The Most Infamous/Controversial Ads of The Decade

As millennials and generation Z become more valuable target audiences amongst advertisers, advertisers have had to adjust their approach to these generations. According to research, one effective way of doing this is by highlighting corporate social responsibility. 

This term has also been coined as “woke capitalism”. This is when a company insincerely makes statements or uses social and civil rights issues in their advertisements to appeal to younger audiences. 

When done right, this can build a positive brand perception and long term company loyalty. When not consistent with the brand’s mission, previous actions, and statements, this is seen by many as a way to abuse the circumstances of pressing systematic issues in order to make a profit. Ultimately, the brand will be accused of virtue signaling. 

Below are three examples of a brand's attempts to be seen as socially conscious, but failing to do so. 

Kendall Jenner Pepsi Ad (2017) 

Beginning with the infamous Kendall Jenner Pepsi Ad. The video commercial depicts a protest, which led many to believe, given the time period, to be representative of a Black Lives Matter march. Our star of the commercial, Kendall, is modeling in a cafe across the street. She sees the peaceful protest, and decides to jump in. Seeing a cooler filled to the brim with Pepsi, she picks one out and hands it to an officer dressed in riot gear. After taking a sip, the protestors and police rally together, and Kendall effectively “solves racism.” 

While Pepsi claimed to have the intention of promoting unity, they admitted to having “missed the mark” in an apology issued on Twitter. 

Pepsi is a global product, and typically targets younger age groups with their advertisements, specifically millennials. However, this campaign actually hurt their company perception and brand image with this age group, with the effects lasting throughout the year of 2017. 

However, in 2020, in the wake of news following the death of George Floyd, Pepsi donated an upwards of $400 million towards various initiatives in an attempt to empower black communities and businesses. This shows an effort from the brand to take actions that reflect the company’s mission.

Burger King UK: “Women belong in the kitchen” (2021)

Another example of brands appearing tone deaf when commenting on social issues is Burger King’s string of tweets posted on International Women’s Day. The first tweet was intentionally misleading, and head turning for many. The second tweet seeked to highlight the lack of women in the culinary field, and the issues associated with that. However, this attempted joke by the Burger King team was not well received by the public, and many felt that the original controversial tweet did more damage to the subject they attempted to shed light on. 

This thread’s original incentive was to announce the foundation’s new culinary scholarship program, H.E.R. (Helping Equalize Restaurants). However, the company’s efforts were quickly overshadowed by the controversy, and an apology was issued. 

A Forbes article breaks down the possible motives for the thread, arguing that this move would generate a large public audience for something that would not typically get wide-spread attention: “The more inflammatory the tweet, especially on a day like this one, the more noticeability.”

“Brand Twitter” is typically a space where companies can also appeal to and engage with younger audiences. This has allowed for companies to take a more flexible, humorous, and provocative approach to boosting sales and engagement. Many of these accounts have become self-aware and have somewhat even personified themselves, Burger King being a prime example of this concept. In fact, the company was named a Finalist at the 8th Annual Shorty Awards for their Twitter engagement. However, we can also see where this provocative humor can backfire when attempting to combine it with serious social issues. 

Gillette: “The Best Men Can Be”

This advertising campaign by Gillette sparked more controversy than it did backlash. The nearly two-minute-long advertisement critiques toxic masculinity and expresses the brand’s alignment with the #metoo movement. Although this commercial was well received by many, it was still subject to controversy and criticism from consumers across the board. 

Many scathing articles and commenters felt as though Gillette had alienated their base audience, as they held a whopping 50% of the market share on razors. Although this ad did tarnish public perception among older men, there is still justifiable reasoning in the move. 

Though a 50% market share is a great place to be, this number has declined significantly in recent years, dropping from 70% in just the last decade. By risking perception with the brand’s older audiences, they sought to secure brand loyalty amongst the millennial generation. 

Another target demographic Gillette may have seeked to tap into, which also became another source of criticism, was young women. By speaking against the #metoo movement, this positioned themselves favorably with women across the country, which was convenient for the company’s women’s razor line, Venus. However, this was also seen by many as insincere, as many women felt the commercial did not align with the company’s behavior, citing the ‘pink tax’ as a primary example. The ‘pink tax’ is a term for a marketing strategy used by many hygiene and self care brands, where products that are typically marketed towards and consumed by women are marked at a significantly higher price than their male counterparts. 

With Gen Z and Millennials becoming the primary consumers in America, it is becoming increasingly important for brands to take a stance on social and political issues. 

Many brands have created inspiring advertisements that promote unity and equality. One example of this strategy hitting the mark was LinkedIn’s “In it Together” campaign. LinkedIn attempts to distance themselves from the stereotype that the platform is solely for the white-collar, and welcomes those from different backgrounds and different lifestyles to use the service. 

Nonetheless, this seems to be a strategy that will be here to stay. It is important for us as advertisers to understand these complex social issues and the appropriate way to convey the attitudes of the brands we represent.