When I grew up, I was a Pepsi fan. I liked their advertising better, and quite frankly, I always enjoy rooting for the underdog. As the years have gone by, I have seen five different Pepsi logos, and it did have an impact. Not a good one though.
In particular the last iteration has left me lost and confused. I just cannot warm up to the typeface they used. The really hilarious part about this whole thing Arnell cooked up here is the brand identity document - it circulated on the web about two years ago - explaining the strategic rationale leading to the yin/yang circle and its inner dimensions. I cannot help but wonder if whoever wrote this actually believes all the mumbo-jumbo in it, or just had to fill dozens of pages with ridiculous content in order to justify the hefty paycheck Pepsi had to fork over to Peter Arnell.
Look at the above and I hope you will understand the power of branding. The power of consistency. The power of building a strong brand platform, and building on top of it, versus always changing and modifying it. By doing so, you are communicating that you are confident, that you know what you are doing, that you care about who you are as a brand. Adding to all that is the mystery of the secret Coca Cola recipe that supposedly only very few people have access to.
Pepsi on the other hand. Oh well. They seem to think only in the here and now, and by doing so they ignore their heritage, and have no defined long-term strategy. The Arnell version might already be uncool and outdated in two or three years. I can't wait for the next Pepsi logo to come out. It might be sooner than we think.
The graphic plays a little fast and loose with history. Coke has indeed altered the brand identity over the past 100+ years, and the first few iterations of the Coca Cola script were not identical to the current. The basic point of the chart still holds, however, that Pepsi looks to be a much more schizophrenic brand overall.
ReplyDelete