Commercials are generally supposed to be innocuous. They're inconsequential, and by that very property, trying to use them to tackle something deeper is touchy territory, and as Pepsi just demonstrated, can be an incredible failure.
Corporations like Pepsi exist to sell us products and turn as big a profit as possible, plain and simple. And so, mixing that objective with issues of social justice is rarely advisable, as it risks coming across as commoditizing and thereby trivializing the seriousness of such issues for financial gain. A few companies have tried to toe that line with varying degrees of success, but Pepsi has failed completely, and it's a good lesson in the misuse of imagery.
Watch the commercial above. In it, a cellist practices alone, when a nondescript march with Pepsi brand colored signs passes outside. Meanwhile, a photographer reviews contact sheets, and Kendall Jenner models for a shoot while wearing a blonde wig, all with Pepsi product placement. Eventually, all three, supposedly frustrated or dissatisfied by their solitary work and drawn to the greater purpose of the march, leave their independent locations and join the march, Jenner ripping off her blonde wig and wiping off her lipstick. That's when the ad takes a really questionable turn, as it cuts to a line of policemen forming a barricade. Jenner weaves through the crowd, grabbing a Pepsi, breaking the line, and handing it to an officer. He opens it, taking a sip, and the protest crowd breaks into raucous applause, and I broke into a raucous cringe. The officer turns to a colleague with a smile and gives him a head tilt that can only be assumed to imply him saying something akin to: "Hey, maybe we can all get along after all." Here's what Joseph Kahn, a prominent music video and film director, had to say:
https://twitter.com/JosephKahn/status/849409604433870848
I'm not going to inject my personal stance on the movements that are put on display in the ad, because I don't want you to think I'm injecting that into this analysis. The truth is (in my opinion), this ad is offensive regardless of your political and social leanings, because it takes issues of tremendous weight, washes them of the metaphorical and very literal blood, sweat, tears, money, and policy that have gone into them, turning them into weirdly lighthearted affairs, and then trivializes them by commoditizing them to sell soda and implying that said soda is somehow the key to breaking the clashes.
As Chris Cuomo aptly put it when he responded to a mattress store ad that made fun of 9/11:
So much of what we're dealing with now in terms of our fears about the world stem from the reality of what can happen. And when you get casual about that, you're not just being insensitive; on a level, you're being inhuman.
Pepsi initially seemed to be doubling down on the ad, nevertheless, saying:
This is a global ad that reflects people from different walks of life coming together in a spirit of harmony. We think that’s an important message to convey.
Sure, that's a fine message. But it's really disingenuous to feign a purity of intention when the sanctity and success of that message is portrayed as resting upon a can of soda. Frankly, it's not just disingenuous, it's stupid, and I have no idea how this ad made it out of the board room.
I could further dissect the ad and point out other moments and aspects that show highly questionable creative decisions, but I'd rather focus on the larger theme at play here, which is that the commercial highlights the power of imagery and the responsibility that that power requires in its usage.
It's worth noting that while I was writing this article, Pepsi removed the ad from their YouTube channel after it had racked up almost two million views, with about 5,000 likes and 30,000 dislikes. They eventually released the following statement:
Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace, and understanding. Clearly, we missed the mark, and we apologize. We did not intend to make light of any serious issue. We are removing the content and halting any further rollout. We also apologize for putting Kendall Jenner in that position.
Of course, I'm making two larger points that go beyond admonishing Pepsi's not-even-thinly veiled attempt to capitalize on social issues. First, imagery does not exist in a vacuum. Culture informs imagery informs culture. Part of the reason we recognize this ad as offensive is because the imagery of the reality of the issues is so strongly embedded in our memories and seeing the way a soda commercial both trivializes and visually euphemizes that reality sparks a dissonance in our mind. That imagery has been visual information that has helped us to form opinions and understanding of the gravity of these issues. That's how imagery informs culture.
Second, it reinforces the considerations that creatives must make in their work when they put it out in the world at large, because as much as we like to think that there is some purity or pseudo-nobility of art that distinguishes and separates it from the culture in which it was created, that's simply not true. Every individual carries with them a sum of experiences, beliefs, biases, etc., and all those factor into creative decisions and influence the final product; the artist does not carry some sort of diplomatic immunity from the art that they have created. While it may not always be as blatant and intentional a statement as this, it does carry with it an inherent representation of who created it. That effect is compounded by the collective consciousness of those who view and interpret it, and while the argument may be made that the artist does not owe the viewer, it is prudent to consider the perspective of the viewer. That's culture informing imagery.
What happened here on a large, abstract level, was a group of creatives and corporate executives displaying remarkable tone-deafness to the second tenet. Couple that with poorly disguised corporate pandering and greed, and you have the disaster we saw today. By which mechanisms that came to be is another discussion, though one that is very worthwhile having. Nevertheless, the vast outcry against the ad is a stark reminder that imagery, particularly of a thematic nature, is as powerful as ever, and that effect must be considered by the creator.
Fair enough. It's certainly not a topic that a company as big as Pepsi should use to profit from. I freely grant that there are MANY better ways to convey the "unity brought by a Pepsi" message.
I wonder how many women offended by this commercial were of the pink hat crowd and if they were offended by the promotion of hijab wearing? I find the promotion of that offensive.
The trivializing of protests you see as a result of this commercial? I think most people are smarter than that and simply recognize it as just a sill but well intentioned commercial.
Alex, I'm betting deep down you find it offensive because you are allowing your sympathies towards the kind of protests happening today to affect your view.
Coke more or less did the same thing in the 70's with their "I'd like to teach the world to sing....in perfect harmony..." ad.
It was a very successful campaign.
I don't think the Pepsi ad is anywhere close to the same message or appeal that the Coke ads had.
I think the inclusion of a pop culture star didn't help it at all. It became more about her than the idea. We can never know but it'd be interesting to see how successful the coke campaign would have been, introduced today.
Meeting at Pepsi:
Boss-
"Ok guys, we need to capitalize on the current events so people forget we make them fat"
Ricky from accounting-
"I have an idea!"
Boss-
"I don't care what it is, just make it"
No food or beverage manufacturer makes anyone fat. People make themselves fat.
I've never been overweight, and yes I will enjoy that six pack of Pepsi.
Only thing I found offensive is that the sister of a woman that was made famous off a sex tape is now somehow famous. No sex tape = none of them famous = no Pepsi ad for people to complain about. Solution: You can prevent this type of commercial by not making talentless sex tape stars rich and famous. Done.
Nope, it still would have happened with another celebrity.
All I see is a really poorly done copy of old Coke ads. Also, saying "Worst ever" is annoying hyperbole.
I agree with pretty much all the criticisms. But from a medium-term commercial perspective, Pepsi brand has had far more reach than it could have got without the controversy. Also, it now means it can play the humble corporate, which longer-term is quite a clever strategy, if you are cynical ;)
Bar being a little silly the ad is fine. It's beautifully shot. I don't there is anything wrong with its message ( which is probably why don't we all get along ). It trivialises protesting but it's essentially harmless . It's no way the worst ad every made. It's at least sort of encouraging young people to protest. A lot less teens and students care about politics and what is going on in the world than when I was young. They have the option now to protest on line in a low commitment Way which doesn't disrupt their YouTube / PlayStation consumption. Even my generation doesn't seem to care much anymore. It's all self interest. The gap between the rich and poor is getting greater but some day the poor will rise up.
Yeah it's offensive to see beautiful people act like they have it tough but come on...she's shooting with a 645z!! How cool is that?
I am so offended she didn't shoot with a real Medium Format like Hassy or Phase at 100MP!
Forget digital MF, I'm mortified that she wasn't using silver gelatin plates or a daguerreotype!
Since the commercial has all the underlying unachievable aspirational imagery, you're right, a 100MP Phase One would have been more appropriate.
So much for generational ideological purity being co-opted for commercial purposes. At least The Pepsi Generation had some real issues to protest. Draft, anybody?
If the issues don't affect you directly like me, you might not find any wrongs with the ad, but look again.
This commercial doesn't prevent anyone from protesting.
WHAT ISSUES!? I feel like I walked into the middle of a conversation!
Funny how you can keep asking this question but no one wants to answer it. Could it be that there is no answer because the whole thing is a non issue?
I've answered it several times in the article and in the comments. It's an issue of reading nuance. I refer you to my response to John Sheehan below.
I did read your response to John Sheehan. It wasn't until after I had read Patrick's comment and posted my own. I get what you were trying to do by not taking a particular stance on any one issue since Pepsi didn't in their ad as you stated in your response to John. However, I think that was better represented in your response to him than it was in you original article. The original article seems a little angry in tone and comes off like John said, dancing around the "issues". Because it comes across as angry in tone it makes it difficult to understand your intent.
Fair enough. And for the sake of honesty, I was angry: I think it's a poor attempt by a company that should have both the knowledge and resources to do better, and that's frustrating. I'm sorry if that clouded my intent when you read it.
I keep asking because if they took the time to answer, they might realize how ludicrous the idea is. To say this ad trivializes the various social "issues" du jour is nonsense on two levels.
