Heineken "Worlds Apart": How a Beer Brand Got Strangers With Opposing Views to Talk

Two strangers meet in a warehouse. They are given instructions to build something together. They chat about their lives as they work. When they finish, they have built a small bar.

Then they are shown videos of each other, recorded earlier, expressing their views. One is a feminist; the other thinks feminism has gone too far. One believes climate change is real; the other does not. One is a transgender woman; the other has negative views about transgender people.

They are given a choice: leave, or stay and discuss their differences over a beer.

This was “Worlds Apart,” a Heineken ad released in April 2017. Most of them stayed.

The Context

By 2017, political polarisation was a major theme in the UK and the US. The Brexit vote in 2016 and the US presidential election that year had exposed deep divisions. Many people felt they could no longer talk to those who disagreed with them.

Brands were under pressure to take positions on social issues, but many attempts were clumsy. In the same month that Heineken released “Worlds Apart,” Pepsi released an ad featuring Kendall Jenner handing a can of Pepsi to a police officer at a protest. It was widely criticised as trivialising social movements and was pulled within a day.

Heineken had a long-running brand platform called “Open Your World,” which encouraged openness to new people and experiences. Its agency, Publicis London, looked for a way to bring that idea to life in a divided world.

The Campaign

The film was structured as a social experiment. Pairs of strangers with opposing views were brought together without knowing each other’s opinions. They completed tasks together, including building a bar, and talked about their lives.

Once they had built a connection, they were shown each other’s views. The film captured their reactions and their choice to leave or stay. The pairs who stayed sat down with a beer and discussed their differences.

The film ended with the line “Open Your World” and encouraged viewers to have a beer with someone who disagreed with them. Heineken worked with The Human Library, an organisation that brings people together to challenge prejudice.

The pairs were chosen carefully. One pairing brought together a transgender woman and a man with negative views about transgender people. Another paired a woman who called herself a feminist with a man who believed feminism had gone too far. A third involved a climate change activist and someone who did not believe in man-made climate change. The contrast between their views was sharp, but the film focused on their shared humanity.

The tasks were designed to build trust. The pairs had to follow instructions together, assemble furniture and build a bar. As they worked, they talked about their lives and discovered things in common. By the time they saw each other’s views, they had already formed a connection, which made the choice to stay more meaningful.

The film was around four and a half minutes long, which gave space for the conversations to develop. A shorter version would have lost the gradual build-up of trust between the participants, which was the heart of the story.

Why It Worked

It did not take sides. The film did not say who was right. It showed people choosing to listen. That made it hard to attack as political and allowed viewers on all sides to see themselves in it.

It was real. The format, a social experiment with real people, felt authentic. The participants’ reactions were genuine.

The product had a natural role. Having a beer with someone is a traditional way to talk. Heineken did not force the product into the story; it was the setting for the conversation.

The timing helped. Released the same month as Pepsi’s failed ad, “Worlds Apart” was widely compared with it and praised as an example of how to do purpose marketing well.

It matched the brand. The film was a natural extension of “Open Your World.” It did not feel like Heineken was jumping on a trend.

The Results

“Worlds Apart” was viewed millions of times on YouTube within days and widely shared on social media. Media outlets praised it, and many compared it favourably with Pepsi’s ad.

The film sparked discussion about polarisation and the role of brands in bringing people together. Some critics argued that it made serious disagreements seem too easy to resolve, and questioned how much the editing shaped the story. But overall it was seen as a successful example of purpose-driven advertising.

The contrast with Pepsi’s ad was instructive. Pepsi’s ad used a celebrity and a staged protest to suggest that a can of soda could bridge divides. Heineken’s film used real people with real disagreements and did not suggest that beer solved anything. It showed people choosing to talk, with beer as the setting for that conversation. The difference in approach explained much of the difference in reaction.

The campaign also fitted a longer history of Heineken advertising that celebrated openness and curiosity, including work around travel, meeting new people and responsible drinking. That consistency meant “Worlds Apart” felt like a natural expression of the brand rather than an attempt to jump on a social issue.

The Lesson for Today’s Marketers

Purpose marketing works best when the brand facilitates rather than preaches. Heineken did not tell people what to think. It created a situation and let people show what was possible.

The product should have a natural role. A beer between people who disagree is a believable setting. Forcing a product into a social issue, as Pepsi did, feels opportunistic.

And consistency matters. “Worlds Apart” worked because it grew out of a long-running brand idea. Purpose that appears suddenly is harder to believe.