In Brief BY Armin
Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi, Revised Edition
In 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.
True, no one will die and the lasting effects of this JPG mean nothing, really. But I felt a burden of duty to correct a few things. The biggest problem is that the chart puts the same logo in 1885 as it does in 2008. This is not only wrong but idiotic. Technically, the Coca-Cola logo as it exists today can not be replicated with the tools of 1887 which, by the way, is the year the script logo was introduced. Not 1885. Coca-Cola was first served in 1886 and even then, the first official logo of Coca-Cola was not the script logo. It first appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in 1886 as both a slab serif and chunky sans serif — it wasn’t until mid-1887 that Frank Robinson, Coca-Cola’s bookkeeper, drew the first traces of the Spencerian script logo that we all know.
The chart, for comic and poignant effect, then leaves a 120-year gap between the first and last logos. It makes for a great viral JPG, but not for telling the real story. For the first ten to twenty years you could probably find a dozen different executions of the Coca-Cola script as the logo was probably drawn over and over for different applications. It isn’t until the 1930s and 1940s that a clear interpretation of the logo appears and is used consistently. During the late 1950s and early 1960s the script logo is placed within a shape, referred to as the “fishtail” logo, which is as off-brand as anything that Coca-Cola has ever done.
The chart also fails to mention the introduction of the wave, a ubiquitous visual today, that was first implemented in the 1960s when Lippincott Mercer was in charge of making the Coca-Cola identity more consistent. More than any Pepsi blunder, the chart ignores the introduction of “New Coke” in 1985 with a new formula marketing and set of logos — that completely ignored the script logo — that left a bad taste in their consumers’ mouths. Around the same time, in 1986, Landor began rolling out an even more developed brand identity that modified the wave among other subtle changes.
Missing from the chart in the Coca-Cola evolution is the penchant for Coca-Cola to use the shape of its bottle as an icon, acting on and off as the logo or complementary logo or subsidized logo of the main script logo, sometimes to a confusing fault. Today’s Coca-Cola logo is, of course, amazingly similar to what it was 124 years ago but it’s not quite fair to idolize them for a flawless consistency that they haven’t actually earned.
Once more, I will say that the Coca-Cola evolution is admirable and few companies — probably just GE — can claim to have extended their identity heritage across three centuries, but Coca-Cola isn’t perfect and as much as I despise the new Pepsi identity — which in no way am I trying to defend — I believe a fair comparison is in order.
So, here is the new chart. It’s not ideal, since I didn’t have a document as clean and specific as this one for Pepsi (scroll to last page of PDF) and I had to cobble the logos from different sources. The reds are all over the place and some are in black and white.
DATE: Aug.05.2009
CATEGORY: In Brief 218 COMMENTS
Jackson Cavanaugh’s comment is:
Don't forget about the 2015 pepsi logo!
http://bttf.wikia.com/wiki/Pepsi_Perfect
On Aug.05.2009 at 05:30 PM
Philip’s comment is:
Thanks for that post. I remembered seeing more than one Coca Cola Logo, but a quick google search didn't get me satisfying results. So thanks for your research and making this point clear.
On Aug.05.2009 at 05:53 PM
AAaron’s comment is:
Nice one Armin.
My first response when I saw the JPEG was...well that's bullshit.
We always tell our clients that Coca-Cola have been slightly modifying their logo for years. It's so minimal hardly anyone would notice.
(Don't forget the current Turner Duckworth 'Coke')
On Aug.05.2009 at 05:59 PM
andyRespire’s comment is:
Thank you for posting this. I saw it on the www.NEcreative.typepad.com blog & commented that it was inaccurate. This is much more truthful.
On Aug.05.2009 at 06:01 PM
andyRespire’s comment is:
In the 90s, 'CLASSIC' was set in Garamond all caps. The Industria font 'ALWAYS' in teal bluegreen atop the red circle was token 90s to me.
And don't forget the bubbles & extra swooshes look earlier this decade.
The latest 'back-to-basics' incarnation switched 'Classic' to lowercase Gotham typeface.
On Aug.05.2009 at 06:08 PM
Jeffry Pilcher’s comment is:
This is a really cool article. Very interesting. Great job.
I love the 1962 Pepsi bottlecap. I think that's my favorite.
The new Pepsi logo looks like something from the film "Idiocracy."
On Aug.05.2009 at 06:11 PM
Elisa’s comment is:
This is a great article, I also seen this floating around, I think what the original author of that JPG was trying to show was just the type in general has pretty much stayed the same, they have made changes but none as drastic as Pepsi.
On Aug.05.2009 at 06:21 PM
Eric Sena’s comment is:
"it wasn’t until mid-1987 that Frank Robinson, Coca-Cola’s bookkeeper, drew the first traces of the Spencerian script logo that we all know."
mid-1987?
"Around the same time, in 1886, Landor began rolling out an even more developed brand identity..."
1886?
On Aug.05.2009 at 06:25 PM
Dirk’s comment is:
Armin, you must be a Pepsi drinker. You're over-reacting big time.
Except for New Coke, today's logo is essentially the same as it was in 1900 (your own chart). I'd say that's impressive.
On Aug.05.2009 at 07:01 PM
Marc Desbiens’s comment is:
Nicely done. I've been seeing that false image circulating around the web for a while now. Hopefully those same sites add links to this.
I'm not a fan of Coke or Pepsi, but felt the image presented Pepsi in an unfair light, and was downright obnoxious.
On Aug.05.2009 at 07:17 PM
Kevin Tucker’s comment is:
While you bring some clarification to the issue, I think the original chart's essential message is unaffected (even if it did exaggerate the truth by showing the subtle changes for Pepsi, and ignoring them for Coke) that for the most part Coca-Cola's branding has been consistent, and Pepsi's hasn't.
But I think it's important to realize that, at least for the past several decades, their strategies have been markedly different too - with Coke relying on tradition and loyalty (making consistency and history a necessity), while Pepsi has operated under the "Choice of a New Generation" philosophy (which justifies radical change and periodic reinvention).
While it's easy to see why Coke's approach is more admirable, especially from a long-term point of view, I don't think it's fair to make it a black & white, right & wrong sort of comparison.
On Aug.05.2009 at 07:35 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Ah so Coca Cola DID change their logo over the years, and first one (which I have not seen before) isn't the one we have seen today. THANK YOU for pointing this out. Well done Armin well done.
On Aug.05.2009 at 07:38 PM
Spencer Cross’s comment is:
Very glad to see you address this, Armin! I run a discussion mailing list for designers and we just had a conversation about this. At the end, somebody compiled a revised JPEG very similar to what you've done. I hope it gets as much exposure. Good work.
On Aug.05.2009 at 07:54 PM
Nikabrik’s comment is:
Amen! The original JPEG has been driving me crazy, as much as I hate how Pepsi has changed its logo so frequently. It's all well and good to make fun of Pepsi and praise Coke, but I've yet to hear anyone (including designers) make a serious proposal for what Pepsi should do.
Should they just stay with their current logo for the next 100 years? Should they go back to their original logo? Should they (and this is my opinion) return to their most common imagery, the red & blue circle with the white wave?
That's what was dumb about the Pepsi rebrand... not the new typeface, but the way they changed the circle. I think they could practically drop text altogether, or use a dozen different complementary typefaces as long as they kept that red, white and blue circle.
On Aug.05.2009 at 08:18 PM
Kish’s comment is:
Thank you.
Much easier to say "hey thats not quite right" - than to do the research and present it like so.
Have twittered it - to undo all the past twitters :)
Cheers.
On Aug.05.2009 at 08:29 PM
Simon’s comment is:
There is a PDF of the history of the Coke Cola logo on the heritage section of their website:
http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/pdf/cokelore/Heritage_CokeLore_trademarkchronology.pdf
On Aug.05.2009 at 08:44 PM
Armin’s comment is:
Eric Sena, thanks for pointing that out. Too many centuries to keep straight!
On Aug.05.2009 at 08:48 PM
Katey’s comment is:
Thank you! This had been bugging me since I first saw it!
On Aug.05.2009 at 08:54 PM
ufoby’s comment is:
"...it wasn’t until mid-1987 that Frank Robinson..."
you probably meant 1887
On Aug.05.2009 at 08:57 PM
Jukes’s comment is:
Yes yes yes. Thank you for posting this, it really bothered me when I saw that image a few days ago. I've been in Switzerland during the Cola Wars but I found this quite unfair to Pepsi.
