The Register: Pepsi iTunes ad ‘likely to go down in history as one of the greatest public relations

59 Comments

“Four children bullied by the Recording Industry Association of America will re-enact their shame for tens of millions of TV viewers today, at the behest of two giant American corporations: Apple Computer and Pepsi Cola Inc.,” Andrew Orlowski writes for The Register.

“Instead of using actors to dramatize their shame, the RIAA, Apple and Pepsi have forced the children themselves to conform with the copyright regime, and to look suitably browbeaten as a series of captions reads: INCRIMINATED

59 Comments

  1. Maybe I should post here the long letter I sent to this guy and many at the editoral staff at The Register. The bottom line is there is a clear statement in the ad about the individuals are still downloading songs for free and there is nothing the establishment can do about it. There is also the implicit statement that they are getting one large commercial organization to pay another so they can do what they want. These individuals are not cowed or shamed. They are still defiant and acting in a way which still allows them to thumb their noses at the establishment — and now they are getting the system to support their defiance.

    I sincerely doubt this promotion will radically change the drinking habits of many people. Pepsi has a high consumption rate as it is.

    Finally since the author is so absolutely adamant about being fanatically against any form of DRM he must be against any form of copyright, trademark or patent. All are just variations (some even virtually the same) as enforceable DRM. Thus since he clearly must be against the enforcement of these he must not read any newspapers or books or any other materials. Clearly he must not use any commercial software or run ANY software on any computer. This is because every computer has pieces which are either copyrighted (like the BIOS) or trademarked (like the Dell or Intel logo) or patented (like key pieces of the hard drive, RAM and such). Thus he must dictate his pieces to someone else who in turn uses a compute to file his idiotic tirades.

    Clearly he must be like a relatively famous, conservative pundit who will not support his illegal habit directly by buying drugs himself, but has absolutely no problems with having someone else do it for him.

    Patents are necessary. Trademarks are necessary. Copyrights are necessary. In a digital age DRM is necessary.

    Reply

  2. Disclaimers:

    I am most definitely *not* in any target age group for iTMS or iPod…and

    I live in a second class country that doesn’t even have access to iTMS…and

    I have no use for football…and

    I couldn’t see the ad ‘in situ’ (the context of the game) even if I wanted…but

    I watched the ad on the Apple site and thought:
    1) This is a great cover of ‘I Fought the Law’ (very hookey, impossible to not tap one’s toe to. Attention getting.
    2) The humour appealed to me. Very dry.

    I will show the ad to my 15 year-old kid (who would kill to have an iPod, and would lose it within 3 days) and see what his reaction might me.

    Mike

    Reply

  3. The target audience is 12-year-old boy sports fans. They are stupid. So there was an arguably stupid ad for them. Shocking! Scandalous! Sexed-Up!

    There are hundreds of millions of viewers who think that ALL music downloading is illegal. These ads arguably help them, more than any Ad-Council PSA.

    Also must wonder how much of this reaction is just Europeon hatred and jealousy of America, especially given the stinging conviction delivered against the British media last week. They are hurt and confused and stupid and biased, so they are lashing out at American companies and customs.

    Reply

  4. While Andrew is rather scathing, he seems to direct it at Apple as though its all their fault, even before this SuperBowl he was banging on about it.

    But he has a point, DRM is bad at any level. When iTunes comes to my country (UK) i won’t be using it, I don’t even have DVD’s since they don’t allow me to control how I watch movies. I buy music often and not at inflated prices either and will carry on doing so with the launch of iTunes.

    Once everybody else excepts it, its bad. Even today Apple and MS are in talks to make everything compatible with their file formats…fuck that.

    I’m 200% MS free and hope to carry on doing so.

    Reply

  6. Hey if you didn’t notice the word Apple was not used once in the whole commercial. It was stritctly Pepsi/iTunes. I thought it was a good commercial, showing there are indeed other ways to get music rather than steal it. And if your still on this whole DRM is crap thing you really need to learn how to burn a CD and get past it.

    Reply

  7. What Andrew can’t get through his thick-headed skull is that the DRM is there because the RIAA won’t license any music at all without it! DUH! It was all that Apple could do to convince them to make the DRM as non-restrictive in iTMS as it is, yet Andrew et al. live in some weird Bizarro world where Apple is telling the RIAA how to license the music and how much cut the artists get. Get real. Railing so childishly against Apple is not going to make the DRM go away, as Andrew O. seems to think so.

    As for his predictions, none of them regarding Apple have come true, so why should anyone believe his claim that the Pepsi ad is a “PR disaster?” It’s just another Jehovah’s Witness ranting about the end of the world.

    Reply

  8. AMG (I can call you AMG can’t I?), I never said The Reg were a bunch of Anti-Apple Wintel appologists, and I quite enjoy reading most of their articles. However, when it comes to DRM, they have a very fixed position based on what pretty much amounts to dogma.
    As I said, I’m not a big fan of DRM myself, but there need to be distinctions between the different levels of DRM, throwing them into one basket and tarnishing them all with the same brush is not how to conduct a debate. The Reg has made their stance on DRM very clear, and as I said, I agree on many points, but I don’t go for the whole DRM=Evil thing.
    I see DRM as something more akin to intellectual property. It can be a good thing to a certain extent. If abused (by industry through their tools in politics) then it becomes a problem and starts becoming harmful towards the responsible civilian. For example, it would be fine by me to have DRM if the fair use rights of the individual regarding the protected content were guaranteed by law.

    It may be fashionable to see everything in black and white, but someday people will have to realise that that’s not how the world works. You’re falling for this oversimplified view yourself. Criticising someone for criticising a single point of discussion is not equal to expecting them to worship everything Apple does or says. My points were singularily directed toward The Reg’s stance on DRM, particularily the first commercially really successful use thereof. Maybe you should read more carefully or step down off your high horse.

