Over the past week Pepsi has gotten a lot of flack about its newest commercial featuring Kendall Jenner and a staged protest. (You can watch it for yourself here.) Pepsi’s first statement of the ad claimed it was “a global ad that reflects people from different walks of life coming together in a spirit of harmony, and we think that’s an important message to convey.” So, let’s break it down.

Looking at the main 3 characters, we have the Asian cellist who sees the protest from his balcony and joins in (bringing his cello?) Then we have the Muslim photographer, frustrated with her work, who sees the the protest as inspiration and captures a photo of Kendall and the Pepsi. Lastly we have Kendall, the model, made up and working, who is intrigued by the protest and upon receiving a smile from the cellist removes the wig and lipstick and joins in, walking up to a police officer supervising, handing him the prophetic Pepsi.

Kendall is of course the most criticized character. Right before the video’s release she commented “The whole concept is really something that I’m about, so it was just fun to be a part of.” However in the wake she has received a lot of hate as she has never commented on a controversial issue before, even getting criticized for wearing cornrows in 2015 since it’s historically black and she had made no prior comments to support the community. As a child of the very publicly transitioned Caitlyn Jenner, she stated she is “accepting of people and of being different and being who you are,” though she admitted the transition was hard for her and she still mixes up pronouns.

So why does Kendall, a girl who purposefully tries to stay tight-lipped about controversial issue (though she did openly support Hillary) get involved with a vague protest commercial. All signs featured in the commercial are generic peace signs, not supporting an individual movement such as Black Lives Matter or The Women’s Rights Movement. Was this her way of, as the signs state, “joining the conversation?” Her placement in the ad was confusing because of her adamant silence before, and though there may have been better choices to star in the ad I feel those attacking her should direct their energy instead towards the writers and directors of the ad. Yes, she had to read and approve the script to be featured but seeing the appeal for her to make such a loose statement on peace could be understood due to her attempts to stay neutral in the past.

Then we have the star minorities who I’ve seen no real comments on. The Asian man has a cool indie vibe, rocks the cello, and has a large social circle. The Muslim girl, however, is pictured in front of flames, and walks the crowd from a distance, watching, not marching. She is the only Muslim girl pictured. She is the one who captures the important moment of Kendall handing off the baton of peace, the Pepsi, to the cop….All this together sounds bad, but is it? I’m unsure. They did feature a Muslim girl, a religion already facing strong controversy and kept her an artistic, hopeful young women who peacefully joins in the movement with people of other cultures and identities (the commercial may hint towards more modernly accepted identities of gender and sexual identity). However creating an image of her in front of flames and making her work unworthy until a white woman stepped in front of the camera was questionable.

Lastly, the cop featured stands peacefully without riot gear and posing no threat to the protestors, slyly accepting the Pepsi with a grin. It is said this romanticizes protests, which is true, they cover up the reality of police using tear gas on those who march, of the brutality behind it. And the lack of riot gear and protection on the cop is misaligned to what is typically seen during these types of organized protests. However, this is an advertisement, something taken out of a glossier world, and protests don’t start out violent. I think it’s understandable for Pepsi to have simplified the protest to promote a safer environment to speak your mind, isn’t that a statement in itself? They wanted to promote an ideology of peace, so they left out the violence that too often breaks out in search of it.

So is this advertisement poorly thought out? It’s understandable for a major corporation to try and avoid making a stand for one side of a hugely controversial debate. But if they were going to stay out of it, why make a protest commercial in the first place. Pepsi could have done an ad revolving around three artists (model, cellist, photographer) of different cultural backgrounds (Caucasian, Asian, Muslim) coming together. Pepsi wished to market towards the younger generation's desire for change, and they didn’t need a sign explicitly stating “Black Lives Matter” to do so, but by craftily choosing a spokesperson or including some less generic signs they would have reached the audience they were vying for rather than offending them.

I’m still unsure of how I feel about this commercial. I cringed at some parts, but did I walk away feeling like Pepsi was purposely demeaning these serious issues we are still struggling with? Not so much. I’d say Pepsi had some poor taste, but this was not an attack. How are we supposed to start the conversation they advertised if when it’s peacefully mentioned, we tear them down?