Pepsi iTunes Super Bowl ad spoiler; read if you want to know ad’s concept

“A new sort of Pepsi Generation will get air time on the Super Bowl: music downloaders. Some 20 teens sued by the Recording Industry Association of America, which accuses them of unauthorized downloads, will appear in a Pepsi-Cola ad that kicks off a two-month offer of up to 100 million free

21 Comments

  1. Thanks for the spoiler warning – if only other Mac news organizations had similar discretion, I’d be able to enjoy my reaction to the commercial itself – during the event – rather than to it’s advance reports.

  2. If true, absolutely classic counter-culture advertising that makes Pepsi look hip and confirms iTMS as the de facto legal downloads site.

    Can’t wait to hear redemption rates, although I suspect these will be NDAd.

  3. Nagromme,
    Hardly anyone watches the SuperBowl to see football any more. I use the football time to get sodas and sandwiches so I don’t miss any commercials. The game is usually a bore; the commercials (except for the year all the dot coms advertised) are usually worth watching.

  4. I hope this ad bites apple on it’s ASS. The fact that the music industry STOLE for the public and sued for antitrust violations should be highlighted. Now you get to buy something less than the real thing, for more money on iTunes. The concept of this ad is so obnoxious that I hope it makes the entire public sour on the iPod and Apple.

    Somehow that 14 yr old kids were sued and now you’re making money of that fear uncertainty and doubt based on dubious law and even more dubious moral ground is supposed to make me like the iTMS. What a crock.

    Apple has now begun to foster every evil principle that the original 1984 commercial stood for. What a load and a bunch of tools.

  5. UG. I will prove reads miy posteds!

    I hope this ad bites apple on it’s ASS. The fact that the music industry STOLE *from* the public and *was* sued for antitrust violations should be highlighted *in the ad*. Now you get to buy something less than the real thing, for more money on iTunes. The concept of this ad is so obnoxious that I hope it makes the entire public sour on the iPod and Apple.

    Somehow that 14 yr old kids were sued and now you’re making money of that fear uncertainty and doubt based on dubious law and even more dubious moral ground is supposed to make me like the iTMS? What a crock.

    Apple has now begun to foster every evil principle that the original 1984 commercial stood for. What a load and a bunch of tools

  6. The RIAA is detrimental to creativity, and the system gets artists to sign contracts that don’t pay as much as they deserve.

    So… that makes it OK to steal?

    By the way, it’s an ad for Pepsi, not for Apple–and also very good for Apple’s future.

  7. First of all, not all downloading is stealing. Getting copies from your friend is ALLOWED for by the home audio recording act. Next, does the record label’s THEFT from the public by way of overcharging and putting only one good song on an album, for which they have been charged/sued for antitrust violations, does that make CHARGING EVEN MORE by way of the iTMS OK?

    If you can’t tell, that’s a rhetorical question.

  8. Arrogant Ad, you seem to be interested in getting your posts correct — even gramatically so. Thus you should note a rhetorical question is not ended with a question mark. It is ended with a period. It is still a question, but it does not expect an answer. Therefore it is not marked as an interrogatory. It is marked as a questioning statement — thus the period.

    Also, supplying a couple friends with a home audio recording of a few of your albums is very different from posting a digitized version on the ‘net and allowing thousands, if not millions, of people, of which you know virtually none of them, download that version is most definitely not covered by the act you mention.

    The RIAA and its policies are questionable at best and intollerable at worst. However, posting your entire audio suite on the ‘net and thousands, if not millions, of people downloading these audio pieces without paying any royalties whatsoever is flatly wrong. Even the street corner musician needs the money throw at his or her feet.

  9. RIAA never sued anyone for legal downloading. Getting copies from friends IS illegal. As it should be. The artists should get compensated for every copy. The RIAA, ideally, should get a smaller cut and less muscle in the creative process. I very much agree with objections to the RIAA.

    At the same time, the RIAA would be stealing from the public if they forced you to buy music. Their product, however, is not food or antibiotics.

    Does a product being overpriced, then, mean it’s OK to shoplift it? That sounds like greed more than standing up for what’s right. In other words, it sounds as bad as the RIAA–but on the wrong side of the law.

    And iMS answers both your concerns: albums cost less, and you no longer have to buy the album to get the song. If you live in a place where albums cost less than on iTunes, and the convenience of iTunes has no value to you, then don’t buy.

    I’d happily pay MORE for music than it now costs–IF more went to the artist. As it is, I buy less than I would if it was cheaper. That’s my choice. I support iMS because of the convenience and freedom that adds for me. And I still do buy whole albums about half the time–because many ARE full of mostly songs I find worth having. Probably not the ones the RIAA hypes via radio etc.

    And I never steal, and am proud to say so.

    Protests, boycotts, writing to Congress, editorials, lawsuits… all those I can understand for attacking the RIAA. Theft I cannot condone.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.