By
now, most of us have probably seen the Pepsi ad rocking the Internet, and if
you haven’t, look it up and prepare yourself.
Pepsi’s
ad featuring Kendall Jenner is offensive for different reasons, but the first
that struck me was its commodification and whitewashing of protest movements. As
we have been learning in class, protest is not glamourous – it is necessary. In
African American history, there is a long tradition of insurrections,
rebellions, liberation movements, and protests for human rights, and Pepsi’s ad
featuring a rich, white, 21-year-old supermodel blatantly ignores it. In the
ad, Jenner is supposedly on a modeling job, and she is struck by the protest
going on in the street. She stops what she is doing, wipes her perfectly
applied lipstick with the back of her hand – so rugged – and she joins them. The protesters are smiling, young,
white hipsters, and they are clearly enthusiastic about being part of a
movement. This depiction of protest movements being confronted by police is so
opposite to the actual news footage of the Black Lives Matter movement that it
disgraces its legacy and image.
Rather
than an image of struggle and confrontation, Pepsi’s idealization of protesters
presupposes that protest is a young-man’s game, and not only young, but also young
and white. The music plays into this notion further – it blares “We are the
lions, we are the chosen/We gonna shine out the dark/We are the movement, this
generation/You better know who we are” while the camera pans in slow-motion to
display the protesters. There is not a single angry or upset person in the crowd,
and moreover, the majority of the protesters are not black or brown.
Online,
some people are calling Pepsi’s ad “tone deaf,” and I don’t think there’s a
better phrase to describe it.
They
entirely missed the point of the Black Lives Matter protest movement and the
tradition it comes out of – instead of featuring black and brown women, they
chose Kendall Jenner. The ad reads like a Coachella advertisement – blaring music
It plays into the notion of the “white savior,” featuring a Muslim woman taking
Jenner’s photo while she gives a cop a can of Pepsi. It supposes that
ameliorating the issue of a militarized police force and state-sanctioned
violence is as simple as calling a white person to bridge the gap. In asserting
that ending violence is as simple as popping open a can of Pepsi, the corporate
company profits by reducing the struggle of the Black Lives Matter movement and
its ancestors to little more than a street squabble.
What’s
worse is that Pepsi later apologized to Jenner – she signed the contract and
knew the content of the ad before filming. By apologizing to her, Pepsi attempts
to absolve Jenner for agreeing to participate in an ad that disgraces the name of African American activism. Moreover, Pepsi is a huge company that profits from
imperialism by outsourcing, so what gave them the idea that this ad would not be controversial?
Here's a link to the ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA5Yq1DLSmQ
Here's a link to the ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA5Yq1DLSmQ
What is also funny to note in this add is the lack of any danger in facing the police who stand opposite of the protesters - where is the militarization? I see no riot shields, no firearms. This is completely the opposite of many protests where the police are actually involved.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with this analysis, and it prompted me to share a quote from an article on this topic that I thought was really eye-opening. Ian Bogost, a contributing editor for the Atlantic, closed his article about the Pepsi ad with this:
ReplyDelete"The genius of this decision is that it satisfies everyone. The Kardashian fanatics got their Kendall Jenner fix. The agitators get to feel that they have successfully redressed a big brand company; a minor victory in a time of so many defeats. The earnest, probably-white folk who enjoyed Pepsi’s alternative to constant politicization got their saccharine status-quo—and now they also get a branded excuse to issue a counter-offensive against the progressives who insisted on bringing politics into innocuous soft drinks (surely it’s coming). The media get their scoops, and their thinkpieces (like this one). And these outcomes, incompatible though they are, all return attention to Pepsi—which is all it really wanted in the first place."
Anyway, fascinating little summation of all the interests involved in this conversation. Here's the article: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/pepsi-ad-success/522021/
Max, that's a fascinating quote and what I perceive to be correct. It truly had all the ingredients of corporations and newscylces propogating each other's success, even if they're not trying to. Pepsi makes a flub ad, and in the end was it really so bad for Pepsi? They'll be fine, if anything it just got more people talking about Pepsi (I'm a Coke guy, but just hearing the word Coke makes me want one). And so some conversation happens and the news media gets a nice little week-long, highly profitable topic to cover because controversy makes the media a lot of money. So in the end, Pepsi wins, the news media wins, but people on the ground are left pissed off and uneasy. While hopefully good will come out of this scenario and others like it, it's important to put a little bit of distance between yourself and whichever profit-making entity you're facing when you get your information on the subject. The ad was ridiculous, but is asking for more than its removal accomplishment or a distract from more pressing matters? To dwell too long is to feed further into the machine...
ReplyDeleteThe responses to this ad that I saw on twitter directly correlate with what you have just explained. When I saw the ad I was shocked that movements campaigned for local, national, and global equity were reduced to smiling white people and compliant government leaders.
ReplyDelete