September 6, 2024 • 27 mins
We convene in the courtroom to adjudicate the cases of two recent commercials from big tech brands that stirred up controversy and got yanked from the airwaves.
Get show notes for this episode and check out past episodes of the Speaking Human podcast by visiting speakinghuman.com.
#Podcast #SpeakingHuman #VO #Branding #Marketing #Advertising #Business #Google #Brands #Ads #simplify #popculture #Gemini #Apple #Underdogs #Thailand #Controversial
Get show notes for this episode and check out past episodes of the Speaking Human podcast by visiting speakinghuman.com.
#Podcast #SpeakingHuman #VO #Branding #Marketing #Advertising #Business #Google #Brands #Ads #simplify #popculture #Gemini #Apple #Underdogs #Thailand #Controversial
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
In the commercial justice system, companies that market their goods
and services in an offensive or less than flattering way
represent themselves, and two marketing experts act as judge, jury
and executioner. These are their stories Specking Human.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Today, on Speaking Human, we convene in the courtroom to
adjudicate the cases of two recent commercials from big tech
brands that stirred up controversy and got yanked from the airwaves.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Specking Human.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
Welcome to Speaking Human, where we simplify the world of
marketing for humans. I'm Shad Calmly and with me is
my co host Patrick Jebber. Patrick. So, over the years
on this show, we've talked a lot, a lot about
controversial commercials. There's always something stirring up controversy. But if
(01:09):
I asked you what pops in your mind as the
most controversial commercial of all time, what would your answer be,
any year, any decade, most controversial commercial ever? What's your answer?
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Listen? I intend to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
there are a lot of ads, actually, so if I
were to pick one, I'd say, let the record show
that Nike's Colin Kaepernick ad Nike chose a specific athlete
Colin Kaepernick. He was in the spotlight for his public
protesting of police brutality right, which was a very polarizing
(01:49):
topic amongst Americans because he chose not to stand for
the US national anthem prior to football games. That to
me was more controversial in nature because of the just
the subject matter. We'll be talking about these ones today.
I don't know if they're quite like that where they're
still polarizing, at least from a US perspective. I guess
(02:11):
maybe domestically.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
Slight objection to that pick. I don't know if this
is true or not. When Nike aired that, wasn't he
already controversial? Didn't they know they were getting some controversy there,
you know? So I mean, I guess it's still controversial
no matter what. But didn't they probably know that was
already coming?
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Probably, And I think they got hit with a lot,
you know, after the fact. Did they know what they
were going to maybe face the backlash from? Maybe? And
if that's the case, you know, obviously there's something to
that as well. You know, if you're going into it
knowing that you're going to face some of that, it's
a little different than some of the ads that we're
(02:53):
be talking about today.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
I don't know if that takes away the level of
controversy you're getting from it, But I tend to think
about these ads in like two ways. Like some of
the ads, you know, I looked at when I was
trying to figure this out, because this is actually a
harder question than I initially thought. I was like, oh,
it's got to be clear what the most controversial is.
And then I started looking through these and I'm like, well,
(03:16):
there's just so many, especially now, you know, I feel
like we get the controversial ads that there's like ten
or twenty popping up a year now that we have
all this online conversation, but there's brands who are trying
to stir up controversy, you know. I think of like
some of the like Peda ads where they're like I'd
rather go naked than wear fur or something like that,
where it's like we're trying to court controversy, versus an
(03:39):
ad that incidentally becomes controversial, which is more along the
lines of what we're talking about today, And those to me,
are almost more controversial in a way because the brand
did not intend it.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
I think there's also something to the effect of you know,
you didn't intend it. You're sort of blindsided by the
fact that you thought this was great. So what would
you say, Like if you could only pick one and
you said, what's the most controversial? I wasn't even picking
the most controversial, to be honest with you. I was
just sort of picking one that I thought was probably
(04:13):
more controversial as a subject matter than the most controversial
ad of all time.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
I guess I don't know if it's the most controversial
of all time. I think a recency bias pushes me
towards the PEPSI Kendall gennerad. That's the one I think
about where, you know, an example of a brand thought
they had something really good and they put it out
there and people were just kind of appalled. That really
stirred up a lot of ire. The company just seemed
to have no idea, how like tone deaf it was
(04:38):
to what was going on in the world at that time,
you know, I it kind of trivialized the social issues
that were happening in the world. That to me is
an example of something that really just created a lot
of controversy in the brand, like immediately like pulled back
on it. I was also thinking about you know, going
back a little further, I was trying to look more historically,
you know, when commercials were primarily aired on network TV.
(05:00):
We had that smoking Fetus commercial we talked about a
while ago, and that was an example of something where
you know, certain networks wouldn't er it. They thought it
was too graphic, even though it was something that was
supposed to be anti smoking. It was controversy that kind
of helped draw attention to it, but wasn't necessarily what
they thought was gonna happen when they created it, or
maybe it was I don't know, but something like that
(05:21):
where it's getting like a lot of print and a
lot of like discussion because of this banning of the ad.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
I think the Smoking Fetus clearly was hitting a nerve
and intended to the Pepsi one and the idea of
like how tone def that's really what's scary for a brand.
Pepsi wasn't really necessarily telling a story, but they were.
