Apple signs order for 'The Jet' about iconic 90s Pepsi Points Harrier promo

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
The docuseries will explore the "Drink Pepsi, Get Stuff" promotional campaign that launched during the 1996 Super Bowl and claimed viewers could redeem Pepsi Points for a Harrier Jet.

jet


The commercial in question later became the subject of a lawsuit, Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp 2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1996,) in which a man named John Leonard attempted to cash out 7 million Pepsi Points for a Harrier Jump Jet.





The upcoming Apple TV+ docuseries will be a deep dive into 1990s pop culture and cover the events that took place after Leonard attempted to cash in for the fighter jet.

According to Deadline, "The Jet" will be directed and executive produced by James Lee Hernandes and Brian Lazarte, the Emmy-nominated filmmakers behind HBO's "McMillions," a docuseries about the McDonald's Monopoly game con.

"The Jet" joins other documentaries on Apple TV+, including "Billie Eilish: The World's A Little Blurry," "Boys State," and "Beastie Boys Story."

Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    bloggerblogbloggerblog Posts: 2,091member
    Too bad the judge focused on how absurd and irresponsible it would have been to gift a jet rather than the state of modern advertising where corporations over promise and underdeliver. Had I been the judge I would've granted Leonard a victory!
    darkvaderAndy.HardwakefahlmanBeatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 13
    Too bad the judge focused on how absurd and irresponsible it would have been to gift a jet rather than the state of modern advertising where corporations over promise and underdeliver. Had I been the judge I would've granted Leonard a victory!
    Spoiler alert!

    ;-)
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 13
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,014member
    Too bad the judge focused on how absurd and irresponsible it would have been to gift a jet rather than the state of modern advertising where corporations over promise and underdeliver. Had I been the judge I would've granted Leonard a victory!
    Case was a no brainer. Contracts over $500 have to be in writing, and this one wasn't.  Could have been mailed Pepsi $1,000 for a lawn chair, makes no difference. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 13
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,758member
    Too bad the judge focused on how absurd and irresponsible it would have been to gift a jet rather than the state of modern advertising where corporations over promise and underdeliver. Had I been the judge I would've granted Leonard a victory!
    And the judge could have had it both ways. Said it would be irresponsible to give him a jet, but made Pepsi give him the cash equivalent instead. 
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 13
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,140member
    Must. watch. TV.
    Andy.Hardwakewatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 13
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,339member
    Too bad the judge focused on how absurd and irresponsible it would have been to gift a jet rather than the state of modern advertising where corporations over promise and underdeliver. Had I been the judge I would've granted Leonard a victory!
    This remind me of ........


    Simpsons, S5 E17, "Stampy the Elephant", March 31,1994

    Bart wins a radio trivia contest and as a prize, given the choice of $10K or an elephant. Or course the elephant is a gag prize and no one who had ever won the contest ever chosen the elephant over the $10K or was ever expected to. That is until Bart. The radio station ended up forcing the DJ's, who put up the elephant as a gag prize on their show, to supply Bart with an elephant. They could not change Bart mind. Bart name his elephant ....."Stampy". 
    pjohntJaiOh81watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 13
    darkvaderdarkvader Posts: 628member
    flydog said:
    Too bad the judge focused on how absurd and irresponsible it would have been to gift a jet rather than the state of modern advertising where corporations over promise and underdeliver. Had I been the judge I would've granted Leonard a victory!
    Case was a no brainer. Contracts over $500 have to be in writing, and this one wasn't.  Could have been mailed Pepsi $1,000 for a lawn chair, makes no difference. 

    Um, wat?

    Contracts for millions have been concluded on a handshake.

    There's no such "over $500 in writing" law in most of the world.  Either state the jurisdiction where you imagine that's an actual law, or stop making stuff up.
    drdavidBeats
  • Reply 8 of 13
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,562member
    darkvader said:
    flydog said:
    Too bad the judge focused on how absurd and irresponsible it would have been to gift a jet rather than the state of modern advertising where corporations over promise and underdeliver. Had I been the judge I would've granted Leonard a victory!
    Case was a no brainer. Contracts over $500 have to be in writing, and this one wasn't.  Could have been mailed Pepsi $1,000 for a lawn chair, makes no difference. 

    Um, wat?

    Contracts for millions have been concluded on a handshake.

    There's no such "over $500 in writing" law in most of the world.  Either state the jurisdiction where you imagine that's an actual law, or stop making stuff up.
    In the US contract law is defined by the individual states, and there are many differences between the states. But most states have laws requiring that the following three agreements must be in writing:

    1. a contract involving real estate;
    2. a contract whose duration lasts longer than one year;
    3. a contract containing a promise to pay off all of someone's debts.

    It doesn't seem like a jet would qualify under any of these exceptions.

    There is one additional requirement for a handshake deal. One of the following must take place:

    1. there must be a witness to the deal;
    2. there must be a follow-up to the deal, such as an email;
    3. there must be some documentary evidence of the deal;
    4. there must be some steps taken to comply with the deal.

    In 1984 a handshake deal was made (between Getty Oil and Pennzoil), was violated by one party involved in the handshake, was taken to court, and then was given back to the party that made the oral contract. So yes, handshakes can be binding. The courts had ruled in favour of the handshake with a $10 BILLION penalty but the parties agreed to a $3 BILLION settlement. The reason for the settlement is that the appeals had not yet taken place, so the judgment could have gone either way ($0 or $10 Billion). And the $3 Billion settlement was roughly the value of the original handshake deal.

    Oral contracts are generally a bad idea, even between friends (or even spouses!)
    edited March 13
  • Reply 9 of 13
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    Spoiler:Judge ruled it was a joke not a verbal commitment. 
  • Reply 10 of 13
    prokipprokip Posts: 171member
    Comments above are mostly so so. Here it is ... Contract Law 101.

    A contract is any agreement that has 3 if not 4 elements:
    1. An offer.
    2. An acceptance.
    3. The passing of “consideration” between the parties i.e. the money, but a peppercorn can be considered enough.
    4. An intention to cereal a legal relationship.  This means many deals between family members are excluded.

    But laws in all US states require some contracts, such as for the sale of land to be evidenced in writing.

    I have not read the Pepsi add case, but it would most likely fail at the first hurdle.  The offer was not a real offer. It was clearly  a joke. Or to use the terminology of the highest court in the United Kingdom, the House of Lords, an offer of a Harrier jet would be not an offer but a “mere puff”. 

    Look it up peoples.


  • Reply 11 of 13
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,550member
    Apple I know you’re innovative but this is just weird.

    Hope Leonard makes some money off this film.
  • Reply 12 of 13
    rattlhedrattlhed Posts: 151member
    Looking forward to this.  But I hope it's not too stretched out.  McMillions was interesting, but twice as long as it needed to be.  6 episodes should have been edited down to 3.  
  • Reply 13 of 13
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,773member
    I fail to see how a bungled promotional campaign could be a compelling subject for a documentary.  Jeez Apple, who's in charge of green lighting productions over there?  No wonder Netflix is eating your lunch and emptying your liquor cabinet.

    Next on the AppleTV docu pipeline:  A scientific and sociocultural analysis of paint drying.
    edited March 15
Sign In or Register to comment.