“Live for Now Moments Anthem” was an ad for Pepsi that was posted on YouTube by PepsiCo on April 4th, 2017 featuring Kendall Jenner. The video, which Pepsi had planned to use in a global ad campaign, features a large protest with a mostly young, racially diverse crowd walking down city streets (Wong). Two people, A male Asian cellist and a female middle eastern photographer in a hijab, are shown alone in their own shots. When the protest passes them, they both join in. Then Jenner is seen modelling in a doorway before removing her wig and makeup to join in as well. The protesters seem cheerful, exchanging smiles and high fives. Signs with peace symbols and “Join the conversation” are seen among the crowd of protesters as they walk through the city streets. Jenner then picks up a can of Pepsi and walks towards the wall of police that is holding up the cheerful crowd. She gives one of the officers a Pepsi and returns to the crowd as they begin to rejoice.
PepsiCo released the ad, which was produced by an in-house studio, saying that it “captures the spirit and actions of those people that jump in to every moment” (Victor). The ad was meant to promote a message of global unity, but it missed its mark. Many people were outraged at the imagery that seemed so similar to the Black Lives Matter protests. The common perception was that the ad was tone-deaf due to the implication that a can of Pepsi could remedy the standoff between protesters and police.
Additionally, PepsiCo overlooked the fact that Jenner had stirred up controversy in the past. In 2015, some accused her of cultural appropriation for wearing her hair in cornrows, a historically black style (Victor). A poor casting choice gave the internet opposition more reason to scrutinize PepsiCo.
The video was released April 4th, 2017, two months after Black History Month and three months after the massive Women’s March. PepsiCo was criticized for trying to appeal to a politically motivated audience—in a politically tense climate that featured many protests—by showcasing a “protest” in their ad. The ad harbored distaste in the mouths not only of those who had participated in or supported protests, but by a clear majority of its viewers.
Heineken, an adult beverage company, was dubbed as the antidote for the Pepsi ad. They filmed six people with opposing beliefs of feminism, climate change and transgenderism. The candidates were paired with their opposites and sent together into warehouses; where they found themselves with some instructions, and a bar to build. Once the bar is built, and the Heineken beers discovered, the participants are asked to watch a short film. The film is footage of them stating views they haven’t discussed with the other. “You now have a choice. You may go, or you can stay and discuss your differences over a beer” echoes over the loudspeaker. They all decide to stay in the end. (Natividad)
Just like PepsiCo, Heineken didn’t take a stance on any of the topics, but they didn’t claim their beer would make everyone get along—they showed us that we all have the capacity to work together. PepsiCo mistakenly made their product the central focus of the ad, whereas Heineken did the opposite.
PepsiCo tried to approach protests from a neutral standpoint in the ad; the intention was to not alienate protesters or police. They made protests out to be a fun time where everyone comes together but pulled imagery from the often violent and tense Black Lives Matter movement. When Jenner hands the police officer a Pepsi, it is linked to a photo of Ieshia Evans, a BLM protestor, bravely standing up to police in riot gear at a BLM protest last July (Hensley). PepsiCo implied that protests could simply be solved by giving the opposing side a can of Pepsi. This stance didn’t bode well for PepsiCo; they received overwhelming backlash online, as the ad came off insensitive and forced to many viewers. PepsiCo emulated what would be more akin to a parade than a protest in the ad. Protests are about defiance; they are not safe or cheerful. PepsiCo undermined the courage it takes to stand up in what one believes in and misrepresented protests.
Pepsi seemed to act in a complete partisan manner with this ad. They abandoned all judgement for the sake of their soda being the center of attention. They manipulated the public by showing them false images of protest. They had a blatant disregard for the sacrifices of past, present and future protesters. They acted only out of self-interest to get the Pepsi name out there and they received the proper results of partisan behavior.
Utilitarianism focuses on long-term happiness of those involved. It caters to all by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Companies that utilize utilitarianism are more concerned of public perception toward them; so, the company will try to benefit all involved. Utilitarianism is focused on the stakeholders and what best satisfys them (Salazar 19).
PepsiCo did not think that through when creating this ad. The backlash made it clear that many people were harmed and offended in many different ways. The ‘stakeholders’ were all harmed by this ad: consumers, communities, investors and employees. Consumers avoided buying the product due to potential backlash. Communities were harmed due to the imagery of the ad, which a large portion of society were offended. Investors were harmed by the drop in PepsiCo stock following the ad controversy. Lastly, employees were harmed by the association to the brand after backlash. The commercial enraged many people due to its percieved meaning, thus, PepsiCo failed its utilitarian goal of doing the best good for all involed.
Deontology calls for all to understand their part as a member of society, and person has duties toward one another. Deontology and utilitarianism differ due to deontology’s shift from end result to universal moral acts. Deontology focuses on the idea of an action being good at its core, not on the consequences of decisions. This means that people should have good intentions despite the outcomes (Salazar 21). A good action means that we must have a sense of duty to benefit others, even if we do not recieve the same in return.
In the Pepsi ad, an attempt at emulating protests that were going on at the time is clear. Throughout the 2-minute ad, Pepsi was showing their viewers that protests are fun places where protestors cheer happily like nothing is going to happen and nothing is wrong. The ‘protest’ shown in the ad is not how real protest are, the truth is much more brutal and disturbing. These protests are often extremely tense and riddled with violence. This means that PepsiCo was trying to profit off the pain that those people have suffered.
PepsiCo had the potential to avoid all of this controversy. They used an in-house studio to create the ad. It’s clear that this ad was in a Pepsi echo chamber. Had the ad gone through proper testing with the target market, it would have never made it to their YouTube channel. This was a lesson for PepsiCo to thoroughly vet future ads before posting them for the world to see.
PepsiCo was met with overwhelming backlash, especially on twitter. ‘Through 5 a.m. ET today, 77% of digital content engagement around the phrase ‘tone-deaf’ mentioned both Kendall Jenner and Pepsi’ (Schultz, and Diaz.). Joseph Kahn, Weiden+Kennedy and even Bernice King, the daughter of MLK Jr., chimed in. ‘If only Daddy would have known about the power of #Pepsi’ (King). The ad was released on the 49th anniversary of King’s assassination. According to marketing expert Mike Jackson, part of the problem was that Pepsi did not have a history of promoting social justice causes (Hogan). The advertisement was parodied in a YouTube video by comedian Vito Gesualdi, who filmed himself handing out cans of Pepsi at an April 15, 2017, protest in Berkeley, California. Gesualdi stated he was trying to ‘bridge the divide’ in America with cans of Pepsi; however, almost all the cans distributed ended up being used as projectiles by the protesters (Haney).
The ad was pulled within 48 hours of being posted on PepsiCo’s YouTube channel, followed by this press release from Pepsi:
‘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 this position’ (Pepsi Statement Re: Pepsi Moments Content).
PepsiCo demonstrated how advertisers shouldn’t use current events to help sell their product. Making a product the center of attention in and ad showcasing delicate topics will likely cause a divide in its consumer base when a company claims that their product can fix it.