They were trying to like immerse you in this like
story of her and a protest or something, and like
(05:49):
Pepsi was gonna make everything okay, Like the can of
Pepsi brought people together and It's like, I don't know,
maybe they they didn't use good focus groups, because you know,
those big companies like Pepsi Coke, they do have focus
groups when they do these ads, and someone didn't talk
about it, or if they did, they kind of brushed
it under the rug.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
It was one of these instances where they were trying
to more tell a story than it was just like, hey,
we're drinking pepsi, you should try this, or there's this
new flavor of pepsi. You know, there was something here.
They were trying to like tap into a national conversation
and like give you this, you know, story of bringing
people together, and it just was a complete backfire. And
(06:32):
I don't know if that was a super Bowl ad,
but I feel like almost every year at the Super
Bowl there's like one ad that people just really turns
people off, and there's you know, either gets pulled and
has never shown again, or there's a lot of commentary
afterwards on the negative variety like why would the brand
do this? Or didn't they even think this through.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Those are the ads that really really find themselves in
commercial Court, which is a segue into our next segment
of this episode. We're calling it Commercial Court.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
So, yeah, commercial Court, a little something new we're doing
on a show. Maybe we'll do it again. We'll see
how this goes here. But we've got a pair of
commercials from big tech brands that have been whipping up
controversy that ultimately got pulled from the rotation by their creators.
We thought we'd give these commercials. They are day in
court speaking human court.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
That is all rise. Who's first up on the docket today,
Patrick Well, the defendant, Please rise in the case of
Thailand versus Apple, Case number zero zero one, because this
is the first case we've ever done in commercial court,
Please proceed. The defendant has been charged with misrepresenting the
country as being underdeveloped. So in the ad which follows
(07:49):
a reoccurring cast of coworkers called the Underdogs as they
embark on a travel adventure out of the office and
into Thailand to find a new packaging factory, witnesses including
Thai citizens, lawmakers, and influencers, claim that the use of
filters and editing portray a less than stellar view of
(08:09):
the country. The prosecution would like to call Apple, the defendant,
to the stand.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
May I remind you you're under oath.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
Isn't it true that you yourself made a statement that your
intent was to celebrate the country's optimism and culture, and
you apologized for not fully capturing that vibrancy of Thailand today.
Isn't it also true that you told people that you
were no longer going to air the film. You don't
have to answer, You don't have to answer. This appears
(08:39):
to be a reoccurring theme though Apple. Not only did
you offend an entire nation, weren't you also criticized recently
of abhorrent destruction of valuable musical and other creative instruments
in an attempt to promote another product launch and then,
and then, Apple? Isn't it true that you subsequently issued
a formal apology to the creative community for crushing those
(09:02):
items which artistically gifted individuals identify with into a new,
thinner and more powerful iPad. Don't deny it. We have
the proof right here. It's in the ad you created.
The prosecution rests your honor.
Speaker 4 (09:16):
Pretty strong case there. Yeah, let's deliberate on this one
a little bit. The point I find strongest the use
of the filter in the video, giving it a yellow
CPA tone, a film technique used to make you know,
Thailand look more underdeveloped. This is pretty interesting, a very
(09:38):
twenty twenty four criticism. I think something you probably wouldn't
have heard like twenty years ago unless it was coming
from a cinematographer or some sort of film scholar, but
something it's pretty easy to pick up on now thanks
to our use of Instagram and all these these filtered
apps and stuff like that. I think this is, you know,
(09:58):
super acute that somebody's picked up on this. Notice this,
we're adding this on there to make this country look
different than it actually is in a more negative light.
It's there's something pretty valid there. Definitely shifts your perception there.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
What do you think of that?
Speaker 2 (10:13):
So there's two things. One is, you know, Apple has
come out and said they used a tie production company
to put this together. So this was clearly someone on
the inside of the country who used that technique. I'm
going to assume that it was edited somehow outside of
the country, and that was a decision that was made
outside of that production company, because otherwise wouldn't they be
(10:34):
at fault. Wouldn't it be a tied citizen depicting their
own country in that way. The other part of that
is I think that you know, you sort of do
this as a technique in filmmaking. You know, they refer
to this as a film because it is like seven
minutes long, right, it's a long commercial. Yeah, it might
be longer than that. And this is where you know,
(10:55):
in these techniques of filmmaking, you you know, you try
to set a scene. And I'll use the example of
the matrix. And I know that this is a far
fetched example, but it's pretty clear when people understand what
I'm referencing. It's that when Neo was in the matrix,
there was sort of like a green tint to it, right,
(11:16):
And that's how you knew he was in the matrix
versus the real world. And that was setting the tone,
that was setting the scene, that was giving you an
idea as an audience of the difference of environment or
the you know, where they're located. You know, these people
are typically in the office and they go out of
(11:36):
country to find this new packaging factory. Is it weird
that they picked CPIA tone? Does it have validity that
that could be used to construe that this country is
you know, sort of underdeveloped? I guess, you know, like
I can see it from that vantage point but I
also think it's kind of like something that would probably
(11:58):
be very normalized, like you know, when someone goes to
another country, maybe even a country that's like what some
would consider a third world country, that you know, there
is like a grittiness to the actual film, and I
could see where that you know, someone would do that
as a filmmaker. My argument here is that you know,
when you are storytelling, you're going to run the risk
(12:20):
of this happening, right, because these are clearly filmmakers, not
someone who's creating a thirty second ad, and they're trying
to tell a story and they just happen to use
a technique many films use, right, and it obviously bit
them in this case right in the rear.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
Yeah, it's a stylistic choice. And if you watch some
of these other ads in this kind of underdog series,
they definitely have a style to them. It's almost like
a Wes Anderson movie kind of vibe or look to them.