While it's true the Coca-Cola logo retains more of its original essence, it's ridiculous to think that it's been this crisp, vector-sharp script for 120 years.
Now that I've typed this, I realize that it bothered me a lot more than it should have.
On Aug.05.2009 at 08:58 PM
Greg Washington’s comment is:
Thanks for sharing ;)
On Aug.05.2009 at 09:07 PM
Steven Hoober’s comment is:
Another vote for "thank you for doing this." So many of the Pepsi logos in the original were what I'd consider treatments, or special cases, and I could think of a half dozen Coke logos off the top of my head that were different.
The irrational love of Coke is not as pervasive in advertising and design as the irrational love of Apple or Nike or other universal brands, but it's there, and heavily there in B-schools. I am personally unimpressed by all the marketing, but it seems to work for them. I guess.
On Aug.05.2009 at 09:09 PM
B. Moore’s comment is:
Thank You for taking the time to correct other peoples laziness!!
very much appreciated.
On Aug.05.2009 at 09:18 PM
Adie’s comment is:
Brilliant post. Let us not forget Pepsi Clear/Crystal. Delicious and invisible!
On Aug.05.2009 at 09:31 PM
dg’s comment is:
thanks for the indepth article & chart. one of the many reasons i come here day after day.
and i don't mind pepsi changing their identity every few years, if your competitor has such an iconic look, why not be the guy that's known for changing things up? i say good for pepsi, maybe it doesn't always work, but, in 5 to 10 years they'll just change it up anyway. They have free reign to mess around. if coke really messed with their look people would freak. there would probably be coca cola classic classic cans.
so,keep messing around pepsi. and bring back the throwback stuff, real sugar actually made me like pepsi.
On Aug.05.2009 at 09:35 PM
BW’s comment is:
It seems like whatever Pepsi was doing from 1973-1990 was their most successful tenure. Being a child of the 80's that logo is classic Pepsi to me. I think they should have stuck with that font and general layout. Its hardly coincidence that Pepsi's popularity was up during the 80's, so much that Coca-Cola floundered introducing the now-classic "New Coke" experiment while trying to compete with Pepsi in the 80s. Fortunately for Coca-Cola, Pepsi's campaigns since the 90's have gotten much worse as the years go on and no one has had more benefit from this than Coke.
On Aug.05.2009 at 10:13 PM
Nick’s comment is:
Does the Coca-Cola text from the 1886 AJC really count as a logo? Or was that just one of the generic typefaces the typesetters had at their disposal?
On Aug.05.2009 at 10:21 PM
GEW’s comment is:
http://americansfortruth.com/uploads/2008/07/coca_cola_logo.jpg
On Aug.05.2009 at 10:54 PM
henry’s comment is:
Another way to look at this is perhaps the consistency of feeling and image generated in the audience's head. For a long time, Coca-Cola for me has always given me the impression of fun and being slightly irreverent. I didn't really notice all the different variation, all I knew was that Coke was still fun and occasionally silly.
While for Pepsi, I seem to recall them going through period of trying to be super cool to period of trying to connect with the us.
On Aug.05.2009 at 10:55 PM
thanr’s comment is:
I'm the one who made that JPEG back in Oct '08 (Original Post: http://www.iamthan.com/2008/10/31/logovolution/)
I was born on 1989 and my research on the coke logos didn't give me much results apart from the 1990s and 2000s versions which I thought are just variations for their ads. It wasn't my intention to make fun of Pepsi (okay, I admit I frowned at their latest logo, though I adored ones between 1950-1973), nor to praise Coke, in fact I'm not even a big fan of carbonated drinks.
So my apologies to the internet, Coke, and Pepsi, for posting inaccurate work, I've never intended to gather this much exposure (my blog only get 100ish pv, but that jpeg hit the google image search nicely)
I've been a fan of Brand New since last year and this post just made me love you guys more! Cheers!
On Aug.05.2009 at 11:54 PM
Brandon Oxendine’s comment is:
Yeah, but honestly, come on everyone, really look at it. While Pepsi's wordmark stayed very similar for the first 40 years, it has since gone through 5 significantly different iterations, while Coca-Cola really has only had one (I'm not counting the first one, it's just typeset, not necessarily a logo). I'm not sure you can call "Coke" a different logo, since it's really a sub-brand of Coca-Cola*.
That being said, I do agree with Kevin Tucker on this. Pepsi is not Coca-Cola, and vice versa. Pepsi has a completely different marketing strategy (which involves consistent change). Coca-Cola is about being there, and never changing.
Also, a fun note, I don't know if everyone has seen this on shelves, but I recently came across the new 2 liter Coca-Cola bottles. Amazing way of carrying out the classic shape of the bottle to all bottle sizes. Here's a link.
*Feel free to correct me on this, I'm not very well informed.
On Aug.05.2009 at 11:56 PM
Adam’s comment is:
this is really great.
it would be great if you show a few other brands over time (even if it isn't as long) to to see how big or little their logos have changes (Dove, Ford, Sony, Lipton)
On Aug.06.2009 at 12:02 AM
Dirk’s comment is:
Armin, you're counting text in a newspaper listing as their 'first' logo? C'mon, that's a stretch, even for you.
As others have pointed out, with minimal modification, the TRUE original logo is still being used today.
As for Pepsi, they've been all over the map. I would've liked to see them go back to the 1973 version instead of the design train wreck they've become today.
On Aug.06.2009 at 12:08 AM
joem’s comment is:
Thank you for doing this. I too was annoyed by an incorrect chart being passed off as gospel.
On Aug.06.2009 at 12:33 AM
Rodrigo Müller’s comment is:
ok, ok, so thanr exagerated a little bit, but come on, the brand mark hadn't changed a bit since 1960, just the support for it. on the other hand the Pepsi logo isn't even the smallest bit like the first one, and I think THAT is what thanr was trying to show.
anyways, congratulations on the research, Armin. great subject! ;D
On Aug.06.2009 at 12:59 AM
Cameron’s comment is:
The original graphic still rings true: Coca-Cola's core logo hasn't changed, Pepsi's has. The swooshes and background illustrations are moot; those will always change.
On Aug.06.2009 at 01:32 AM
Olga Llopis’s comment is:
I saw the image you mention in many blogs image and I thougth the same: Coca-Cola has not been allways the same. Thanks for the revision!
On Aug.06.2009 at 01:40 AM
Aaina’s comment is:
Thanks for the great post. I have always loved Coca cola's logo (and the drink) but I knew that it can't be the case that they haven't changed their logo for that long. Good job straightening that out. I absolutely love Coca cola's branding!
On Aug.06.2009 at 01:55 AM
Kenny Yuan’s comment is:
Here is another article about the change history of Cocacola.
http://cocacolaloft.blogspot.com/2006/04/coca-cola-script-trademarklogo.html
On Aug.06.2009 at 02:02 AM
Andrew Warner’s comment is:
This is the kind of work I love to see! It means putting in more time, but it debunks the easy answer and forces us to come up with a more realistic understanding of the company.
On Aug.06.2009 at 02:03 AM
David Airey’s comment is:
Nice comeback, Armin.
I'd put Mitsubishi up there with Coca-Cola and GE in terms of longevity. I believe the mark was created back in 1870.
On Aug.06.2009 at 02:30 AM
Meena Kadri’s comment is:
And here's a swathe of more informal cola logo appearances from India.
Plus you can follow the link on that page to my own research on the subject.
On Aug.06.2009 at 02:49 AM
Rua’s comment is:
Great idea for a post, Armin.
Does anyone think it is interesting that Pepsi's and Coca-Cola's first logos look really quite similar? (Though I must say Coke's is far more successful). Look at the flourish on that 1905/1906 C! It looks copycat to me.
The most radical changes pepsi made (adding blue and black, dropping the script type, adding bottle-cap shape — 1950/1962 versions) appear to be a conscious attempt to distinguish it from its competitor.
(Will everyone beat me up if I venture to say that, although I definitely prefer Coca-Cola, I don't think Pepsi's new brand is all that bad?)
