Why that Pepsi ad isn’t as bad as you think it is
Pepsi’s latest ad featuring Kendall Jenner bridging the gap between protesters and law enforcers is abysmal says Mammal’s Luke Chess, but in this guest post he argues we’ve all missed the point.
Kendall Jenner and Skip Marley have come together to melt the internet, appearing in a much-derided spot produced by Pepsi’s in-house advertising studio, Creators League. Most of the criticism centres on its graphically unsubtle attempt to hijack genuine political expression to sell its product.
Indeed on my personal Facebook feed I noted: ‘I cannot conceive of a boardroom table around which this pile of excrement would have made sense. Abysmal advertising.’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA5Yq1DLSmQ
I was reacting at a fundamental level. The idea that a multinational corporate can claim rights over expressions of dissent offended me. The decision to make the placards conform (and I use that word deliberately) to Pepsi corporate colours identifies precisely what protests are not about. Using a reality TV superstar to stand in place of genuine activists like Ieshia Evans left a taste in my mouth that no amount of Pepsi could wash away – were I ever to buy any again.
Are you essentially saying that advertisers should dumb down the ads to get your children’s approval?
I’m not even incidentally saying that. What I am saying is that kids, including my kids, are able to identify advertising messages and classify them accordingly.
I think what he is saying is that kids dumb them down just fine by themselves
Two words: “in-house”
Two other words: “shit-house”
It’s okay to admit a fail when you have one, so props for Pepsi for recognising it quickly.
Although I have to say Luke, I am a little surprised you are distilling this down to “an essentially meaningless piece of commercial communication.” It’s not the worst thing most people have seen surely, but it’s pretty laughable…and I am sure it is designed to be anything but meaningless.
Oh it’s designed to be anything but meaningless, sure. But, like many ads crammed with brand colours in place of narrative or authenticity, it’s failed there too.
Props for admitting you created a crock of shit? LMAO.
What next, getting congratulated for creating a crock…?
‘Shit-house’ comment though, GENIUS!!!!!!!! LOL
I’m not buying the in-house for a second on this one. So you are going to get the same talent that makes your Instagram posts play with this kind of budget. I just think the AOR is desperately trying to scrap the dogshit off its shoes as fast as it can.
Pity that Accenture or PwC didn’t make it
Yes there’s certainly an argument for getting your creative comms outside the organisation, from someone who hasn’t been drinking the Kool Aid. Or the Pepsi.
But then again, I would say that.
The insight in this article is fine, and worth noting, but I don’t think for one minute that it means this ad isn’t as bad as we think. It still is.
I’m sure your children are very bright, but I doubt they are “peeling back the layers of metaphor, interpretation and cultural context”.
I almost wrote this exact comment, but you beat me to it!
C’mon. Surely it’s a case of missing all that stuff rather than “peeling” anything back. Right? Either way, it’s a frivolous piece of crap that should never have been made. It wouldn’t have got past the first thought stage if anyone with half a brain had been involved.
I dont think it is intended to be “just an ad”. It is too deliberate in its reflection of the very politically charged environment right now.
The Britney Spears Pepsi ad was just an ad. Michael Jackson’s was just an ad. Pink, Beyonce, etc… all made “just ads”. This was not “just an ad”.
My point is not about Pepsi’s intent, but rather about its audience’s consumption of the message. Obvious ad = meaningless, don’t think too much about it.
Note also I’m saying this is how things are, not how they should be. Personally, as I mention in the intro, I think the spot is disgraceful.
Luke at a certain age your kids also think porn is just funny and silly – slapstick.
That’s why they are kids – they lack the reasoning skills of adults.
So what.
This advertising is brand damaging culture sapping turd.
Mmm, not sure I agree with you, Mr/Ms Golly. I think it’s possible that we project a whole bunch of meaning onto certain things that they, media-literate as they are, simply choose not to. Note that neither think it’s a *good* ad, it’s just corporate fluff to them.
What are we “projecting” onto it that your kids are not? The moment in time that the piece is referencing could not be more obvious.
Well-off white kids say the darnedest things.
Best comment! Racism is not age appropriate. It’s something that 13yo and 15yo suffer through as well. Fortunately your kids haven’t gone through it.
Naiveté does not equal wisdom. If your kids are seeing it “solely as an ad,” something is missing in their knowledge of American history.
Why does everything need to turn political? It’s a damn soda ad with a fantasized view of world peace. We could all learn a thing or from the author’s children who saw this for what it was – an ad for soda!
The ad was awful, truly.
One of it’s many and most spectacular failures is it’s lack of subtlety. It FAILED to appropriate social justice or leverage social conscience in an attempt to shift product.
But if you SUCCESSFULLY appropriate social justice or leverage social conscience to shift product, you’ve made a great ad and it’s ok.
Which if we’re entirely honest, ads have been doing just that for quite some time now and utimately there’s not a ot wrong with it. Engaging someone’s empathy is as effective (affective?, HOW DO I STILL GET THESE TWO CONFUSED!) way of getting your message across as any.
