The 2017 Pepsi commercial featuring Kendall Jenner, intended to convey a message of unity and shared humanity, instead sparked widespread criticism for its perceived appropriation and trivialization of social justice movements. The advertisement, which depicted Jenner leaving a photoshoot to join a protest and offering a can of Pepsi to a police officer, was widely seen as a tone-deaf response to genuine social and political unrest. This essay will argue that while the commercial aimed for a universally positive message, its shallow engagement with complex issues and its reliance on a celebrity figurehead ultimately undermined its intent, transforming a product placement into a symbol of corporate insensitivity.
The central premise of the ad was that a simple act of offering a Pepsi could bridge divides and foster understanding. This narrative was visually represented by Jenner’s transition from the glamorous world of modeling to the gritty reality of a protest. The commercial showcased diverse groups of protestors, holding signs with generic slogans like "Love" and "Join the Conversation." Jenner, in a moment of supposed solidarity, removes her blonde wig, grabs a can of Pepsi from an ice-filled cooler, and walks towards a police line. The climactic moment, intended to be a gesture of peace, involved her handing the soda to an officer, who smiles and takes a sip. The overall effect was meant to be one of effortless resolution, suggesting that societal friction could be smoothed over by a shared beverage.
However, this optimistic portrayal quickly met with significant backlash. Critics pointed out the commercial’s uncanny resemblance to iconic imagery from real-life protests, most notably the 2016 Dallas police shooting aftermath and the Black Lives Matter movement. The image of a young, affluent celebrity figure brokering peace with a police officer was particularly jarring. For many, it trivialized the lived experiences and struggles of those actively engaged in fighting for civil rights and against police brutality. The ad seemed to suggest that the complex issues of systemic inequality and racial injustice could be solved with superficial gestures, a notion that felt deeply offensive to those on the front lines of these movements. For instance, the specific visual of Jenner handing a Pepsi to an officer echoed photographs of Ieshia Evans, a nurse and activist, peacefully confronting police at a Black Lives Matter protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in July 2016. Evans’ courageous act, undertaken at significant personal risk, was a powerful statement; Jenner’s reenactment, framed as a lighthearted commercial moment, felt like a hollow imitation.
Furthermore, the choice of Kendall Jenner herself became a point of contention. As a member of the Kardashian-Jenner family, a group often perceived as detached from the concerns of everyday people, her involvement felt incongruous with the intended message of authentic connection. Her privileged background and the commercial’s glossy production values contrasted sharply with the raw, often dangerous, realities of the protests it seemed to reference. This disconnect contributed to the perception that Pepsi was attempting to co-opt and capitalize on social activism for marketing purposes, a practice often referred to as "woke-washing." The ad’s attempt to insert a commercial product into a space of genuine social and political struggle was interpreted not as an act of unity, but as a cynical marketing ploy.
In conclusion, the Kendall Jenner Pepsi commercial serves as a cautionary tale about the potential pitfalls of corporate attempts to engage with social issues. While the intention may have been to promote a message of harmony and shared experience, the execution was deeply flawed. By trivializing the complexities of social justice movements, appropriating protest imagery, and relying on a celebrity spokesperson whose persona felt disconnected from the cause, Pepsi inadvertently created a commercial that became a symbol of corporate insensitivity and a focal point for criticism, rather than a unifying advertisement. The backlash underscored the importance of authentic engagement and respect for genuine struggles when brands choose to address sensitive social and political topics.