First, because the issues are fabricated: BLM only addresses a small segment of black lives; the alphabet soup activists want special rights, not equal rights; there's no point to the Pro-choice movement since they already have the legal right to murder babies; environment protesters ignore the fact that, regardless of whether or not there is anthropogenic climate change, none of their proposals do anything about it; etc.
Secondly, and more pointedly, as has been noted by another commenter, nothing in this commercial remotely resembles and current events, real or imagined.
You just gave yourself away exactly as I expected. Every reason you just gave was derivative of your stance on those individual issues instead of a response to the existence of said issues and social turmoil derivative of them, regardless of which side you fall on, which is itself undeniable whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, etc. and was the entire thrust of this article. That is *exactly* why I refused to be baited into discussing a specific issue.
Well DUH! Unlike you, I unapologetically state who I am and what I believe. And, in case you missed it before, the issues are foolish and the turmoil is created by those individuals who are so insecure and self absorbed they think the world revolves around them.
I really don't like the term, "snowflake," but I can't think of anything better suited to your ilk.
Sorry, Patrick, but you're just not getting this. I too unapologetically state who I am and what I believe when it's appropriate to do so. When I'm writing a careful analysis of the impact of imagery and the feedback loop of culture for my job, that's not an appropriate time. Anywhere else? Sure. Everyone who knows me personally knows exactly where I stand, whether they agree or not.
You, on the other hand, have the luxury of commenting whatever you please behind a faceless avatar, and that's fine. But as I mentioned before, and as you just doubled down on with your subsequent reply, you are confusing commentary on the distillation of the collective of issues into imagery with the issues themselves, and you've made it apparent that you're either unwilling or unable to separate those two. You can call me names, stereotype me as part of some nebulous "ilk" (which is funny, considering your frustration stems from not knowing my actual stance on these issues), and tell me I'm "full of shit." Frankly, I don't care. I've tried to show you the respect to engage you about what I actually wrote about several times, and you're hard and fast determined to shift the battle from that to a political fight, and when I refuse to allow that to happen, you resort to belittling me, which is why my involvement with this discussion is ending here.
Since you're allowing me the last word, I'll try to make good use of it.
The way issues are represented can't be separated from the actual issues. If an issue is foolish like, say, the way Martians are treated by Venusians (I'm making something up so we won't be distracted by the validity of my calling it foolish), it SHOULD be made fun of. If an issue is serious like the use of chemical weapons on Syrians (I think we can agree this is serious), it should be addressed seriously. By attempting to separate the two, you're asking your audience to accept your determination of their gravity. I, and others, don't accept the validity of a lot of the issues being raised by people of your ilk (I looked it up, just to make sure, and it applies). The fact a lot of people take them seriously is fine. The problem is in the typical reaction to them which is generally disproportionate and unrelated to the problem. I'm not talking about you, mind you. You actually discuss them but from behind a mask of objectivity which is kinda like a faceless avatar. :-)
My comment about you being full of shit is related to you thinking nobody can determine your POV from your comments. Kinda like Clark Kent thinking nobody knows he's Superman because of his glasses. :-/
If it'll make you feel better, I'll post a picture of myself as an avatar but 'you wouldn't like it...it isn't pretty.' ~ Genie from Aladdin
1. This is a commercial. Obviously it's trying to promote it's product. That's implied even in sponsored ads that don't even have product placement. Thus when watching it, seeing the silly placement is expected.
2. It does in fact use heated social issues, like only using minorities unless it's the cop, who's a white male. Probably a bit too on the nose, but it is what it is.
3. Do I want to drink Pepsi after seeing it? Probably not
All of that said. At the end of the day for me. I see this and think, "What would a kid see?" The answer to me is mostly positive things. To you, a socially educated person, you see something completely different. However the general message is good. Why is that so bad? I don't disagree that it could have been done way better, and that it's definitely using social constructs to sell it's product. But at the end of the day if an 8 year old sees this commercial and asks a question like "Why did that women give him a soda?" Maybe whomever answers will deliver a positive answer.
On top of all that, if anything the commercial got you to write an article educating people on the topic. I could at least discuss with people whom might see this as an issue, but I really feel like your battles and effort could be put to better use elsewhere. I think Pepsi could have easily promoted their product, not made the social issues seem so ridiculously trivial, and walked away with a better ad - that's certainly worth discussing. Trying to say this is the worst ad ever and throwing arms up in outrage - put that passion somewhere more productive.
Alex,
You only over spiced it with a selection of strong words. It's fine but just move on. As you see no one really finds it as strongly as you do. It's not a great ad but it's not worth writing an article and using such header.
The hero you refer to in your 3rd reasons, is not Jenner, as the social issue was not about public and police, therefore she doesn't actually resolve an issue here. Even if she did something good, it nearly makes her a hero of any kind.
So, please if you tone down your wording here things will not go too far.
We all have lives here and we would like to think your articles are worth reading and watching.
"I'd like to teach the world to sing
"In perfect harmony
"I'd like to buy the world a Coke
"And keep it company...
There is nothing new under the sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib-Qiyklq-Q
It's crappy left-wing rants like this from Alex that make me not want to come to this site anymore. I thought this was a photography site???
The memes that spawned from the ad were pretty funny though.
For this to be a true opinion piece Alex Cooke needed to address the social issues he feels the ad is trivializing. Without that, this is just a piece written to inflame opinions and get people to leave comments (sort of like I'm doing now). If you're going to write an opinion piece, you need to display your opinions. By shying away from them, the writer is doing a disservice to his readers and the issues, whatever they might be (we don't know, Alex won't tell us).
It's like me writing an opinion piece that says, "Alex is a bad man who did bad things, but I'm not going to delve into that now. Just take my word he's a evil human being. Feel free to throw used Kodak film boxes at his villainous head. It's huge, so it's hard to miss."
For us to understand the issues that Pepsi is accused of demeaning, they need to be stated. That's Opinion Piece 101.
By not addressing the issues Alex has given us an incomplete piece of nothing substantial, with a hyperbolic title, that in the end really says zero about why the ad rises to the level of "the worst advertisement ever". I shouldn't have to scan through the comments to see Alex post a link to a USA Today piece to get their opinion on what issues they believe Pepsi is making light of. That still doesn't offer his opinion, he's just passing the buck. I find that cowardly.
If Alex's intention was to spark debate and conversation, he did it the wrong way. The conversation seems to be more about how Alex danced around the issues and didn't state them. It should be about the issues. And damn it, I come to this site religiously every damn day, I deserve a better quality of article from this site. With its overly caustic title and no real discussion of the issues inside the article itself that make this a topic for conversation on a site as good as Fstoppers, the article comes off as clickbait.
I don't like the Kardashians. I think they're a family of vapid fame chasers who are famous for no reason. They haven't done anything of real note. I really don't understand why they're famous, either. I see nothing inspiring about them, and I would rather see people who do incredible things held up on a pedestal instead of anyone from the Kardashian family.
I also don't like Pepsi that much. I will, begrudgingly, order it when I'm out if Coca Cola is not offered. If given a choice I go for the bottle in bright red and not the striking blue. I do not prefer the taste of Pepsi.
With that said, I think the ad, and the backlash from the press (which seems to be stoking the flames) is silly. Pepsi tried to reach the youth market, but failed in execution. It tries to be relevant, and at the same time is irrelevant because of how manufactured the final product is. As some have said above and else where, it tries to be the "I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing" Coke ad from 1971 but comes across as more tone deaf to the market they're trying to lure in and the issues that matter to them. "Hey kids, you like protests? We at Pepsi are behind you. Look, a cool ad with Kardashian clone #5, you like her don't ya? Pepsi is hip, just like the Microsoft Zune you kids listen to."
As far as the ad trying to steal the imagery of the BLM movement (which is one of the issues Alex didn't want to discuss), I don't see it. Protests are as old as people. No one group has a monopoly on protesting. Greece had protests. Rome had protests. The 1960s had protests, and that's what I think the ad takes most of it's imagery from. When What's-Her-Name gives the Pepsi to the cop, I though of the hippy bringing a flower up to the line of rifles aimed at protesters from the 1960s. I'm sure BLM was on the minds of the ad's creators, but they weren't going for a violent protest that we see on the news. They wanted the masses in the streets with peace signs and dancing to music by a guy who just happened to bring his cello (I've been to protests before, I've never seen a cello brought to one).
Is the ad the worst? No.
Is the ad bad? Yes.
Does it deserve the vitriol spewed at it from the media and on Fstoppers? Nope.
Can Alex and Fstoppers do better? Yes.
Let me reiterate yet again: this is not an opinion piece about my stance on the particular social issues. It's an opinion piece about them being trivialized. I didn't avoid naming any social issues; I simply didn't name any specific ones because the ad itself kept the protest generic in an attempt to appeal to the greatest audience. Pick any current issue that spark protest in this country, and it probably applies. There's your answer. I'm not "avoiding" anything. The point is Pepsi is demeaning the struggle that anyone who fights on EITHER side of ANY of these issues goes through. That's the opinion. That's exactly why I didn't name a specific one, because I didn't want to exclusionary. Again, pick any issue. It applies. I'm not dancing around anything because I'm taking everything on at the same time.