Because I watched the Swiped one, which is in New
York I think it's in New York City, and I
(12:58):
don't know, New York could almost some of the same complaints.
It looks, you know, it's it's a version of New
York that I don't know is true to the place,
if I'm getting that city correct. But it has a
definite feel to it that's almost like otherworldly or like
very maybe very hyper specific to the areas they filmed
(13:18):
it or something.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Maybe a little stereotype too. Yeah, there could be validity
to what they're saying. I just don't think that's the company.
The company is a global company, even if it is
based out of California, you know what I mean. I
don't think that they intended to do that.
Speaker 4 (13:35):
Nor do I think these videos have a hyper realistic
vibe or depiction to them, you know what I mean.
It's almost like comical or something. It does feel like
it's something that's a little off kilter, right. Maybe that's
not quite translating super well, I will say in Apple's defense,
it's legitimately hard to find this ad now mm hmm.
(13:58):
Like I was searching for to kind of try to
watch this one, and I could find scenes, but it
appears to be largely removed from the Internet, which seems
crazy to me. Like they I'm like, they actually did it.
Were you able to find these places?
Speaker 2 (14:13):
You can find it on Speaking Human dot com the
one place I didn't look to our listeners out there. Yeah,
I mean, and that is a testament to that. They said,
you know, we're pulling it. So when they say they're
going to do something, you know, they're obviously they're not
joking around. I don't think that they're ever really intentionally
(14:33):
trying to you know, offend other cultures, other countries. They
have a lot of products in those countries, you know
what I mean. And it's like, do they portray other
areas in the same way. Probably, And is there an
argument for are they stereotyping you know, locals maybe, you know,
but I don't think it's in a malicious way. I
(14:54):
think they're trying to have like a lighthearted tone to
most of those commercials, the underdog commercials.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
So I will say on that, you know, flip side
of that. As a global company, you would think they
think some of this through a little more. And maybe
they did, you know, I know, the Thailand's Prime minister,
you know, promoted the ads, so it was it probably
went through some channels, had some eyeballs on it and
maybe seemed okay when they put it out into the world.
But it's just one of those things. You're like, man,
(15:20):
you think as a global company, they'd be extra careful
when they're like depicting a foreign nation, you know where
they where they have customers, and you know, walk on
eggshells a little bit to make sure they didn't do that.
And I don't know what homework they did. Maybe they
did that, maybe they did not do that enough. It's
just one of those things. In twenty twenty four, you know,
(15:41):
you got to be extra careful with everything. Were they
careful enough?
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Yeah, which they weren't. They were not. So as the
jury reached a verdict, we have your honor. What say
you in the case of the whole country of Thailand
versus Apple and the underdogs? What do we find the
defendant guilty not guilty?
Speaker 4 (16:02):
While the criticism is valid, I don't know that killing
the ad is the right answer. Here's what I think.
I would sentence Apple to a revised or follow up
AD that directly addresses the criticism. Maybe it could even
be a comical version of the ad with someone from
Thailand saying, why are you using that filter? Thailand looks
(16:24):
much better without it? Or why are you acting like
Thailand is underdeveloped? Perhaps you have not seen the many
resources we have to offer to help you in your work,
you know, something like that some the way to address
this criticism within this AD series, That's what I would
sentence apple to your thoughts.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
Patrick, I think that's an interesting choice. Does that potentially
cause more damage or you know, do they just do
damage control?
Speaker 4 (16:53):
It doesn't love more damage?
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Yeah, you know, I mean I would probably declare a
mistrial on this one because I don't really think that
this is the case of a intentional or be malicious intent,
you know, so I guess in a way it's not guilty,
or you know, we could just go the other route
and just say they're guilty. All signs points to guilt.
(17:17):
They declared an apology, right, a formal apology, They released
a statement, and they pulled the ad. It's the sign
of a guilty person.
Speaker 4 (17:26):
Well doesn't everybody do that though, isn't that just classic
pr Let's clean up with clean up real quick?
Speaker 2 (17:32):
And so does someone who you know murders someone and
they're cleaning up the cleaning up the scene. You know,
they're spraying down chlorax or whatever they do. So anyway,
you know what they do, I don't know what they do.
Stop trying to make me into a murderer.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Order in the court.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
All right, Next up on the docket, will the defendant
please rise? In the case of the World Watching the
Olympics versus Google, Case number zero zero two, the defendant
has been charged with promoting how cool it is that
artificial intelligence can make human life inconsequential and meaningless to
(18:10):
the lens of writing a fan letter to a hero athlete.
In the ad Dear Sydney, Google promotes its AI called Gemini,
by showcasing its capabilities when a father asked it to
write a fan letter for his daughter to an Olympic athlete.
The prosecution would like to call Google to the stand. Google,
would you say it's fair to assume that you believe
(18:32):
yourself to be the number one search engine in the world.
Do you think this gives you the right to lay
waste to what makes us all human? Objection? Your honor
to the prosecution is leading the witness sustain rephrase your question.
That's okay, you don't have to answer that. I think
we all know the answer at Google. Let the record
show that you released a statement only after people conveyed
their discontent with the commercial and I quote we believe
(18:56):
that AI can be a great tool for enhancing human
creativity but can never replace it. Blah blah blah. Our
goal was to create an authentic story celebrating Team USA.
