Some People Hated the Depolarizing Heineken Ad. Why?

In 2022, polarization researchers at Stanford studied a Heineken beer commercial, titled “Worlds Apart,” and found it reduced political animosity significantly. (To watch it, see our first piece about this ad.) 

When Heineken first released the ad in 2017, it received widespread positive reviews. An Upworthy piece called it “surprisingly great.” A Today.com piece said it proved “people from ‘worlds apart’ can still come together.” A political blogger said it was “corporate social justice done right” because it “does not seek to preach any specific value or social outcome besides the importance of tolerance and mutual respect.”

But reactions weren’t all positive. Complaints that it was tone-deaf — and even dangerous — began to roll in. Shortly after they released the ad, Heineken removed it from their online channels. 

Why were people critical of the ad? 

A LinkedIn post described the ad as having a “dangerous problem.” A Medium piece titled “Heineken’s New Ad Is A Terrifying Sham” argued, “The premise is ludicrous to the point of being insulting.” A DailyDot piece was titled “Heineken’s new ad is not that woke — it’s actually pretty dangerous.”

At a high level, an overarching criticism was that the ad took a simplistic “kumbaya” approach to serious moral and political disagreements. Having a beer together, critics pointed out, may seem nice but won’t do much to help us bridge such major divides.

Another criticism was that the ad gave credibility to views that are wrong or dangerous. For example, some criticized pairing a climate change believer with a climate change non-believer because it seemed to communicate their ideas were equally valid. 

Some criticized the pairing of the transgender person with the transgender-critical person. Some objected that pairing was demeaning to the transgender person — and even potentially dangerous. 

People with these criticisms saw the Heineken ad as bad; they saw it as a failed effort, with a bad message.

On the other hand, the large majority of people who watched it thought it was touching and positive. And, again, it was found to be extremely effective at reducing political animosity (no small feat!). Aren’t those major arguments in its favor?

How strong is the case that this Heineken ad has a good message — and that people’s positive feelings about it were justified? What might the criticisms be missing? 

Filling in the gaps with assumptions? 

Some saw the ad as naively suggesting that social interactions can solve major disagreements. But the ad doesn’t communicate that. It merely shows us something that we know is possible and that does happen: People can connect and see each others’ humanity, even when they hugely disagree on issues very important to them. 

It was this basic fact — that we can connect with each other despite major disagreements — that pulled at people’s heartstrings and made the ad so impactful. 

Similarly, the ad didn’t state that the views of the people in each pairing were morally or intellectually equivalent. The ad’s goal was to show people from “worlds apart” (the name of the ad) and that these chasms of difference do exist. We’ll all have our thoughts on who’s more right or wrong in these areas, but the ad isn’t getting into that — it’s focused on the connections of people on different sides of a vast chasm. 

Do we overstate the bad qualities of our “enemies?”

When we’re in conflict, we’ll often have very pessimistic views of what our “enemies” are like. These visions will be based on the most extreme and hateful people we see on the “other side.” We’ll tend to see “them” as an all-the-same, monolithic mass, and not discern the complexity and nuance present in that group.  

Violence against transgender people is a real and serious issue. But is it fair to see everyone who is critical of or who has questions about transgenderism or gender-related ideas as threatening or dangerous? After all, the man in the ad seemed open to seeing things differently — that was indeed what many fans of the ad appreciated about its message. All of us are capable of change, and often, contact with others helps us see things differently. 

A related criticism of the ad was that it encouraged people to engage with people they think are dehumanizing or threatening. But this also seems to be a misunderstanding. The ad isn’t encouraging people to do things they don’t want to do or that they think are dangerous; it is merely showing examples of connection.

The ad was carefully curated, as ads are. The real world is more messy. But again, the ad showed us something that is possible — and, according to contact theory, even probable. It demonstrated the power and potential of human connection.   

Can we see each others’ humanity and also strongly disagree?

On many issues these days, people perceive that harm is being done by the “other side,” which triggers many negative emotions. When that happens, we’ll be upset by messages that tell us we can “get along” with our perceived enemies. We’ll have visceral negative responses to messages that seem to humanize and create empathy for “them.”  

This is an understandable and human response. 

But we’d argue that it’s vital to a peaceful and just future to see the humanity of the people around us — even those we see as enemies. Often, we’ll assume the worst about their motives. It’s essential to see that the people around us have life experiences and backstories that contribute to their stances. Even for those people we’re certain have bad intentions, they — like all humans — have the capacity for change. 

This is called being “hard on issues but soft on people.” When we focus on judging ideas and not people, we get better at engaging with others — and even at persuading others of our views. 

Human connection is how major social change usually happens. People who fear that engaging with people on the “other side” will “help the bad guys” may be missing that this is how we learn to respect and live with each other. (And this may seem like a liberal-leaning pitch, but we’d make the same arguments to everyone, including conservatives. Connection and dialogue help anyone who wants others to understand their views.)

These are tough topics to talk about, especially in a short post. But we think it’s important to make the case for seeing each others’ humanity, avoiding overly pessimistic views of each other, and lowering contempt. 

And we can take such approaches while we work towards any political goal. Indeed, we’d argue depolarizing, de-escalating approaches are powerful tools for achieving any political goal. 

Daniel F. Stone is the researcher who submitted the Heineken ad to Stanford to study (and he’s also the author of Undue Hate, which we highly recommend). About the benefits of this ad, Stone said:

Of the thousand people who watched the ad for the study, and the many more who watched it when we piloted and presented the study, I don’t know of anyone who objected to the ad. Videos like this, that are found to reduce political animosity and increase empathy, might do a lot of good if widely promoted. It seems like a real shame that this one was canceled.

Want to watch another video found to reduce political animosity? Check out this video from Beyond Conflict.

Want to stay in the loop about toxic polarization? Sign up for our newsletter.