Kendall Jenner

[Ellie]

Interesting @Ellie, although I'm not really sure the Black Lives Matter movement is comparable to the hippies or even qualifies as a counter culture.

Nooooo not at all. I think the millennials of today share that hippie-era distrust for "the system" and resentment towards the government, and it comes through in protests of everything from Betsy Devos and the pipeline to BLM and women's marches (which actually do kinda parallel the civil rights/women's lib things going on during that time).

About Pepsi's publicity stunt

Dove uses causes to sell its products too. It's just a better liar, and comes across as more authentic. Remember that Unilever still owns Axe (and Klondike?).
The bigger these movements get, the more money companies stand to make from appropriating their message to sell shit. I think it's naive to pretend that Dove has any altruistic motives for supporting the oh-so-marketable message that "you're beautiful already...with our product!" or that any company using the platform of "we donate to sad children in third-world countries!" to hawk a product *really* gives a shit. They're writing that donation off on their taxes and patting themselves on the back for a marketing job well done.

 

[bingeonvogue]

I think this issue in general is actually quite interesting (moreso than the topic of this thread tbh )

The bigger these movements get, the more money companies stand to make from appropriating their message to sell shit.

I think this is really important. I'm still figuring out what I think but I think the timing influences what I think about the ad a lot – it seems more of a 'stance' that they are supporting rather than a marketing gimmick if they aren't sure how it'll play because the movement doesn't have wide support

I took a Media/Propaganda class two years ago and I remember we talked about this for like 2 weeks and there were a lot of interesting readings but I forgot a lot

The Benetton HIV support campaign is an interesting case imo because no matter what you think of it, at the time they released it they weren't sure how it would affect their sales since it was still a controversial issue

Wish I'd kept the syllabus from that class

 

[Ellie]

I think this issue in general is actually quite interesting (moreso than the topic of this thread tbh )

I think this is really important. I'm still figuring out what I think but I think the timing influences what I think about the ad a lot – it seems more of a 'stance' that they are supporting rather than a marketing gimmick if they aren't sure how it'll play because the movement doesn't have wide support

I took a Media/Propaganda class two years ago and I remember we talked about this for like 2 weeks and there were a lot of interesting readings but I forgot a lot

The Benetton HIV support campaign is an interesting case imo because no matter what you think of it, at the time they released it they weren't sure how it would affect their sales since it was still a controversial issue

Wish I'd kept the syllabus from that class

Yes please! Share when you remember

Yeah, and I'm also toying with the idea of whether it matters at all whether there's "true altruism" in their motivation if the end result is the same. If you're donating money to starving orphans, does it matter whether you really care about the orphans if they're still enjoying the benefits?

Cool example. God I love these forums <3 And you

 

[marieebo]

Well now I am wondering...I assume she has a contract with them, right? And she already took the money. So what happens? Because I assume that their contract wasn't only finalized to that spot, it probably included some events & social media posts. Do they break the contract with her or will they just shoot another ad with Kendull? Do you have to give the money back or something when something like this happens? Like, isn't it a mess contract wise? I just find it interesting!

 

[dauphin]

Well now I am wondering...I assume she has a contract with them, right? And she already took the money. So what happens? Because I assume that their contract wasn't only finalized to that spot, it probably included some events & social media posts. Do they break the contract with her or will they just shoot another ad with Kendull? Do you have to give the money back or something when something like this happens? Like, isn't it a mess contract wise? I just find it interesting!

In my country, it would be pretty clear: If Kendall fulfils her obligations according to the contract, they have to pay her no matter what. It's Pepsi's responsibility to use Kendall's "workforce"/modeling in a way that raises their sales. If they're too dumb to do that, it's not her fault - and if they want to produce another, "better" advertisement, they need to pay her again.
Also, if they concluded a social media follow-up to the advertisement and now ask her not to post about it, they still have to pay the amount they promised for these posts. It's called contract for a reason, it's not like one party can just abandon it without any consequences.
Of course it's possible to agree on exit scenarios in advance, e.g. that Pepsi can terminate the contract in specific situations without having to pay for obligations that have not yet been fulfilled by Kendall. It depends on the individual contract and its conditions.

 

[FashionThin]

In my country, it would be pretty clear: If Kendall fulfills her obligations according to the contract, they have to pay her no matter what. It's Pepsi's responsibility to use Kendall's "workforce"/modeling in a way that raises their sales. If they're too dumb to do that, it's not her fault - and if they want to produce another, "better" advertisement, they need to pay her again.

Also, if they concluded a social media follow-up to the advertisement and now ask her not to post about it, they still have to pay the amount they promised for these posts. It's called contract for a reason, it's not like one party can just abandon it without any consequences.
Of course it's possible to agree on exit scenarios in advance, e.g. that Pepsi can terminate the contract in specific situations without having to pay for obligations that have not yet been fulfilled by Kendall. It depends on the individual contract and its conditions.

