8 ms·

Leonard vs. Pepsico, Inc

81 points by EndXA 3y ago

Boogie_Man 3y ago
>The Pentagon stated that the Harrier Jet would not be sold to civilians without "demilitarization", which, in the case of the Harrier, would have included stripping it of its ability to land and take off vertically.[10] Thank you Pentagon,very lame!
- jordemort 3y ago
  That seems to imply that there is a price at which they WILL sell one to a civilian, though.
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    Sure, civilians own all sorts of obsolete and de-commissioned military gear. Small arms obviously, but also tanks and planes. If you've got loads of obsolete tanks, of which some are kinda sorta working, others are mostly useful only as spares and your mission is to turn that into money but without harming national security, selling say half a dozen of them to a movie props company, makes lot of sense. Deactivate the main weapon, remove auxiliary weapons, strip out any sensitive materials from the interior, and it still looks like a tank on screen, but it's not a real threat because it's deactivated. They can use it to shoot war movies, as background for politics movies, &c. Serious adversaries don't need obsolete tanks. If you're Russia, a working 1970s tank is of no value to you. Russia have perfectly good tanks newer than that, and their crews were already trained on them. However you don't want some minor power or non-government entity to buy these and re-arm them somewhere that can't defend itself, you don't want your obsolete tanks to show up in a guerilla war in South America, so you can guarantee that with "Not for export" type paperwork.
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      There's a place in Vegas where you can drive one around and crush scrapped cars. There was also a police-footage show with an episode about a guy who built a DIY tank-- a bulldozer with a bunch of cement slabs mounted to it. He terrorized a neighborhood on his way to demolish city hall over some grievance, beached it, and shot himself while police tried to breach it.
      - hiatus 3y ago
        There was no way out for him but a bullet to the head or breach—he welded himself in. https://youtu.be/w7QG1w3ixkM?si=6afvV_acZbfqdkKz https://youtu.be/w7QG1w3ixkM?si=6afvV_acZbfqdkKz
      - TheCleric 3y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer
    - euroderf 3y ago
      If you want something you can drive around your neighborhood, you want an armored car with rubber tires (not metal treads, not rubber treads). For instance, the UK's M8 Greyhound.
    - Boogie_Man 3y ago
      I've wanted a mortar and mortar munitions for as long as I can remember, but you can't own army surplus as it's a "destructive device" which is bullshit if I've ever heard it.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  I was curious about why The Pentagon would be the desired seller, when it's a British plane, and in my searching came across this little tidbit: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/three-iconic-harrier-jump-jets-22341692 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/three-iconic-harrier-j... > The owner of the Harrier jump jets, former US Marines pilot Art Nalls, hopes wealthy British collectors will buy the trio of iconic jets which are the only flyable civilian versions in the world
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
stanac 3y ago
> On November 17, 2022, a docuseries about the case titled Pepsi, Where's My Jet? was released on Netflix. I think it's four episodes. The only problem is that we know the outcome and series tries to keep you in suspense.
- styfle 3y ago
  The docuseries has a lot more information than the Wikipedia article. For example, interviews with some of the people who worked on that Pepsi commercial. Not every movie is watched for the outcome alone :)
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
    Yeah, the interviews with the Pepsi execs, most specifically the guy that was in charge of their marketing, were the actual most interesting part of that docuseries.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    It also explored a related Filipino Pepsi promotion that didn't end so well. That one was heartbreaking.
- NoboruWataya 3y ago
  Yes... it's a moderately interesting court case that has often been used to introduce law students to the concepts of offer and acceptance (and ancillary concepts like puffery), but I felt like the docuseries was trying quite hard to make the whole episode more interesting than it was. Maybe I am just jaded by all the insane financial shenanigans that have occurred since...
- epolanski 3y ago
  I don't think the outcome is relevant to a docuseries. It's not like we watch a 9/11 doc wondering what's gonna happen to the twin towers or one about OJ's trial wondering whether he'll be judged guilty or not.
  - 3y ago
alberth 3y ago
168 comments | 2-years ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28188929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28188929
m463 3y ago
This reminds me of the frequent flyer miles hacks one guy figured out. EDIT: here it is, the pudding guy: David Phillips is an American civil engineer best known for accumulating frequent flyer miles by taking advantage of a promotion by Healthy Choice Foods in 1999. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Phillips_(entrepreneur) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Phillips_(entrepreneur)
- mattew 3y ago
  I also think of pudding guy every time something like this comes up.
  - NeoTar 3y ago
    There was someone who did something similar with Tesco (UK Supermarket) Clubcard Points (a reward system which, I believe, essentially returns essentially 1% of your supermarket shopping spend in return for correlating shopping data with your demographics !) In the early days (1997) of the system, there was a 'bonus' points points offer on Bananas, sufficient that the cost of the bananas was offset by the rewards. Although searching for the article, the benefit was only 8%, and the total reward was only about 25 GBP (about 40 USD at 1997 exchange rates) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/banana-economics-buy-942lb-of-fruit-give-it-away-and-make-pounds-25-profit-1283219.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/banana-economics-buy-942l...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
thih9 3y ago
Was there any mention of the jet elsewhere, e.g. in some printed t&c? If it was only in a random tv ad, then I side with Pepsico too. And I wish I had a spare 700k for a random stunt like this.
- styfle 3y ago