I’ll repeat that I believe the ad is awful. That it doesn’t ‘say’ anything or align itself with any particular cause. That it ‘commodifies’ protest (a word I’ve never thought to use until it was universally adopted as the shining beacon of global objection to this ad). That 99.7% of the criticism of it is fair and just.
BUT, the industry is built around hitting you in the feels, now more so than ever. Whether you do that by specifically aligning your brand to a cause and potentially affecting some positive change off the back of that (See: doing it well) or do it badly by taking the scatter gun ‘we’re nice cause we like protest and attractive people of all colours and faiths who choose to love whoever they love. please buy our stuff lulz’ – you’re still saying and doing nice things in the hope your customer will gravitate to your brand over someone else’s when making purchasing decisions in the future.
To argue otherwise is aggrandizing what the industry does to the extreme. (Excluding charity and pro bono work, of course)
I love the people in this industry and I love seeing what they create – but it remains important that a spade continues to be labelled a spade. The level of hypocrisy on display from the global ad industry in response to this work is indicative of the systemic lack of self-awareness that plagues it.
The indignance should be about how BAD the ad is, not about about the attempted exploitation of social conscience – because so much of modern advertising is just that, it’s just a little better at it.
Great point.
I agree – great point.
An ignorant audience is not the same as an intelligent audience that can “peel back the layers of metaphor, interpretation and cultural context”.
It’s insulting to suggest that this kind of tone-deaf advertising is okay as long as people are dumb enough not to read anything into it.
Reminds me of the Cummins vodafail work.
an interesting side note:
Michael Bernard, the director of this spot, is best known for his glossy soft-core porn for Playboy
now when the revolution, which as it turns out ‘will not be advertised’, despite Pepsi’s best, or worst efforts, and the corporate-think of soft drink advertising get mixed and stirred through the gauze at the shallow end of the porn pool, that’s a mash-up from which even your kids, Luke, would have a difficult time ‘peeling back the layers of metaphor, interpretation, and cultural context’
regarding the means of production here as well, this ad was shot in Bangkok, where the ‘in-house’ creatives and their production associates managed to find a cross-section of globe-packing, multi-cultural, Pepsi-looking young things, presumably in need of more pocket change to continue their full-moon party, island-hopping lifestyles in Thailand, and a crew cost at a fraction of the usual rates to match
because there were no residuals being paid for the principals, other than Ms. Jenner of course, and far less than the actors’ union rates anywhere in the West as their ‘buy-outs’, despite this being made primarily for a US audience, the ‘pocket-change’ is about all they made for their on-camera appearances, in what was intended to look like a scene set in Amurica
in the end, the client saved heaps of money on the creative, as well as the production, and got what no agency, including their incumbent BBDO has been able to give them
a multi-decade setback in their brand’s image, one form which they will struggle to recover anytime soon without the ridicule ringing in their ‘tone deaf’ ears
quite an accomplishment for this ‘new advertising model’ we’ve been hearing so much about, well done
the account department, or the in-house creatives (tough to tell the suits from the sneakers and facial hair without a program these days,) is probably over the ‘full moon’, at least until they see next quarter’s sales figures, and the joke they’ve made of their business by imagining that data testing can drive creativity
can you spell PROGRAMMATIC?
I keep picturing some junior account rep rushing excitingly into the bosses office 2 days ago and shouting Great news! Pepsi is trending everywhere! We are going Viral. It’s awesome. We are amazing.
The message of this spot is no different than previous spots from Pepsi (Choice of a new generation/Refresh Project etc etc). And Coke too has a long history in this space from ‘Teach to the World to Sing’ to more recent stuff like Small World Machine, an execution that outdoes Pepsi in hubris by seriously suggesting that Coke could solve the India-Pakistan crisis via talking vending machines.
Most people just laugh or ignore this kind of self-important twaddle. The only successful example I can recall is Apple’s 1984, and even that skated close to the wind.
What’s tipped this Pepsi spot over the edge is the insane casting. A sweet little girl. A brave old lady. An anonymous black person. All would have been manipulative twaddle, but not offensive.
But using a celebrity who is a poster child for self-absorption, privilege and shallowness? That’s breathtakingly dumb.
It could only have been improved upon by using Kanye and Kim.
I love the spot because of this superb combination of unbelievable strategy and unbelievably bad casting.
Thanks for some intelligent and insightful comments
Why does everything need to turn political? It’s a damn soda ad with a fantasized view of world peace. We could all learn a thing or from the author’s children who saw this for what it was – an ad for soda!
Dude quoting your own facebook post. OMG
There’s a tiny part of me that thinks this is all one big PR stunt.
Client knew exactly what they were doing. Create an ad. Make it purposely divisive by using the theme and the talent. Pull it down. Get an unfair share of culture.