It showcases a real life track enthusiast and her father
and aims to show how the Gemini app can provide
a starting point, thought starter, or early draft for someone
(19:18):
looking for ideas for their writing. Blah blah blah. Come on, Google,
come on, you could do better than that. The prosecution rests.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
I do have a few witnesses for the prosecution I
would like to cop and they would like to remain anonymous.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
All right, Well, as long as they swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
So help them. God, We'll take it, So help them God. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (19:40):
This one comes from Twitter, from Twitter, from X This
is from Twitter because I refuse to call it X
fuck all right from Twitter. It's just a commercial, sure,
but as a demonstration of Google's overall thinking on the
role AI has to play in our world. Dear Sidney
as well. Pretty horrify by this witness comes from Reddit.
(20:03):
Tech is supposed to give us time to pursue our humanity,
not replace it what a ghoulishly soulless ad and a
couple other quick witnesses from Reddit a gross miscalculation of
how to market AI felt extremely dystopian. The witnesses will
step down.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Now, prosecution res We appreciate the witnesses and their testimony.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
Noted for the record.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
I will say they were trying to tell a story.
Definitely a story here, and I feel like in the
camp of the Pepsi one that you mentioned earlier, very
tone deaf. You know, people are all over AI right now,
and I think that there are a lot of people
who are for it. There are a lot of people
who are very terrified of the technology, and this does
(20:48):
not put it in a great light, like there's a
million ways to show how this can start, ideas for
you for a letter, even but this is so off
the mark. It's like it just took the human soul
out of something that a person should have been emotionally
connected to. There should be heart in it, and they're
basically saying, well, you don't really need that.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
I had the same exact feeling. It was like, what
a misread of the moment when people are both excited
and scared of this technology We were talking recently about
Y two K. You know, there was that turn of
the century moment where people were very excited and also
fearful of our technology and what it could do to us.
And this is kind of a similar moment. So you
(21:30):
need to tread carefully in that moment, yeah, you know,
and kind of like ease people into the technology, give
them a way in, and this is a way out.
You know, this is like a push out. This is
saying technology is going to replace something that's very heartfelt
to you. It's a replacement to this connection you have
between people, and that is not the message people need
(21:53):
to hear.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
There's a whole other problem with the story for me,
Why is this dad having the AI write his daughter's
fan letter to begin with? You know what I mean?
Like that to me is a very strange starting point. Anyway,
This to me is a huge Probably the biggest problem
with the ad, and what maybe could have saved the
ad is if it's the little girl telling the story,
(22:17):
you know what I mean, if she's the narrator of
her own story.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
Yeah, she's not necessarily even playing a role. He's just
talking about her, how he's helping her write this letter.
He doesn't know what to write. She's using Gemini. But
you know what if there's this other version where she's
the one you know, talking about I've started writing this letter.
I don't know what to say here. Here's how I'm
using this, And she's kind of has some agency in
(22:41):
her own story. Yeah, but she's like kind of there
but not there yea, in this story that's about her,
which is a weird thing.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Yeah. Not only is the human connection loss, but you
don't even know what her intentions are.
Speaker 4 (22:56):
These ads, this Google style of ad I typically really effective.
They'll make ads where they're showing somebody using the search engine,
or it's like made out of videos. They did the
two thousand and nine Parisian Love commercial is when I
think that's a great example. People talk about that among
like some of the best commercials where it's all just
(23:16):
takes place in a search bar and tells a whole story.
Really like powerful effective ads. I like this style. I
just think, man, they really just missed it. It's hard
to imagine nobody looked at this and had some like hesitation,
especially with the AI message.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Right now, you had a great analogy of the Y
two K. You know there are people who are just afraid,
and you just created an awareness that is not a
great awareness. People are like, this is your vision of
what the future is. I'm just gonna let this thing
take over. It's scary. It is scary.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
And so this ad immediate backlash, and then Google pulled
it from the airing during the Pair Olympics on NBC's broadcast.
Still kept it online. It's still out there on Google's
YouTube page. Anybody could watch it. So they weren't necessarily
you know, they issued their statement, but not necessarily taking
it back or not backing away from it in any way.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Yeah. I think they defended it more than they did
apologize for it.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
You know, I have really liked a lot of their commercials,
this one. I get it why people didn't like it.
So has the jury reached a verdict in the case
of the public versus Google and its artificial intelligence?
Speaker 4 (24:32):
After deliberating for three to four seconds, I think this
one needs to be erased from this earth. I think
they really blew it. So let's move on and try again.
This is not a win for Gemini. If Gemini can
even survive this, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
Well, as we know, Google does have a tendency to
erase things from existence, So maybe they will erase this
from existence as a service as an ad at some point.
So yeah, I agree with that. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
Guilty guilty. How would you sentence them? I like your
sentencing in the last one.
Speaker 4 (25:11):
I would sentence them to, you know, scrub this video.
I don't think they could repent for this in anyway.
Maybe they need to get rid of Gemini. Maybe that's
their sentence, so.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
You don't want them to do a follow up of
Then the athlete gets the artificial intelligence fan letter, holds
it up and then has like another letter next to it,
and holds it up and they're the exact same And
she pins it on a board and there's all these
pieces of yarn, and the yarn is all connected to it,
(25:42):
like one in the center, and it says Gemini. She's
pieced the puzzle together. AI has been writing all these
letters to me. See. Now that's a good sentence right there.
Both those cases, we should put them in front of
the short circuit judge. It's Johnny five guilty.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
Oh I get it. What's wasn't that funny?
Speaker 2 (26:36):
Well? Commercial court is a jerk. I hope you enjoyed
the first ever episode of Commercial Court. That's it for
today's episode. You can find current and past episodes of
the podcast just like this on speaking human dot com.