  No, the jet was only in the commercial (according to the documentary). They thought they had a case since Pepsi “forgot” to put a fine-print disclaimer at the bottom like most other commercials.
- stork19 3y ago
  More like $1.3M in today's dollars.
- jwilk 3y ago
  > I wish I had a spare 700k for a random stunt like this. The guy didn't have that much either: "Leonard […] convinced five investors to lend him a total of $700,000".
  - epolanski 3y ago
    Man should've been the CEO founder talking to angels and VCS..
  - paulpauper 3y ago
    so a total loss. makes even cryptocurrency safe by comparison
    - azeemba 3y ago
      No loss. Pepsi never cashed the check
      - thih9 3y ago
        Some loss — there were likely some lawsuit costs.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
olalonde 3y ago
There's a quite entertaining documentary about the saga on Netflix, "Pepsi, Where's My Jet?".
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  Was it really that entertaining? Don't get me wrong, I liked the story, and maybe I might have ADHD, but I feel like it just dragged on unnecessarily just to squeeze more episodes out of what was a pretty short story: - kid sees pepsi ad offering Harrier Jet for 6 million Pepsi points - kid talks a wealthy business-man friend into a plan of getting 6 milion Pepsi points - Pepsi tries to strike deal with them into giving up on the jet in exchange for $MILLION USD - kid says no to deal and takes Pepsi to court for the jet - Pepsi gets corporate friendly judge that sides with them and the kid and his business-man friend loose THE END, we don't need the back story of every character and their mom, just to turn this story into 3-6 episodes.
  - function_seven 3y ago
    This is a classic Netflix move. 4-, 6-, and 8-episode “docuseries” that could easily be a single movie. Lots of padding to drag it all out.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      Honestly, this is where small youtubers win over Netflix. They get to the point and make a 10-30 minute video about a topic that would be 6+ episodes on Netflix. And Youtube is basically free, or a small subscription.
      - cookie_monsta 3y ago
        I think this is the first time I have seen YouTubers offered as an example of people who get to the point
        TeMPOraL 3y ago
dougSF70 3y ago
There was a window of time in which marketing execs designed promotions without testing the mechanic...the "Hoover flights to the USA promotion" that ran in the UK in the 90s was similarly gamed and resulted in Hoover UK entering administration IIRC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_free_flights_promotion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_free_flights_promotion
- OliveMate 3y ago
  It was disastrously successful to the point where 'hoover' has been synonymous with 'vaccuum cleaner' ever since over here!
roarcher 3y ago
The TV commercial: https://youtu.be/ZdackF2H7Qc?feature=shared&t=13 https://youtu.be/ZdackF2H7Qc?feature=shared&t=13
Animats 3y ago
There's at least one flyable Harrier in private ownership.[1] But it wasn't in private ownership and flyable when this case was decided. Used military jets aren't that hard to come by.[2] It's the restoration and maintenance that get you. [1] https://artnalls.com/team-shar-is-alive/ https://artnalls.com/team-shar-is-alive/ [2] https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/gallery/fighter-jets-sale-1234622620/5-mig-21/ https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/gallery/fighter-jets-...
oh_sigh 3y ago
Ruled on by Kimba Wood, the same judge who destroyed Limewire. Some judges just don't know how to have fun.
SeanAnderson 3y ago
IANAL, but this judgement seems really odd to me when I contrast it with the judgement made against Red Bull's use of "Red Bull gives you wings." To me, it seems less far-fetched to believe that one could redeem an excessive amount of points for an expensive product than to believe consuming a drink would actually give one wings. More broadly, though, I don't know which side I favor. Letting advertisements be a little cheeky seems like it brightens the world, but the false advertising line seems quite hard to pin down.
- cowsup 3y ago
  The lawsuit against Red Bull was not actually about gaining physical wings, but rather, the fact that Red Bull implied their drink was a super energy drink with that slogan and related materials, when in reality, it was about as energy-fueling as a cup of coffee [0]. This court case, like the McDonald’s Hot Coffee case, are commonly twisted out of context to sound so absurd and frivolous, when in reality there’s quite a good reason for it. [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/red-bull-settles-false-advertising-lawsuit-for-13m-1.2793536 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/red-bull-settles-false-adve...
  - SeanAnderson 3y ago
    I don't feel this explains Red Bull's response to the lawsuit, then? Red Bull still show ads with the slogan. I saw one on Twitch yesterday. The only difference is now there's three i's in wings. So it's just "Red Bull gives you wiiings." I thought that edit was to try and make it clear that the wings were in jest. It seemed similar to Pepsi Co's "Just Kidding" addition to their jet offer. If it was really about false advertising and not the implication itself... then shouldn't the ads either stop entirely or continue without modification? EDIT: oh, maybe I am completely off-base here. It looks like the slogan always had three iii's and I'm just assuming it changed in response.
  - ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
    The coffee one where it's brewed between 195-205 yet people say keeping it at 180 was negligence? That's always bugged me ever since I made pour over, McDonald's essentially heated their coffee to the temperature it'd be if it was made fresh. Sure it was hotter than competitors, but it was hardly an impossible temperature for coffee to be. It's literally brewed hotter than they served it.
qingcharles 3y ago
So Coke had a similar auction thing and I quickly realized that the top prizes could be nabbed for cheap because it would take people forever to collect enough ringpulls and mail them in so they could bid on things. So my friends and I cleared the entire CITY of Coca-Cola. Every grocery store. Pallets of it. This was just one de-ringpulling session of about 800 cans here: https://imgur.com/a/kE0djNt https://imgur.com/a/kE0djNt This is what happened next though... (spoiler: I didn't get my merch) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36989718 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36989718
- oarla 3y ago
  Very clever! They should have hired you to run future campaigns.