I actually think it was very-well planned. Although we can all sit there and say the ad is awful, i don’t think it necessarily does any harm to the brand itself. The brand has enough positive equity that this is ad is simply a prompt to remind people of their nostalgic love for the brand.
I’m not convinced about the ‘unfair share of culture’. As I was pointing out in the article, we may dwell and analyse but to most people –
the same people who we sell to – it was just another obvious ad.
Marketers and ad folk are talking about this. The rest of the world has already moved on.
The co-opt by Pepsi reminds me of that facetious “Reality Bites” piece about the bandanna: “The phattest gangsta trend will increase your peace. This bandanna by Donna Karan is blue for Crips, red for Bloods, and only costs 75 dollars!”
poor article – you are trying to rationalise something truly excremental. is that the society, brands, and agencies that you want to hold up as being “its just for a soda etc etc”. cmon people – surely we have some standards in our industry and don’t have to be the pretentious wankers we usually are. if this is ok why don’t we have ads where Adolph is handed a soda and told to chill out? set it at Nuremberg. #advertisingisfullofwankersandthisprovesitagain
Big business co-opting protest as a marketing tool is just dumb. Trying to look edgy and socially-aware, but failing by coming across as cynical and glib. Doesn’t need any further explanation really.
Btw I don’t think the final scene is inspired by the Black Lives Matter photo from Baton Rouge. More likely from the “Flower Power” photo from one of the Vietnam War era rallies at the Pentagon, where the young guy placed flowers in the soldiers’ rifles. Anyhow, a trivial detail. The ad still stinks.
Yep, Flower Power. That would certainly align with the likely age-profile of the decision-makers behind this. IMHO it’s a classic case of emperor’s new clothes: no-one dared to speak up due to vested interest (the contractors involved who need a dollar) or corporate fear (the serried ranks of Pepsi execs who want to keep their jobs). Exactly what’s often happened when we see social media fails (think #brandzac)
Good point, well made Luke
At Miptv this week in Cannes, the head of PepsiCo was a guest speaker, let me say they are absolutely thrilled at the amount of free media it has generated, and how good is that!!!
After all that I still won’t drink Pepsi.
Not to get overly personal here (truly), but maybe your kids are [edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy] and exactly the intended audience of this massive corporation pushing their canned beverage poison. It’s not their faulty, they just view the ad and don’t / can’t read into (or care) about any of the obvious social misrepresentations happening in this commercial. After all, they like Kendal Jenner – which is probably the same as 99% of kids their age. They struggle to identify why this is completely unrealistic while they are continually fed ‘reality TV’. Kids their age are just not smart enough to understand why this is terrible, because of everything they watch, view and follow on a daily basis.
Side note; Advertising and content created in-house isn’t a bad thing (although it this case it is hard to make this point with conviction). But it’s funny how quick the ad industry is to rag on a poorly executed campaign produced in-house, like this one. It’s the way of future for the big brands that can afford to make the investment in a proper set up. Just look at companies like Red Bull, GoPro, L’Oreal, Amex, Coke, Lego etc around the world. The key is getting good people on board to ensure it’s done correctly and ultimately produces good work. It’s also where the good jobs will be in the future.
Hmm. Hard to respond to this when a part of it has been edited out.
But suffice to say that while my 13 yo lad is probably interested mainly in soccer, parkour and bands I wouldn’t listen to with a gun to my head, my 15 yo daughter is highly politically aware and sensitive to many issues. (You may be surprised to discover how many teens are.)
However, when a piece flags itself so unselfconsciously and overtly as an ad (close up of glistening can early, brand colours, etc), she stops reading it as anything trying to ‘say’ anything. It’s an ad, it’s fluff, it’s unimportant. Therein lies the challenge to marketers and creatives trying to reach her and the many, many people of all ages just like her.
That point makes sense, and perhaps the reason why marketers (and even planners) shouldn’t reach for such high emotional ground completely disconnected from the actual products.
In this case that mistake has then been amplified by incompetent creative or client judgement in terms of the hamfisted execution and blindness to cultural context. Spectacular!
Fuck watching TV, reading comment strings on Ad websites is the best. Someone here must know the meaning of life as well. Go!
This is what happens when clients drink their own Koolaid.
this comments stream ably demonstrates what’s wrong with agency people – they are either too conceited, or too ignorant, to comprehend that they are not the target audience for certain ads.
all the great unwashed – among them those people you despise for supporting Turnbull, Bernardi and Hanson, all the deplorables – they don’t try to intellectualise a TV ad and imbue it with greater social meaning
they just watch it and some might go buy the product
please hurry up and grow out of the unearned sense of moral superiority so prevalent among today’s keyboard warriors
the grown ups around the place can’t wait for you realise that earning a living to feed your family is more important than virtue-signalling each other on social media
I did not get this because I am young, Is Pepsi not to bad or bad
I did not get this because I am young, Is Pepsi not to bad or bad because it might of been because I was just skimming through it but it seemed like they were saying it was bad but the name of this is why Pepsi isn’t as bad as you think
[Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
hello
[Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]