全宇宙最高級的藝術(shù)作品陣容包括:反映自然和數(shù)學(xué)“非凡之美”的黃金比例;萊昂納多·達(dá)·芬奇的《蒙娜麗莎》以及展現(xiàn)完美人體結(jié)構(gòu)的《維特魯威人》,當(dāng)然,還有百事標(biāo)識。
至少,這家飲料巨頭2008年長達(dá)27頁的標(biāo)志更改設(shè)計(jì)報(bào)告是這樣介紹的。在該報(bào)告中,設(shè)計(jì)機(jī)構(gòu)阿內(nèi)爾集團(tuán)(Arnell Group)全面地講述了百事品牌重塑背后的理由:首先是確立彰顯創(chuàng)新的愿望,然后回顧了藝術(shù)的演變,從畢達(dá)哥拉斯的“空間和諧”一直講到文藝復(fù)興藝術(shù),最后將這一完美的新設(shè)計(jì)歸結(jié)為:反映了地球引力下陽光變化的軌跡。最終的標(biāo)志將凸顯“百事的引力”。
報(bào)告中寫道:“百事的特質(zhì)一直在與時(shí)俱進(jìn)。真與簡的理念始終貫穿百事的歷史,以一種永恒、明了的方式講述著品牌的故事。”
品牌大刀闊斧的重塑帶來了什么?百事依然采用了紅白藍(lán)相間的圓形標(biāo)志,只不過其中心白色條紋起伏的角度較之前的標(biāo)志略有不同。
即使在做出標(biāo)識調(diào)整15年之后——2024年3月份的全球品牌重塑又讓白色回歸其中心最初的波浪形空間——2008年的設(shè)計(jì)報(bào)告在社交媒體上瘋傳,也讓人們著實(shí)震驚了一把,TikTok上的討論滿天飛,而且人們還紛紛利用圖形計(jì)算器進(jìn)行再創(chuàng)作。不過,高達(dá)100萬美元的設(shè)計(jì)費(fèi)用更是讓百事2008年標(biāo)識更換的荒唐理由雪上加霜。
一位Reddit用戶在評價(jià)2008年的標(biāo)志重塑時(shí)表示:“這是赤裸裸的諷刺!還什么百事的引力?!”
以圖形設(shè)計(jì)師(接受過大學(xué)教育)“自居”的艾米麗·祖蓋稱,百事看似荒唐的品牌重塑實(shí)際上是一種非常常見的做法。艾米麗在她的TikTok賬號上夸張地再造了百事的標(biāo)識,該賬號有430萬粉絲。
她對《財(cái)富》雜志說:“當(dāng)這些公司花重金重新設(shè)計(jì)標(biāo)志時(shí),即便只是小事一樁,但他們依然覺得需要為其正名,甚至給自己一個(gè)交代,有時(shí)候就是通過上面這種報(bào)告,將其與蒙娜麗莎進(jìn)行對比,來說明這個(gè)錢花得值?!?/p>
不過,南衛(wèi)理公會(huì)大學(xué)考克斯商學(xué)院(Southern Methodist University’s Cox School of Business)營銷教授溫基·尚卡爾稱,有關(guān)百事老標(biāo)識的持續(xù)討論與公司現(xiàn)代營銷理念息息相關(guān)。百事此前的品牌重塑舉措可能會(huì)遭到人們的調(diào)侃,但隨之而來的業(yè)務(wù)要素和行業(yè)趨勢卻是實(shí)打?qū)嵉摹?/p>
尚卡爾表示:“當(dāng)各大品牌的銷售增長不及預(yù)期時(shí),它們就會(huì)考慮開展品牌重塑。以百事為例,碳酸飲料,尤其是氣泡飲料,已經(jīng)處于下行通道很長時(shí)間,并非是幾年前才出現(xiàn)的情形。”
百事2008年的品牌重塑也不例外:那一年10月,也就是阿內(nèi)爾集團(tuán)向百事提交新標(biāo)志設(shè)計(jì)文稿后的兩個(gè)月,百事報(bào)出了令人失望的營收業(yè)績,原因在于經(jīng)濟(jì)疲軟導(dǎo)致的飲品銷量下滑。公司宣布裁員3300人,占其員工總數(shù)的1.8%。
