Home » Forums

[MSE Lawrence]

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.

Read Martin's "Steal Pepsi Max: promoting theft of their own product" Blog.

Click reply to discuss below.

[Errata]

Wasn't a precedent set by Walker's crisps and Gary Linekar ?

[Flickering Ember]

Very true, Errata.

I see your point, Martin, but I respectfully disagree. I also think that anyone getting caught stealing Pepsi and trying to use the advert as an excuse would get short shrift. Nobody in their right mind would really think it's ok to steal; after all the point of an advert is to increase SALES volumes. *goes white as I realise where I work Pepsi is one of our sponsors*

[Tibbs,The Freebie Hunter]

Since there is no legislation regarding interpretation, this is really a good topic to discuss.

Do we blame all the ills and evils on our society as being promoted by the likes of video games, such as Grand Theft Auto? I have had my car broken into, hot-wired, used and abused for a ‘joy’-ride. Not so much joy for me when I had to fork out my hard earned cash to cover my insurance excess. I have seen kids wear balaclavas, swear, smoke, vandalise property, and think they’re cool. Some kids do, some kids don’t, and probably did before the introduction of any computer game, but it must be learned from somewhere – but where? I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s intrinsic – nature vs. nuture (another debate for another discussion, or somehow tied with this? Who knows?)

Equally, can we really ask if the Pepsi Max advert promotes the idea of theft as a bit of fun? Surely there is no room in a civilised society for acquiring goods by deception (at least without offering some form of paper transaction, e.g. voucher/money that guarantees some kind of payment in exchange for the goods). Or are we to view the advert somewhat as follow-on from the childhood jokes, where the art of distraction is employed by using one child as a decoy in order for the other children to steal sweets from a shopkeeper? Peer pressure is never a good thing, but for some, it might avoid them being bullied, and provide an acceptance into a group, but at what cost to society? If the shopkeeper turns a blind eye, will he eventually lose his business, or does he have to increase the price that means other people have to end up paying for someone’s idea of fun? Then it could be argued what profit the shopkeeper was making out of selling the goods after s/he purchased them at wholesale prices, then marked up for retail – doubled the money or more, perhaps. Then there’s the consideration of his/her overheads, and shrinkage, etc. It all goes in a cycle. A bit like the wheels of life.

There are several Pepsi Max adverts that promote the idea of boyish pranks. I don’t recall a case where kids took one of their chums and left them stranded on building scaffolding with only magnetic attachments to their limbs. This would be absurd.

However, Martin is possibly correct in his concern in that all the other adverts showed some kind of surrealism along with the stupidity, whereas this advert shows a very real-life situation – watching a cricket match.

I remember the time when Texas Chainsaw Massacre was banned. I have since watched this movie, and not wanted to place any bodies in the freezer or wield a chainsaw. On the other hand, some people might be affected in other ways. Was the ban to do with nightmares or fear of copy cats?

Everyone sees these adverts. There are no ratings/exclusions applied – unlike age ratings on films. Particularly worrying is young, impressionable minds. Are, as Martin asked, Pepsi advocating the principle that theft is cool? Or do we have a savvy marketing team, who get people discussing the moral codes and implications of their adverts, and the messages that some people might interpret from them. Remember, we didn’t see them taking the Pepsi. Someone else might have passed it to them – unlikely, but what I’m really trying to say is that it is left for us to interpret that they stole them. Yes, the Pepsi Max can was in their possession, but the act of how they acquired or found a product just lying there wasn’t shown – suggestions of finders keepers, perhaps. The cool box was in a cricket ground with no price tag – and no possibility of sale/income. Wasn’t the price of the drink covered in the hefty price tag placed in getting into these games, where these guys might have been paying excessive fees for eons? On the other hand, did they steal from the cricket players (who the cans were presumably destined for)? You decide.

As I said, initially until there is legislation governing interpretation (which would in itself be a scary thought), then increasingly these adverts will continue to cause moral debates on what is right and wrong to show on primetime TV.

We will find out if there are complaints about the advert, or if people are on the likes of GMTV saying that someone stole their Pepsi Max right from under their nose? Perhaps complaints to Pepsi, and them having to issue vouchers for replacements due to the ad, then perhaps they would be concerned, but is this really likely to happen??? Interpret this as you may.

I haven’t said what I think personally, but merely discussed different takes on the same situation.

There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so. This statement could be applicable for some things, but not for others. Debates are endless, and I do love being presented with moral conundrums.

