities (Phillippi, 2025). The backlash wasn\u2019t just about money; it reflected a broader frustration with performative marketing and influencer-first branding. From a PR perspective, this highlights how audiences expect authenticity and value-driven campaigns. When brands fail to align messaging with stakeholder expectations, trust and credibility are put at risk.\r\n\r\nEven after Poppi aired a polished Super Bowl commercial, the vending machine controversy stuck. As <em>The Drum<\/em> explained, the company \u201calienated their loyal base in pursuit of influencer hype,\u201d sparking discussions about how much trust audiences still have in creator-led campaigns (Ray, 2025).\r\n<h2>PR Analysis and Learning Points<\/h2>\r\n<h3>Transparency builds trust.<\/h3>\r\nOne of the more piercing issues with the campaign was the lack of upfront explanation. Poppi didn\u2019t clearly communicate its goals, leaving consumers to interpret the stunt however they wanted, which many did. As <em>People<\/em> reported, what was supposed to be a joyful campaign instead felt exclusionary and performative (Caruso, 2025). Clear public messaging from the start could have softened the reaction or changed the narrative entirely.\r\n<h3>You have to own the message.<\/h3>\r\nPoppi relied heavily on creators to tell the story, but when the story started going south, the brand wasn\u2019t fast enough to redirect it. Influencers criticized the campaign in real time, calling it \u201ccringe\u201d and \u201cout of touch\u201d (Craighead, 2025). Strong PR leadership depends on getting ahead of the story before it spins out of control. If Poppi had framed the campaign\u2019s purpose from the start and engaged audiences early, they could have steered how people interpreted it and reduced negative reactions. Being proactive doesn\u2019t just protect a brand\u2019s reputation; it also shows that the company is transparent, accountable, and in control of its own story.\r\n<h3>Account for possible backfire.<\/h3>\r\nSending massive, branded machines to well-off influencers without offering something to everyday fans was a risk that didn\u2019t pay off. As <em>The Drum<\/em> noted, Poppi seemed to ignore the values of its existing base in favour of viral hype (Ray, 2025). Good PR considers every audience and finds balance between visibility and substance.\r\n<h3>Your response matters.<\/h3>\r\nWhen Ellsworth finally responded via TikTok, her tone was calm, but the message felt a step behind. As <em>The Independent<\/em> noted, the response was \u201ccorporate, not human,\u201d and didn\u2019t include any concrete next steps (Miller, 2025). Audiences today expect brands to take ownership and do something, not just say something for the sake of responding.\r\n<h3>Brand image means nothing without following through.<\/h3>\r\nPoppi\u2019s visual branding screams positivity, accessibility, and wellness. But the vending machine stunt made many question whether those values were more surface than substance. As <em>Vice<\/em> put it, Poppi accidentally cast itself as \u201cout-of-touch,\u201d which is a major blow for a brand built on community vibes (Phillippi, 2025).\r\n<h3>PR shapes reputation.<\/h3>\r\nPoppi gained attention, but not admiration. That\u2019s the difference between marketing and PR. While marketing can generate impressions, public relations is about building real, lasting relationships. This campaign missed that mark by focusing more on spectacle than connection.\r\n<h2>Conclusion<\/h2>\r\nPoppi\u2019s vending machine misstep is a reminder that major campaigns need to be rooted in authenticity. While the idea may have looked good on paper with high visibility, social buzz, and influencer support, it lacked the transparency, alignment, and audience awareness needed to resonate in the real world. Public relations isn\u2019t just about standing out. It\u2019s about showing up with purpose, listening to feedback, and building trust through action. Poppi\u2019s campaign shows what happens when companies skip those steps. This was ultimately a marketing mistake that turned into a PR problem, proving how fast flashy ideas without real substance can backfire. PR is more than getting noticed, it\u2019s about being intentional, paying attention to your audience, and building trust through meaningful action.\r\n<h1>References<\/h1>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\">Caruso, S. (2025, February 12). <em>Poppi is getting backlash for their vending machine stunt with influencers : Here\u2019s why the internet is up in arms<\/em>. People.com. <a href=\"https:\/\/people.com\/poppi-vending-machine-influencer-drama-explained-11678871\">https:\/\/people.com\/poppi-vending-machine-influencer-drama-explained-11678871<\/a><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\">Craighead, O. (2025, February 11). <em>What\u2019s going on with the poppi vending machine controversy?<\/em> The Cut. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thecut.com\/article\/poppi-vending-machine-influencers-controversy-explained.html\">https:\/\/www.thecut.com\/article\/poppi-vending-machine-influencers-controversy-explained.html<\/a><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\">Miller, B. (2025, February 12). <em>Soda alternative Poppi defends gifting full-sized vending machines after backlash<\/em>. The Independent. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.the-independent.com\/life-style\/poppi-vending-machines-soda-super-bowl-commercial-b2696620.html\">https:\/\/www.the-independent.com\/life-style\/poppi-vending-machines-soda-super-bowl-commercial-b2696620.html<\/a><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\">Phillippi, K. (2025, February 17). <em>Poppi made everyone mad with their vending machine stunt<\/em>. VICE. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en\/article\/poppi-made-everyone-mad-with-their-vending-machine-stunt\/\">https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en\/article\/poppi-made-everyone-mad-with-their-vending-machine-stunt\/<\/a><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\">Ray, J. (2025, February 17). <em>Where Poppi went wrong with vending machine misfire<\/em>. The Drum. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thedrum.com\/opinion\/2025\/02\/17\/where-poppi-went-wrong-with-vending-machine-misfire\">https:\/\/www.thedrum.com\/opinion\/2025\/02\/17\/where-poppi-went-wrong-with-vending-machine-misfire<\/a><\/p>","rendered":"<p>By: Alexandra Liguori, 2025<\/p>\n<p>In early 2025, the prebiotic soda brand Poppi launched a bold influencer campaign during Super Bowl weekend. As part of the activation, the company gifted full-sized branded vending machines stocked with Poppi sodas to influencers across the U.S. (Caruso, 2025). These creators, including social media icons such as Jake Shane and Rachel Sullivan, posted content flaunting the personalized machines, presenting the campaign as quirky, exclusive, and over the top.<\/p>\n<p>But online, the response was far from celebratory. Social media users criticized the campaign for being out of touch, pointing out that Poppi could have sent machines to community members, frontline workers, or schools instead. Some creators even posted critiques of the company\u2019s approach, arguing it lacked heart and overlooked more potentially meaningful opportunities to support communities, schools or frontline workers (Craighead, 2025). The campaign, designed to go viral and feel fun, instead sparked backlash and broader conversations about privilege, brand values, and wastefulness in influencer marketing.<\/p>\n<p>Despite Poppi\u2019s attempt to clarify its intentions through a TikTok response from founder Allison Ellsworth, the brand\u2019s image took a hit. This case study explores how an influencer-heavy campaign with little public framing or value alignment turned into a reputational challenge for a fast-growing cola alternative.<\/p>\n<h2>Context<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Poppi<\/strong>: A fast-growing health beverage company marketing prebiotic soda as a trendy alternative to traditional soft drinks. Known for pastel branding and viral influencer support.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Influencers and Creators<\/strong>: Popular TikTokers and Instagram creators who received the vending machines and shared them online.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Audiences:<\/strong> Segmented groups of consumers, social media users, and online communities who responded critically, questioning the campaign\u2019s purpose, impact, and tone.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Olipop<\/strong>: A direct competitor to Poppi that stoked the controversy further by spreading misinformation about the campaign\u2019s cost and intent.<\/p>\n<p>As part of the campaign rollout, Poppi sent out dozens of vending machines to influencers with the goal of amplifying brand visibility during the Super Bowl. The push also included a high-profile Super Bowl commercial, reinforcing the brand\u2019s influencer-heavy strategy and maximizing reach across both digital and traditional media. The campaign was rooted in Poppi\u2019s long-standing use of influencer marketing, but the execution came off as insensitive. Many viewers questioned why a health brand that prides itself on community would send expensive equipment to creators who already have access to perks and products. The narrative only worsened when rival brand Olipop publicly claimed the machines cost $25,000 each, a figure Poppi later stated was inaccurate (Caruso, 2025).<\/p>\n<h2>Goals of the Campaign<\/h2>\n<p>Poppi\u2019s campaign set out three main goals:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Drive brand awareness during one of the year\u2019s biggest marketing moments: the Super Bowl.<\/li>\n<li>Activate influencer marketing through memorable, visually striking content.<\/li>\n<li>Reinforce Poppi\u2019s identity as a cool, community driven cola alternative.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>As <em>People <\/em>reported, the campaign aimed to \u201csurprise and delight,\u201d but for many online viewers, it had the opposite effect (Caruso, 2025).