百事2023年進(jìn)行品牌重塑的出發(fā)點(diǎn)也十分明確。
盡管營收好于預(yù)期,但美國的銷量停滯不前,因?yàn)橄M(fèi)者對于公司的漲價(jià)并不買單。值得一提的是,Z一代消費(fèi)者并不喜歡含糖汽水,而是偏好更加健康的替代起泡飲品。為了吸引年輕消費(fèi)者,百事已聘請“冰香料”Ice Spice這樣的饒舌歌手來宣傳其檸檬青檸蘇打水,并推出了新的起泡水產(chǎn)品線。同樣,百事的新標(biāo)志也在通過其懷舊風(fēng)格來吸引Z一代的注意力。
公司在一份聲明中向《財(cái)富》透露:“多年來,百事一直在重新構(gòu)思和設(shè)計(jì)自家標(biāo)志,作為一個(gè)與時(shí)俱進(jìn)、永不過時(shí)的品牌,我們一直在升級我們的外觀和質(zhì)感,而且粉絲和消費(fèi)者也一直在伴隨著我們成長。2008年推出的視覺標(biāo)識在品牌過去的14年中大獲成功。盡管如此,百事在2023年邁入了新階段。”
阿內(nèi)爾集團(tuán)并未回復(fù)《財(cái)富》的置評請求。
坎坷的重塑歷程
百事集團(tuán)的營銷重塑并不總是能達(dá)到達(dá)·芬奇級別的高度。在2008年推出新百事標(biāo)志的同時(shí),母公司還重塑了其純果樂(Tropicana)品牌。這個(gè)果汁品牌在1998-2021年是百事的子公司。為了迎合大杯橙汁的版面設(shè)計(jì),它拿掉了正面居中的文字標(biāo)識。這個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)在推出初期遭到了社交媒體的厭棄。
《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》(New York Times)在2009年轉(zhuǎn)載了一名憤怒客戶的郵件內(nèi)容:“這些包裝設(shè)計(jì)師真的會(huì)去購買橙汁嗎?因?yàn)槲业萌ベI,新的包裝太差勁了?!?/p>
然而,真正促使公司在重新設(shè)計(jì)后換回其原標(biāo)志的并非是線上的熱議,而是換標(biāo)后一個(gè)月公司暴跌20%的銷量。
百事的錯(cuò)誤與可口可樂1985年的“新可樂”舉措如出一轍。當(dāng)時(shí),后者宣布將首次更改其使用了近100年的飲品配方。對此反感的消費(fèi)者給公司熱線打去了3.16萬個(gè)電話。不過,這種憤怒也鞏固了可口可樂的地位,用其博客的話來講,可口可樂“明顯不僅僅只是一款軟飲”。
事實(shí)上,無效的大型營銷舉措不勝枚舉。百事在2017年犯下了自己最大的線上錯(cuò)誤。當(dāng)時(shí),公司發(fā)布了一則廣告,肯達(dá)爾·詹娜將一罐百事可樂遞給了一名警官,背景是歡呼和充滿笑容的抗議者。這則廣告借鑒了抗議警察暴力執(zhí)法的“黑命貴”運(yùn)動(dòng)的影像,被普遍認(rèn)為不合時(shí)宜。公司隨后進(jìn)行了道歉,但廣告已在線上瘋狂傳播。
百事當(dāng)時(shí)表示:“百事曾嘗試向全球傳遞團(tuán)結(jié)、和平和理解的信息。很明顯,此舉未能達(dá)到預(yù)期效果,并以道歉收場。”
尚卡爾認(rèn)為,各大公司應(yīng)謹(jǐn)慎應(yīng)對網(wǎng)絡(luò)調(diào)侃:“像百事這樣的消費(fèi)品,如果人們嘲弄過了頭,并開始傷害現(xiàn)有消費(fèi)者,問題可能會(huì)接踵而至。”
花這個(gè)錢值嗎?