This. It depends .. so much. We don't know because we haven't seen it. In my experience with big brands, their contracts usually give them a lot of wiggle room. Realistically no matter how "tight" you think a contract is it all depends are you willing to fight (sue) over it? Usually the correct answer is no, so you work something out.

If they decide to terminate they will just settle with her for a % of the contract value.

she already took the money

In ten years of doing this I've never seen a contract pay 100% in advance. Even the biggest celebrity names get a % advance, then they get the rest over the length of the contract based on fulfilling all the obligations and obeying the terms. Think about it, if you're Porsche and you sign an A-list actress to a five year ad campaign then two weeks later she's out driving her Porsche drunk and kills a whole family. You're going to feel pretty dumb if you paid it all up front.

 

[Ellie]

@FashionThin What do you think the likeliness is that Pepsi knew this would blow up in their faces, and they're using the controversy as marketing?

And what would that mean for her contract?

 

[sore]

@Ellie
But unless they want to sell the rest of their soda to the Ku Klux Klan, I don't really see why they would do this with a sensitive topic like the BLM movement?

(Just don't see the benefits of being talked about in this case, I guess.)

 

[Silent Night]

I haven't concretised my ideas about this ad yet so might come back at some point with some more intelligent analysis, but for the moment:

1) I find this ad especially offensive because it is exploiting the imagery of revolt against oppression (ie associating itself with a positive social movement) while flagrantly erasing all and any aspects of that struggle that could potentially alienate their consumers. All the people in the ad are young and gorgeous, and they seem practically orgasmic with joy; they're not angry, they're not downtrodden, they're not confrontational; they're not threatening the status quo or the dominant elements of social hierarchy in any way. They don't even represent any identifiable group of disadvantaged people. And why are they even marching if they're so damn happy? They haven't even got a cause that Pepsi customers could potentially disagree with. It's brazenly, crassly bland and insipid.

2) The strength of civil rights activism is collectivity. In the ad the narrative is that one special, beautiful princess is gracious enough to descend from her ivory tower and bestow the magic of her specialness to resolve whatever non-existent issue the so-called protesters are ecstatically protesting. It totally demeans the idea of solidarity.

3) Kendall is just about the most privileged person imaginable. The whole message of this ad is that privilege is so enchanting that it can beguile the masses into contented conformity. The outcome of her intervention is not that the protesters manage to change society, but that they submit to consumerism and gleefully abandon their protest, reverting to docile obedience to capitalism. Not very progressive.

4) The advertisement is outrageously bathetic. The jarring collision of registers between the renowned image of Ieshia Evans at the Baton Rouge BLM protest and a gigantic corporation shamelessly capitalising on a genuinely meaningful collective expression of suffering and rejection of their excluded status in order to accrue even more collosal profits from selling toxic sugar-water is just shockingly distasteful - even more so when you realise that the BLM image recalls this one from the Tiananmen Square massacre:

Pepsi wants to identify itself with righteous resistance of persecution, but without actually taking any action to justify the association. Pepsi doesn't work to liberate people of colour or combat state brutality in China - the idea of this last one makes me laugh - it just wants to slipstream these movements' credibility to gild its image and garner ever more bloated revenues.

@Ellie The distinction I'd make between the hippy ad you cited and this one is that the hippy movement was essentially optimistic - by crawling on that bandwagon a corporation would align itself with idealism and inclusivity. In this case, Pepsi is trying to link itself to a cause that has at its core a long history of racial agony, but neither offering a solution or even acknowleging that history at all.

 

[Leah.May]

I haven't concretised my ideas about this ad yet so might come back at some point with some more intelligent analysis, but for the moment:

1) I find this ad especially offensive because it is exploiting the imagery of revolt against oppression (ie associating itself with a positive social movement) while flagrantly erasing all and any aspects of that struggle that could potentially alienate their consumers. All the people in the ad are young and gorgeous, and they seem practically orgasmic with joy; they're not angry, they're not downtrodden, they're not confrontational; they're not threatening the status quo or the dominant elements of social hierarchy in any way. They don't even represent any identifiable group of disadvantaged people. And why are they even marching if they're so damn happy? They haven't even got a cause that Pepsi customers could potentially disagree with. It's brazenly, crassly bland and insipid.

2) The strength of civil rights activism is collectivity. In the ad the narrative is that one special, beautiful princess is gracious enough to descend from her ivory tower and bestow the magic of her specialness to resolve whatever non-existent issue the so-called protesters are ecstatically protesting. It totally demeans the idea of solidarity.