81 points by EndXA 3y ago

>The Pentagon stated that the Harrier Jet would not be sold to civilians without "demilitarization", which, in the case of the Harrier, would have included stripping it of its ability to land and take off vertically.[10] Thank you Pentagon,very lame!

jordemort 3y ago
That seems to imply that there is a price at which they WILL sell one to a civilian, though.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  Sure, civilians own all sorts of obsolete and de-commissioned military gear. Small arms obviously, but also tanks and planes. If you've got loads of obsolete tanks, of which some are kinda sorta working, others are mostly useful only as spares and your mission is to turn that into money but without harming national security, selling say half a dozen of them to a movie props company, makes lot of sense. Deactivate the main weapon, remove auxiliary weapons, strip out any sensitive materials from the interior, and it still looks like a tank on screen, but it's not a real threat because it's deactivated. They can use it to shoot war movies, as background for politics movies, &c. Serious adversaries don't need obsolete tanks. If you're Russia, a working 1970s tank is of no value to you. Russia have perfectly good tanks newer than that, and their crews were already trained on them. However you don't want some minor power or non-government entity to buy these and re-arm them somewhere that can't defend itself, you don't want your obsolete tanks to show up in a guerilla war in South America, so you can guarantee that with "Not for export" type paperwork.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    There's a place in Vegas where you can drive one around and crush scrapped cars. There was also a police-footage show with an episode about a guy who built a DIY tank-- a bulldozer with a bunch of cement slabs mounted to it. He terrorized a neighborhood on his way to demolish city hall over some grievance, beached it, and shot himself while police tried to breach it.
    - hiatus 3y ago
      There was no way out for him but a bullet to the head or breach—he welded himself in. https://youtu.be/w7QG1w3ixkM?si=6afvV_acZbfqdkKz https://youtu.be/w7QG1w3ixkM?si=6afvV_acZbfqdkKz
    - TheCleric 3y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer
  - euroderf 3y ago
    If you want something you can drive around your neighborhood, you want an armored car with rubber tires (not metal treads, not rubber treads). For instance, the UK's M8 Greyhound.
  - Boogie_Man 3y ago
    I've wanted a mortar and mortar munitions for as long as I can remember, but you can't own army surplus as it's a "destructive device" which is bullshit if I've ever heard it.
ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
I was curious about why The Pentagon would be the desired seller, when it's a British plane, and in my searching came across this little tidbit: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/three-iconic-harrier-jump-jets-22341692 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/three-iconic-harrier-j... > The owner of the Harrier jump jets, former US Marines pilot Art Nalls, hopes wealthy British collectors will buy the trio of iconic jets which are the only flyable civilian versions in the world
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