On Aug.06.2009 at 03:08 AM
Su’s comment is:
I find it interesting that people are quibbling over precisely how much the Coke logo may or may not have changed, sometimes within any given set of time periods. That's all interesting, but not the real point, which is the simple fact that the original image is—AAron called it—bullshit in the formal sense, along with all of these defenses.
Yes, most of the differences are actually changes of presentation rather than the primary mark itself, and if you want to quibble over whether that or redrawing and refining the more-or-less original mark "really count," that's fine. But regardless of any of that, the true disingenuousness at the core of the first image is that it claims the Coca-Cola logo never changed, ever. And all we need to disprove that is 1985, assuming we even allow for discounting 1886.
So no, Dirk, he isn't over-reacting; there is misinformation here, and it's a valid correction.
It's also interesting how little pointing out there is that the Pepsi differences between 1906/1940(possibly even 1905) and 1998/2005 are pretty minor and sometimes amount to those same simple presentational changes being ignored for Coke. Not that that would prove much of anything, either. It's just the slant that's curious.
On Aug.06.2009 at 05:02 AM
Su’s comment is:
.
On Aug.06.2009 at 05:26 AM
Armin’s comment is:
> Does the Coca-Cola text from the 1886 AJC really count as a logo? Or was that just one of the generic typefaces the typesetters had at their disposal?
Nick, yes that's what I thought at some point too. I have the reference below handy, and there was another one I can't find at the time. It was indeed probably a font available from the printer/newspaper but if you look at the snippet, there are a dozen other fonts in there. There was (I'm assuming) a conscious decision to use that slab serif. Had Robinson been lazy (or whatever) and not drawn the spencerian script, we wouldn't be having this whole thread.
From For God, country and Coca-Cola: "In this first ad which ran in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, he emphasized its qualities as a beverage [...] While this first effort featured 'Coca-Cola' in block letters, Robinson worked on the script logo over the winter [...].
On Aug.06.2009 at 05:54 AM
Armin’s comment is:
Oh, and another thing I wanted to mention, was the introduction of the Coca-Cola wave in the 1960s, a motif that Pepsi introduced in 1950 in their logo. I don't think Coca-Cola copied them, but I wonder why they wanted to introduce a visual element that made it look more like its competitor.
On Aug.06.2009 at 05:56 AM
Andrew Kopietz’s comment is:
Great job Armin! I would've easily rolled over and accepted it were it not for this clever bit of research.
On Aug.06.2009 at 07:46 AM
ScottyM’s comment is:
Two words for you Pepsi bashers: "Pepsi Challenge"
1. Go out into the community with a taste test.
2. Make it a "blind" test so the sheep of American society aren't influenced.
3. Pepsi's the overwhelming favorite.
PERIOD. And stands the test of time. Truly one of the great marketing ploys of all time. Certainly responsible for Coke quadrupling it's billion dollar marketing budget to counter the results (guesstimate :). And perhaps a reason Coke focused so heavily on international consumers, compared to Pepsi?
On Aug.06.2009 at 07:53 AM
dude’s comment is:
what crap, the first one isn't a logo, it's just the name of the company in print... the rest _area_ all the same, just redrawn. redrawn != rebranding. just because they used better tools and better printing and etc etc to get it to look nicer doesn't mean they 'changed' the logo... pepsi goes out of their way to actually fundamentally change their logo every once in a while... they're posers
On Aug.06.2009 at 09:05 AM
Troy Jensen’s comment is:
Very nice.
I had been irritated by the original enough that I had already made a revised (but simplified) version of this myself. Yours is much more complete.
Still an interesting evolution comparison. Nice work
On Aug.06.2009 at 09:18 AM
Freddy’s comment is:
I agree with Dude.
@ScottyM The Pepsi taste challenge is the biggest scam in history! Everyone can taste the difference between Coke and Pepsi! Its not that hard. When you take the "challenge" you usually get a perk with it. Most of the time its a bag of chips. Most people that that they will only get this perk if they guess PEPSI. So people will say they like PEPSI better just to get that free bag of chips. Think about it.
On Aug.06.2009 at 09:24 AM
Nate B’s comment is:
1940 Pepsi is kinda sexy, but from a design standpoint I respect Coca-Cola for sticking with their initial branding. Although I must say if Coca-Cola had an initial logo like Pepsi they would for sure have to change it. So terrible.
Which tastes better? Pepsi.
Which design is better? Coca-Cola.
On Aug.06.2009 at 09:30 AM
J’s comment is:
oh com'on
you are taking this shit too serious
On Aug.06.2009 at 09:44 AM
Dan’s comment is:
Coca-Cola's identity and brand positioning has overall been very stable. This exudes a stronger feeling of confidence, it is "always" it is "real" whereas Pepsi feels like it is trying harder by appealing to the times in a superficial way. The brand feels less genuine.
On Aug.06.2009 at 10:06 AM
JC’s comment is:
I have seen your "evidence" and I judge in favor of the original JPG. With the exception of the 1985 New Coke logo and minor refinements, the logo has remained mostly unchanged therefore the JPG is essentially accurate or at least accurate enough for advertising and even legal requirements.
Coca-Cola wins.
On Aug.06.2009 at 10:06 AM
Rick’s comment is:
Thank you! For all of us designers who've been keeping track of this kind of thing (or pretty much anyone over the age of 20, which most of Digg fails in) we appreciate you proving wrong the uninformed teenager who made the original "comparison".
On Aug.06.2009 at 10:07 AM
Amateur6’s comment is:
Uh, correction (second paragraph): "it wasn’t until mid-1987" -- I think you mean "mid-1887".
And I have to agree with some here that regardless of the "refinements" and the (GACK) blot of "new Coke", the Coca-Cola logo has remained, essentially, unchanged. Spenserian script FTW!
On Aug.06.2009 at 10:27 AM
Nathaniel’s comment is:
Now if Coke can just revert to how they used to make the soda itself. Real sugar maybe?
On Aug.06.2009 at 10:38 AM
Lauren’s comment is:
Thanks for this one Armin. Like you said, someone was trying to make a case by glossing over the facts.
I always like a good history lesson, very interesting to learn that the script logos began just after Coca Cola.
Coke has done all kinds of batsh*t crazy things (what was that Vitamin Coke variety??) even while keeping their iconic mark.
On Aug.06.2009 at 11:42 AM
Mr Kim’s comment is:
SU, I THINK YOU'RE BANG ON! I actually find it annoying when people point out how one version of the logo is different from another when it may just be the result of poor rendering or production. If the Coke red prints PMS but shifts in CMYK mode, does it make a different logo or a different corporate colour? If someone hand renders the logo in the 1900s and it ends up looking slightly thiner or thicker, does this make it a different logo? I'm all for craftsmanship but it really comes down to intent. I think most of these marks (on both sides) were probably intend to be the same but over time, due to technology and/or lack of awareness... it's become what most people on this site seem to be interpreting as "different". I even question if the first 1886 Coke mark is even a logo... as opposed to a printer just randomly selecting a typeface. In any case, it's a moot point because objectives change, aesthetics change, technologies change, and peoples sense of what is a logo or brand will also change.
On Aug.06.2009 at 11:42 AM
Austin Steele’s comment is:
IMHO, the new Pepsi (Sprite, Dew etc.) branding is horribly generic with no personality at all. Same guy did the recent Tropicana OJ package redesign - and we all know how that turned out.
Now, who thinks RC Cola should revert to their 'classic' 70s-80s logo. The current one really bugs me!
On Aug.06.2009 at 11:45 AM
Andrew’s comment is:
The Pepsi chart is missing at least one iteration of the logo: the wordmark in the 70s was identical (except for colour) to the one shown in the 1962 logo. The typeface didn't change to that shown in the "1973" logo until the mid-to-late eighties.
On Aug.06.2009 at 11:53 AM
Christopher’s comment is:
I couldn't agree more with Dirk's comment. You are way overreacting to this. Your "revised" logo timeline pretty much proves the point of the original JPG; that the Coke logo has stayed pretty much the same throughout history (minus New Coke) while the Pepsi logo has gone through numerous changes in typefaces and overall moods.
I can't help but laugh at you and the many people on here championing your POV. This post is SO annoying.
Bottom line: Coke has stayed the same throughout it's 100+ years while Pepsi has not.