<\/p>\n<h2>Actions Taken<\/h2>\n<p>Poppi launched the campaign by delivering branded vending machines to high profile creators. The influencers were encouraged to share unboxing videos, comedic skits, or reaction clips that showcased the machines in their homes. The goal was to flood social feeds with user-generated excitement and associate Poppi with fun, Super Bowl-style extravagance (Phillippi, 2025).<\/p>\n<p>But shortly after the content went live, backlash spread quickly across TikTok and Instagram. Thousands of critical comments and several viral videos reframed the campaign as excessive and out of touch, overshadowing Poppi\u2019s intended message. Critics argued the campaign was excessive and misdirected, with commenters asking why such machines weren\u2019t sent to teachers, nurses, or schools (Ray, 2025). One TikTok creator summed up the sentiment in a now-viral video: \u201cLet\u2019s stop with the out of touch BS, please\u201d (Miller, 2025). The narrative quickly shifted from \u201chow cool\u201d to \u201chow disconnected.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Adding fuel to the fire, competitor brand Olipop began commenting under the videos, alleging that each machine cost $25,000. The actual cost of the vending machines was never disclosed, but Poppi asserted the price was incorrect (Caruso, 2025). Still, the damage was done. The campaign became less about soda and more about brand values or the lack thereof.<\/p>\n<p>In response, Poppi founder Allison Ellsworth posted a TikTok video addressing the backlash. She clarified that the campaign was always meant to celebrate creators and their communities during the Super Bowl and denied the $25K price tag. While she acknowledged consumer feedback and promised to \u201clearn and do better,\u201d critics still viewed the response as reactive, not proactive or people centered (Miller, 2025).<\/p>\n<h2>Outcome<\/h2>\n<p>The campaign drew major attention, but not in the way Poppi intended. As <em>Vice<\/em> noted, Poppi \u201cbecame the villain of its own marketing campaign,\u201d with social media users questioning the brand\u2019s authenticity and priorities (Phillippi, 2025). The backlash wasn\u2019t just about money; it reflected a broader frustration with performative marketing and influencer-first branding. From a PR perspective, this highlights how audiences expect authenticity and value-driven campaigns. When brands fail to align messaging with stakeholder expectations, trust and credibility are put at risk.<\/p>\n<p>Even after Poppi aired a polished Super Bowl commercial, the vending machine controversy stuck. As <em>The Drum<\/em> explained, the company \u201calienated their loyal base in pursuit of influencer hype,\u201d sparking discussions about how much trust audiences still have in creator-led campaigns (Ray, 2025).<\/p>\n<h2>PR Analysis and Learning Points<\/h2>\n<h3>Transparency builds trust.<\/h3>\n<p>One of the more piercing issues with the campaign was the lack of upfront explanation. Poppi didn\u2019t clearly communicate its goals, leaving consumers to interpret the stunt however they wanted, which many did. As <em>People<\/em> reported, what was supposed to be a joyful campaign instead felt exclusionary and performative (Caruso, 2025). Clear public messaging from the start could have softened the reaction or changed the narrative entirely.<\/p>\n<h3>You have to own the message.<\/h3>\n<p>Poppi relied heavily on creators to tell the story, but when the story started going south, the brand wasn\u2019t fast enough to redirect it. Influencers criticized the campaign in real time, calling it \u201ccringe\u201d and \u201cout of touch\u201d (Craighead, 2025). Strong PR leadership depends on getting ahead of the story before it spins out of control. If Poppi had framed the campaign\u2019s purpose from the start and engaged audiences early, they could have steered how people interpreted it and reduced negative reactions. Being proactive doesn\u2019t just protect a brand\u2019s reputation; it also shows that the company is transparent, accountable, and in control of its own story.<\/p>\n<h3>Account for possible backfire.<\/h3>\n<p>Sending massive, branded machines to well-off influencers without offering something to everyday fans was a risk that didn\u2019t pay off. As <em>The Drum<\/em> noted, Poppi seemed to ignore the values of its existing base in favour of viral hype (Ray, 2025). Good PR considers every audience and finds balance between visibility and substance.<\/p>\n<h3>Your response matters.<\/h3>\n<p>When Ellsworth finally responded via TikTok, her tone was calm, but the message felt a step behind. As <em>The Independent<\/em> noted, the response was \u201ccorporate, not human,\u201d and didn\u2019t include any concrete next steps (Miller, 2025). Audiences today expect brands to take ownership and do something, not just say something for the sake of responding.<\/p>\n<h3>Brand image means nothing without following through.<\/h3>\n<p>Poppi\u2019s visual branding screams positivity, accessibility, and wellness. But the vending machine stunt made many question whether those values were more surface than substance. As <em>Vice<\/em> put it, Poppi accidentally cast itself as \u201cout-of-touch,\u201d which is a major blow for a brand built on community vibes (Phillippi, 2025).