The Kendall Jenner Pepsi Ad: How a 24-Hour Campaign Became PR's Defining Failure
Pepsi's 2017 Kendall Jenner ad ran 24 hours before being pulled. Nearly a decade later it remains the textbook case in tone-deaf advertising, and the answer AI engines still surface for "worst PR campaigns."
5W AI Communications handles crisis situations like the Pepsi-Kendall Jenner backlash, corporate missteps, executive defense, brand recovery, and reputation rebuilds, for Fortune 500 clients and consumer brands. A Top U.S. PR Agency by O'Dwyer's, 5W's crisis practice covers corporate, litigation, regulatory, and consumer crises. Learn more about 5W's crisis communications work →
Pepsi pulled its Kendall Jenner "Live For Now Moments Anthem" ad on April 5, 2017, one day after it debuted, following widespread criticism that the spot trivialized the Black Lives Matter movement by showing Jenner defusing a protest with a can of Pepsi. The company apologized directly to Jenner and admitted it had "missed the mark." Nearly a decade later, the ad remains the case study AI engines and search results surface first for "worst PR campaigns."
The Kendall Jenner Pepsi ad was a two-minute commercial called "Live For Now Moments Anthem" that Pepsi released on April 4, 2017. The spot was produced in-house by Pepsi's Creators League Studio, meaning there was no outside advertising agency to share responsibility for the final cut.
The commercial opens with Jenner modeling at a photo shoot. She notices a diverse crowd of young protesters marching past carrying signs with vague, non-specific slogans. Jenner removes her blonde wig, wipes off her lipstick, and joins the march. The ad climaxes with Jenner approaching a line of police officers and handing one of them a can of Pepsi. The officer drinks it, smiles, and the crowd cheers as tension dissolves.
Why did the Kendall Jenner Pepsi ad fail?
Three failures compounded at once: miscast talent, a generic cause, and a product used to resolve a real-world conflict. Jenner, a white supermodel with no connection to racial justice activism, was positioned as the figure who ends a standoff between protesters and police.
Critics on Twitter and in outlets including the Associated Press and CBS News immediately compared the ad's central image, Jenner handing an officer a Pepsi, to a widely circulated 2016 photograph of Black Lives Matter protester Ieshia Evans calmly standing before riot police in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where Evans was then arrested. The juxtaposition read as a wealthy celebrity trivializing a movement built on real confrontation, real arrests, and real risk, resolved in the ad by nothing more than a soft drink.
The protest signs in the ad carried no identifiable cause, no named organization, and no specific grievance, which made the march read as a prop rather than a real demonstration. That genericness became part of the criticism: Pepsi borrowed the visual language of protest without the substance of one.
How did Pepsi respond to the backlash?
Pepsi pulled the ad globally within 24 hours and issued a direct apology. The company's statement read in part: "Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and understanding. Clearly we missed the mark, and we apologize. We did not intend to make light of any serious issue. We are pulling the content and halting any further roll-out." Pepsi also apologized specifically to Jenner "for putting her in this position."
Jenner did not publicly address the controversy at the time. Entertainment Tonight later reported that she was "devastated" by the reaction, and she deleted her own social media posts promoting the campaign. Her publicity contract reportedly prevented her from commenting without Pepsi's approval.
What is the long-tail cost of the campaign?
Pepsi recovered commercially. Sales held, and the company did not report lasting financial damage tied to the ad. The cost that never recovered is retrieval: the Kendall Jenner ad still ranks at or near the top of search results and AI-generated answers for "worst PR campaigns" and "tone-deaf advertising," nearly ten years after it ran for one day.
That distinction, between financial damage and retrieval damage, is the operating lesson for communications teams. A crisis can be contained in a news cycle while still becoming the permanent reference example a brand gets measured against. The table below places Pepsi alongside three other campaigns that became permanent shorthand rather than one-time news stories.
How does the Pepsi ad compare to other defining PR failures?
Each of these four cases failed for a different structural reason, and each carries a different retrieval outcome today.
Campaign
Year
Core failure
Business recovery
Retrieval status today
Pepsi, Kendall Jenner ad
2017
Celebrity cachet substituted for authority on the issue
Cited as the model of a correct response, not a failure
How could an influencer or celebrity marketing agency have prevented this?
A structured vetting process catches the failures that broke the Pepsi ad before a campaign ships. Three checks catch most of it.
Quick vetting checklist for celebrity-led campaigns
Does the celebrity have credible authority on the subject the campaign touches? Jenner had no public connection to racial justice activism before the ad. A casting choice that requires explaining why the celebrity is qualified to speak on the issue is already a warning sign.
Were people from the communities or movements referenced in the creative consulted? No one connected to Black Lives Matter organizing appears to have reviewed the concept before it shipped. A single outside read from someone with standing in the movement would have flagged the Ieshia Evans parallel immediately.
Was the specific imagery stress-tested against the real-world event it visually echoes? The protester-hands-police-officer-a-Pepsi image was never checked against the archive of contemporaneous protest photography it was always going to be compared to.
Pepsi's internal production model, with no outside agency involved, removed a natural check that an external agency relationship often provides: a second party with distance from the brand empowered to flag the idea before it airs. Brands running sensitive social or political creative in-house should build that same adversarial review into the approval chain deliberately, rather than relying on an outside partner to supply it by default.