On Aug.06.2009 at 12:08 PM
Scott’s comment is:
You mention the bottle being added to the coke graphics in the 90's, but it was actually originally introduced on the can graphics in the early 60's. (linked to from wikipedia article: http://home.comcast.net/~collectiblesodacans/Cokepg1.htm )
The reason for this was that the coke bottle was VERY iconic, but the 80's saw the rise of the 6/12-pack can and 2 liter plastic bottle. For pepsi, this was huge. Coke struggled for quite awhile to figure out how to re-introduce that shape. The Mean Joe Green ad wouldn't have been nearly as effective if Green was drinking from a generic-looking can of soda.
I've always found that particular aspect of the cola wars interesting.
On Aug.06.2009 at 12:27 PM
BrieCS’s comment is:
Another company that's been around for ages and has kept virtually the same logo - Westinghouse. They have the three centuries, too.
On Aug.06.2009 at 12:39 PM
Sigivald’s comment is:
Technically, the Coca-Cola logo as it exists today can not be replicated with the tools of 1887
Say what?
What, exactly, do you refer to?
The script is, as far as I can tell, quite replicatable with the tools of 1887 - or indeed 1587.
I'm unclear about what makes the "amazingly similar" logo of today unreplicatable with 1887 technology. It's just lines and a flat fill.
(Now, the 1990s "3d" one might have been impossible to mass-print in 1887 - though one could have hand-reproduced it in paint - but that's not the current logo, is it?)
On Aug.06.2009 at 12:39 PM
Josh’s comment is:
I have the answer to all Pepsi's problems. Bring back the '73 logo like Dan Cedarholm said and Crystal Pepsi with Andy Samberg's Out of Breath Jogger From 1992 (reference at the end) skit from SNL as the marketing.
Actually I say give Andy the Pepsi marketing account and full creative freedom. At least if they are gonna throw away money, lets get some awesome commercials out of it.
On Aug.06.2009 at 12:50 PM
nlx’s comment is:
i don't think the 1990 logo is correct : the logo with all the background in the circle ??
Can't be !
On Aug.06.2009 at 01:01 PM
joe failure’s comment is:
fail. not only did you fail at coming up with your own original idea to generate traffic to your site, but just about every one of the coke logos you depict still has the same font/type appearance. epic fail.
On Aug.06.2009 at 01:06 PM
Follower’s comment is:
@ScottyM: I looked this up and found an excerpt from "Tainted Truth," a book by Cynthia Crossen. Here is the relevant passage:
“Pepsi is thought to be sweeter than Coke, and sweet, at least temporarily and in small quantities, is almost always preferred in taste tests.”
Many people did indeed prefer Pepsi while drinking the gulp of soda supplied at the challenge, but many like myself, when confronted with drinking 12 or more ounces of soda, they opted for the less sweet brand.
A Google Books excerpt from the book is here: http://tinyurl.com/mtxbon
And while I'm familiar with the internet custom of labeling anyone who doesn't like what you like as a "sheep," I've only seen it applied to the extremely trivial-in-the-long-run concepts of car manufacturers or computer operating systems. I've never heard anyone dismiss millions of people while implying they themselves are far more cultured and refined by their choice of sugar water.
On Aug.06.2009 at 01:11 PM
Galley’s comment is:
I love the 1950 Pepsi logo. The 2008 one is all kinds of wrong.
On Aug.06.2009 at 01:13 PM
Robin Ogilvie-Stewart Barrow’s comment is:
"Does the Coca-Cola text from the 1886 AJC really count as a logo? Or was that just one of the generic typefaces the typesetters had at their disposal?"
"Does anyone think it is interesting that Pepsi's and Coca-Cola's first logos look really quite similar? "
i think people tend to forget that this is just how people 'wrote' back then, its cursive, is it a logo? sure it is these days, was it back then? absolutely not, it was just a nice bit of hand written text which happened to be the name of the brand. Pepsi became more contemporary where as Coke was a stick in the mud. There are always two routes to the same result Coke is the tortoise, Pepsi is the hare. Consistency has paid off for Coke and keeping with the times has been just as popular for Pepsi.
However Pepsi's recent rebranding of there products is an epic failure though. Then that might be because it isn't for 'my' generation...right ;)
On Aug.06.2009 at 01:18 PM
Jim Marks’s comment is:
I think one could argue that the original JPG represents a crystallization of the myth that marketing types want to believe -- there is some perfect brand identity out there for every company, and if you can be adept enough you can find that identity and ensure long term corporate success and dominance (and thus, prove one's worth as a marketer) by insisting on consistency over remaining contemporary.
They want to believe that someone at Coke way back at the beginning unearthed the perfect Coca-Cola brand ID and that unwavering dedication to not tinkering with what is already perfect has been the cornerstone of Coke's 120 year beverage dominance while those schnucks over at Pepsi lack the confidence to pick a brand ID and stand behind it through thick and thin and that it is their wishy-washy identity, more than anything else, that has doomed them to a perpetual, distant #2 spot.
This is, of course, complete nonsense. But if it were true, it would make brand marketing the lynch pin of corporate success, which marketing people like, because it makes them much more important than even the actual product.
On Aug.06.2009 at 01:22 PM
Brian’s comment is:
As a non typographic nerd I don't really see the difference in Coca-Cola's logo, apart from when it was New Coke, which is as much a different product as Crystal Pepsi. Sure Coca-Cola has had different decoration, but I feel the original JPEG is accurate.
(and btw as a computer nerd myself, I'd like to slap your wrist for calling the JPEG file format "JPG". JPG is a file extension used because of the limitations of DOS... no one uses DOS anymore)
On Aug.06.2009 at 01:34 PM
Jeff’s comment is:
There are some differences over the years of course, the most stark being the logo for "New Coke" which was essentially a different product.
None the less, the main differences above lie in mostly in the application of the logo. Putting the Coca-Cola logo on a fish tail shape, or on a "button" with a picture of a bottle, even putting the wave under the logo to me are more applicative differences. The logo itself has remained virtually unchanged, with very slight redrawing/refinement over the years.
This is a remarkably consistent identity.
On Aug.06.2009 at 01:40 PM
Fish’s comment is:
Excellent Armin. Great to see a more accurate representation of both companies. Great story!
On Aug.06.2009 at 01:55 PM
evianlover’s comment is:
Cocacola = evolution
Pepsi= mutation
On Aug.06.2009 at 02:01 PM
bms’s comment is:
Here was a coca-cola advertisement from 1909, 100 years ago, The logo is pretty plain here.
http://www.footnote.com/spotlight/4741/
On Aug.06.2009 at 02:03 PM
bloobo’s comment is:
I actually really like the "fishtail" logo. I think its probably the second best on they did. And pepsi really needs to go back to the 1973 logo, except they should remove the colors on the side that turn it into a square and simply keep the round part. The new logo looks like a prank.
On Aug.06.2009 at 02:04 PM
anoyim’s comment is:
Armin, thank you, with your "corrected chart" I see things clear now.
The coca cola woodmark is almost unchanged over the years.
But you forgot to put the first pepsi logo, the one in the patent filing looks like this "Pepsi Cola"
On Aug.06.2009 at 02:20 PM
nisio’s comment is:
I think it's interesting because the perception is that coke haven't changed their logo, though not accurate is does communicate how well they have managed their brand assets over the years (in general).
On Aug.06.2009 at 02:44 PM
Ramon M.’s comment is:
Great chart guys! but there's two Coca-Cola logos that weren't included in the chart: The cap logo from 2000, and the 2003 logo with the three color dynamic ribbon... the logo that says that's from 2000s is actually from 2007...
BTW, the new Pepsi logo is outside U.S. so far now on Canada, Brazil, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Argentina... while in Mexico only Pepsi Kick has the new logo... the regular, light and max versions still have the old logo...
On Aug.06.2009 at 03:00 PM
Jonathan’s comment is:
Is it right to call the Atlanta newspaper ad a Coca-Cola "logo", as opposed to just an artifact of the newspaper typesetting - i.e., when in 1887 they devised the first script logo (why is that not on your chart?), that was the first deliberate attempt to create a logo, as opposed to just placing the name in the paper?