stanac 3y ago

> On November 17, 2022, a docuseries about the case titled Pepsi, Where's My Jet? was released on Netflix. I think it's four episodes. The only problem is that we know the outcome and series tries to keep you in suspense.

styfle 3y ago
The docuseries has a lot more information than the Wikipedia article. For example, interviews with some of the people who worked on that Pepsi commercial. Not every movie is watched for the outcome alone :)
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
  Yeah, the interviews with the Pepsi execs, most specifically the guy that was in charge of their marketing, were the actual most interesting part of that docuseries.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  It also explored a related Filipino Pepsi promotion that didn't end so well. That one was heartbreaking.
NoboruWataya 3y ago
Yes... it's a moderately interesting court case that has often been used to introduce law students to the concepts of offer and acceptance (and ancillary concepts like puffery), but I felt like the docuseries was trying quite hard to make the whole episode more interesting than it was. Maybe I am just jaded by all the insane financial shenanigans that have occurred since...
epolanski 3y ago
I don't think the outcome is relevant to a docuseries. It's not like we watch a 9/11 doc wondering what's gonna happen to the twin towers or one about OJ's trial wondering whether he'll be judged guilty or not.
- 3y ago

alberth 3y ago

168 comments | 2-years ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28188929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28188929

m463 3y ago

This reminds me of the frequent flyer miles hacks one guy figured out. EDIT: here it is, the pudding guy: David Phillips is an American civil engineer best known for accumulating frequent flyer miles by taking advantage of a promotion by Healthy Choice Foods in 1999. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Phillips_(entrepreneur) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Phillips_(entrepreneur)

mattew 3y ago
I also think of pudding guy every time something like this comes up.
- NeoTar 3y ago
  There was someone who did something similar with Tesco (UK Supermarket) Clubcard Points (a reward system which, I believe, essentially returns essentially 1% of your supermarket shopping spend in return for correlating shopping data with your demographics !) In the early days (1997) of the system, there was a 'bonus' points points offer on Bananas, sufficient that the cost of the bananas was offset by the rewards. Although searching for the article, the benefit was only 8%, and the total reward was only about 25 GBP (about 40 USD at 1997 exchange rates) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/banana-economics-buy-942lb-of-fruit-give-it-away-and-make-pounds-25-profit-1283219.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/banana-economics-buy-942l...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

thih9 3y ago

Was there any mention of the jet elsewhere, e.g. in some printed t&c? If it was only in a random tv ad, then I side with Pepsico too. And I wish I had a spare 700k for a random stunt like this.

styfle 3y ago
No, the jet was only in the commercial (according to the documentary). They thought they had a case since Pepsi “forgot” to put a fine-print disclaimer at the bottom like most other commercials.
stork19 3y ago
More like $1.3M in today's dollars.
jwilk 3y ago
> I wish I had a spare 700k for a random stunt like this. The guy didn't have that much either: "Leonard […] convinced five investors to lend him a total of $700,000".
- epolanski 3y ago
  Man should've been the CEO founder talking to angels and VCS..
- paulpauper 3y ago
  so a total loss. makes even cryptocurrency safe by comparison
  - azeemba 3y ago
    No loss. Pepsi never cashed the check
    - thih9 3y ago
      Some loss — there were likely some lawsuit costs.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

olalonde 3y ago

There's a quite entertaining documentary about the saga on Netflix, "Pepsi, Where's My Jet?".

