Rhetorical analysis of Pepsi-live

Rhetorical analysis of Pepsi-live for now 2017. The commercial took place on the 4th of April 2018 and was released alongside the reality TV star and supermodel Kendall Jenner. It starts with a Pepsi can being opened, then a pan camera from the back and front between a group of people protesting and Kendall Jenner (Dozé,2018).

The march consists of individuals of diverse colors, sex, and age demonstrating for peace. Just like daily protests, the police arrive at the scene to stop it.

Kendall Jenner is in the middle of a photo shoot when the camera pans over. However, she ignores the protest until she is invited by someone to join the protest.

When she joins, she takes a Pepsi can and hands it over to a police officer, which ends the necessity for protesting since the union is achieved when the police accept the Pepsi can and takes a sip. However, after the release of this commercial, there was a revolt on social media as many questioned the purpose of the commercial.

Comment by Lee Ware: 2017 Comment by Lee Ware: This is a good summary of the commercial, but not really an introduction for an essay and there is no thesis statement.

The commercial was a way for Pepsi to promote their product, but then there were certain things that did not seem comprehensive, for example, why would they choose to market their product using the current social issues and why Kendall Jenner and what made them contemplate that a can of Pepsi could have established peace would bring peace.

Kendall Jenner is an influential celebrity, and using her in their market would popularize their product more. Pepsi’s use of persuasive pathos in connecting with their targeted viewers was effective; however, their persuasive ethos was made through Pepsi and Kendall Jenner because it made the commercial unsuccessful at the close.

Pepsi used the protestors as an emotional appeal to their viewers because it related to everyday happenings in society due to the fight between the government and its citizen as it sparks similarity between the Black Lives Matter and the people in the commercial are the same as the ones that protest in real life.

And thus, relating the commercial to everyday relevant issues in society made it effective because it showed that Pepsi understood what its audience was facing. Another successful emotional appeal was the background music intended to persuade the audience to act.

Comment by Lee Ware: Ok, this paragraph is expressing a lot of ideas: It starts with product promotion, then into pathos, ethos, then pathos again. I think this would be much clearer and stronger to break it up and focus on each element with more depth.

Also, I question that Pepsi understood what its audience is facing – I’d love to see more of your explanation there. Another strategy here would be to define the audience. You mention audience a few times, but haven’t said who the target audience is.

However, Kendall’s influence wasn’t effective because of Jenner’s background; her family is known to be very controversial, and the public could not overlook the image of Kardashian-Jenner when watching the commercial.

I thought does Kendall know about fighting for her rights? She has had a soft life since childhood, so she doesn’t face the everyday issues and hardships that any ordinary woman in the U.S. goes through. Another failure of the persuasive ethos was while the march was protesting, Kendall was seen doing a photo shoot.

This shows how she is out of touch with the ordinary people, and before she enters the march, she takes off her wig and heavy lipstick to fit in with the others in the protest. Her ethos formed confusion in the commercial’s purpose that added to the reaction it received. Even the starting of the commercial, the opening of a Pepsi can, and the Pepsi logo, which has an explicit shade of blue, make it effortlessly recognizable.

Comment by Lee Ware: Why are the controversial? Comment by Lee Ware: Good analysis.

All in all, the Pepsi commercial began off successfully since the advertisers did an excellent job creating a connection with their audience through their peaceful protest and the unity between the police and the protesters.

However, using Kendall Jenner to promote it was not a good idea; they should have considered someone who advocates for people’s rights; it brought unbalance between the ethos of Pepsi and that of Kendall Jenner. Pepsi might have used the protest as their persuasive pathos without using ethos in the commercial; it might have been much more effective. Comment by Lee Ware: I think this needs more explanation.

References

Dozé, M. (2018). Kendall Jenner and Pepsi. Young Scholars in Writing, 15, 116-122.

Thank you for your work on this essay. It has a solid foundation of thinking about how Pepsi used ethos and pathos. There are parts that have great analysis of specific moments or aspects of the commercial.

My first suggestion for strengthening the essay starts with returning to the introduction and doing less recap of the commercial, and more setting up of the argument of this essay.

The introduction should give us some context, but the most important element is a focused and arguable thesis statement which wasn’t there. Then every aspect of the essay needs to connect back to that thesis statement. This would help with focusing and organizing the essay overall.

My second suggestion is separating out each main idea and really digging into the argument at had, and providing a bit more explanation of why Pepsi is or isn’t successful.

Again, I think this essay has strong elements, but would benefit from a strong thesis statement, some reorganization, and a bit more explanation in parts. Let me know if you have questions regarding any of this. Good work overall.