'Steal Pepsi Max: promoting theft of their own product' blog discussion

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.
Click reply to discuss below.
«13

Replies

  • ErrataErrata Forumite
    38.2K Posts
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Wasn't a precedent set by Walker's crisps and Gary Linekar ?
    .................:)....I'm smiling because I have no idea what's going on ...:)
  • ThinkingOfLinkingThinkingOfLinking Forumite
    11.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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_HunterTibbs,The_Freebie_Hunter Forumite
    789 Posts
    500 Posts
    ✭✭✭
    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?
    Invented tradition: Couponology

    Fancy title: Couponologist

    Motto: Because I have conviction doesn't mean I'm a convict :D.
  • oneeye1oneeye1 Forumite
    231 Posts
    yes you are
  • ErrataErrata Forumite
    38.2K Posts
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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
    .................:)....I'm smiling because I have no idea what's going on ...:)
  • 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_BeeSami_Bee Forumite
    14.6K Posts
    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.
    The very best is sometimes what nature gives us for free.
    3onitsway wrote: »
    I think Sami is right, as always!
  • robin58robin58 Forumite
    2.8K Posts
    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.
    The more I live, the more I learn.
    The more I learn, the more I grow.
    The more I grow, the more I see.
    The more I see, the more I know.
    The more I know, the more I see,
    How little I know.!! ;)
  • 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_HunterTibbs,The_Freebie_Hunter Forumite
    789 Posts
    500 Posts
    ✭✭✭
    "Is everyone missing the obvious here..."

    LOL:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
    Invented tradition: Couponology

    Fancy title: Couponologist

    Motto: Because I have conviction doesn't mean I'm a convict :D.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

54 ways to ‘DIY it’

According to the MSE Forum

MSE Team Blog

£10 Christmas bonus

For benefits recipients

MSE News

Lidl '£10 off £40 spend' voucher

Via Metro or Daily Mail. Excludes NI

MSE Deals