In one of the more notable public relations failures in recent memory, Pepsi attempted to piggyback off the various political protests that have been breaking out across the country—with disastrous results.
The ad — quickly pulled — features Kendall Jenner joining a group of protestors parading down a city street that is bordered by police. Blithely ignoring the no man’s land between the protestors and the police, she cracks open a Pepsi, saunters up to an officer and gives it to him. He drinks it, and everyone begins hugging and cheering: peace is restored, and sponsored by Pepsi.
The outrage was instantaneous — and justified. No matter your politics, implying that the world’s problems can be solved by a celebrity and a soft drink is insulting. Consumers from across the political spectrum took to social media to criticize the ad. Bernice King, Martin Luther King Jr.’s daughter, tweeted a photo of police shoving King with the caption: “If only Daddy would have known about the power of #pepsi.” The following Monday, The New Yorker’s daily cartoon featured General Mattis grumbling to an aide about the crisis in Syria: “Fifty million dollars in cruise missiles, when all we needed was a can of Pepsi.”
Working for an online petition platform, we see consumers push back against brands regularly. There is a clear lesson that brands across the spectrum keep missing: Think twice before weighing in on political controversy. Corporate America should have learned this back in the 1990’s when Bennetton foolishly chose to use a famous photo of a man dying of AIDS, surrounded by his heartbroken family, to advertise their retail clothing line. But they didn’t, and it’s even more risky to use these issues in advertising today. The growing political polarization makes it almost impossible to engage politically without alienating (at least) half of your customers. And the rise of the Internet and social media makes it easier than ever for consumers to talk back and band together in ways that can seriously damage a company’s reputation and revenue.
Even the appearance of weighing in on political issues can have a significant impact. When protestors went to John F. Kennedy airport to protest President Trump’s travel ban, a union of city taxi drivers decided to avoid picking up passengers from the airport. Uber made what looked like the opposite decision: They turned off the standard “surge prices” used during busy times while the protest was occurring. Customers saw this as an attempt to make money off of the protest, and the hashtag #deleteuber started trending on Twitter — a blow to a company that didn’t need it.
And activists are not just using social media to exert influence on brands. I see it all the time in my role with StandUnited. When Target permitted transgender individuals to use the bathroom and changing room best suited to their gender expression, the conservative backlash resulted in a 7 percent drop in sales after the American Family Association created a petition that asked consumers to boycott Target. After Macy’s threatened to pull Ivanka Trump clothing from its stores, we successfully petitioned Macy’s to continue selling her products. Unlike other petition platforms, we do not negatively petition businesses as a company, but you can be sure the activists that use our platform do.
In an age of presidential tweets, protest hashtags and online petitions, corporate America must take warning. Pepsi paid top dollar for that flashy ad with Kendall Jenner — because they listened to marketers, and not to consumers. Consumers talked back in a tidal wave of negative attention.
Taking a political stance can quickly turn into a public relations nightmare. Companies should avoid the controversy and continue doing what they do best: making, marketing and selling quality products that Americans — and indeed the entire world — can enjoy.
Angela Morabito is senior campaign organizer for StandUnited.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions.