尚卡爾表示,盡管百事2017年的廣告帶來了強(qiáng)烈的負(fù)面影響,但有關(guān)百事原標(biāo)志的持續(xù)熱議倒不大可能被視作對公司的威脅。
有一句老話,“任何宣傳都是好宣傳”。尚卡爾認(rèn)為,在聲勢浩大的品牌重塑過程中,不管有多少人嘲諷,對百事來說都是好事。確實(shí),社交媒體改變了營銷規(guī)則,而各大品牌也在通過Z一代荒誕的幽默,讓其產(chǎn)品更具吸引力。Twitter的熱議讓 Josh Cellars紅酒和Cerveza Cristal啤酒等飲品實(shí)際上獲得了免費(fèi)營銷。TikTok播主祖蓋是這一浪潮的親身經(jīng)歷者。她對一些大品牌標(biāo)志進(jìn)行了刻意的庸俗化再制作,而這些作品被麥當(dāng)勞、Tinder和美國職業(yè)橄欖球大聯(lián)盟(NFL)等品牌轉(zhuǎn)載并用作社交媒體資料頁圖片。
她說:“人們對此是喜聞樂見,因?yàn)樗嬖V人們,這些品牌并非是高高在上的,至少在TikTok上是如此?!?/p>
值得一提的是,對百事這個(gè)與可口可樂打了幾十年的品牌來說,對品牌標(biāo)志的熱議或?qū)⑻嵘藗儗ζ放频闹艺\度。
祖蓋表示:“很多時(shí)候,人們將標(biāo)志和品牌視作自己十分珍視的事物,他們幾乎覺得自己在一定程度上是標(biāo)志外觀或品牌本身的所有者。我覺得,當(dāng)明確提及標(biāo)志和品牌重塑時(shí),人們會(huì)變得非常敏感?!?/p>
百事的粉絲們已經(jīng)昭告天下,無論百事的品牌重塑是好是壞,他們都會(huì)忠于自己對可樂的選擇。就像一位Reddit用戶說的那樣:“非常不幸的是,每當(dāng)我路過飲品貨架的時(shí)候,百事的引力都會(huì)讓我無法自拔?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:馮豐
審校:夏林
全宇宙最高級的藝術(shù)作品陣容包括:反映自然和數(shù)學(xué)“非凡之美”的黃金比例;萊昂納多·達(dá)·芬奇的《蒙娜麗莎》以及展現(xiàn)完美人體結(jié)構(gòu)的《維特魯威人》,當(dāng)然,還有百事標(biāo)識。
至少,這家飲料巨頭2008年長達(dá)27頁的標(biāo)志更改設(shè)計(jì)報(bào)告是這樣介紹的。在該報(bào)告中,設(shè)計(jì)機(jī)構(gòu)阿內(nèi)爾集團(tuán)(Arnell Group)全面地講述了百事品牌重塑背后的理由:首先是確立彰顯創(chuàng)新的愿望,然后回顧了藝術(shù)的演變,從畢達(dá)哥拉斯的“空間和諧”一直講到文藝復(fù)興藝術(shù),最后將這一完美的新設(shè)計(jì)歸結(jié)為:反映了地球引力下陽光變化的軌跡。最終的標(biāo)志將凸顯“百事的引力”。
報(bào)告中寫道:“百事的特質(zhì)一直在與時(shí)俱進(jìn)。真與簡的理念始終貫穿百事的歷史,以一種永恒、明了的方式講述著品牌的故事?!?/p>
品牌大刀闊斧的重塑帶來了什么?百事依然采用了紅白藍(lán)相間的圓形標(biāo)志,只不過其中心白色條紋起伏的角度較之前的標(biāo)志略有不同。
即使在做出標(biāo)識調(diào)整15年之后——2024年3月份的全球品牌重塑又讓白色回歸其中心最初的波浪形空間——2008年的設(shè)計(jì)報(bào)告在社交媒體上瘋傳,也讓人們著實(shí)震驚了一把,TikTok上的討論滿天飛,而且人們還紛紛利用圖形計(jì)算器進(jìn)行再創(chuàng)作。不過,高達(dá)100萬美元的設(shè)計(jì)費(fèi)用更是讓百事2008年標(biāo)識更換的荒唐理由雪上加霜。
一位Reddit用戶在評價(jià)2008年的標(biāo)志重塑時(shí)表示:“這是赤裸裸的諷刺!還什么百事的引力?!”
