Ronn TorossianRonn Torossian

Not since a pyrotechnics accident injured Michael Jackson on the set of a Pepsi commercial have more people been mad at the brand for its advertising. Recently, in an obvious effort to be both hip and topical, Pepsi crafted a commercial that, according to its critics, missed on both marks.

The spot featured Kendall Jenner, in the midst of a modeling shoot when a number of protesters march by. The crowd is joined by various other characters before Jenner eventually leads the group toward a confrontation with police. Jenner, then, offers a cop a Pepsi, which he gratefully accepts … and there are smiles all around. At least there were smiles until the public got a look at the ad. 

Viewers were enraged that, as they saw it, Pepsi appropriated imagery most closely associated with the Black Lives Matter movement. These folks were not happy with the way the commercial played out, believing that Pepsi’s handling of the subject minimized the struggle and the importance or seriousness of the movement. Twitter, as it’s been known to do, erupted. The critiques were vicious and condemning.

Then, before most people had even seen the original ad that started the whole explosion, Pepsi pulled it. Of course, not before someone else grabbed it online, and now the ad has been circulating through a series of disparate “think pieces” … most of them lambasting Pepsi for being so completely tone deaf. Now, that accusation is up for debate, but what isn’t up for debate is how Pepsi responded to the anger. They did so apologetically and immediately.

Here’s part of Pepsi’s statement: “Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace, and understanding … Clearly, we missed the mark and apologize. We did not intend to make light of any serious issue. We are pulling the content and halting any further rollout.”

But critics were not done taking shots. They said it wasn’t that Pepsi “missed the mark,” but that they portrayed the polar opposite of what they say they actually experienced as protesters. Pepsi didn’t just steal their images; they downplayed the experience, especially the danger.

Others said the ad didn’t properly portray the seriousness of the current protest or the sacrifices made by other protesters in the past.

This incident plays an educational role in the evolving notion of intent in media. Today, it’s not enough to try to convey an idea. You have to be aware of the ideas other people will have as a result of your communication. Because once someone with a big enough voice online gets hold of your content and slaps their idea on it, your intent really no longer matters. Pepsi couldn’t say, “this is a plea for unity” once enough people decided it was insensitive and culturally inappropriate. At that point, there would be no more conversation, so the ad had to go.

This is the tightrope brands walk in today’s environment any time they try to tackle difficult issues. Be warned.

***

Ronn Torossian is CEO of 5WPR, which has been ranked as America’s 11th largest independently owned PR Agency by O’Dwyer’s.