In 2017, Pepsi aired a commercial in which the American model Kendall Jenner breaks away from a fashion shoot to join a protest rally. She is then shown trying to defuse the tension between the protesters and the police. She does this by handing a Pepsi can to a cop. When he takes a sip, everyone suddenly begins to cheer, applaud and hug each other. 

Most people who saw the commercial cringed. But there were also those who lamented that Pepsi had trivialised protests against racism and police brutality in a bid to identify with the social and political aspersions of young people. The commercial was immediately pulled after facing severe criticism and ridicule on social media 

I believe Pepsi was aiming to replicate what its competitor Coca Cola had produced in 1971. In February of that year, Coke aired a commercial in which people from different races and ethnicities are gathered on a hilltop. They are singing that they would like to give the people love, peace and harmony by “buying the world a Coke.”

As the finale of the TV series Mad Men (2007-2015) suggested, the 1971 Coke commercial was inspired by the ‘spiritual’ communes that had become a ‘countercultural’ norm from the late 1960s. They mostly consisted of young people searching for spirituality and the experience of communal living. 

Consumer brands often try to capitalise on the prevailing zeitgeist to try and remain relevant in the minds of their target audience. However, in the absence of a political and sociological understanding, these attempts can come across as ill-conceived and out-of-touch

However, by 1971, the ‘counterculture’ movements of the 1960s had begun to look inwards, after their outward expressions of political and social change collapsed, triggering disillusionment. So communes sprang up, which now looked to improve one’s ‘inner self.’ Inner peace, it was believed, was more likely to produce external peace — or something of the sort. 

The Coke commercial was well-received by young people. It became ‘iconic.’ The timing was just right. Had the same commercial appeared in, say, 1968, it would have been roundly lambasted by the counterculture, which was peaking at the time and most of its actions were external and robust in nature. Therefore, Coke’s reading of the slight cultural shift was spot-on. 

In 2017, Pepsi and its advertising agency were criticised for being run by ‘tone deaf’ people. This tone-deafness is mostly about having rather narrow ideas about ‘youth’, based on research conducted by ‘researchers’ who greatly lack the ability to understand young people from a more sociological or, for that matter, political angle. For brands, this is becoming an increasingly important need, due to the heated political and economic situation in most countries. 

In 2023, a brand of nicotine pouches invested millions of rupees in Pakistan on a second season of a music show. But the season just couldn’t garner any significant traction, like the first season had. It was not that the content was below par, the timing was all wrong.

Had the brand’s marketing people been a tad more socially and politically attuned, they could have determined that digital and mainstream media spaces in 2023 were bound to be dominated by the tussle between the ousted prime minister Imran Khan, the state and the government. There was just no space left for the show, even among the youth, who too were largely engaged with content linked to the tussle.

It is quite apparent that most brands have no clue how to become part of the discourses that are being formed by the troubled state of the economy and politics. As mentioned, Pepsi’s 2017 bid in this respect bombed. The brand could not see that a whole new generation was emerging (Generation Z). But to Pepsi, ‘youth’ still meant ‘millennials’. A more sociological take could have aided Pepsi to detect the shift and come up with a more convincing way to place itself in a discourse. 

In 2021, a brand produced digital content and used the words “Absolutely Not.” These words were uttered by Khan after he was asked by an interviewer whether he would allow US bases in Pakistan. These words were turned into an ‘iconic’ utterance by his supporters. On the surface, the move by the brand to use the words seemed clever. But since Khan is a highly polarising personality, the comments section of the social media site that the content was posted on turned into an ugly battlefield. 

So, whereas the brand did manage to place itself in a heated discourse, it clearly took a side. Soon, those opposed to Khan were cursing the brand more than they were Khan. Therefore, more than clever, it was an impulsive ploy, based on a narrow assumption that a majority of people were on Khan’s side. A little more informed thinking would have made the brand realise that society was hugely polarised and brands trying to find consumers from all sides should not take a particular side. 

Then there is Palestine. Certain major brands are being perceived as ‘pro-Israel’. They are facing boycotts. One such brand is Coke. At the beginning of the brutal Israeli attacks against unarmed Palestinians, Coke went under the radar. It stopped advertising, waiting for things to cool down.

But this is no ordinary issue. It has gone on for months, impacting the sales of the boycotted brands. In Pakistan, Coke tried to quietly crawl back to the surface because not being visible on any kind of media can be detrimental for a brand. But then suddenly, from a quiet crawl, Coke jumped up with the new season of Coke Studio. And bang, it was attacked viciously from multiple fronts. Exactly what strategy drove Coke to show people singing, rapping and hip-hopping when dreadful images from Gaza were still circulating on social media? 

It was likely a move born from desperation because, unlike issues that have targeted brands in the past but then withered away, this one seems to be stuck. The desperation is clearly visible in a Coke commercial recently produced in Bangladesh. The commercial tries to establish that Coke wasn’t ‘pro-Israel’ because it has a factory in Palestine. Obviously, this cringe-fest did not go down well with most Bangladeshis, and the commercial was quickly pulled. 

In times of political and economic turmoil, brands are struggling to stay relevant. Inflation has compounded this problem and further intensified political and social discourses.  Brands mostly treat this as the figurative elephant in the room that they don’t want to talk about. Or when they do decide to see the elephant, they tackle it in the clumsiest manner. 

It is thus a good idea now for companies to provide their marketing teams with crash courses in basic sociology and even in political science. Otherwise, they’ll keep tripping over their own feet.

Published in Dawn, EOS, July 14th, 2024