A re-visit to the Pepsi Ad starring Kendall Jenner

On September 28, I wrote a blog on the Pepsi Ad starring Kendall Jenner. A similar blog was posted byKim van Loon. However, it seems that we don’t see eye to eye whether Pepsi responded correctly or not. To give you a quick freshen up. Below you can watch the Pepsi Ad. And if you want to read more about the backlash the ad got, please check my previous blogpost.

                                         Pepsi Ad starring Kendall Jenner. Credits: YouTube – Kendall and Kylie

What we agree on

In both our blogs we reflected on the role of the audience, stating that nowadays the audience can frame news. In de case of the Pepsi ad, this meant that the audience added a negative connotation to the content. This negative frame was then viewed by many other viewers, which created a crisis situation (vander Meer, 2018).

One way of quickly figuring out the responds of the audience is by checking Twitter. Twitter provides with an excellent way to keep up with real-time updates and thus feedback to your content (Eriksson,2018). In the case of Pepsi, twitter was used a lot.

Where we disagree

Where we disagree on is the response given by Pepsi. Kim van Loons blogpost states that Pepsi did well by responding with an apology within 24 hours. But that is not what Pepsi did! Their first response backed up their ad. Obviously, this respond cannot be found on the Pepsi website anymore, but here are two sources: 1 2.

So, their first response was to deny that there was a crisis situation. According to Coombs(2015) denying any responsibility to a crisis situation, is a way to respond to a crisis. However, in this case, it is not. Denial is used when there is a misinterpretation which links an organization to a crisis, for example a name mix-up. In the case of Pepsi, that is just not the way to go.

Pepsi’s second response indeed was the right response. They apologized and stated that they didn’t intend to create controversy. However, they also added an apology to Kendall Jenner to their statement. I think apologizing to Kendall Jenner is a good thing, but it should have been done in private. Adding the Kendall Jenner Apology created backlash and could have created a brand-new crisis. It is safe to say that the goal for Pepsi with the apology was definitely NOT to create a new crisis.

Concluding advice

A lot can be learned from the way Pepsi handled the crisis. Even though they responded quickly, they did not respond adequately. I would strongly advice Pepsi, and any organization for that matter to respond quickly but wisely. I believe it is better to respond in 36 hours with the right respond, than to respond within 24 hours with the kind of response that only adds fuel to fire. Obviously, the Pepsi ad is an excellent example, but this advice could be used by PR professional everywhere.

About:

Ilse Weergang has a BA degree in Musicology, and is currently enrolled in a MA Entertainment Communication. She likes to make and listen to music and she enjoys the outdoors.

A controversial Pepsi ad starring Kendall Jenner

In April 2017 an advertisement by Pepsi was launched starring Kendall Jenner. In sum the following happens: Kendall Jenner is doing a photo shoot. However, when she realizes that there is protest going on outsides, she decides to join them. She then offers a police officer a Pepsi, and everybody is happy.

You can watch the video here.

 What was the viewers reaction?

The viewers of the ad did not react very positive. They suggested that Pepsi used the Black Lives Matters movement who protest against police violence, to promote their own brand.

On top of that, the release of the

ad was on the same day that 49 years prior, Martin Luther King was murdered. Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King, responded to the ad by Pepsi with the following tweet:

How did Pepsi respond?

It is safe to say, that the advertisement was not really accepted with open arms. One might expect that Pepsi would respond with an immediate apology, but they didn’t. Their first reaction was to defend the ad by saying that the ad was portraying a “global message of unity, peace and understanding”. But this statement only created more controversy, so eventually Pepsi pulled the ad and admitted to their mistake and they apologized.

What should have been done?

There are two learning points we can take from this case. First is the initial reaction from Pepsi. Defending themselves even created more controversy, and thus a bigger crisis situation. The way the viewers reacted, did create a crisis situation, which could endanger the brand ‘Pepsi’. This means that Pepsi must act. The only one responsible for this crisis situation according to the viewers is Pepsi, so they should apologize. This way you can protect your reputation best according to Coombs (2015). Making an apology right away means that the organization takes full responsibility and that they ask the viewers for forgiveness according to Coombs (2007). This would have made the crisis situation go away a lot quicker.

Second, the role of the viewer should not be underestimated. If I would have seen the video without any context, I wouldn’t have made the link to the Black Lives Matters movement, like a lot of other people did. This is probably why Pepsi didn’t think there was anything wrong with their ad. However, when the audience frames the ad in a negative way, the people who will see it after may also share the same negative connotation according to van der Meer (2018). It is important to know that nowadays social media can create its own frames, which can lead to negative connotations, which then can lead to a crisis situation. It is therefore important that an organization should not underestimate its audience and their influence.

Ilse Weergang has a BA degree in Musicology, and is currently enrolled in a MA Entertainment Communication. She likes to make and listen to music and she enjoys the outdoors.