3) Kendall is just about the most privileged person imaginable. The whole message of this ad is that privilege is so enchanting that it can beguile the masses into contented conformity. The outcome of her intervention is not that the protesters manage to change society, but that they submit to consumerism and gleefully abandon their protest, reverting to docile obedience to capitalism. Not very progressive.

4) The advertisement is outrageously bathetic. The jarring collision of registers between the renowned image of Ieshia Evans at the Baton Rouge BLM protest and a gigantic corporation shamelessly capitalising on a genuinely meaningful collective expression of suffering and rejection of their excluded status in order to accrue even more collosal profits from selling toxic sugar-water is just shockingly distasteful - even more so when you realise that the BLM image recalls this one from the Tiananmen Square massacre:

Pepsi wants to identify itself with righteous resistance of persecution, but without actually taking any action to justify the association. Pepsi doesn't work to liberate people of colour or combat state brutality in China - the idea of this last one makes me laugh - it just wants to slipstream these movements' credibility to gild its image and garner ever more bloated revenues.

@Ellie The distinction I'd make between the hippy ad you cited and this one is that the hippy movement was essentially optimistic - by crawling on that bandwagon a corporation would align itself with idealism and inclusivity. In this case, Pepsi is trying to link itself to a cause that has at its core a long history of racial agony, but neither offering a solution or even acknowleging that history at all.

Exactly! What an excellent and sharp analysis

Yeah, and I'm also toying with the idea of whether it matters at all whether there's "true altruism" in their motivation if the end result is the same. If you're donating money to starving orphans, does it matter whether you really care about the orphans if they're still enjoying the benefits?

That's a very interesting question pertaining to all corporate charity. Within the current socioeconomic system, yes, I am sure it is better for orphans to get something rather than nothing. However, it is hardly charity – the company invested (usually very little) to buy into the problematic, to purchase the appearance of an ethical organisation. This is a very calculated investment out of which the company profits exorbitantly and the suffering only get scraps.

Simultaneously, charity is hindering actual social change, it acts as a band aid on a broken bone – it hides the wound a bit, but does little to fix the injury. Also, companies can choose which are the most profitable target populations to help (usually orphans, children with cancer, etc. --> as photogenic and heartwarming as possible). It neglects other groups in need of help that are not so glamorously unfortunate, such as homeless, junkies, mentally ill, etc., which is not the best model of social welfare.

These questions are always so difficult, the only thing I like about the Pepsi ad is that it is provoking discussions, and all you girls here are so smart and socially conscious

 

[Silent Night]

This is a very calculated investment out of which the company profits exorbitantly and the suffering only get scraps.

This is (pathetically) very true. In my work I often encounter the CSR policies of large companies. They will be something like sending the employees to cuddle orangutans or bringing fruit to a rural school. It's risible.

 

[Tinyportia]

@Ellie
But unless they want to sell the rest of their soda to the Ku Klux Klan, I don't really see why they would do this with a sensitive topic like the BLM movement?

(Just don't see the benefits of being talked about in this case, I guess.)

Unless Pepsi believe that "any publicity is good publicity"..?

 

[oferta]

Such thoughtful posts!

I have to ruin it but all I got out of it that - OF COURSE- she grabbed the original Pepsi.

That detail is the most genuine moment in the ad.

 

[sore]

 

[espressoenthusiast]

@Ellie
But unless they want to sell the rest of their soda to the Ku Klux Klan, I don't really see why they would do this with a sensitive topic like the BLM movement?

(Just don't see the benefits of being talked about in this case, I guess.)

well, there definitely is a stereotype of white trash loving soda? (maybe that was in poor taste..)

 

[Joana]

Whyy is this so bad?! I mean its obvious but it still suprises me
The eyebrow area looks awful
And jesus the quote "im more of a jenner than a kardashian'. sure

 

[Misstairs]

View attachment 15939
Whyy is this so bad?! I mean its obvious but it still suprises me
The eyebrow area looks awful
And jesus the quote "im more of a jenner than a kardashian'. sure

She really looks like an old woman here... Like if you're gonna put her on the cover, at least play with her angles a bit, she looks like she has as much face dimension as a pancake when facing forward

 

[Tinyportia]

She really looks like an old woman here... Like if you're gonna put her on the cover, at least play with her angles a bit, she looks like she has as much face dimension as a pancake when facing forward

She reminds me of a D-grade actress playing Jackie O in a made-for-TV daytime movie.

 

[Eternal Summer]

Whyy is this so bad?!

Personally, I dislike the old woman hairdo and the shape of the eyebrows. which, by the way, are not symmetrical AT ALL.

Later edit: I kind of mirror the above comments with mine, I guess wasn't paying enough attention to what was said. Sorry!

 

[bambii]

Probably an unpopular opinion but I liked the styling, besides the eyebrows. I think if the styling was on a real model with a great bone structure, it could be classy and stunning. The real problem is Ken-dull.