<\/p>\n<h3>PR shapes reputation.<\/h3>\n<p>Poppi gained attention, but not admiration. That\u2019s the difference between marketing and PR. While marketing can generate impressions, public relations is about building real, lasting relationships. This campaign missed that mark by focusing more on spectacle than connection.<\/p>\n<h2>Conclusion<\/h2>\n<p>Poppi\u2019s vending machine misstep is a reminder that major campaigns need to be rooted in authenticity. While the idea may have looked good on paper with high visibility, social buzz, and influencer support, it lacked the transparency, alignment, and audience awareness needed to resonate in the real world. Public relations isn\u2019t just about standing out. It\u2019s about showing up with purpose, listening to feedback, and building trust through action. Poppi\u2019s campaign shows what happens when companies skip those steps. This was ultimately a marketing mistake that turned into a PR problem, proving how fast flashy ideas without real substance can backfire. PR is more than getting noticed, it\u2019s about being intentional, paying attention to your audience, and building trust through meaningful action.<\/p>\n<h1>References<\/h1>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\">Caruso, S. (2025, February 12). <em>Poppi is getting backlash for their vending machine stunt with influencers : Here\u2019s why the internet is up in arms<\/em>. People.com. <a href=\"https:\/\/people.com\/poppi-vending-machine-influencer-drama-explained-11678871\">https:\/\/people.com\/poppi-vending-machine-influencer-drama-explained-11678871<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\">Craighead, O. (2025, February 11). <em>What\u2019s going on with the poppi vending machine controversy?<\/em> The Cut. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thecut.com\/article\/poppi-vending-machine-influencers-controversy-explained.html\">https:\/\/www.thecut.com\/article\/poppi-vending-machine-influencers-controversy-explained.html<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\">Miller, B. (2025, February 12). <em>Soda alternative Poppi defends gifting full-sized vending machines after backlash<\/em>. The Independent. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.the-independent.com\/life-style\/poppi-vending-machines-soda-super-bowl-commercial-b2696620.html\">https:\/\/www.the-independent.com\/life-style\/poppi-vending-machines-soda-super-bowl-commercial-b2696620.html<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\">Phillippi, K. (2025, February 17). <em>Poppi made everyone mad with their vending machine stunt<\/em>. VICE. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en\/article\/poppi-made-everyone-mad-with-their-vending-machine-stunt\/\">https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en\/article\/poppi-made-everyone-mad-with-their-vending-machine-stunt\/<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\">Ray, J. (2025, February 17). <em>Where Poppi went wrong with vending machine misfire<\/em>. The Drum. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thedrum.com\/opinion\/2025\/02\/17\/where-poppi-went-wrong-with-vending-machine-misfire\">https:\/\/www.thedrum.com\/opinion\/2025\/02\/17\/where-poppi-went-wrong-with-vending-machine-misfire<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1660,"menu_order":12,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":"cc-by-nc-nd"},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[58],"class_list":["post-43","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","license-cc-by-nc-nd"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/prcasestudies\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/43","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/prcasestudies\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/prcasestudies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/prcasestudies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1660"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/prcasestudies\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/43\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":155,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/prcasestudies\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/43\/revisions\/155"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/prcasestudies\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/prcasestudies\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/43\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/prcasestudies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/prcasestudies\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=43"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/prcasestudies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=43"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/prcasestudies\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=43"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}