以圖形設(shè)計(jì)師(接受過大學(xué)教育)“自居”的艾米麗·祖蓋稱,百事看似荒唐的品牌重塑實(shí)際上是一種非常常見的做法。艾米麗在她的TikTok賬號上夸張地再造了百事的標(biāo)識,該賬號有430萬粉絲。
她對《財(cái)富》雜志說:“當(dāng)這些公司花重金重新設(shè)計(jì)標(biāo)志時(shí),即便只是小事一樁,但他們依然覺得需要為其正名,甚至給自己一個(gè)交代,有時(shí)候就是通過上面這種報(bào)告,將其與蒙娜麗莎進(jìn)行對比,來說明這個(gè)錢花得值?!?/p>
不過,南衛(wèi)理公會(huì)大學(xué)考克斯商學(xué)院(Southern Methodist University’s Cox School of Business)營銷教授溫基·尚卡爾稱,有關(guān)百事老標(biāo)識的持續(xù)討論與公司現(xiàn)代營銷理念息息相關(guān)。百事此前的品牌重塑舉措可能會(huì)遭到人們的調(diào)侃,但隨之而來的業(yè)務(wù)要素和行業(yè)趨勢卻是實(shí)打?qū)嵉摹?/p>
尚卡爾表示:“當(dāng)各大品牌的銷售增長不及預(yù)期時(shí),它們就會(huì)考慮開展品牌重塑。以百事為例,碳酸飲料,尤其是氣泡飲料,已經(jīng)處于下行通道很長時(shí)間,并非是幾年前才出現(xiàn)的情形。”
百事2008年的品牌重塑也不例外:那一年10月,也就是阿內(nèi)爾集團(tuán)向百事提交新標(biāo)志設(shè)計(jì)文稿后的兩個(gè)月,百事報(bào)出了令人失望的營收業(yè)績,原因在于經(jīng)濟(jì)疲軟導(dǎo)致的飲品銷量下滑。公司宣布裁員3300人,占其員工總數(shù)的1.8%。
百事2023年進(jìn)行品牌重塑的出發(fā)點(diǎn)也十分明確。
盡管營收好于預(yù)期,但美國的銷量停滯不前,因?yàn)橄M(fèi)者對于公司的漲價(jià)并不買單。值得一提的是,Z一代消費(fèi)者并不喜歡含糖汽水,而是偏好更加健康的替代起泡飲品。為了吸引年輕消費(fèi)者,百事已聘請“冰香料”Ice Spice這樣的饒舌歌手來宣傳其檸檬青檸蘇打水,并推出了新的起泡水產(chǎn)品線。同樣,百事的新標(biāo)志也在通過其懷舊風(fēng)格來吸引Z一代的注意力。
公司在一份聲明中向《財(cái)富》透露:“多年來,百事一直在重新構(gòu)思和設(shè)計(jì)自家標(biāo)志,作為一個(gè)與時(shí)俱進(jìn)、永不過時(shí)的品牌,我們一直在升級我們的外觀和質(zhì)感,而且粉絲和消費(fèi)者也一直在伴隨著我們成長。2008年推出的視覺標(biāo)識在品牌過去的14年中大獲成功。盡管如此,百事在2023年邁入了新階段?!?/p>
阿內(nèi)爾集團(tuán)并未回復(fù)《財(cái)富》的置評請求。
坎坷的重塑歷程
百事集團(tuán)的營銷重塑并不總是能達(dá)到達(dá)·芬奇級別的高度。在2008年推出新百事標(biāo)志的同時(shí),母公司還重塑了其純果樂(Tropicana)品牌。這個(gè)果汁品牌在1998-2021年是百事的子公司。為了迎合大杯橙汁的版面設(shè)計(jì),它拿掉了正面居中的文字標(biāo)識。這個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)在推出初期遭到了社交媒體的厭棄。
《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》(New York Times)在2009年轉(zhuǎn)載了一名憤怒客戶的郵件內(nèi)容:“這些包裝設(shè)計(jì)師真的會(huì)去購買橙汁嗎?因?yàn)槲业萌ベI,新的包裝太差勁了?!?/p>
然而,真正促使公司在重新設(shè)計(jì)后換回其原標(biāo)志的并非是線上的熱議,而是換標(biāo)后一個(gè)月公司暴跌20%的銷量。
百事的錯(cuò)誤與可口可樂1985年的“新可樂”舉措如出一轍。當(dāng)時(shí),后者宣布將首次更改其使用了近100年的飲品配方。對此反感的消費(fèi)者給公司熱線打去了3.16萬個(gè)電話。不過,這種憤怒也鞏固了可口可樂的地位,用其博客的話來講,可口可樂“明顯不僅僅只是一款軟飲”。
事實(shí)上,無效的大型營銷舉措不勝枚舉。百事在2017年犯下了自己最大的線上錯(cuò)誤。當(dāng)時(shí),公司發(fā)布了一則廣告,肯達(dá)爾·詹娜將一罐百事可樂遞給了一名警官,背景是歡呼和充滿笑容的抗議者。這則廣告借鑒了抗議警察暴力執(zhí)法的“黑命貴”運(yùn)動(dòng)的影像,被普遍認(rèn)為不合時(shí)宜。公司隨后進(jìn)行了道歉,但廣告已在線上瘋狂傳播。
百事當(dāng)時(shí)表示:“百事曾嘗試向全球傳遞團(tuán)結(jié)、和平和理解的信息。很明顯,此舉未能達(dá)到預(yù)期效果,并以道歉收場?!?/p>