On Aug.06.2009 at 03:17 PM
John’s comment is:
I knew there was something amiss about that original JPG. Of course, Coke's logo has changed, in different ways than Pepsi's but still it's changed. And of course, there's nothing wrong with that.
On Aug.06.2009 at 03:20 PM
Allan’s comment is:
Thank you so much for the hours you spent doing this research. You really are doing God's work. If not for you, this, the greatest injustice of the past 100 years, would have gone unnoticed and the Earth would likely have been sucked into a worm hole.
Because of you, now all the children in the world who are suffering of hunger, all the homeless, all the sick and the hundreds of millions of people suffering under tyrannical regimes will for at least one night, rest easy knowing that you wasted countless hours standing up for the Pepsi logo(s). You sir are the official front runner for a Nobel this year. Carry on.
On Aug.06.2009 at 03:23 PM
Bill’s comment is:
Oh, Allan your snark is so witty. You sir are the official front runner for being a jackass of the year. Carry on.
On Aug.06.2009 at 03:47 PM
Kevin B’s comment is:
Follower, I remember covering the "Pepsi Challenge" in some college class, and it was as you described. Pepsi tastes better out of a tiny plastic or paper cup, but it doesn't follow that people will enjoy the whole can more than they would enjoy a can of Coke.
The Pepsi Challenge was good marketing, and it apparently frightened Coca-Cola into changing its formula (New Coke) to make it sweeter. That was a disaster, but I think it worked out well for Coke in the long run after they introduced Coca-Cola Classic and eventually dropped New Coke.
I always liked Coke better than Pepsi, and it was because I prefer it less sweet. There's only a 10 calorie difference, I think, but Coke tastes lighter, somehow, and I get a better belch out of it.
And "sheep" is used in many areas to describe people who simply follow the directions of a leader rather than thinking for themselve, e.g., politics, marketing (which includes leaders like Apple, Coke, Prada, etc), and religion.
In the latter, it's not necessarily derogatory, depending on context.
Related to "sheep" is the concept of "drinking the Kool-Aid", which is historically inaccurate, since the original drinkers tasted grape Flavor-Aid laced with cyanide, and just goes to show how people are such sheep to the leading brands.
Both "sheep" and "drinking the Kool-Aid" say as much about the person using them as they do about the people they are trying to demean. Unless they're using them ironically, as I did in the previous paragraph.
On Aug.06.2009 at 03:54 PM
Allan’s comment is:
I think the whole point of this is that, no matter what Pepsi does, no matter how many celebrities they hire, no matter how many 'taste tests' they perform, no matter how many logos they create, they will always be behind the leader, Coca-Cola. Why? Because Pepsi tastes like shit, and most people prefer Coke (they vote with their wallets).
End of story.
On Aug.06.2009 at 03:55 PM
Kristian Andersen’s comment is:
This is an interesting post, but the reality is that, with the exception of the New Coke brandmark, as the Coca-Cola "script" logo has been updated it has stayed true to its original design intent. Certainly it has been refined and subjected to a variety of tweaks. But ultimately it looks like the same person moving from childhood, to adolescence, to adulthood.
The same can not be said for the Pepsi logo. It's gone through more of a Michael Jackson like transformation (to say nothing of his ill-fated affiliation with the brand). In many cases, leveraging wildly divergent topography, symbol orientations, and graphic devices.
The incremental changes to the Coca-Cola have all drawn from one strand of DNA, the same just can't be said for Pepsi.
I wrote a brief response to your first posting of the Pepsi re-brand back in January: http://bit.ly/1OyNvH – and made the comparison to Pepsi undergoing frequent (an bad) plastic surgery. With Coke it just feels like they are continuing to "grow up" without the assistance of scalpels, sutchers, hair plugs.
On Aug.06.2009 at 04:10 PM
Stel Pavlou’s comment is:
Excellent article. That .jpg was bugging the living bejeebers out of me. I don't know what bejeebers are. I just made them up. But they were being bugged. And out of me.
On Aug.06.2009 at 04:11 PM
Sami Susiaho’s comment is:
You do realise that you are comparing the aesthetics of two pointless products? Is there nothing else to do, in life? Drink tap water.
On Aug.06.2009 at 04:40 PM
Nate Tharp’s comment is:
Did anyone ever think that maybe Coca-Cola's resistance to reinventing their brand is the reason that they only garner ~52-58% of the market share at any one time? What if the only reason Pepsi can keep it close is because they're constantly rebranding (for better or worse) themselves. Maybe if Coke went back to the drawing board for a new identity, that would propel them to a 70% or more piece of the cola market. Who knows.
Now bring back Crystal Pepsi!
On Aug.06.2009 at 04:47 PM
MNPundit’s comment is:
It doesn't make the impact of the chart any less. It's functionally the same since the first labels.
Good thing I hate Pepsi and like to drink Coke (Zero).
On Aug.06.2009 at 04:56 PM
Mr Kim’s comment is:
ALLAN... depends on what you mean by "behind the leader". The last time I checked (a few years ago) Pepsi was just as profitable as Coke. The assumption here seems to be that changing logos is bad but I don't think that's necessarily the case. It really depends on the strategy as defined by research. Check out the past 5 year performance (Coke is the red line):
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=PBG&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=coke
Coke is basically about drinks with their cola bringing in the mother load of their revenues. Pepsi has decided to diversify into confectionary and has a wider revenue pipeline. Yes, Coke is the big cola winner but in terms of overall growth... they are comparable with a possible edge toward Pepsi if you believe that a diversified portfolio is a safer bet for investors.
I'm not a fan of Pepsi's latest logo iteration... but personally, I don't have a problem with change if that's what's called for.
On Aug.06.2009 at 04:57 PM
lvidal’s comment is:
Armin: I don't see any significant changes in the Coca-Cola logotype to consider that it has changed throught years since first introduced. The logo have been adapted to different marketing campaigns with different backgrounds, or contours, with some phrases and words up or down but the core (the script) hasn't change. It has been refined through years but it's the same since the first time used. The 1985 use of Coke logo, was just a campaign that did fail but, the script one never dissapeared at all that year, if my memory doesn't fail. I remember some bottles with Coke and others with Coca-Cola, maybe it was just some testing.
The thing is that the script logotype is the one everybody remembers and they never have change it really, so for me, the image that you put the X at isn't fail, it's ery true. Some details here and there but the main core is intact, and when you put it besides Pepsi logo changes it looks more shocking. But at least for me it's true: The Coca-Cola logotype hasn't change.
I think the chronology of the bottles speaks for themselves: http://riznath.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/coke-bottle-chronology.jpg
On Aug.06.2009 at 05:09 PM
Lay Lay’s comment is:
coke has been pretty consistent with keeping true to the type/lettering treatment, and changing the foundation in which it sits on, exception 1985.
Pepsi has changed its actual lettering, It's not a matter of aesthetics or how much edge you may want to create, the 2008 logo would not fly off the shelf for me with a quick scan.
On Aug.06.2009 at 05:19 PM
Evil Monkey Pirate’s comment is:
Interesting article.
And the comments are also very interesting.
Funny how strong some people feel about one brand or the other. I understand that you might like the taste of one more than of the other, but is a brown sugary drink really something people identify with?
If somebody would tell me my favorite drink has an ugly logo or isn't original or taste like catpiss to them, I couldn't care less...
Especially two brands like Coca Cola and Pepsi. It isn't like the products differ that much, or like one is pure evil and the other one is acting all ethical and good. They are both big corporations intent on making tons of money by selling you something that isn't all that good for you...
If you are the kind of person to 'hate' something, why not hate them both? Why think better of one than of the other?
On Aug.06.2009 at 05:19 PM
Ross’s comment is:
People seem to be glossing over the whole "New Coke" thing. That's the big reason they're still marketing "tradition". I can't say I blame them for sticking with that since the New Coke backlash. I think at some point, people will forget New Coke and they'll have to scramble for something else since "tradition" won't have that same cache.
On Aug.06.2009 at 05:20 PM
Hamranhansenhansen’s comment is:
> but a quick google search didn't get me satisfying results.
> So thanks for your research and making this point clear.