The very fact that the advert is being discussed means the marketing team are doing there jobs for Pepsi, but at which cost for society. A bit of fun, or ruthless marketing?

Thou shall not steal – but if Pepsi say its okay, then it must be – or does it purely boil down to individual interpretation?

[oneeye1]

yes you are

[Errata]

The comedy character Billy Bunter appeared in a comic strip in The Magnet comic from 1908 - 101 years ago. He was also written about in books about his boarding school which in turn became a comedy series on television.

He's allowed very little pocket money by his father, so is perpetually attempting to raise a loan on the strength of the legendary postal order he claims to be expecting. He began expecting that Postal Order in 1908, and was still awaiting its arrival in the final published novel in 1967! Due to his insatiable appetite, his life at Greyfriars is taken up with devising ways of pilfering food

[Retired and smiling]

Have to agree with you, Martin. It is promoting stealing. I've thought of contacting Advertising Standards Authority. Never complained before but the scenario of being at a cricket match is so close to what will happen this summer that I can just imagine a group of people (lads perhaps?) using distraction tricks to steal someone's drink/picnic! Let's keep up standards please.

[Sami_Bee]

I actually don't think they really stole the pepsi because at the very end of the ad the security guy joins them in drinking a can and they're all sat together, I got the impression that the lads were friends of the security guy.
Also Its not like they showed an ad where someone was stealing from a shop which would undoubtedly in my mind be wrong.

[robin58]

Originally Posted by Retired and smiling

Have to agree with you, Martin. It is promoting stealing. I've thought of contacting Advertising Standards Authority. Never complained before but the scenario of being at a cricket match is so close to what will happen this summer that I can just imagine a group of people (lads perhaps?) using distraction tricks to steal someone's drink/picnic! Let's keep up standards please.

Why contact the Advertising Standard? I was brought up not to steal things. I can take the ad for the joke it's supposed to be.

[corniceman]

Originally Posted by Tibbs,The Freebie Hunter

Since there is no legislation regarding interpretation, this is really a good topic to discuss.

Do we blame all the ills and evils on our society as being promoted by the likes of video games, such as Grand Theft Auto? I have had my car broken into, hot-wired, used and abused for a ‘joy’-ride. Not so much joy for me when I had to fork out my hard earned cash to cover my insurance excess. I have seen kids wear balaclavas, swear, smoke, vandalise property, and think they’re cool. Some kids do, some kids don’t, and probably did before the introduction of any computer game, but it must be learned from somewhere – but where? I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s intrinsic – nature vs. nuture (another debate for another discussion, or somehow tied with this? Who knows?)

Equally, can we really ask if the Pepsi Max advert promotes the idea of theft as a bit of fun? Surely there is no room in a civilised society for acquiring goods by deception (at least without offering some form of paper transaction, e.g. voucher/money that guarantees some kind of payment in exchange for the goods). Or are we to view the advert somewhat as follow-on from the childhood jokes, where the art of distraction is employed by using one child as a decoy in order for the other children to steal sweets from a shopkeeper? Peer pressure is never a good thing, but for some, it might avoid them being bullied, and provide an acceptance into a group, but at what cost to society? If the shopkeeper turns a blind eye, will he eventually lose his business, or does he have to increase the price that means other people have to end up paying for someone’s idea of fun? Then it could be argued what profit the shopkeeper was making out of selling the goods after s/he purchased them at wholesale prices, then marked up for retail – doubled the money or more, perhaps. Then there’s the consideration of his/her overheads, and shrinkage, etc. It all goes in a cycle. A bit like the wheels of life.

There are several Pepsi Max adverts that promote the idea of boyish pranks. I don’t recall a case where kids took one of their chums and left them stranded on building scaffolding with only magnetic attachments to their limbs. This would be absurd.

However, Martin is possibly correct in his concern in that all the other adverts showed some kind of surrealism along with the stupidity, whereas this advert shows a very real-life situation – watching a cricket match.

I remember the time when Texas Chainsaw Massacre was banned. I have since watched this movie, and not wanted to place any bodies in the freezer or wield a chainsaw. On the other hand, some people might be affected in other ways. Was the ban to do with nightmares or fear of copy cats?

