John Leonard Vs Pepsico Essay

Advertisement companies are created to make a strong emotional appeal and to persuade people to buy different goods and services. Marketing specialists and advertisers use different methods to gain popularity for goods they advertise. Unfortunately, they often manipulate facts and present wrong information in order to attract public attention and gain extra profit. John Leonard vs PepsiCo suitcase is notable became it became a vivid illustration of the wrong information presented during the advertisement company.
In 1996 John Leonard issued a case against the PepsiCo company because it refused to exchange his points for a Harrier Jet. John watched the advertisement Pepsi had on TV and heard about a Harrier Jet, which could presented

after gathering 7,00,000 Pepsi points. In general, gathering points and exchanging them on different gifts became a successful marketing strategy. This initiative turned to be an effective one, and a lot of people started collecting points in order to get a gift from the company. In the end of the advertisement, which told about the opportunity to get gifts in exchange on Pepsi points, there was mentioned a Harrier Jet, available for 7, 000, 000 points. Most of the people paid no attention to this fact and it was used as an advertisement trick, aiming to attract public attention. John Leonard seriously believed in the possibility to win a jet plane. After some calculations, he came to conclusions, that he could buy a jet plane, which costed at least $33 million for maximum $ 6 million if he followed the conditions mentioned in the advertisements and collected all necessary 7,00,000 Pepsi points. After careful study of the Pepsi Catalogue, Leonard noticed that as soon as the person collected 15 points, he could buy additional points for only 10 cents per one point. After finding out this information, Leonard decided to make a try. It took him about a year to find a necessary amount of money. He had to find investors who shared his enthusiasm. “And so it was that on March 2

7th of the following year, Leonard sent 15 Pepsi Points, an order form with the words “1 Harrier Jet” written in the item description, and a cheque for $700,008.50 ($699,998.50 for the remaining 6,999,985 points and $10 for shipping and handling) to the required address and waited”

(Smallwood).

The company did not take the letter seriously. They sent back an answer, which said that jet was showed only in advertising goals and they were not going to give it to Leonard. As an excuse, they sent a lot of free coupons to him. John Leonard was not going to give up. Later in the interview he underlined, that after watching an advertisement, he started feeling like a part of “Generation Pepsi” and started believing that he could get a Jet if followed all instruction and collected the necessary amount of points. Sincerity of his words gives reasons to feel doubts. They could be used as an informational weapon for the future court process. John Leonard hired advocates and started a court process against PepsiCo. The next letter to the company was composed by his attorneys. It sounded as “Your letter of May 7, 1996 is totally unacceptable. We have reviewed the video tape of the Pepsi Stuff commercial… and it clearly offers the new Harrier jet for 7,000,000 Pepsi points. Our client followed your rules explicitly… This is a formal demand that you honor your commitment and make immediate arrangements to transfer the new

Harrier jet to our client. If we do not receive transfer instructions within ten (10) business days of the date of this letter you will leave us no choice but to file an appropriate action against Pepsi” (Smallwood). The company again did not take the letter seriously, but still readdressed John and his partners to the advertisement company, who created the ad, which made Leonard believe in the possibility to win a Harrier jet. They also changed the number of coupons, necessary to win a plane from 7, 000, 000 to 700, 000, 000.
Leonard sued Pepsi for lying to its customers and giving not true information in the advertisement. Court processes lasted for three years. Technically, Leonard had a right to get his Harrier jet as he followed all directions necessary to get the prize. From the one hand, all facts showed that Leonard was right. The text of the advertisement clearly stated that all those, who collected necessary amount of points had the right to get a Harrier Jet. Leonard collected necessary points and his letter with the check proved that fact. From the other hand, the promise was nothing but an advertisement trick, aiming to attract customers and create a nice TV picture. “The issue was finally settled in 1999 with the judge concluding that “no objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial actually offered consumers a Harrier Jet” (Smallwood). The court rejected Leonard’s claim because promises, given in the advertisement are not recognized as official order. Advertisements are not considered to be original selling offers. This way, it turns out that Leonard did not make any official order with Pepsi company. Moreover, the advertisement was fake from the very beginning. Harrier Jet is a military plane, and there is no possibility for a civil person to possess a plane like that. Even in the case if Leonard had won the case, Pepsi would have no opportunity to provide anybody with the plane demonstrated in the advertisement. This fact illustrates, to which extend advertisement industry manipulates facts and information. They had no intention to check up credibility of the information they provide to their customers. They are guided only by the idea to attract attention and thus gain additional profit. Pepsi also did not pay much attention to the credibility of their advertisements. Leonard’s claim sounded absurd to the owners of the company. In reality, he only demanded the company to follow promises, given in their advertisement. Leonard’s lawsuit became an illustration of the immense gap, which exists between promises, made during the advertisement company and reality.