尚卡爾認(rèn)為,各大公司應(yīng)謹(jǐn)慎應(yīng)對網(wǎng)絡(luò)調(diào)侃:“像百事這樣的消費(fèi)品,如果人們嘲弄過了頭,并開始傷害現(xiàn)有消費(fèi)者,問題可能會(huì)接踵而至?!?/p>
花這個(gè)錢值嗎?
尚卡爾表示,盡管百事2017年的廣告帶來了強(qiáng)烈的負(fù)面影響,但有關(guān)百事原標(biāo)志的持續(xù)熱議倒不大可能被視作對公司的威脅。
有一句老話,“任何宣傳都是好宣傳”。尚卡爾認(rèn)為,在聲勢浩大的品牌重塑過程中,不管有多少人嘲諷,對百事來說都是好事。確實(shí),社交媒體改變了營銷規(guī)則,而各大品牌也在通過Z一代荒誕的幽默,讓其產(chǎn)品更具吸引力。Twitter的熱議讓 Josh Cellars紅酒和Cerveza Cristal啤酒等飲品實(shí)際上獲得了免費(fèi)營銷。TikTok播主祖蓋是這一浪潮的親身經(jīng)歷者。她對一些大品牌標(biāo)志進(jìn)行了刻意的庸俗化再制作,而這些作品被麥當(dāng)勞、Tinder和美國職業(yè)橄欖球大聯(lián)盟(NFL)等品牌轉(zhuǎn)載并用作社交媒體資料頁圖片。
她說:“人們對此是喜聞樂見,因?yàn)樗嬖V人們,這些品牌并非是高高在上的,至少在TikTok上是如此。”
值得一提的是,對百事這個(gè)與可口可樂打了幾十年的品牌來說,對品牌標(biāo)志的熱議或?qū)⑻嵘藗儗ζ放频闹艺\度。
祖蓋表示:“很多時(shí)候,人們將標(biāo)志和品牌視作自己十分珍視的事物,他們幾乎覺得自己在一定程度上是標(biāo)志外觀或品牌本身的所有者。我覺得,當(dāng)明確提及標(biāo)志和品牌重塑時(shí),人們會(huì)變得非常敏感?!?/p>
百事的粉絲們已經(jīng)昭告天下,無論百事的品牌重塑是好是壞,他們都會(huì)忠于自己對可樂的選擇。就像一位Reddit用戶說的那樣:“非常不幸的是,每當(dāng)我路過飲品貨架的時(shí)候,百事的引力都會(huì)讓我無法自拔?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:馮豐
審校:夏林
The universe’s highest echelon of art contains the following: the golden ratio, reflecting the “divine” in both nature and mathematics; Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa and the Vetruvian Man, demonstrating the ideal human physiology—and, of course, the Pepsi logo.
At least, this is the story told by a 27-page design document of a 2008 brand refresh from the beverage juggernaut. In the document, design agency the Arnell Group thoroughly outlined the rationale behind Pepsi’s brand refresh: first establishing the desire to show innovation, then reviewing the evolution of art from Pythagorean “spatial harmonies” to Renaissance art, until deriving the perfect new design that reflects the path of the Sun’s light in Earth’s gravitational pull. The final logo would illustrate the “Gravitational Pull of Pepsi.”
“The Pepsi ethos has evolved over time,” the document said. “The vocabulary of truth and simplicity is a reoccurring phenomena in the brand’s history. It communicates the brand in a timeless manner and with an expression of clarity.”
The result of the radical rebrand? Pepsi’s same red, white, and blue circular logo, but with its white center stripe undulating at a slightly different angle than its predecessor.
