Jump to content

Pepsi Commerical


=Mac=

Recommended Posts

how many pepsi points for for a tactical nuke?:lol:

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In justifying its conclusion that the commercial was "evidently done in jest" and that "The notion of traveling to school in a Harrier Jet is an exaggerated adolescent fantasy," the court made several observations regarding the nature and content of the commercial. These included (among others) that:

 

"The callow youth featured in the commercial is a highly improbable pilot, one who could barely be trusted with the keys to his parents' car, much less the prize aircraft of the United States Marine Corps."

 

LAWL...But now that same "Callow Youth" can get DCS for FREE and the AV-8B N/A for what...699 Pepsi points?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Primary Computer

ASUS Z390-P, i7-9700K CPU @ 5.0Ghz, 32GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 @ 3200Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce 1070 Ti AMP Extreme, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 NVMe drives (1Tb & 500 Gb), Windows 10 Professional, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, Thrustmaster Warthog Stick, Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle, Cougar MFDs x3, Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals and TrackIR 5.

 

-={TAC}=-DCS Server

Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3, i7-3770K CPU @ 3.90GHz, 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 @ 1600Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for 7,000,000 Pepsi points you get Harrier DLC for DCS..

 

Some people are just plain dumb. Nonetheless it was a funny read, thanks for sharing.

AWAITING ED NEW DAMAGE MODEL IMPLEMENTATION FOR WW2 BIRDS

 

Fat T is above, thin T is below. Long T is faster, Short T is slower. Open triangle is AWACS, closed triangle is your own sensors. Double dash is friendly, Single dash is enemy. Circle is friendly. Strobe is jammer. Strobe to dash is under 35 km. HDD is 7 times range key. Radar to 160 km, IRST to 10 km. Stay low, but never slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH Ya

 

In all fairness, the chances of someone getting killed in a DCS-related accident are not very high.

I have dammed near had a few hart attacks blood pressure get high trying to do a hover landing Harrier I get so mad (the German in me)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Window 10, i9-9900,2080TI, 32GB ram Puma Pro Flight Trainer, 2 x 1TB WB SSD NVMe HP Reverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how Pepsi Co. got away with this from a legal standpoint besides throwing a lot of money and making backroom deals with legal officials. I am not saying the man should have got a Harrier jet out of this either, what I am saying is Pepsi Co. should have been held legally accountable. This is directly from the FTC's website as well:

 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising

 

"When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The Federal Trade Commission enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears – in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses. "

 

With that very statement from the FTC itself, how could they get away with not being legally punished? Think about what was said in the judgement. "The court found that even if the advertisement had been an offer, no reasonable person could have believed that the company seriously intended to convey a jet worth roughly $23 million for $700,000, i.e., that it was mere puffery."

 

What is a reasonable person according to a legal court though? Is there some sort of scientific data defining what a reasonable person is that can be used legally in false advertising cases? Because that is a subjective argument and as far as I was aware of, the US legal system is not supposed to make judgements based on subjective arguments.

 

I mean if this defense really worked, then why are other company officials in different situations being punished might I ask?

 

Think about the VW emissions scandal, which is a prime example of false advertising. All the officials had to say in court after the precedent set by Pepsi Co was: "An 80mpg VW Jetta, I mean no reasonable person would believe that".

It seems to be like a big part of the court decision was the intent of the person trying to get the Harrier, and perhaps most importantly, the fact that he didn't actually earn the Pepsi points but instead bought them (which I guess was part of the promotion, but still goes a bit contrary to the advertisement's theme).

 

Keep in mind that the FTC does acknowledge and allow satire in advertising, and if you read up on the case there was a significant argument for why the Harrier part of the commercial was completely satirical.

 

If I was PepsiCo, I'd have given them the Harrier. It wasn't worth the monumental amount of bad press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
I don't see how Pepsi Co. got away with this from a legal standpoint besides throwing a lot of money and making backroom deals with legal officials. I am not saying the man should have got a Harrier jet out of this either, what I am saying is Pepsi Co. should have been held legally accountable. This is directly from the FTC's website as well:

 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising

 

"When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The Federal Trade Commission enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears – in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses. "

 

With that very statement from the FTC itself, how could they get away with not being legally punished? Think about what was said in the judgement. "The court found that even if the advertisement had been an offer, no reasonable person could have believed that the company seriously intended to convey a jet worth roughly $23 million for $700,000, i.e., that it was mere puffery."

 

What is a reasonable person according to a legal court though? Is there some sort of scientific data defining what a reasonable person is that can be used legally in false advertising cases? Because that is a subjective argument and as far as I was aware of, the US legal system is not supposed to make judgements based on subjective arguments.

 

I mean if this defense really worked, then why are other company officials in different situations being punished might I ask?

 

Think about the VW emissions scandal, which is a prime example of false advertising. All the officials had to say in court after the precedent set by Pepsi Co was: "An 80mpg VW Jetta, I mean no reasonable person would believe that".

 

VW scandal isn't only about advertisement. Emissions limits are fixed by the law (at least in Europe, I don't know in USA. I bet some states doesn't care at all).

In some cases there are taxes associated with emissions rates.

 

So when manufacturer cheats on his car emissions level, he is cheating with the law and taxes...

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...