The Worlds Apart campaign may be an antidote to the disastrous Pepsi/Kendall Jenner ad but will success on-screen mean success off?

The way advertising works these days, you may have seen Heineken’s latest spot recurring on your social media feeds under superlative headlines, the clapping-hands emoji or the single comment: “THIS”.



Its new Worlds Apart campaign partners a feminist with a member of the “new right”; a climate change denier with an environmental activist; and a transgender woman with a transgender – er, denier to ask if there is “more that unites us than divides us”.

Real people, meeting for the first time for a “social experiment”, each pair is given some flatpack furniture to assemble and a questionnaire to complete together. Then, seated at the bar they’ve just built, they watch a short film in which their partner’s opposing point of view – that climate change is “total piffle”; that women “need to remember we need you to have our children”– is revealed.

They are then given a choice: to go, or “stay and discuss your differences over a beer”. All six choose to hash it out respectfully; one pair are even shown to swap numbers. It goes to show there’s no gap that can’t be bridged over a refreshing Heineken.

The execution is different, as is the featured drink of diplomacy, but the concept may be ringing some bells.

Diet Woke: how Pepsi’s ad backfired for Kendall Jenner Read more

Whether or not work on the Worlds Apart campaign predates Pepsi’s PR disaster – the production value suggests so – it was released soon enough after for the comparison to be inevitable. “Hey Pepsi, Here’s How It’s Done,” wrote AdWeek. “Heineken Takes On Our Differences, And Nails It.”

Fast Company proclaimed it the “antidote” to the now-infamous production in which model Kendall Jenner brings protesters and police together with a can of soft drink. The general tenor of the coverage has been that Heineken has succeeded where Pepsi failed so spectacularly.

The difference between the two is so vast as to resist comparison, says Tony Hale, an advertising industry head who has held senior roles at Clemenger BBDO. The people in the Worlds Apart clip are engaging and relatable; the role played by Heineken – as a friendly facilitator of difficult conversations – is relevant and unforced.

“The Pepsi one’s the opposite, it’s completely contrived,” says Hale. “It’s trying to say Pepsi plays an active role in solving the problems of the world when it’s a bloody soft drink.”

But why are beverage brands concerning themselves with the problems of the world anyway?

Simply put: it’s to their commercial advantage.

The prevalence of what Hale terms “cause- or purpose-based marketing”, existent for the past two decades, has escalated in the past three or four years, he says. “There’s no doubt that a lot of brands see that they need to have a deeper meaning to connect with consumers.”

Super Bowl ads trolling Trump: 'The world is more beautiful the more you accept' Read more

Television’s biggest advertising stage – the Superbowl – is an obvious litmus test. In February this year, big-budget spots championed acceptance, diversity, equality and even immigration, with many perceived to be snubs of President Trump, whose travel ban had just taken effect.

Especially for ads intended to generate attention on social media, a liberal perspective is almost the default, says Hale. “When you’re getting into the social space like this, it is almost by definition harder to have a more conservative opinion.”

Though Heineken will have a “good handle” on its target market, Hale says the strength of Worlds Apart – with its tagline of “open your mind, open your world” – is its apparent objectivity.

“It doesn’t take any line; it’s not judgemental – they understand that there’s a great deal of frustration about the divisive and in many ways sensational ways in which these issue are talked about.”

A PR stunt mixing beer, politics, gay rights and religion: what could possibly go wrong? Read more

In other contexts – think reality television – pairing people of such fundamentally oppositional views together would constitute stunt casting; Heineken’s ad champions constructive discussion and common ground. As far as advertising concepts go, Hale says, “it’s a bit of a stroke of genius”.

But execution is key, as is never clearer than when it’s poorly done. Just last month in Hale’s native Australia, Coopers Brewery launched a call for beer drinkers of opposing views to “disagree most agreeably”, with a video of politicians debating the issue of same-sex marriage. The Keeping It Light campaign, in collaboration with the Bible Society, was swiftly condemned, with the brewer’s response that it was not trying “to push religious messages” coming across as disingenuous.

Hale – who is chief executive of Australia’s Communications Council, the advertising industry body – believes Coopers was well-intentioned and “caught completely unaware” by the scathing reaction on social media. Though the concepts were not worlds apart, the Coopers one was a “little more clunky in its execution”; Heineken’s ad looks like it was produced by HBO.

More broadly, the campaign will include a study led by Goldsmiths University on “the science of common ground”, and a bespoke Facebook Chatbot connecting people from diverse backgrounds. It is a partnership with The Human Library, “a unique not-for-profit organisation that uses conversation to challenge stereotypes”.

The production value of the ad alone suggests to Hale it’s part of a strategic, longer-term play for the brand, rather than a bid “to sell a few more cases of Heineken over the weekend”.



Good ads have longevity, but bad ones are “forgotten pretty quickly” – even that “innocuous garbage” put out by Pepsi, he says. “We wouldn’t be talking about it now if it wasn’t for a good example.”

Ironically, Heineken may struggle to move on more than Pepsi, says Hale. “Because you can always fill the void of a bad ad with a good ad. The harder thing is to come back from a great ad with a better ad.”