Case Study Of Pepsi's Advertisement
Pepsi’s 2017 Advertisement featuring Kendall Jenner.
In April of this year, 2017, Pepsi released a TV AD featuring Kendall Jenner. The AD was initially made to promote the drink & peace unity among people. Unfortunately, it portrayed the opposite. Pepsi received huge backlash, with viewers saying that they borrowed imagery from the “Black lives Matter” movement. The most iconic part of the AD shows Kendall Jenner offering a can of Pepsi to an officer that is against the protest they are staging and the office accepts is. ( Victor, 2017)
Pepsi certainly had a PR crisis on their hands. Pepsi soon took to social media and the press to explain and resolve the matter. They pulled the AD within 24 hours and issued a public apology to the people …show more content…
NARS have always branded themselves as a cruelty free brand but failed to inform customers that animal testing is being carried out on their brand since they have branched into China. A lot of customers took to social media to complain and say that they were not informed that the brand now has to animal test for law purposes in China. NARS then took to social media to explain that they too also want a ban on animal testing but feel that their brand was hugely requested in China, hence why they brought it there and that they have to comply with their laws. But if they are supporters of banning animal testing, why branch into a country where they have to test? Why not pull out of that country? This is where people are very unhappy and feel like NARS are not fully answering their questions, by still saying that they are a cruelty free brand but yet test on animals where the law states they must. (Casey, …show more content…
They should have come clean about branching into China and should have told their customers that they will, because of law purposes, be testing on animal in China and are now not a 100% cruelty free brand. Transparency is key in PR and NARS do not show this well. They did discuss and address the matter but not in detail and they still haven’t fully admitted to not being a cruelty free brand anymore. NARS have currently damaged their name as a brand and it will take a long time to rebuild it. Most people nowadays purposely buy and support brands that have good ethics and are cruelty free, and it takes a lot as a brand to build up your name as a cruelly free brand, and after this NARS could have damaged the loyalty of their customers. Because of the huge loss of business NARS should have seen this crisis coming and had steps in place to resolve it, or not of branched into China in the first place, its evident NARS were thinking of the money china could bring in and forgot about what the brand means to their loyal
In April of this year, 2017, Pepsi released a TV AD featuring Kendall Jenner. The AD was initially made to promote the drink & peace unity among people. Unfortunately, it portrayed the opposite. Pepsi received huge backlash, with viewers saying that they borrowed imagery from the “Black lives Matter” movement. The most iconic part of the AD shows Kendall Jenner offering a can of Pepsi to an officer that is against the protest they are staging and the office accepts is. ( Victor, 2017)
Pepsi certainly had a PR crisis on their hands. Pepsi soon took to social media and the press to explain and resolve the matter. They pulled the AD within 24 hours and issued a public apology to the people …show more content…
NARS have always branded themselves as a cruelty free brand but failed to inform customers that animal testing is being carried out on their brand since they have branched into China. A lot of customers took to social media to complain and say that they were not informed that the brand now has to animal test for law purposes in China. NARS then took to social media to explain that they too also want a ban on animal testing but feel that their brand was hugely requested in China, hence why they brought it there and that they have to comply with their laws. But if they are supporters of banning animal testing, why branch into a country where they have to test? Why not pull out of that country? This is where people are very unhappy and feel like NARS are not fully answering their questions, by still saying that they are a cruelty free brand but yet test on animals where the law states they must. (Casey, …show more content…
They should have come clean about branching into China and should have told their customers that they will, because of law purposes, be testing on animal in China and are now not a 100% cruelty free brand. Transparency is key in PR and NARS do not show this well. They did discuss and address the matter but not in detail and they still haven’t fully admitted to not being a cruelty free brand anymore. NARS have currently damaged their name as a brand and it will take a long time to rebuild it. Most people nowadays purposely buy and support brands that have good ethics and are cruelty free, and it takes a lot as a brand to build up your name as a cruelly free brand, and after this NARS could have damaged the loyalty of their customers. Because of the huge loss of business NARS should have seen this crisis coming and had steps in place to resolve it, or not of branched into China in the first place, its evident NARS were thinking of the money china could bring in and forgot about what the brand means to their loyal