Everyone sees these adverts. There are no ratings/exclusions applied – unlike age ratings on films. Particularly worrying is young, impressionable minds. Are, as Martin asked, Pepsi advocating the principle that theft is cool? Or do we have a savvy marketing team, who get people discussing the moral codes and implications of their adverts, and the messages that some people might interpret from them. Remember, we didn’t see them taking the Pepsi. Someone else might have passed it to them – unlikely, but what I’m really trying to say is that it is left for us to interpret that they stole them. Yes, the Pepsi Max can was in their possession, but the act of how they acquired or found a product just lying there wasn’t shown – suggestions of finders keepers, perhaps. The cool box was in a cricket ground with no price tag – and no possibility of sale/income. Wasn’t the price of the drink covered in the hefty price tag placed in getting into these games, where these guys might have been paying excessive fees for eons? On the other hand, did they steal from the cricket players (who the cans were presumably destined for)? You decide.

As I said, initially until there is legislation governing interpretation (which would in itself be a scary thought), then increasingly these adverts will continue to cause moral debates on what is right and wrong to show on primetime TV.

We will find out if there are complaints about the advert, or if people are on the likes of GMTV saying that someone stole their Pepsi Max right from under their nose? Perhaps complaints to Pepsi, and them having to issue vouchers for replacements due to the ad, then perhaps they would be concerned, but is this really likely to happen??? Interpret this as you may.

I haven’t said what I think personally, but merely discussed different takes on the same situation.

There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so. This statement could be applicable for some things, but not for others. Debates are endless, and I do love being presented with moral conundrums.

The very fact that the advert is being discussed means the marketing team are doing there jobs for Pepsi, but at which cost for society. A bit of fun, or ruthless marketing?

Thou shall not steal – but if Pepsi say its okay, then it must be – or does it purely boil down to individual interpretation?

Is everyone missing the obvious here......the girly disguise would cost more than a dozen cans of coke,its just a bit of fun.

[Tibbs,The Freebie Hunter]

"Is everyone missing the obvious here..."

LOL

[Tojo Ralph]

Originally Posted by Tibbs,The Freebie Hunter

"Is everyone missing the obvious here..."

You mean that it was a slow news day when Martin wrote his blog?

[babs605]

I watched the Pepsi Max ad and my immediate reaction was the same as Martin - what a bad example to society - stealing drinks from someone's cool box while their backs are turned.
I have just read the replies here and still think the ad is wrong in condoning stealing even if it is seen as a clever joke.
I agree that if you have been taught not to steal watching this ad will not make you become a thief.
But what if you have NOT been taught that stealing is wrong? What if you hang around in a gang and like to amuse the gang?
The majority of people writing on this website are (I imagine) thoughtful, sensible people who would not choose to emulate the behaviour demonstrated in the ad but can appreciate the cleverness and humour of it.
Unfortunately the majority of the people watching the ad are (I imagine) not so thoughtful or sensible and might very well emulate the behaviour demonstrated in order to seek the approval and laughter of their peers.
(I am also pretty sure the same people would not even dream of comparing the value of the Pepsi against the cost of a female outfit - only a money saving expert would think to do that!!)

[JDPower]

Am I just having a sense of humour failure…

Yup

[janlaine]

The ad. is wrong. It is condoning the idea that stealing small stuff is just a bit of fun.

[Tojo Ralph]

Anyone who objects to the Pepsi Max advert really wants to give themselves a shake.

If they object to the Pepsi Max advert, Lord knows what they think of this classic Irn Bru advert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdDhW9Lwepc

[JDPower]

Originally Posted by Tojo Ralph

If they object to the Pepsi Max advert, Lord knows what they think of this classic Irn Bru advert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdDhW9Lwepc

Ah but those people suffering from the increasingly common combination of conditions known as SOHF (Sense Of Humour Failure) and NBTDBWACUI (Nothing Better To Do But Whinge About Completely Unimportant Issues) would no doubt claim that advert is fine as the old lady was apprehended by the police and no doubt learnt the error of her ways. Therefore is an aspirational advert setting a fabulous example to any elderly people considering ram raiding shops in mobility scooters for free Irn Bru

[Eco Miser]

Originally Posted by Errata

The comedy character Billy Bunter appeared in a comic strip in The Magnet comic from 1908 - 101 years ago. Due to his insatiable appetite, his life at Greyfriars is taken up with devising ways of pilfering food

He was regularly punished by the schoolmaster, and beaten-up by his fellow pupils - leaving the reader in no doubt that pilfering food (and lying about it) is unacceptable behaviour.

[aah]

Pepsi and Max are the names of my two favourite ponies.....

[Tojo Ralph]

.....
Has anyone seen the new Irn Bru advert promoting vandalising their own drinks machines?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ocaypgRHM