The title is not hyperbolic. I didn't say "*the* worst advertisement ever." I said "the worst *I've* ever seen." That's a personal truth. It's not hyperbolic if it's truly the worst commercial I personally have ever seen, which it is. I'm sorry you feel you "deserve" a better article, but I feel the majority of people commenting need to read what I wrote a lot more carefully, because they're trying to bait me into naming a specific issue so the argument turns into a debate about the relevancy or rightfulness of that issue, when that's not what this is about. If it was, Pepsi would have made it clear which issue and which protest they were imitating. But they didn't. They just tried to capitalize on all of them. And thus, my piece was about all of them. Again, the issue is not the individual issues, it's the commoditization of the collective struggle people have with any and all of these issues. That's the nuance.
I agree; the Kardashians mostly haven't done anything truly noteworthy in this realm, and it would be much better to put someone with a history of social activism on a pedestal. That's part of the reason the ad was offensive.
I don't think the taste of Pepsi has any bearing on this discussion.
Yeah, that lame attempt to be relevant is yet another reason it's insulting. It implies that the target market of the ad is so dumb that they'll just latch onto anything that vaguely implies approval of their beliefs or their supposed cultural idols and buy that product. It basically says: "you kids don't need any intellectual nuance. We're just going to spoon-feed you, because you're gullible and easily influenced." That's insulting.
There! You finally named one. Yes, BLM is certainly an issue under the umbrella of issues that Pepsi, not me, was trying to capitalize on. I stayed general because I'm responding to the way Pepsi chose to handle it.
Is the ad the (objective) worst? I don't know.
Is it the worst I've seen? Yes.
Is it bad? Yes.
Does it deserve the vitriol spewed at it from the media and on Fstoppers? That's a personal opinion.
Can Alex and Fstoppers do better? We always try.
Thanks, John.
I don't get offended by stuff easily and I am not offended by this for political reasons. I am offended simply because the concept for this commercial is so bad. It's almost like a comedy sketch.
Exactly - how did so many people approve this? Horrible + tacky
Do we know it wasn't intended to be a little tongue-in-cheek? In either case, why would a bad commercial offend you? Maybe feel embarrassed for them...but offended?
As I read the comments and take note of the names and avatar pictures I'm not surprised at all by some of the responses I'm reading. As they say ignorance is bliss.
So are you trying to insult everyone or certain individuals?
I'm not trying to insult anyone. A solid amount people on this thread understand the issues while a majority don't. I think a lot of people live in their own bubble, as long as life is good for them who cares about any social injustices or problems that fall outside of their realm. And as for the people who are offended by content like this they must be just over sensitive... right....
While ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, your comment was intended to be demeaning and, therefore, insulting. "Social injustice" doesn't mean anything. If someone is harmed by the actions of others, it is an individual who is harmed...not a group, even when they are harmed as a result of being part of a particular group. Furthermore, the actions of people who protest such behavior typically don't address them in a constructive way. And finally, yes...those who are offended by this kind of content are overly sensitive. Exactly right!
"And as for the people who are offended by content like this they must be just over sensitive... right...."
Correct.
Diabetics everywhere are outraged by this.
I'm diabetic. Not offended in the least.
I was kidding. Promise.
I know. So was I. Promise.
All of this complaining and no one has mentioned the horrible song they used?! I mean, it doesn't work for me at all
I had to watch it again to hear what you're talking about. I guess it didn't bother me because I'm getting used to the horrible sound tracks in modern action movies. Being a simple guy, I prefer simple music.
Extremely insensitive? Only for those extremely sensitive. Such people should be ignored.
You must be young. A protester giving a cop, or soldier, something isn't new.
I'm one of the hardest people you could ever talk to when it comes to police brutality. I despise dirty and abusive cops more than civilian criminals. That said, I've watched a lot of protest videos and I honestly can't recall seeing many people being wrongly arrested. In fact, the police in most cases have been extremely patient and tolerant. Much more so than I would have been. For example, protestors in masks should be arrested.
People's struggles? People shouldn't burden others with struggles that they impose on themselves.
The content I watch is not from the media, but from people at such protests. There's plenty of it online. Nothing filtered about it. From what I see the vast majority of people arrested are those doing things like blocking streets or highways, assaulting counter protestors, or engaging in vandalism. Protest all you want but don't block streets or highways, don't break shit that you don't own and don't assault people that disagree with you.
Young people of color? Why can't you see yourself as simply an American?? White people dont go around thinking they are people of no color.