Ex-Paramount Pictures exec berates Pepsi iTunes ad | iLounge News


Ex-Paramount Pictures exec berates Pepsi iTunes ad

“‘I still can’t get over the fact that these fresh faced teenagers are being attacked by companies just to preserve a business model in need of freshening up itself,” says Wattles. ‘I don’t want my kids treated that way by business and I don’t want other people’s kids treated that way.’

And on the choice of language, ‘Prosecutions are usually understood to be actions by the state to enforce criminal laws,’ he says. ‘Prosecutions aren’t generally understood to mean civil lawsuits. The word ‘sued’ would be appropriate and accurate in this context.

‘The ad falsely pumps up the music industry’s enforcement effort, and its suggestive criminalization of the kids’ behavior building up to the tag line ‘we’re still gonna download music for free off the Internet - and there’s not a thing anyone can do about it,’ reinforces the ad’s presumption that their behavior had been criminal.’”

Related Stories



ummm…so how do you suggest iTunes pitch it’s product to reach it’s target audience?  Thanks for offering your unsolicited opinion, but no one really cares what you have to say.

Posted by jcs on January 30, 2004 at 5:31 PM (CST)


This man seems to have suffered a sudden and irreversible sense of humour failure.

Posted by Jackson on January 30, 2004 at 6:33 PM (CST)


Well, I agree with him. I think the ads are disgusting.

Posted by monkedsel on January 30, 2004 at 7:45 PM (CST)


I just saw the Pepsi ad. I think it is evil and insidious. I will never buy Pepsi products nor use Itunes to purchase downloaded music.

The funny thing is; the ‘law’ hasn’t won; the downloaders are still winning the battle, not to mention the war.


Posted by Thomas Davie on January 30, 2004 at 7:57 PM (CST)


I agree.
It’s a pretty lousy ad in my opinion.
I just saw a special documentary on Tv the other night about how more and more children are being seen in Emergency rooms with broken bones due to weak bones . Doctors attribute this to more soft drink consumption!

I thought Pepsi would have more class than come up with something like this.

As far as the RIAA it’s just Status Quo for these guys….POS

Posted by scrins on January 30, 2004 at 8:11 PM (CST)


From an advertising standpoint, I think it’s a great ad. And it’s not like Pepsi held a gun to these kids’ heads and told them to do the ad or else. I’m sure they’re getting a nice check for doing the ad. So it’s bad that Pepsi is saying that these kids are criminals? Well, what would you call them? It’s time people started realizing that downloading music illegally is just that—illegal. You’re getting something that you would normally have to pay for, for nothing. People are just so selfish that they can’t realize that in their attempt to get something for nothing, they’re also putting people out of money who worked hard for that money and deserve it.

Posted by saycheese200 on January 30, 2004 at 8:16 PM (CST)


I agree, Saycheese200.

Thanks for a voice of reason

Posted by rdlink on January 30, 2004 at 8:37 PM (CST)


yeah, bling bling, poor rock stars. if they drop the concert tix prices back under 100 dollars, they might see some cd money from me again. don’t give beggers change they only buy booze with it.
i’m pretty sure most rock stars drowning in our money are also snorting half of it.

Posted by bkush on January 30, 2004 at 11:08 PM (CST)


It should be a crime to use a tune by the Clash to promote these two corporate giants.  The “rebels” from the 70’s & 80’s are now just corporate lackeys mining their youth to sell iPods.

Posted by It's not a crime to be a music fan on January 31, 2004 at 1:14 AM (CST)


Mr. Wattles isn’t advocating piracy. He is denouncing the exploitation of children in the cause of corporate greed. He argues that the ad is subtly incriminating these children when in fact no crime has been proven. In fact, it is possible that the means by which these children were identified in the first place was the criminal act, yet they are the ones being vilified as thieves. The point is subtle, and I don’t begrudge anyone who fails to see it. I’m well aware of the futility of attempting rational discussion of a topic that is awash in grey areas on a website devoted to fanatical loyalty of a consumer product. So I’ll shut up now :P

Posted by mrfett on January 31, 2004 at 1:22 AM (CST)


The Clash were always rich little art schools boys playing at being punks. Nothing to see here, move along. Ever get the feeling you’ve been had?

Posted by sellouts on January 31, 2004 at 1:42 AM (CST)


And it’s not like Pepsi held a gun to these kids’ heads and told them to do the ad or else. They held a great big lawsuit to these kids’ heads and told them to do the ad or else.

Couldn’t agree more about the ad.  It’s sick.

Posted by Fenn on January 31, 2004 at 4:56 AM (CST)



Posted by m0nkey on January 31, 2004 at 7:23 AM (CST)


“I Fought The Law” was written by Sonny Curtis of the Crickets and recorded by them on May 18, 1959 at Bell Sound Studio in NYC.” The Clash my ass.

And I doubt “They held a great big lawsuit to these kids’ heads and told them to do the ad or else.” They probably received nice checks from Pepsi and Apple, more than enough to cover the legal expenses of defending their illegal music downloading.

Posted by John_Henry on January 31, 2004 at 9:16 AM (CST)


I’m not saying that it is an evil ad because Pepsi is portraying these kids as criminals. I couldn’t care less about them. What I find wrong is that you have one giant corporation (Pepsi Cola North America)cozying up to to some kind of legal standards/practices board (what the heck would you define the RIAA as anyways?) and stating that downloading of music is wrong/immoral/etc.

Of course they are doing it with the express intent of generating revenue. That’s capitalism; nothing wrong with that.

The kids get some money (and maybe they can pay the RIAA off with that); nothing wrong here either.

But, I still download music, I don’t have to buy fizzy sugar water that I hate, and there is nothing that the RIAA can do about it *until* it is ruled as illegal in Canada.

Ny soft drink of choice? Soda water.

My download of choice? Free and without restrictions, although I would settle for paid and without restrictions (but the big companies aren’t going to allow this are they?).


Posted by Thomas Davie on January 31, 2004 at 11:56 AM (CST)


For the love of God, do none of you understand? This commercial was stating, in a very clear way, that these kids were getting busted for something that wasn’t illegal. By giving away free songs, iTunes and Pepsik are flippin’ the bird to the RIAA. Downloading music without paying for it is not illegal. The RIAA says it is. It has now been deemed illegal. Everyone knows that it’s a ridiculous law, but it IS a law. The giveaway is almost like a loophole. “We’re just gonna keep on doin’ it because we know it’s right.” Jeez…

Posted by Sypher on February 3, 2004 at 3:38 AM (CST)


To all those who feel the kids had choice in the matter—did anyone read the article? If your kid cost you $3000 via the RIAA settlement, wouldn’t you force the kid to try and recoup some of the money through pepsi? I don’t think the kids had much choice.

Pepsi just helped the RIAA bigtime by further scaring people from downloading music and paying them 75 million to boot.

Posted by Jahroon on February 4, 2004 at 7:54 AM (CST)

Subscribe to iLounge Weekly

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2018 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy