Pepsi, Where's My Jet? - General Discussion

[DanaK]

From Netflix, 4-part docuseries premiering Nov 17, 2022

Quote

The year was 1996, and the cola wars were raging. Pepsi needed something huge to compete with Coke so they rolled out their biggest campaign ever: "Pepsi Stuff" It featured a soon-to-be infamous commercial that claimed for 7,000,000 Pepsi points you could win a Harrier Jet (one of the most advanced military jets of the time). Pepsi execs assumed the astronomical "price" of the military plane was set high enough to indicate it was a joke, but ambitious & cunning college student John Leonard saw it as a challenge. Enlisting the help (and funding) of mountaineering buddy Todd Hoffman, the 21-year old hashed out a plan to score the grandest prize of all. What ensues is an outrageous goose chase for the infamous Harrier Jet and a legal battle with Pepsi that changed advertising forever.

The following link contains the trailer http://www.thefutoncritic.com/video/2022/10/24/video-pepsi-wheres-my-jet-official-trailer-netflix-927410/20221024netflix05/

Edited October 30, 2022 by DanaK

[Welshman in Ca]

23 hours ago, DanaK said:

From Netflix, 4-part docuseries premiering Nov 17, 2022

The Following link contains the trailer http://www.thefutoncritic.com/video/2022/10/24/video-pepsi-wheres-my-jet-official-trailer-netflix-927410/20221024netflix05/

Looks interesting. First I've heard of the whole Pepsi promotion but people will always find a way to get the top prize, either by hook or by crook & Pepsi should have realized that from the start.

[Snow Apple]

I actually remember the commercial don't remember the aftermath.

[Lois Sandborne]

When I heard Netflix was making a documentary about a Pepsi sweepstakes, I thought it would be about the fiasco in the Philippines where the company ended up manufacturing hundreds of thousands of bottle caps with the winning number, and technically entitled all of those people to a million dollar prize. I remember hearing about both of these stories as a kid, but I guess I didn't realize how far apart they actually were in time. Pepsi clearly learned nothing between disasters, but I wonder if this doc will touch on the earlier drama at all.

[libgirl2]

On 11/10/2022 at 10:29 AM, Lois Sandborne said:

When I heard Netflix was making a documentary about a Pepsi sweepstakes, I thought it would be about the fiasco in the Philippines where the company ended up manufacturing hundreds of thousands of bottle caps with the winning number, and technically entitled all of those people to a million dollar prize. I remember hearing about both of these stories as a kid, but I guess I didn't realize how far apart they actually were in time. Pepsi clearly learned nothing between disasters, but I wonder if this doc will touch on the earlier drama at all.

We watched it yesterday and they did. It was really interesting. I don't remember anything about this! I can't figure out where I was! lol! 

[Bastet]

I don't remember this happening, and didn't learn this case in Contracts, so I was curious, but almost gave up after the first episode because I found John annoying and Todd absolutely unbearable.  I stuck with it, and by the end appreciated both of them.  (And their differing reactions to Michael Avenatti illustrate what a wildly complicated character that guy is.)

At first, the reenactments bugged me, but I wound up liking those, too; the tone of this documentary series suits the players and the oddity of the situation.

Basically, this had to grow on me all around, but ultimately I found it well done.

[cmfran]

I vaguely remember this story when it was happening, but I didn't know how it ended. I thought this series was well done, told with the right not-so-serious tone, and just as long as it needed to be. I thought Leonard and Hoffman were both great, and if I had F You money like Hoffman, this is exactly the kind of thing I would get involved in. 

[dwmarch]

On 11/10/2022 at 8:29 AM, Lois Sandborne said:

Pepsi clearly learned nothing between disasters, but I wonder if this doc will touch on the earlier drama at all.

They do indeed mention this in detail and they also mention Michael Avenatti's current legal troubles which quite possibly stem from ideas he had from when he worked on the Pepsi case. He wanted to do an extortion campaign to force Pepsi into a settlement. I found the black eye poster to be quite visually arresting.

I'll have to organize my thoughts further but I found this documentary to be an interesting commentary on the evolution of the American Dream. It looks like John has a pretty amazing life as is and that is mostly through his hard work over the years. But would it have been possible if not for going viral due to the Pepsi case? Is the not-so-secret sauce of success nowadays finding a way to claim that a big corporation injured you in some way and then suing your way to fame and fortune? And what does this end up costing, both on a personal level and on a societal level?

[Kel Varnsen]

Watched it over the last few days and it was pretty good as far as a Netflix light hearted kind of documentary series goes. It was better than the DB Cooper one but not as good as the GameStop one. It probably would have been better if it was just 3 episodes. Especially since, considering that there was no jet in the catalog, it was obvious they were not going to get one.

I would have liked a bit more about John's current life. Because he seems impressively chill for a guy who basically had possibly a million dollars offered to him, passed on it and ended up with nothing.  Also in the last episode it seemed like a no-brainer to stick with your friend who offered you $700,000 for this whole thing rather than Michael Avenatti. Especially since their bad press campaign would have cost them a bunch more money and they still would have lost in court. 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Kel Varnsen

[Lois Sandborne]

On 11/20/2022 at 7:43 AM, libgirl2 said:

We watched it yesterday and they did. It was really interesting. I don't remember anything about this! I can't figure out where I was! lol! 

We watched while we were cooking this week. I'm glad they incorporated the Philippines story, but I think they could've talked a little more about it. It probably stuck in my head because I clipped a headline about it out of the actual newspaper to bring in to Current Events class. I don't think kids have either of those things anymore, lol.

