If you’re in the marketing and advertising business (or even if you’re not!) you’ve probably heard about the recent Pepsi ad slip-up. If you missed it I’ll give you the cliff notes:

The soft drink manufacturer’s most recent TV spot stars Kendall Jenner (reality TV star and model) joining a protest in the street. It is never made clear what the protest is for but the people are carrying placards with slogans written on them such as ‘Join the Conversation’ and ‘Peace’. Kendall works her way to the front of the protest where she comes face to face with a police blockade of uniformed officers. She hands one of the officers a can of Pepsi and the policeman smiles to his colleague. Kendall returns to the protesting throngs whereupon everyone seems to celebrate as though she has singlehandedly solved the issue they were fighting for. With a can of drink.

On the very topmost level, it is predictable and infantile storytelling. Brands have grown up from claiming their product can save the world or solve problems. Advertising has evolved and become cleverer than that, and as such this seems like a backward step for such a big brand.

But you only have to dig a tiny bit deeper to see more of what is wrong with the ad, and a lot of it is timing. It is impossible to not make a connection between this ad and the Black Lives Matter protests for a few reasons…

1. The BLM issue is big news right now.
2. The use of police isn’t necessary for an ad about protests.
3. Perhaps the biggest of all, the obvious similarity to the famous photo of the girl and police officers at Baton Rouge that blew up on social media last year.

All of this conspires to paint Pepsi as a money-grabbing organisation with absolutely no human sensitivity, seeking only to co-opt what is hot right now for financial gain. The absolute opposite of the brand character they are trying to instil, that Pepsi is a brand for people, for the community.

It’s an epic fail.

But how did this happen? Many industry experts are claiming that this is what happens when you rely on in-house creative and many more are shouting the opposite, saying that one example does not make a rule.

I don’t think that it’s the fact that the agency is in-house or external that is the problem. It’s easy to argue that an external agency would challenge a brand more due to having less internal loyalty to it. And it’s also easy to argue that an in-house agency could be controlled and blinkered by an overbearing management or pre-determined company line, leading to a tone-deaf campaign.

For me, this reeks more of the classic fear that a lot of brands have, a fear to appear just like us, like human beings. Using a protest as your concept for your creative isn’t a bad idea in itself (although maybe let current tensions and news stories die down a little first!) the problem is that the ad isn’t saying anything. 

Protests are all about the message, what the people are fighting for. They are passionate and it means something to them, and the world at large. Pepsi used the concept of passionate free speech, something people have used for hundreds of years to change the world… to say nothing at all.

Now I’m not saying that all brands have to say something. That there must always be a cause or a message behind their ads. But the instant a protest idea went across the Pepsi tables the question should have been; ‘What are we going to say with this?’

Imagine if Pepsi had decided to use the concept for genuine good. Co-opting a movement, yes, but also raising awareness, maybe donating some money to it and actually helping. It would have been obvious that they were still trying to sell drinks but they would also be doing something good with all the money they have. There would have been a heart behind their message.

Many brands have advertised their product by spotlighting their humanity, by showing that they are just people who want to do right in the world. From charity partnerships and donations, to putting everyday people at the front of their campaigns rather than celebrities, challenging ingrained ideas of beauty and success. And it works! We like investing in other people who seem cool.

But instead, Pepsi’s cold, blatant use of a genuine part of community and humanity ends up making them look afraid to show that they are people too. It ends up looking money-grabbing, non-humanitarian and shallow. And on top of that, it then causes offence as they use something intrinsically human, to just sell drinks.

More and more audiences are responding to the people behind the brand. The message, the mission. When brands come out as having green policies or supporting charities, it works in their favour.

Maybe the biggest takeaway for brands and advertisers from this debacle should be to think more about the people and the perspective behind the brand. To listen to the thoughts and beliefs of the people who make up the company, and use their ideas to form a concept for your next big advertising approach.

Or you could just use an agency that has enough social awareness and advertising nouse to know that this idea was a bad one.

Pepsi, we’re just a phone call away!

If you would like to receive more informative articles like this one, please sign up to the Holla Club Newsletter.