    Anyway, I’ve seen this a lot. If someone criticises Apple his word is that of God, and if you refute it no matter how wrong it is you’re just a mindless zealot. I suppose I’ll just have to accept that good, informed debate isn’t welcome in todays world.

    Reply

  9. Oh, and the whole PR disaster crap? Come on guys, you don’t need two brain cells to know that that’s wishful think on the part of some anti-DRM folk. They’ve been willing the whole iTMS to fail since day one. So far they’ve just been frustrated.
    The ad sucked. So? The only thing that will happen PR-wise is that it probably won’t be remembered. Effective? No. Disaster? Errrr, yeah right. Can I have some of what you guys are smoking?
    Oh, btw, all you “DRM sucks so lets target iTMS”. What exactly is your intention? You want to push everything towards WMA when M$ has proven they’ll bend over as far as the RIAA wants to spread their format? Great foresight, really!

    Reply

  12. Andrew of the Register has a hard-on for Apple. He takes an exceedingly label-ridden whack at Apple’s iTunes and DRM whenever he gets a chance. He says he has a Mac; it’s clear he hates DRM, and it’s ok with him if he kills Apple along with it.

    Reply

  13. for the people who wish itunes and ipod didnt exist, i wonder what they wanted instead? probably nothing that’s even possible!

    they want riaa to give away all their money and give away all music and just die on purpose, and they blame apple if riaa wont do that, and a pepsi ad is their evidence. real smart ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />

    and what’s with people going on about the bare breast thing? i watched the itunes ad and theres nothing like that! pepsi would never do that.

    Reply

  14. There’s now actually a good article from Orlowski over at the Reg that dispenses with the emotional crap and actually discusses how the flat-fee alternative could be made to work (although not in the detail I would like, there are still a lot of questions remaining). Interestingly, the article is a summary of someone else’s ideas who’s actually put some thought into it and gives good arguments to back his statements up, something Orlowski has failed to do convincingly. Maybe it will encourage more reason and less stubborn posturing from him?

    It’s a good read anyway and it’s here:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/35260.html

    Reply

  15. Dave H., what exactly is the deal with that BBC finding? The stuff I read seems to say that despite all, most Britons still think Blair screwed up. What does it take for a vote of confidence for that boy?

    Reply

  16. Joe,

    The findings from the Hutton report were the opinions of one man. A lord and a lawyer. His peerage was granted by the government, i.e. Blair. Blair got off on a technicality because, as someone cleverly pointed out in one of the broadsheets today, he’s a lawyer, not a liar. Just because he technically didn’t tell lies, which doesn’t mean he told the truth either.

    Basically a lot of people remain unconvinced. A lot of people thought at the time that the WMD claims were ridiculous and that Blix should be given more time. A lot of people don’t think the reasons and justifications given for going to war were remotely valid and remain convinced that it’s just about the oil.

    If you follow the money, the corporations get to screw over the Iraq for a nice bunch of cash (contracts awarded for rebuilding before things had even been blown up!), but they also get to screw over the American taxpayer for that extra $80bn.

    Reply

  17. “for the people who wish itunes and ipod didnt exist, i wonder what they wanted instead? probably nothing that’s even possible.” – Mac Beth

    Well, either they are MS fanboys or they just want an excuse to continue “their noble fight against RIAA” by downloading music without paying.

    ” and what’s with people going on about the bare breast thing? i watched the itunes ad and theres nothing like that! pepsi would never do that.”

    The bare breast thing is not Pepsi ad… it is real though. It’s all over the news that during the halftime show, Timberlake pulled Jackson’s chest covering, thus exposing her right breast. It is really funny that it made such a big deal in the US. Breast = big no no, violence = yes. In Europe you see breasts during commercials on primetime public TV, no big deal. Personally, I prefer looking at breasts than looking at decapitations. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />

    Reply

  19. Bo’ster. I completely agree that disaster is wishful thinking, and will freely cop to it not being so, and that I am one of the wishful thinkers. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />

    That being said with your mindless zealot or god barb, it’s the same as the creative macs or luddite barb thrown from the mac camp.

    And DRM is evil. Plain and simple. Copyright law gives you the rights to do more with a recording than does DRM. DRM is far more restrictive than the law allows. The music industry would have you believe otherwise. I think the compromise struck by the founding fathers and their write up of intellectual property laws is a little more on a “good” moral basis than the special interest that wrote up the anti circumvention laws (DMCA) that try and do and end-run around guaranteed usage rights in exchange for exclusive rights enumerated in the constitution and other laws by the founding fathers.

    Trying to introduce “gray” from this black and white principle is just the same obfuscatory tactics employed by lobbyists arguing on behalf of the poor record companies who swear they are doing all of this to protect the artists. What a crock.

    I respect your views and your right to them, but i certainly think youre wrong on it.

    Reply

  21. “Well, either they are MS fanboys or they just want an excuse to continue “their noble fight against RIAA” by downloading music without paying.”

    Not true. I use iTunes and iPod every day. To circumvent the DRM, I just buy real CDs with AIFFs on them and rip those instead of downloading compressed files. It’s not a problem. I’m not an MS fanboy and I don’t download illegally.

    Reply

  23. thats a whole lot of naked for a football game!

    hating drm is cool, i dont like it but it doesnt hurt me much so i dont excited ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” /> just do without downloading then, like hywel, don’t steal the stuff. you don’t have a right to someone else’s music just because you want it, not even if you dont like the deal they made to get promoted n stuff.

    Reply

Reader Feedback

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