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
Was it really that entertaining? Don't get me wrong, I liked the story, and maybe I might have ADHD, but I feel like it just dragged on unnecessarily just to squeeze more episodes out of what was a pretty short story: - kid sees pepsi ad offering Harrier Jet for 6 million Pepsi points - kid talks a wealthy business-man friend into a plan of getting 6 milion Pepsi points - Pepsi tries to strike deal with them into giving up on the jet in exchange for $MILLION USD - kid says no to deal and takes Pepsi to court for the jet - Pepsi gets corporate friendly judge that sides with them and the kid and his business-man friend loose THE END, we don't need the back story of every character and their mom, just to turn this story into 3-6 episodes.
- function_seven 3y ago
  This is a classic Netflix move. 4-, 6-, and 8-episode “docuseries” that could easily be a single movie. Lots of padding to drag it all out.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    Honestly, this is where small youtubers win over Netflix. They get to the point and make a 10-30 minute video about a topic that would be 6+ episodes on Netflix. And Youtube is basically free, or a small subscription.
    - cookie_monsta 3y ago
      I think this is the first time I have seen YouTubers offered as an example of people who get to the point
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago

dougSF70 3y ago

There was a window of time in which marketing execs designed promotions without testing the mechanic...the "Hoover flights to the USA promotion" that ran in the UK in the 90s was similarly gamed and resulted in Hoover UK entering administration IIRC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_free_flights_promotion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_free_flights_promotion

OliveMate 3y ago
It was disastrously successful to the point where 'hoover' has been synonymous with 'vaccuum cleaner' ever since over here!

roarcher 3y ago

The TV commercial: https://youtu.be/ZdackF2H7Qc?feature=shared&t=13 https://youtu.be/ZdackF2H7Qc?feature=shared&t=13

Animats 3y ago

There's at least one flyable Harrier in private ownership.[1] But it wasn't in private ownership and flyable when this case was decided. Used military jets aren't that hard to come by.[2] It's the restoration and maintenance that get you. [1] https://artnalls.com/team-shar-is-alive/ https://artnalls.com/team-shar-is-alive/ [2] https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/gallery/fighter-jets-sale-1234622620/5-mig-21/ https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/gallery/fighter-jets-...

oh_sigh 3y ago

Ruled on by Kimba Wood, the same judge who destroyed Limewire. Some judges just don't know how to have fun.

SeanAnderson 3y ago

IANAL, but this judgement seems really odd to me when I contrast it with the judgement made against Red Bull's use of "Red Bull gives you wings." To me, it seems less far-fetched to believe that one could redeem an excessive amount of points for an expensive product than to believe consuming a drink would actually give one wings. More broadly, though, I don't know which side I favor. Letting advertisements be a little cheeky seems like it brightens the world, but the false advertising line seems quite hard to pin down.

cowsup 3y ago
The lawsuit against Red Bull was not actually about gaining physical wings, but rather, the fact that Red Bull implied their drink was a super energy drink with that slogan and related materials, when in reality, it was about as energy-fueling as a cup of coffee [0]. This court case, like the McDonald’s Hot Coffee case, are commonly twisted out of context to sound so absurd and frivolous, when in reality there’s quite a good reason for it. [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/red-bull-settles-false-advertising-lawsuit-for-13m-1.2793536 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/red-bull-settles-false-adve...
- SeanAnderson 3y ago
  I don't feel this explains Red Bull's response to the lawsuit, then? Red Bull still show ads with the slogan. I saw one on Twitch yesterday. The only difference is now there's three i's in wings. So it's just "Red Bull gives you wiiings." I thought that edit was to try and make it clear that the wings were in jest. It seemed similar to Pepsi Co's "Just Kidding" addition to their jet offer. If it was really about false advertising and not the implication itself... then shouldn't the ads either stop entirely or continue without modification? EDIT: oh, maybe I am completely off-base here. It looks like the slogan always had three iii's and I'm just assuming it changed in response.
- ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
  The coffee one where it's brewed between 195-205 yet people say keeping it at 180 was negligence? That's always bugged me ever since I made pour over, McDonald's essentially heated their coffee to the temperature it'd be if it was made fresh. Sure it was hotter than competitors, but it was hardly an impossible temperature for coffee to be. It's literally brewed hotter than they served it.

qingcharles 3y ago

So Coke had a similar auction thing and I quickly realized that the top prizes could be nabbed for cheap because it would take people forever to collect enough ringpulls and mail them in so they could bid on things. So my friends and I cleared the entire CITY of Coca-Cola. Every grocery store. Pallets of it. This was just one de-ringpulling session of about 800 cans here: https://imgur.com/a/kE0djNt https://imgur.com/a/kE0djNt This is what happened next though... (spoiler: I didn't get my merch) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36989718 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36989718

oarla 3y ago
Very clever! They should have hired you to run future campaigns.