This point could be made again and again today. It's hard for me to believe that anyone could think of a Google search as "research" but there are many people who not only thing that, they think of it as "comprehensive research", but it is not even close. The majority of the world's knowledge is still in books. If you are doing any kind of research and you don't physically go to a library (not a bookstore, which only has the last few years of books for the most part), you are going to end up making a chart like the one that started this discussion, where instead of content you have one accurate entry, one spurious entry, and a hole so big in-between that you accidently use it to declare your own failure.
On Aug.06.2009 at 05:36 PM
lvidal’s comment is:
I think here is a confussion between the different Coca-Cola logos and different campaigns. You cannot say that the 1990's is a logo. It was a campaign with the logo, you never saw the use of that art in a bottle. The real logo is the logotype script. Let's not confuse the thinks with the marketing campaings, or promo arts. The real logo basically hasn't change.
On Aug.06.2009 at 05:39 PM
David Steinlicht’s comment is:
I think one more chart is needed. "Coca-Cola" logos have been more or less the same, but I would like to see a chart with "Coke" logos. I think the "Coke" logo is a direct reaction to Pepsi-Cola's shortening of its name to just "Pepsi." Coke shortened its name AND kept the longer, formal name.
There was the '60s Century condensed-style logo. The very thick slab serif style was used during the New Coke period. If New Coke had been successful, the longer name of "Coca-Cola" may have been phased out. But New Coke flopped and the full name, "Coca-Cola" with "classic" added, was used reconnect with the original taste.
The short name was used primarily for diet and flavored drinks.
The spike-serif italic version of "Coke" -- with the "dynamic ribbon device" spouting out of the "e" was in the '80s (back when Coke put pinstripes on everything). In the '90s, a script version that more closely matches the "Coca-Cola" logo was introduced. It even has a swoopy tail!
But for the most part, the shortened "Coke" logo has been pushed into the shadows. It will be back!
On Aug.06.2009 at 05:46 PM
Robert’s comment is:
Really great article. I saw that inaccurate chart up on another blog. Glad to see you took the time and show the different variations of the Coke logo.
On Aug.06.2009 at 06:02 PM
Z’s comment is:
Maybe here is the source of the Fail:
http://justcreativedesign.com/2009/07/27/what-makes-a-good-logo/comment-page-2/#comment-32234
On Aug.06.2009 at 06:11 PM
SeaFox’s comment is:
I think it's worth noting that the "wave" on the 1960s design -- only referred to very late in the comments under it's correct name ("the Dynamic Ribbon Device") -- is in itself a separate trademark:
http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/pdf/cokelore/Heritage_CokeLore_trademarkchronology.pdf
On Aug.06.2009 at 07:06 PM
Justin’s comment is:
I agree with Follower's comment, Scotty M, you have been mislead. Malcolm Gladwell explains in his book 'The Tipping Point' how these taste tests usually end in Pepsi's favour because it's sweeter, but when people drink soda regularly, they don't want something so sugary and usually opt for the Coke instead.
On Aug.06.2009 at 07:07 PM
Bill’s comment is:
Justin good point -- but the malcolm gladwell book that deals with the coke/pepsi taste test is blink.
h/t wnur review:
One of the book's most interesting examples of failing to recognize the power of thin-slicing is Coca Cola's epic product disaster: New Coke. When the Pepsi Challenge commercials debuted, Coke lost the Pepsi taste test consistently. This was not a question of manipulation: Folks regularly preferred sips from the Pepsi cup. Coke still outsold Pepsi, but Coca Cola panicked and responded with New Coke, a sweeter version of Coca Cola that tasted like a Coke-Pepsi hybrid. It flopped Edsel-style, and Coca Cola's revenue plummeted. When Coke returned with Classic Coca Cola, profits rebounded in a hurry.
What the Coke company failed to realize is that consumers in a taste test have different thin-slicing standards than regular consumers. Pepsi may have been more popular out of the test cup, but when we drink soda in our homes, we don't sip it out of shot glasses we drink it by the bottle. And the slight bitter-sweetness that hurt Coke in taste tests actually makes it more appealing with meals, which is why Coca Cola has always outsold Pepsi cola.
On Aug.06.2009 at 09:03 PM
Antony Hare’s comment is:
Great research, great post. I've battled with these ideas in my head for many years now. I tend to get very fickle with my own brands but for some, like Siteway, I've taken the Coca-Cola approach: refine, refine, refine. But with other brands (I guess 'playful' is the name I've give this category), re-vamping the logo is part of the thing. I think Pepsi has done a mostly good job of this (I also like the 1962 bottle cap the best). But I'm not very happy with the latest Pepsi incarnation. I think the 2015 one from Back to the Future would have been a much better call! Maybe they'll do it when that time comes around.
Great blog.
Ant.
On Aug.06.2009 at 09:27 PM
John Mindiola III’s comment is:
I know I'm going to get ripped for this, but I wonder if we designers like the Coca-Cola logo more for its steadfastness than its actual design qualities. I mean, sure, it's timeless, but is it good? And then, the obvious follow-up is, does it matter? Now, Pepsi's transformations have been down right brutal, if not confusing, but it's apparent they were trying very hard to be good, to out-do Coca-Cola in the coolness and goodness factors of their designs. My personal favorite of Pepsi's is the 1973 iteration. To me, this would stand on its own two feet today, and no one would lift their noses at it. So, I guess my final question is, does your logo have to be good to be a good logo?
On Aug.06.2009 at 09:41 PM
Jensonb’s comment is:
I get your issue with the original image, but your response fails to understand the point he is making. Pepsi has made a career out of re-branding and repackaging itself to try and correct falling sales, or to increase growth rates when they were making headway. Coca-Cola has a stronger, more consistent brand identity through the use of a single strand of design for more than 100 years. Pepsi can't go a decade without changing their logo lately - not even half a decade as would now seem to be the case.
Never mind that Pepsi's "we're totally hip" branding hasn't worked since the 80s, they just don' commit to it either. Pepsi needs to cut the crap, they have no youth appeal. Kids drink Coke. It's true globally. Kids of the 80s drink Pepsi.
I fall into the new Pepsi generation that Pepsi wants to generate with their latest logo. It will flop. It's like I said, Pepsi needs to cut the crap. They just do not have youth appeal any more, and they've proved it by launching a logo and design scheme which has more appeal to water drinkers and people buying supplements than teenagers.
In the late 90s, Pepsi remained an icon. But then they started acting like your dad dancing to hip-hop. They've been floundering in the wind whilst Coke has been going places - look at the new Coke Bottles. They re-designed the most iconic bottle ever, and it's wonderful. And still an icon. Pepsi HAS no icon any more. Even their iconic logo has been ruined. It better not be long before "pepsi" (Lower Case P now remember) returns to being the icon it once was or Coke are going to take them to the cleaners.
I can see pepsi sales tanking once these new designs hit Coke-loving countries like the UK. Barr (makers of Irn-Bru) and Coca-Cola must have seen these logos and jumped for joy.
In the immortal words of Jeffrey Katzenberg "It's BAD. Fix it."
On Aug.06.2009 at 09:47 PM
Wesley Sanders’s comment is:
Mr. Kim, your stock comparison compares Pepsi Bottling Group with the Coca Cola Bottling Company, Consolidated. The largest Pepsi bottler versus the second largest Coke bottler. That's not really the fair comparison you are looking for; here's a better one, comparing PepsiCo to the Coca-Cola Company. PBG and CCBCC are bottlers and their performance isn't necessarily indicative of the Company performance.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=PEP&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=ko
In any case, PEP is a more diversified company. They own Quaker, Frito-Lay, and many other brands. Coke focuses on beverages, and their beverage division is more profitable than Pepsi's beverage division, so comparing the stock of a diversified food company like PepsiCo to a focused beverage company like Coke is a little unfair.
On Aug.06.2009 at 11:45 PM
Steve’s comment is:
I agree with the point that many others have made, and you sort of lost me by calling the newspaper clipping a logo. That is not a logo, that is just whatever type they had available.
Frankly, you take that one away and the changes from the beginning to the present are not really that dramatic, at all.
On Aug.07.2009 at 01:27 AM
Denise Fay’s comment is:
Whether you're a coke (oops - coca cola) drinker or a pepsi drinker, this article informs the reader more about the branding story of two of the leading beverage brands.
It's always good to go back and see where logos and brands have come from and where they're going.