Even 15 years after that change—and a March 2024 global rebranding that returned the white center to its original squiggly shape—the 2008 design document circulates around social media, prompting viral TikToks, do-it-yourself recreations on graphing calculators, and eliciting genuine shock. Piling onto the absurdity of the rationale accompanying Pepsi’s 2008 logo is the redesign’s $1 million price tag.
“Surely this is satire! Pepsi gravitational pull?!” one Reddit user wrote about the 2008 redesign.
According to Emily Zugay, a “self-proclaimed” (and university-trained) graphic designer who parodies company logos on her TikTok with 4.3 million followers, Pepsi’s seemingly absurd brand refresh is actually pretty common practice.
“When these companies are spending thousands of dollars on these redesigns—even if it’s something that could take five minutes—they feel like they need to justify it, even to themselves, sometimes with a document like that: comparing it to the Mona Lisa to show this was worth the money,” she told Fortune.
But the enduring chatter around Pepsi’s old logo is at the nexus of the company’s modern marketing philosophy, according to Venky Shankar, professor of marketing at Southern Methodist University’s Cox School of Business who worked with Pepsi to design a global forecast system for the company. The discourse around Pepsi’s previous rebranding may be in jest, but the precipitating business factors and industry trends are very real.
“All brands look for a refresh when their sales are not growing as fast as they expected to,” Shankar said. “In this case, carbonated beverages, particularly sodas, have been witnessing a downward trend for a very long time, not just the last few years alone.”
Pepsi’s 2008 rebrand was no exception: In October that year, two months after the Arnell Group submitted its redesign document to the company, Pepsi reported disappointing earnings due to poor drink sales, a result of a weakened economy, and announced plans to lay off 3,300 workers, about 1.8% of its workforce.
The impetus for Pepsi’s 2023 redesign is also clear.
