What was the controversial commercial Kendall did?
A deep dive into the ad that sparked outrage—and what it tells us about celebrity, brand messaging, and social movements.
(By Carmichael Phillip)
In April 2017, Pepsi launched a new version of its “Live for Now” campaign called “Live for Now – Moments”, featuring model and reality-star Kendall Jenner.
The commercial shows Kendall in a photoshoot, then noticing a protest march of young people carrying vague signs like “Join the Conversation” and “Peace”. She leaves the shoot, joins the march, and eventually hands a can of Pepsi to a line of police officers — after which everyone cheers.
Pepsi described the spot as an effort to “project a global message of unity, peace and understanding.”
But almost immediately, the campaign received intense backlash for being tone-deaf and trivializing real protest movements. Within days, Pepsi pulled the ad.
What Happened in the Ad: Structure, Imagery & Message
The ad opens with Kendall in a glamorous wig and dress at a photoshoot. A solitary cellist plays on a rooftop. Outside, young people march with placards reading “Join the Conversation,” “Peace,” and symbol ‘V’ signs.
Kendall, noticing the protest, walks away from her shoot, removes her wig, changes outfit, and joins the march. She walks up to a row of uniformed police officers, hands one a can of Pepsi, who takes a sip. The crowd cheers, the photographer captures it. The ad ends with Pepsi’s branding and the tagline “Live for Now.”
Critics pointed out that the imagery strongly resembled real-life protest scenes — in particular a 2016 photograph of protester Ieshia Evans in Baton Rouge facing police.
The sense: a commercial beverage brand is co-opting serious social-justice movements to sell soda.
Why the Backlash Was So Strong
The backlash centered on several key points:
Many argued the commercial trivialized protests against police brutality and racial injustice by suggesting that handing a can of Pepsi resolves conflict.
The praise directed at Kendall (a young white model) and the brand seemed to appropriate the activism of marginalized people rather than engage meaningfully with it.
The protest imagery was vague — signs like “Join the Conversation” lacked any specific cause, making the movement feel generic rather than rooted in real suffering and activism.
Pepsi had no history of activism; the campaign felt as though the brand was using activism as a backdrop for marketing rather than authentically supporting a cause.
Pepsi’s response: they acknowledged in a statement, “Clearly we missed the mark… We did not intend to make light of any serious issue.”
The ad was removed just days after its release.
Kendall Jenner’s Involvement: Role, Impact & Fallout
Kendall was the face of the campaign — the well-known model who becomes the march participant, the soda-giver, the one whose action shifts the narrative. Because she is a visible celebrity, the criticism often centered on her:
Some said culture turned on her as if she personally conceived the concept — while in reality, many other parties (agency, brand, creatives) were involved.
Although she later acknowledged on a reality TV show that she didn’t see initially why people were upset, and expressed sorrow she was placed in that role, the damage to perception had already mounted.
The incident became a talking point in discussions of celebrity activism, marketing missteps, tone-deaf branding, and the ethics of advertising. Her role serves as a cautionary example for high-profile talent.
What did Kendall ‘learn’? While details are limited, the episode likely underscored that celebrity endorsements carry weight — not only for the product, but for cultural and societal messages implied by the ad.
Lessons Learned: Brand Messaging, Social Movements & Advertising Strategy
From a broader marketing and cultural perspective, this commercial offers key lessons:
Authenticity matters – When brands reference social movements, superficial or symbolic gestures can backfire if they appear to exploit rather than support.
Context and timing are critical – The ad came in a moment of heightened tension around protests and policing; the brand’s generic use of protest visuals lacked sensitivity.
Diversity and perspective in creative teams – Observers noted that the ad’s decision-makers lacked diversity and thus may have missed how the message would land.
Celebrity faces don’t shield from brand missteps – A familiar face like Kendall creates visibility, but doesn’t prevent backlash when the underlying message is flawed.
Viewer perception can trump intent – Pepsi said its intent was unity, but viewers perceived appropriation. The difference between intent and impact is significant.
Short-term publicity isn’t worth longer-term reputation damage – The ad was pulled quickly, but the brand’s image took a blow and remains a case study of what not to do.
Where Are They Now? Aftermath for Kendall and the Brand
Following the pull of the ad:
Pepsi issued public apology and halted any further rollout of the commercial.
Kendall Jenner continued her modeling and brand work; though this campaign remains one of the more memorable controversies tied to her name, it did not end her career.
The episode has been referenced in marketing textbooks and articles as a cautionary tale about “activism washing” in advertising.
For Pepsi, the campaign became a moment of reckoning about how to engage with cultural issues in marketing. Some sources suggest it cost the brand millions in lost perception.
Amateur Astronomers of San Francisco
In summary: The controversial commercial that Kendall Jenner starred in was Pepsi’s 2017 “Live for Now – Moments” ad, which attempted to merge protest imagery with a soft drink promotion. The result was widely criticized for being insensitive and tone-deaf. For Kendall, it was a high-profile misstep, and for Pepsi it became a classic case of marketing gone wrong.
Acting Magazine Newsletters
Never miss out on the best from Acting Magazine.