I enjoyed reading it - and I think the commentary really added some extra food for thought.
I thought I'd post it on Facebook - hope you don't mind.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Achieve-Marketing/47985383841
Denise
On Aug.07.2009 at 04:11 AM
Goffredo Puccetti’s comment is:
A very interesting post.
I am grateful to Armin for providing more indepth analysis on the matter. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, the 'revised' Coca Cola timeline proves the point of the original image.
The point is that the Coca Cola logotype is the same as it was one century ago.
I do not see inaccuracy and deception in highlighting this fact.
Having said so, it is true that when there are huge differences in marketing strategies and target objectives, a chart like Pepsi logo Vs Coca Colo Logo can be deceptive indeed, because it suggest something 'bad' about changing identity while that can be perfectly in line with a marketing strategy.
To me the strongest indicator of the superior strenght of the Coca Cola Brand are the 1985 Coke blunder and the results of the Pepsi Challenge blid test through the years.
On Aug.07.2009 at 04:27 AM
Sebhelyesfarku’s comment is:
This article is epic fail. The CocaCola logo is the same since the first graphical one. The 1886 is a "text-only" ad, it's not a logo.
On Aug.07.2009 at 06:32 AM
ScottyM’s comment is:
Justin, et al, I'm fully aware of WHY people chose Pepsi over Coke.
But the full story has more to do with brand than "sweetness versus bittersweetness."
Bottom line, in test after test, people choose Pepsi. There was no manipulation, no offer of free chips or promo items as someone else mentioned. (at least not in the '80s version of the Pepsi Challenge)
They chose Pepsi, because side by side it TASTES better. Period.
Now, what's remarkable, is that Coke has dominated Pepsi to this day. The fact they rushed New Coke to the market as a response, people tried it, and were turned off ... likely had less to do with the taste of New Coke (let's face it, your McDonald's french fries are different today than 10 years ago, as are MANY consumer products that change ingredients without consumer uproar ... but I digress) and more appropriately because of the CHANGE to an iconic brand.
Bitter / Sweet / Better with dinner / Malcolm Gladwell / Blah, blah, blah. All hogwash.
This is testament to the power of Coke. It's proven to be "not as good," but still society loves its Coke. The old ads with Santa Clause from the '40s. "Buy the world a Coke" in the '70s. "Coke is It!" in the '80s. The snuggly polar bears in the '90s.
Frankly, the proof is in the brand experience (not just a logo, as a logo itself is just part of the brand). The fact that the Coke logo has stayed "relatively" the same over a century ... just adds to the Coke dominance.
Coke stayed the course. They're iconic. Trustworthy. Likable. When life's a rollercoaster ... Coke stays just the way it's always been ... ahhhhh!
That, my friends, is amazing. (Because, frankly, it tastes terrible to me.)
On Aug.07.2009 at 08:18 AM
Lisa’s comment is:
Apparently I have been choosing soda based on taste all this time and I should have been judging on logo. Hrm.
For the record, I only drink diet soda and, at home, it is ALWAYS generic colas or Diet Dr. Pepper. The logos on the former are almost always hideous, but I prefer both the cheap price and the taste.
I think it is interesting that in all this talk of a "consistent" brand logo/identity, the only non-"original" Pepsi-/Coca-Cola brought up was New Coke. Pepsi has a range of Pepsi products from Vanilla and Wild Cherry to Diet versions of those and more and Coke/Coca-Cola offers similar diversity. While Pepsi may change the entire brand's logo frequently, it does so (as far as I can remember) across the entire Pepsi soda product spectrum. Coke/Coca-Cola runs two different labels at least to differentiate between the Diet and Regular/Classic flavor variations. Which type of consistency is better? As a diet drinker, the regular, classic, "unchanging" Coca-Cola label always looks a bit weird to me since I rarely see it on any of MY beverages, but the regular Pepsi (whichever they are favoring at the moment)reminds me of a brand I drink (even if I do not buy it regularly for my fridge). In other words, regular Pepsi make me think of Diet Pepsi and Coca-Cola makes me think of something I drank rarely as a child but that I no longer drink and in fact tastes too sweet since I have become used to diet colas.
Frankly, weird and ugly (and hopefully soon changing) logos aside, the fact that every Pepsi I see functions as an advertisement for something I might drink seems better than the traditional Coca-Cola that functions as an advertisement for something I would never drink.
On Aug.07.2009 at 08:29 AM
Mr Kim’s comment is:
WESLEY SANDERS, Like I said in the post, it depends on how your are comparing the companies. If you are talking just cola drinks, even Pepsi would admit that Coke is the leader. But if you look at overall performance, the long term historical clearly shows comparable growth:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=PEP&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=ko
So it depends on criteria and I believe that my comparison is fair from an investors point of view. Just after the dot com bust... there was a bit of talk regarding how these two companies will grow. Once Coke has permeated the remote regions of China and India, what is their strategy for growth? Considering that Pepsi cola (the drink) is second, I think management was smart to diversify into related areas so that Pepsi (the company) can be on par with the soft drink leader.
Obviously a logo by itself is not the only contributor to the success of a company but my point is, change can be good and without knowing Pepsi's reference for change, we are only talking aesthetics. And really, Pepsi may have evolved their mark but they haven't changed their brand... unless you believe that a logo is a brand which many designers actually do even though they will tell you it's not.
On Aug.07.2009 at 09:33 AM
Chaely Chartier’s comment is:
It's hilarious that they introduced and then revoked the "Coke" moniker all in the 80's.
On Aug.07.2009 at 11:13 AM
Justin’s comment is:
@ Scotty M
"This is testament to the power of Coke. It's proven to be "not as good," but still society loves its Coke. The old ads with Santa Clause from the '40s. "Buy the world a Coke" in the '70s. "Coke is It!" in the '80s. The snuggly polar bears in the '90s."
I see your point Scott, Coke has great ads and they attribute to their success. But I disagree with it being proven to be "not as good".
I don't believe Coke is more successful because they have better branding. I believe Coke is more successful because people prefer the taste despite those taste tests.
"They chose Pepsi, because side by side it TASTES better. Period."
Is this your opinion? Or are you going to back it up with facts? The taste tests you mentioned are not scientifically conclusive.
Like I said before, the only reason why Pepsi won those taste tests is because people prefer sugary for *short term* benefits, such as in the taste tests - which are meaningless because they don't measure how much people prefer the drinks in real life, but just in the controlled short term situation.
Coke doesn't win because they have better branding - coke wins because the public likes the taste more.
On Aug.07.2009 at 11:38 AM
Darrel’s comment is:
While technically accurate, I feel this is update a slight disservice to the message the initial graphic was trying to communicate and one that many (most?) Brand New commentators seem to agree with: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The original JPG perhaps took some slight liberties in its editorial culling, but communicated quite clearly.
On Aug.07.2009 at 12:37 PM
ScottyM’s comment is:
"...coke wins because the public likes the taste more."
Talk about scientifically unproven. The proof is in the pudding. We can agree to disagree, but the 25 years of Pepsi Challenges will always shoot down the various consumer behavior theories. Blind taste = Pepsi.
I think people choose Coke because it's "It" or more appropriately, because it's ubiquitous:
-greater distribution
-more effective ads
-more effective marketing (fountain tie-ins, etc.)
-greater global reach (Costa Rica, for e.g., all Coke in the rural areas, and zero Pepsi)
-more stable brand, company, marketing, formula line, and so forth.
All that adds up to ... greater market share.
Would be interesting to break the discussion down into geography (U.S. domestic, for e.g.). Or even more effectively down into regions, where in the Southeast many natives choose "Coke," whether they're drinking 7Up, Tab, Pepsi, Sprite or any other soft drink.
Probably has a lot to do with my viewpoint about the overall effectiveness of Coke's brand ... because it's basically the Kleenex and Jello of the beverage world in the south. :)
On Aug.07.2009 at 12:39 PM
René Schmalschläger’s comment is:
Thank you so much for correcting this. I was evil and just wrong.
On Aug.07.2009 at 12:42 PM
Pesky Illustrator’s comment is:
I like water better.
On Aug.07.2009 at 12:45 PM
Eric’s comment is:
Seriously, who cares.
Get a life.
There are FAR more important things than all this conversation about logos for flavored sugar water.