Despite better-than-expected revenue, sales have been hindered in the U.S. by consumers thrown off by the company’s price increases. Gen Z consumers in particular have also lost their taste for sugary soda, instead preferring healthier fizzy alternatives. Pepsi has tapped rappers like Ice Spice to push its lemon-lime soda and launched a new line of bubly sparkling water in a bid for young consumers. Pepsi’s new logo makes a similar appeal to Gen Z with its retro vibes.
“Pepsi has constantly reimagined and reinvented our logo over the years—as a brand that is both timely and timeless we’ve evolved our look and feel just as our fans and consumers have evolved along with us,” the company told Fortune in a statement. “The visual identity introduced in 2008 has been very successful for us over the past 14 years of the brand. That said, in 2023 we introduced the next era of Pepsi.”
Arnell Group did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment.
Rebrand stumbles
PepsiCo’s marketing refreshes haven’t always reflected Da Vinci-caliber genius. In tandem with the rollout of its new Pepsi logo in the late aughts, the parent company also refreshed its Tropicana branding. The juice brand, a subsidiary of Pepsi from 1998 to 2021, removed its front-and-center logo in favor of a tall glass of orange juice. Social media, then in its early days, hated the design.
“Do any of these package-design people actually shop for orange juice?” one angry customer wrote over email, the New York Times reported in 2009. “Because I do, and the new cartons stink.”
But it wasn’t an online uproar that prompted the company to revert back to its original logo shortly after the redesign. It was the 20% sales plummet that followed the month after.
Pepsi’s misstep had shared flavors with Coca-Cola’s 1985 “New Coke,” when the beverage company announced it would change its drink formula for the first time in almost a century. Consumers revolted, leaving 31,600 calls on the company’s hotline, but the anger also cemented Coca-Cola’s stature, according to its blog, as “obviously more than just a soft drink.”
In fact, plenty of big marketing swings fail to pay off. One of Pepsi’s biggest online blunders came in 2017, when the company aired an ad with protesters laughing and cheering, that concludes with Kendall Jenner passing out a Pepsi can to a police officer. The ad borrowed imagery from the Black Lives Matter movement protesting police brutality and was largely considered tone deaf. The company later apologized, but not before memes of the ad spread widely online.
“Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and understanding. Clearly, we missed the mark and apologize,” Pepsi said at the time.
Shankar argued corporations walk a fine line with being made fun of online: “In a consumer product like Pepsi, if people are making too much fun of it and it starts hurting the existing consumers, that could be a problem,” he said.
Was it all worth it?
While Pepsi’s 2017 ad generated enough uproar to have negative consequences, the continued fervent meme-ing of Pepsi’s old logo is not likely to be seen as a threat to the company, Shankar said.
Drawing on the old adage of “any publicity is good publicity,” Shankar believed that in the case of a buzzy rebranding, however mocked it is, means good news for Pepsi. Indeed, social media has changed the marketing game as brands lean into the absurdity of Gen Z humor to get more eyes on their products. Twitter memes have resulted in beverages like Josh Cellars wine and Cerveza Cristal beer essentially receiving free marketing. Zugay, the TikToker, has experienced this phenomenon firsthand. Her intentionally shoddy recreations of big-name logos have been reposted and used as social media profile pictures by brands like McDonald’s, Tinder, and the NFL.
“People really resonate with that and enjoy that,” she said. “Because it shows that brand isn’t untouchable—at least on Tiktok.”
But for Pepsi in particular—which has waged war with Coca-Cola for decades—brand loyalty may have ratcheted up the clamor around the logo.
“A lot of times people view logos and brands as precious to themselves or they almost feel a sense of ownership over the look of a logo or the brand itself, if they’ve been a loyal customer for however long,” Zugay said. “People, I feel like, are very sensitive when it comes to logos and rebrand specifically.”
Pepsi loyalists have already shown that regardless of the reputation the company’s rebrands have, they’ll stay true to their cola of choice. As one Reddit user put it, “When I walk down the drink aisle I unfortunately always succumb to pepsi’s gravitational pull.”