We'll be back in two weeks with another episode of
Speaking Human. Catch it then, Humans, We're never back in
(27:01):
two weeks. Don't take me to commercial always. They're like
false advertising. We're taking you to court, Commercial
Speaker 3 (27:08):
Court, Speaking Human
In the commercial justice system, companies that market their goods
and services in an offensive or less than flattering way
represent themselves, and two marketing experts act as judge, jury
and executioner. These are their stories Specking Human.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Today, on Speaking Human, we convene in the courtroom to
adjudicate the cases of two recent commercials from big tech
brands that stirred up controversy and got yanked from the airwaves.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
Specking Human.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
Welcome to Speaking Human, where we simplify the world of
marketing for humans. I'm Shad Calmly and with me is
my co host Patrick Jebber. Patrick. So, over the years
on this show, we've talked a lot, a lot about
controversial commercials. There's always something stirring up controversy. But if
(01:09):
I asked you what pops in your mind as the
most controversial commercial of all time, what would your answer be,
any year, any decade, most controversial commercial ever? What's your answer?
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Listen? I intend to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
there are a lot of ads, actually, so if I
were to pick one, I'd say, let the record show
that Nike's Colin Kaepernick ad Nike chose a specific athlete
Colin Kaepernick. He was in the spotlight for his public
protesting of police brutality right, which was a very polarizing
(01:49):
topic amongst Americans because he chose not to stand for
the US national anthem prior to football games. That to
me was more controversial in nature because of the just
the subject matter. We'll be talking about these ones today.
I don't know if they're quite like that where they're
still polarizing, at least from a US perspective. I guess
(02:11):
maybe domestically.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
Slight objection to that pick. I don't know if this
is true or not. When Nike aired that, wasn't he
already controversial? Didn't they know they were getting some controversy there,
you know? So I mean, I guess it's still controversial
no matter what. But didn't they probably know that was
already coming?
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Probably, And I think they got hit with a lot,
you know, after the fact. Did they know what they
were going to maybe face the backlash from? Maybe? And
if that's the case, you know, obviously there's something to
that as well. You know, if you're going into it
knowing that you're going to face some of that, it's
a little different than some of the ads that we're
(02:53):
be talking about today.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
I don't know if that takes away the level of
controversy you're getting from it, But I tend to think
about these ads in like two ways. Like some of
the ads, you know, I looked at when I was
trying to figure this out, because this is actually a
harder question than I initially thought. I was like, oh,
it's got to be clear what the most controversial is.
And then I started looking through these and I'm like, well,
(03:16):
there's just so many, especially now, you know, I feel
like we get the controversial ads that there's like ten
or twenty popping up a year now that we have
all this online conversation, but there's brands who are trying
to stir up controversy, you know. I think of like
some of the like Peda ads where they're like I'd
rather go naked than wear fur or something like that,
where it's like we're trying to court controversy, versus an
(03:39):
ad that incidentally becomes controversial, which is more along the
lines of what we're talking about today, And those to me,
are almost more controversial in a way because the brand
did not intend it.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
I think there's also something to the effect of you know,
you didn't intend it. You're sort of blindsided by the
fact that you thought this was great. So what would
you say, Like if you could only pick one and
you said, what's the most controversial? I wasn't even picking
the most controversial, to be honest with you. I was
just sort of picking one that I thought was probably
(04:13):
more controversial as a subject matter than the most controversial
ad of all time.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
I guess I don't know if it's the most controversial
of all time. I think a recency bias pushes me
towards the PEPSI Kendall gennerad. That's the one I think
about where, you know, an example of a brand thought
they had something really good and they put it out
there and people were just kind of appalled. That really
stirred up a lot of ire. The company just seemed
to have no idea, how like tone deaf it was
(04:38):
to what was going on in the world at that time,
you know, I it kind of trivialized the social issues
that were happening in the world. That to me is
an example of something that really just created a lot
of controversy in the brand, like immediately like pulled back
on it. I was also thinking about you know, going
back a little further, I was trying to look more historically,
you know, when commercials were primarily aired on network TV.
(05:00):
We had that smoking Fetus commercial we talked about a
while ago, and that was an example of something where
you know, certain networks wouldn't er it. They thought it
was too graphic, even though it was something that was
supposed to be anti smoking. It was controversy that kind
of helped draw attention to it, but wasn't necessarily what
they thought was gonna happen when they created it, or
maybe it was I don't know, but something like that
(05:21):
where it's getting like a lot of print and a
lot of like discussion because of this banning of the ad.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
I think the Smoking Fetus clearly was hitting a nerve
and intended to the Pepsi one and the idea of
like how tone def that's really what's scary for a brand.
Pepsi wasn't really necessarily telling a story, but they were.
They were trying to like immerse you in this like
story of her and a protest or something, and like
(05:49):
Pepsi was gonna make everything okay, Like the can of
Pepsi brought people together and It's like, I don't know,
maybe they they didn't use good focus groups, because you know,
those big companies like Pepsi Coke, they do have focus
groups when they do these ads, and someone didn't talk
about it, or if they did, they kind of brushed
it under the rug.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
It was one of these instances where they were trying
to more tell a story than it was just like, hey,
we're drinking pepsi, you should try this, or there's this
new flavor of pepsi. You know, there was something here.
