(via Andrew Sullivan)
posted by Andrew Simone in branding | * | 12 comments
Pepsi should have stopped after 1962 or 1973.
I think 1991 is the most pleasing.
Each one has gotten progressively worse. Gotta hand it to Coke on branding.
I recall that “New” Coke totally sucked, irrespective of their logo consistency, a branding fiasco. Thankfully, they took it all back. But not all the way back. “When launched Coca-Cola’s two key ingredients were cocaine (benzoylmethyl ecgonine) and caffeine. The cocaine was derived from the coca leaf and the caffeine from kola nut, leading to the name Coca-Cola (the ‘K’ in Kola was replaced with a ‘C’ for marketing purposes)” [from Wikipedia].
Back when I drank “pop” (that’s what Iowans called “soda” back in the way-back-long-ago), Pepsi was my preference. As an Iowan, I naturally wanted to support the high-fructose-corn-syrup market as a source of State pride.
Now…Diet Coke rocks. Especially when it’s battered-and-deep-fat-fried at the Iowa State Fair.
Everything after 1973 was marketing bullshit and stupid decisions. Looks like some dumbass with Photoshop convinced other dumbasses at Pepsi to waste tons of money on shitty reskinned logos.
It’s official, the latest branding incarnation is an utter fiasco.
Pepsi must be doing pretty well considering they threw away hundreds of millions of dollars on this project. They should have just used the prop Pepsi stuff from the Back to the Future Part 2 movie.
The Tropicana rebrand that they did at the same time cost them a $35 Million dip in sales . . . forcing them to change the packaging back.
Can you imagine their version control repo????
This is very intersesting but Pepsi has created its own destiny. Since they chose a brand positioning to be modern and innovative they will always be evolving. Make a bet they will change their logo in another 10 years and they probably should because their current logo will be out of date.
[...] This is wrong. So says Armin (via kottke): n the last couple of weeks, a JPG has been making the internet rounds and, in the process, has gathered more than 6,500 Diggs (not that that is any measure of successful success, but still…) and has been mentioned in dozens of design and culture blogs, including many which I frequent and respect. The problem is that the JPG is wrong and disingenuous. It comparatively illustrates the evolution of the Pepsi and Coca-Cola logos from their beginnings in the late nineteenth century to their current state at the end of the 2000s. The comparison chart mocks the ever-changing personality of the Pepsi logo in contrast to Coca-Cola’s stoic script logo, unaffected by the effects of time. The philosophical point it makes is indeed funny and, for the most part, accurate: Coca-Cola has long been the steady brand that triumphs over Pepsi as the latter attempts to gain ground with brand gimmicks and changes. And I will be the first to admit that the Coca-Cola logo and its consistency over the years is far more supreme than Pepsi, but every time I saw this JPG come up in more and more web sites and blogs I couldn’t help but cringe at the inaccuracy and deception it engenders. [...]
[...] Internet [via clusterflock & Daily Dish & Consumerist und Flowing Data] findet sich derzeit eine beachtliche Grafik, [...]