I thought this was pretty good. Very slick. The pacing could've been more even; I thought they spent too much time wandering around with the mountain climbing and other irrelevant details when I was ready by Episode 2 to find out what happened in court. But I am a lawyer, and I didn't much care for John and Todd, so that probably made it seem a little draggy. And I was totally surprised by Michael Avenatti's involvement. He's such a sleaze, and apparently always has been, it really didn't reflect the best light on their goals. I love a good David vs. Goliath story, but it's a little diminished when David is a jerk too. I really liked the framing of having all the interview subjects take the Pepsi Challenge though. That was a fun thread to follow.

[raven]

On 11/22/2022 at 1:28 PM, dwmarch said:

But would it have been possible if not for going viral due to the Pepsi case? Is the not-so-secret sauce of success nowadays finding a way to claim that a big corporation injured you in some way and then suing your way to fame and fortune?

It doesn't seem as if his current life (as some kind of ranger in Alaska) has anything to do with the case, aside from the documentary.  The doc states that Pepsi sued him first after John hired the lawyer; some not very detailed searching on my part confirms and other articles say he sued Pepsi first.  Admittedly, I'm not terribly interested in who sued who first.   I found John believable when he said at that age he really thought he could get the jet; currently he has no problems saying it was a ridiculous belief.   I laughed when they made a checkbox on the form "Harrier Jet" and mailed in the check.

I've never heard of this case nor about what Pepsi did in the Philippines.  It had to be mentioned but to dwell overly on it would be antithetical to the tone of this series.  It could be its own special, though. 

I laughed quite a bit and found both John and Todd likable.  I enjoyed the asides about their friendship.  Todd wasn't someone just writing checks - they are partners; making John write a business plan and think about things.  I liked that Todd encouraged him but was not unreasonable and let John make the decisions, both good and bad, such as not taking the settlement money. 

Very interesting what the Pepsi guy in charge of the ad campaign had to say.  Most of the Pepsi guys seemed unamused by the whole thing.  Honestly, I felt that Pepsi got caught with their pants down (the ad in Canada had a disclaimer; the changes to the US ad they made afterwards) and if there had been a trial by jury, would have had to cough up a few million, though not jet money.   I'm not a lawyer though so who knows.

It was a fun distraction and well done with the reenactments, current interviews and animation.  The best part of the Avenatti stuff was when John's talking about how they bonded and the doc is showing scenes of them riding horses, etc. with a disclaimer "not actually what they did" or some such.  LOL.

23 hours ago, Lois Sandborne said:

I really liked the framing of having all the interview subjects take the Pepsi Challenge though. That was a fun thread to follow.

Yep, this was a great idea that I enjoyed as well.

[Kel Varnsen]

37 minutes ago, raven said:

The best part of the Avenatti stuff was when John's talking about how they bonded and the doc is showing scenes of them riding horses, etc. with a disclaimer "not actually what they did" or some such.  LOL.

I am pretty sure that one of the clips they used  for that was from Goodfellas, it was Henry Hill and his friends digging up the body of a made guy they killed and had previously buried.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Kel Varnsen

[Bastet]

I also loved how they kept changing the background on the green screen they were shooting Avenatti in front of (since he was under house arrest and there could be no actual backgrounds) to increasingly funny locations.

[xaxat]

I thought this was fun.I don't remember the ad with the jet, but boy do I remember Cindy Crawford.

I thought it was interesting how after all these years none of the people associated with Pepsi Inc and admit that they fucked up and good for the kid.

Microfiche and corded land lines. Nostalgia.

From the original lawyer on the case about Avenatti, "I don't know if he is a fraud. . ." The verdict is in, (12/5/22) news, Michael Avenatti gets 14 years in prison for stealing millions of dollars from clients

[nokat]

On 12/5/2022 at 4:34 PM, xaxat said:

Microfiche and corded land lines. Nostalgia.

Oh, the nostalgia.  Going to the library to search through articles.

[merylinkid]

On 11/27/2022 at 9:05 AM, raven said:

Very interesting what the Pepsi guy in charge of the ad campaign had to say.  Most of the Pepsi guys seemed unamused by the whole thing.  Honestly, I felt that Pepsi got caught with their pants down (the ad in Canada had a disclaimer; the changes to the US ad they made afterwards) and if there had been a trial by jury, would have had to cough up a few million, though not jet money.   I'm not a lawyer though so who knows.

I think so too.   The changing of the ad to add the disclaimer.   The "no reasonable person would believe this."   Well actually John does not strike me as unreasonable.   The original ad was aimed at the average guy, not some super hot mactor.  They also realized when it went out without the disclaimer what this meant.  But they got a corporate judge and the case never made it to a jury.

[Welshman in Ca]

Eventually got around to watching this & it was very interesting if somewhat predictable that Pepsi would win.....................................again, as soon as they got the corporate shill judge they were hoping for. As others have said had this gone to a jury trial Pepsi would have lost and $10 million would have been a realistic goal although I was surprised that they or he turned down their offer or at least didn't counter, a million wouldn't have been out of the question.

As usual though the big corporation got to screw the little guy despite being in the wrong, as the advertising guy basically admitted.

[Kel Varnsen]

I don't know I see it as more complicated than just he should obviously win. The fact that the jet wasn't in the catalog was a big part of that. Especially since they had to take a guess and write in their own shipping and handling charge. Pepsi should have just come back and said the shipping and handling for the jet was $500 million or something. 

Plus while I am no lawyer, I remember from the one law for engineers class they made me take in university that for a contract offer to be valid it has to be serious. Which is why if you are really hungry and say I would give a million dollars for a steak right now, someone can't just give you a steak and sue you for a million dollars. 

[A. Dixon]

Just watched this documentary. It was very interesting. Read the SC decision in the Philippines and it seemed that the supposed winners lost the case. It was also in the decision that the case shall no longer be revisited... ever.