They were trying to like tap into a national conversation
and like give you this, you know, story of bringing
people together, and it just was a complete backfire. And
(06:32):
I don't know if that was a super Bowl ad,
but I feel like almost every year at the Super
Bowl there's like one ad that people just really turns
people off, and there's you know, either gets pulled and
has never shown again, or there's a lot of commentary
afterwards on the negative variety like why would the brand
do this? Or didn't they even think this through.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Those are the ads that really really find themselves in
commercial Court, which is a segue into our next segment
of this episode. We're calling it Commercial Court.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
So, yeah, commercial Court, a little something new we're doing
on a show. Maybe we'll do it again. We'll see
how this goes here. But we've got a pair of
commercials from big tech brands that have been whipping up
controversy that ultimately got pulled from the rotation by their creators.
We thought we'd give these commercials. They are day in
court speaking human court.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
That is all rise. Who's first up on the docket today,
Patrick Well, the defendant, Please rise in the case of
Thailand versus Apple, Case number zero zero one, because this
is the first case we've ever done in commercial court,
Please proceed. The defendant has been charged with misrepresenting the
country as being underdeveloped. So in the ad which follows
(07:49):
a reoccurring cast of coworkers called the Underdogs as they
embark on a travel adventure out of the office and
into Thailand to find a new packaging factory, witnesses including
Thai citizens, lawmakers, and influencers, claim that the use of
filters and editing portray a less than stellar view of
(08:09):
the country. The prosecution would like to call Apple, the defendant,
to the stand.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
May I remind you you're under oath.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
Isn't it true that you yourself made a statement that your
intent was to celebrate the country's optimism and culture, and
you apologized for not fully capturing that vibrancy of Thailand today.
Isn't it also true that you told people that you
were no longer going to air the film. You don't
have to answer, You don't have to answer. This appears
(08:39):
to be a reoccurring theme though Apple. Not only did
you offend an entire nation, weren't you also criticized recently
of abhorrent destruction of valuable musical and other creative instruments
in an attempt to promote another product launch and then,
and then, Apple? Isn't it true that you subsequently issued
a formal apology to the creative community for crushing those
(09:02):
items which artistically gifted individuals identify with into a new,
thinner and more powerful iPad. Don't deny it. We have
the proof right here. It's in the ad you created.
The prosecution rests your honor.
Speaker 4 (09:16):
Pretty strong case there. Yeah, let's deliberate on this one
a little bit. The point I find strongest the use
of the filter in the video, giving it a yellow
CPA tone, a film technique used to make you know,
Thailand look more underdeveloped. This is pretty interesting, a very
(09:38):
twenty twenty four criticism. I think something you probably wouldn't
have heard like twenty years ago unless it was coming
from a cinematographer or some sort of film scholar, but
something it's pretty easy to pick up on now thanks
to our use of Instagram and all these these filtered
apps and stuff like that. I think this is, you know,
(09:58):
super acute that somebody's picked up on this. Notice this,
we're adding this on there to make this country look
different than it actually is in a more negative light.
It's there's something pretty valid there. Definitely shifts your perception there.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
What do you think of that?
Speaker 2 (10:13):
So there's two things. One is, you know, Apple has
come out and said they used a tie production company
to put this together. So this was clearly someone on
the inside of the country who used that technique. I'm
going to assume that it was edited somehow outside of
the country, and that was a decision that was made
outside of that production company, because otherwise wouldn't they be
(10:34):
at fault. Wouldn't it be a tied citizen depicting their
own country in that way. The other part of that
is I think that you know, you sort of do
this as a technique in filmmaking. You know, they refer
to this as a film because it is like seven
minutes long, right, it's a long commercial. Yeah, it might
be longer than that. And this is where you know,
(10:55):
in these techniques of filmmaking, you you know, you try
to set a scene. And I'll use the example of
the matrix. And I know that this is a far
fetched example, but it's pretty clear when people understand what
I'm referencing. It's that when Neo was in the matrix,
there was sort of like a green tint to it, right,
(11:16):
And that's how you knew he was in the matrix
versus the real world. And that was setting the tone,
that was setting the scene, that was giving you an
idea as an audience of the difference of environment or
the you know, where they're located. You know, these people
are typically in the office and they go out of
(11:36):
country to find this new packaging factory. Is it weird
that they picked CPIA tone? Does it have validity that
that could be used to construe that this country is
you know, sort of underdeveloped? I guess, you know, like
I can see it from that vantage point but I
also think it's kind of like something that would probably
(11:58):
be very normalized, like you know, when someone goes to
another country, maybe even a country that's like what some
would consider a third world country, that you know, there
is like a grittiness to the actual film, and I
could see where that you know, someone would do that
as a filmmaker. My argument here is that you know,
when you are storytelling, you're going to run the risk
(12:20):
of this happening, right, because these are clearly filmmakers, not
someone who's creating a thirty second ad, and they're trying
to tell a story and they just happen to use
a technique many films use, right, and it obviously bit
them in this case right in the rear.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
Yeah, it's a stylistic choice. And if you watch some
of these other ads in this kind of underdog series,
they definitely have a style to them. It's almost like
a Wes Anderson movie kind of vibe or look to them.
Because I watched the Swiped one, which is in New
York I think it's in New York City, and I
(12:58):
don't know, New York could almost some of the same complaints.
It looks, you know, it's it's a version of New
York that I don't know is true to the place,
if I'm getting that city correct. But it has a
definite feel to it that's almost like otherworldly or like
very maybe very hyper specific to the areas they filmed
(13:18):
it or something.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Maybe a little stereotype too. Yeah, there could be validity
to what they're saying. I just don't think that's the company.
