Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve probably seen some version of the now-pulled Pepsi commercial starring Kendall Jenner. There’s a 30-second cut, along with a roughly 2-minute full version.

Here’s the full version:

And a couple of comments and discussions about the commercial:

Philip Defranco:

The View:

Here's Pepsi's statement on the ad:

No matter what it was that people thought the Pepsi commercial was saying, it wasn’t saying it at all. The commercial reached millions of people online from every walk of life. Even so, the general consensus was that the commercial was one for the books. For better or worse, people will remember this one.

They could have been portraying a variety of issues, but the only legible, prominent signs in the pictured protest are of peace signs and signs that read “Join the conversation.” Isn’t that the basic goal of every march or protest? To peacefully start a dialogue? Whether or not it actually ends up that way is a whole other conversation, but this is usually where the thought process starts.

People raged online saying “They’re undermining the Black Lives Matter movement!” or “They’re appropriating social injustice!” The thing is, they weren’t.

Not because the images didn’t hint at protests or stir up visceral anger in those who had experienced them. They absolutely did. But they didn’t specifically say it. For better or worse.

As a brand, Pepsi couldn’t alienate half of their audience. In a polarized nation, no brand wants to take a position on any issue or idea. At the cost of seeming like a company without morals, they stayed vague.

They’re not alone. Most brands, especially brands consumed at generally the same rate all year long, won’t take political positions. Chick-fil-A, Uber, Lyft and Starbucks are all exceptions, as they took political positions as the country became more polarized. But did we really think all brands would follow suit?

It’s clear that Pepsi wanted to get out some kind of message about global unity and wide-spread love and understanding. The reason they didn’t succeed is because they sugar coated it big-time.

The commercial brought anger and sadness to those who have been in protests and seen what they really look like. Kendall Jenner was never there to ease the tension with a can of soda. People were hurt, arrested, and treated horribly trying to enact change.

So, while I see the intent to spread a certain message, I have to agree that they did missed the mark. If they had clearly stated their position on a particular issue, every Coke customer who believed in their position might have switched to Pepsi. And for every Pepsi drinker that didn’t, they probably wouldn’t stop drinking it anyways if they liked the taste that much.

If a brand wants to comment on an issue, global or not, they need to portray it as accurately as possible. A famous supermodel handing a police officer a can of Pepsi probably would get a positive reaction. Anybody else would get a different reaction if they were on the front lines of a protest.

If there’s something to be said, say it the way you mean it. Don’t dance around the issue in hopes that everyone in the audience will feel comfortable. In this case, everyone noticed the beating around the bush, and it speaks volumes to the limits of brand opinion. You either have morals or you don’t.