The company is a global company, even if it is
based out of California, you know what I mean. I
don't think that they intended to do that.
Speaker 4 (13:35):
Nor do I think these videos have a hyper realistic
vibe or depiction to them, you know what I mean.
It's almost like comical or something. It does feel like
it's something that's a little off kilter, right. Maybe that's
not quite translating super well, I will say in Apple's defense,
it's legitimately hard to find this ad now mm hmm.
(13:58):
Like I was searching for to kind of try to
watch this one, and I could find scenes, but it
appears to be largely removed from the Internet, which seems
crazy to me. Like they I'm like, they actually did it.
Were you able to find these places?
Speaker 2 (14:13):
You can find it on Speaking Human dot com the
one place I didn't look to our listeners out there. Yeah,
I mean, and that is a testament to that. They said,
you know, we're pulling it. So when they say they're
going to do something, you know, they're obviously they're not
joking around. I don't think that they're ever really intentionally
(14:33):
trying to you know, offend other cultures, other countries. They
have a lot of products in those countries, you know
what I mean. And it's like, do they portray other
areas in the same way. Probably, And is there an
argument for are they stereotyping you know, locals maybe, you know,
but I don't think it's in a malicious way. I
(14:54):
think they're trying to have like a lighthearted tone to
most of those commercials, the underdog commercials.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
So I will say on that, you know, flip side
of that. As a global company, you would think they
think some of this through a little more. And maybe
they did, you know, I know, the Thailand's Prime minister,
you know, promoted the ads, so it was it probably
went through some channels, had some eyeballs on it and
maybe seemed okay when they put it out into the world.
But it's just one of those things. You're like, man,
(15:20):
you think as a global company, they'd be extra careful
when they're like depicting a foreign nation, you know where
they where they have customers, and you know, walk on
eggshells a little bit to make sure they didn't do that.
And I don't know what homework they did. Maybe they
did that, maybe they did not do that enough. It's
just one of those things. In twenty twenty four, you know,
(15:41):
you got to be extra careful with everything. Were they
careful enough?
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Yeah, which they weren't. They were not. So as the
jury reached a verdict, we have your honor. What say
you in the case of the whole country of Thailand
versus Apple and the underdogs? What do we find the
defendant guilty not guilty?
Speaker 4 (16:02):
While the criticism is valid, I don't know that killing
the ad is the right answer. Here's what I think.
I would sentence Apple to a revised or follow up
AD that directly addresses the criticism. Maybe it could even
be a comical version of the ad with someone from
Thailand saying, why are you using that filter? Thailand looks
(16:24):
much better without it? Or why are you acting like
Thailand is underdeveloped? Perhaps you have not seen the many
resources we have to offer to help you in your work,
you know, something like that some the way to address
this criticism within this AD series, That's what I would
sentence apple to your thoughts.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
Patrick, I think that's an interesting choice. Does that potentially
cause more damage or you know, do they just do
damage control?
Speaker 4 (16:53):
It doesn't love more damage?
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Yeah, you know, I mean I would probably declare a
mistrial on this one because I don't really think that
this is the case of a intentional or be malicious intent,
you know, so I guess in a way it's not guilty,
or you know, we could just go the other route
and just say they're guilty. All signs points to guilt.
(17:17):
They declared an apology, right, a formal apology, They released
a statement, and they pulled the ad. It's the sign
of a guilty person.
Speaker 4 (17:26):
Well doesn't everybody do that though, isn't that just classic
pr Let's clean up with clean up real quick?
Speaker 2 (17:32):
And so does someone who you know murders someone and
they're cleaning up the cleaning up the scene. You know,
they're spraying down chlorax or whatever they do. So anyway,
you know what they do, I don't know what they do.
Stop trying to make me into a murderer.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Order in the court.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
All right, Next up on the docket, will the defendant
please rise? In the case of the World Watching the
Olympics versus Google, Case number zero zero two, the defendant
has been charged with promoting how cool it is that
artificial intelligence can make human life inconsequential and meaningless to
(18:10):
the lens of writing a fan letter to a hero athlete.
In the ad Dear Sydney, Google promotes its AI called Gemini,
by showcasing its capabilities when a father asked it to
write a fan letter for his daughter to an Olympic athlete.
The prosecution would like to call Google to the stand. Google,
would you say it's fair to assume that you believe
(18:32):
yourself to be the number one search engine in the world.
Do you think this gives you the right to lay
waste to what makes us all human? Objection? Your honor
to the prosecution is leading the witness sustain rephrase your question.
That's okay, you don't have to answer that. I think
we all know the answer at Google. Let the record
show that you released a statement only after people conveyed
their discontent with the commercial and I quote we believe
(18:56):
that AI can be a great tool for enhancing human
creativity but can never replace it. Blah blah blah. Our
goal was to create an authentic story celebrating Team USA.
It showcases a real life track enthusiast and her father
and aims to show how the Gemini app can provide
a starting point, thought starter, or early draft for someone
(19:18):
looking for ideas for their writing. Blah blah blah. Come on, Google,
come on, you could do better than that. The prosecution rests.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
I do have a few witnesses for the prosecution I
would like to cop and they would like to remain anonymous.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
All right, Well, as long as they swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
So help them. God, We'll take it, So help them God. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (19:40):
This one comes from Twitter, from Twitter, from X This
is from Twitter because I refuse to call it X
fuck all right from Twitter. It's just a commercial, sure,
but as a demonstration of Google's overall thinking on the
role AI has to play in our world. Dear Sidney
as well. Pretty horrify by this witness comes from Reddit.
(20:03):
Tech is supposed to give us time to pursue our humanity,
not replace it what a ghoulishly soulless ad and a
couple other quick witnesses from Reddit a gross miscalculation of
how to market AI felt extremely dystopian. The witnesses will
step down.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Now, prosecution res We appreciate the witnesses and their testimony.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
Noted for the record.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
I will say they were trying to tell a story.
Definitely a story here, and I feel like in the
camp of the Pepsi one that you mentioned earlier, very
tone deaf. You know, people are all over AI right now,
and I think that there are a lot of people
who are for it. There are a lot of people
who are very terrified of the technology, and this does
(20:48):
not put it in a great light, like there's a
million ways to show how this can start, ideas for
you for a letter, even but this is so off
the mark. It's like it just took the human soul
out of something that a person should have been emotionally
connected to. There should be heart in it, and they're
basically saying, well, you don't really need that.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
I had the same exact feeling. It was like, what
a misread of the moment when people are both excited
and scared of this technology We were talking recently about
Y two K. You know, there was that turn of
the century moment where people were very excited and also
fearful of our technology and what it could do to us.
And this is kind of a similar moment. So you
(21:30):
need to tread carefully in that moment, yeah, you know,
and kind of like ease people into the technology, give
them a way in, and this is a way out.
You know, this is like a push out. This is
saying technology is going to replace something that's very heartfelt
to you. It's a replacement to this connection you have
between people, and that is not the message people need
(21:53):
to hear.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
There's a whole other problem with the story for me,
Why is this dad having the AI write his daughter's
fan letter to begin with? You know what I mean?
Like that to me is a very strange starting point. Anyway,
This to me is a huge Probably the biggest problem
with the ad, and what maybe could have saved the
ad is if it's the little girl telling the story,
(22:17):
you know what I mean, if she's the narrator of
her own story.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
Yeah, she's not necessarily even playing a role. He's just
talking about her, how he's helping her write this letter.
He doesn't know what to write. She's using Gemini. But
you know what if there's this other version where she's
the one you know, talking about I've started writing this letter.
I don't know what to say here. Here's how I'm
using this, And she's kind of has some agency in
(22:41):
her own story. Yeah, but she's like kind of there
but not there yea, in this story that's about her,
which is a weird thing.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Yeah. Not only is the human connection loss, but you
don't even know what her intentions are.
Speaker 4 (22:56):
These ads, this Google style of ad I typically really effective.
They'll make ads where they're showing somebody using the search engine,
or it's like made out of videos. They did the
two thousand and nine Parisian Love commercial is when I
think that's a great example. People talk about that among
like some of the best commercials where it's all just
(23:16):
takes place in a search bar and tells a whole story.
Really like powerful effective ads. I like this style. I
just think, man, they really just missed it. It's hard
to imagine nobody looked at this and had some like hesitation,
especially with the AI message.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
Right now, you had a great analogy of the Y
two K. You know there are people who are just afraid,
and you just created an awareness that is not a
great awareness. People are like, this is your vision of
what the future is. I'm just gonna let this thing
take over. It's scary. It is scary.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
And so this ad immediate backlash, and then Google pulled
it from the airing during the Pair Olympics on NBC's broadcast.
Still kept it online. It's still out there on Google's
YouTube page. Anybody could watch it. So they weren't necessarily
you know, they issued their statement, but not necessarily taking
it back or not backing away from it in any way.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Yeah. I think they defended it more than they did
apologize for it.
Speaker 4 (24:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
You know, I have really liked a lot of their commercials,
this one. I get it why people didn't like it.
So has the jury reached a verdict in the case
of the public versus Google and its artificial intelligence?
Speaker 4 (24:32):
After deliberating for three to four seconds, I think this
one needs to be erased from this earth. I think
they really blew it. So let's move on and try again.
This is not a win for Gemini. If Gemini can
even survive this, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
Well, as we know, Google does have a tendency to
erase things from existence, So maybe they will erase this
from existence as a service as an ad at some point.
So yeah, I agree with that. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
Guilty guilty. How would you sentence them? I like your
sentencing in the last one.
Speaker 4 (25:11):
I would sentence them to, you know, scrub this video.
I don't think they could repent for this in anyway.
Maybe they need to get rid of Gemini. Maybe that's
their sentence, so.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
You don't want them to do a follow up of
Then the athlete gets the artificial intelligence fan letter, holds
it up and then has like another letter next to it,
and holds it up and they're the exact same And
she pins it on a board and there's all these
pieces of yarn, and the yarn is all connected to it,
(25:42):
like one in the center, and it says Gemini. She's
pieced the puzzle together. AI has been writing all these
letters to me. See. Now that's a good sentence right there.
Both those cases, we should put them in front of
the short circuit judge. It's Johnny five guilty.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
Oh I get it. What's wasn't that funny?
Speaker 2 (26:36):
Well? Commercial court is a jerk. I hope you enjoyed
the first ever episode of Commercial Court. That's it for
today's episode. You can find current and past episodes of
the podcast just like this on speaking human dot com.
We'll be back in two weeks with another episode of
Speaking Human. Catch it then, Humans, We're never back in
(27:01):
two weeks. Don't take me to commercial always. They're like
false advertising. We're taking you to court, Commercial
Speaker 3 (27:08):
Court, Speaking Human
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!