On Aug.07.2009 at 01:02 PM
Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:
The relevancy of Coca-Cola being more consistent with its brand identity is the real point.
Pepsi has flip-flopped in its identity for the past three decades. No wonder Coke drinkers are more loyal and their sales easily outpace Pepsi's.
Coke is it. Pepsi isn't.
On Aug.07.2009 at 01:07 PM
Joseph Maguire’s comment is:
Great post, you nailed exactly what I was thinking on the head when I first saw that post in flickr last month.
Great stuff Armin!
Joseph
On Aug.07.2009 at 01:46 PM
obse.’s comment is:
Nice ComicSans Kenny Yuan!
On Aug.07.2009 at 02:07 PM
Su’s comment is:
While technically accurate, I feel this is update a slight disservice to the message the initial graphic was trying to communicate and one that many (most?) Brand New commentators seem to agree with: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The original JPG perhaps took some slight liberties in its editorial culling, but communicated quite clearly.
Or: The ends justify the means. Do you make a habit of backing up your arguments with things you know to be false? The entire point of this post is a technicality; you don't get to go, "Oh, sure, if you want to nitpick..." At no point did Armin argue against the intent of the image. He clearly(to me) agrees with it, in fact. He's simply providing a more level and yes, accurate, playing field for the comparison.
If anything, the "if it ain't broke" sentiment could be even better illustrated, and in multiple ways, by including the 1985 Coke logo, possibly even more. Not only was 1985 a branding/logo mistake, but people hated them changing the actual product itself. And rather than making the patently false claim that the logo has remained unchanged for centuries, isn't it even more interesting that though it has in fact been played with and tweaked repeatedly, little to nothing has been lost in recognizability, market share, etc.?
Stop weaseling. The post wasn't a "slight disservice" to the "slightly liberal" editorializing of the graphic. It was a clear statement that it was inaccurate and deceiving; it's right in the first paragraph.
On Aug.07.2009 at 02:19 PM
Alexander Bickov’s comment is:
I like 1940s Pepsi logo
On Aug.08.2009 at 08:55 AM
PP’s comment is:
Coke's logo didn't changed that much. Your chart is just a bit more accurate, that's all. About the newspaper, probably they used that kind of lettering and then "Robinson worked on the script logo" - so it isn't a logo itself, just a handy solution fixed later.
On Aug.08.2009 at 09:19 AM
CJK’s comment is:
The can of Coke I am holding still carries the remenants of the 1980's SNFU. Under the nutrition facts there is a Coke Classic Original Formula logo.
On Aug.08.2009 at 12:33 PM
Ty’s comment is:
What we have here are simply two different approaches: Coca-Cola continues with their well-established branding while Pepsi rebrands every few years in an attempt to stay modern. It's not that Pepsi's doing it wrong, it's just that their latest rebranding is awful.
Also, I'm going to agree with the sentiment that "Coca-Cola" as printed in a newspaper doesn't really count as a logo.
On Aug.08.2009 at 10:19 PM
Robert Fauver’s comment is:
Coke shoulda stopped in the 50's and Pepsi shoulda stop in 91. ASK ME? Can't tell the difference. I think it was in 85 whent Pepsi became #1 after Coke tried to do that whole new Coke thing.
Sorry if there's been a dialoge between the blog posters. I haven't read any posts.
On Aug.09.2009 at 06:51 AM
Kirk Lennon’s comment is:
the Coca-Cola evolution is admirable and few companies — probably just GE — can claim to have extended their identity heritage across three centuries
If we expand this internationally, one company in particular comes to mind, Zwilling J.A. Henckels. They've been using a twin logo since 1731, and it's been in its modern, stylized form for at least a century. Apparently there's some Flash animation that shows the company history, but they seem to be having some problems with their website right now (broken links), so I can't garner any more details.
Their logo isn't just older than Coca-Cola and Pepsi, it's older than the United States. I'm impressed. (Oh, and they also happen to make really nice knives too.)
On Aug.09.2009 at 01:54 PM
Jim’s comment is:
The only problem with the revised chart is that most of those aren't the "official logo" of Coca-Cola. Since the early 1900s, it's always been the scripty font that is the logo. "Coke", the logo in the red box, and the "button" (as we used to call it when I worked for Coke) were just stylized ways to convey the brand. At no time did the logo on the buildings, business cards, or any other official items change from the scripty font.
On Aug.09.2009 at 02:57 PM
rob’s comment is:
pepsi
or obama?
On Aug.09.2009 at 07:20 PM
Edgar J. Granada’s comment is:
To Coca-Cola! Nice to see their logo, it modified their typeface but very minimal but what is good to this brand, they remind their consumer consistently specially their bottle. Good thing to see the evolution of this two famous brand.
On Aug.09.2009 at 09:42 PM
Dave L’s comment is:
oh good. it's the design police. thanks for that.
I still think the original JPG is accurate. But thanks for going to the trouble of clarifying that for me.
On Aug.09.2009 at 11:10 PM
alex’s comment is:
While this story is still hot, I would draw the design community's attention to the 'Coca Karma' saga. What would you do if a dream client stole your work?
http://silverback.gnn.tv/blogs/7590/Rest_In_Peace_Bob_Kolody
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612141551/guerrillanews.com/cocakarma/
On Aug.10.2009 at 04:51 AM
Darrel’s comment is:
Su:
No, the point is not technicalities.
The point was to communicate Coke's brand identity consistency over the past 100 years.
The latter graphic certainly is appropriate for this audience. The former felt much more appropriate for the broader audience.
There's 'accuracy' and then there's 'superfluous detail' that sometimes detracts from the main message.
Ultimately, though, we're arguing about a couple of emailed joke JPGs about soda. ;)
On Aug.10.2009 at 06:41 AM
Jyothiprakash’s comment is:
Good writeup, and thanks for the new JPEG (Especially the 1886 script logo)
~ http://jyothiprakash.wordpress.com
On Aug.10.2009 at 02:03 PM
Tom’s comment is:
Thanks for prooving the initial jpg was right.
On Aug.10.2009 at 04:02 PM
Lancaster’s comment is:
Pepsi '73 is wonderfully clean, and as close to timeless as that logo has ever gotten, even if it borders on antiseptic. The logotype is interesting too - neutrally modern enough to be more or less preserved for over thirty years, until they went all X-TREME in 2005.
The homage in 2008's "e" looks like it's snickering. Pehehehepsi.
On Aug.10.2009 at 08:14 PM
Kris C.’s comment is:
This new chart is not an accurate depiction. Adding the original 1886 version and the 1985 New Coke versions would have made the other chart more accurate. What you have done in most of the other image additions is shown brand imagery, NOT logo changes. The Coca-Cola logo appears to have changed VERY little in and of itself, while cans and images around it have gone through natural changes that packaging and identity collateral normally do go through. I don't think this is a huge improvement in the form of accuracy. Pepsi's logo has actually changed numerous times.... that is the foundation of an identity and I still think they're either committing the cardinal mistake of changing their identity due to boredom, or they suffer from a bit of an identity crisis.
On Aug.10.2009 at 08:56 PM
Daniel Campos’s comment is:
Some blog cpoy this article and don't put the link to BrandNew
http://www.graphicdesignblog.org/pepsi-and-coca-cola-logo-evolution/comment-page-1
On Aug.11.2009 at 07:38 AM
Megs’s comment is:
Not to start a flamewar, but I think you missed the point. The point was the font changes, not the surrounding artwork. Pepsi has continued to put out fresh fonts for their products, in keeping with their "young, hip" image. Whereas Coke has maintained a steady image to convey their "classic, reliable" image. It's about marketing and the image you want to put off. It doesn't make one better than the other, it just means they have different ways of selling their product. And each way seems to work for their respective product, since Pepsi & Coke are the 2 major cola companies right now (though, as you pointed out, Coke trumps Pepsi for the most part).
And as far as the Atlanta Journal Constitution goes, you can't use old newspaper typeface to claim that Coke had a "logo". When typesetting consisted of using metal blocks to stamp the newsprint, there was no way to get the fancy script of Coke's TM without some serious related costs. You even make mention of this in your article, regarding the tools of the time as not being sophisticated enough to replicate such a design.
I hate to be nit-picky, especially since I am far from perfect myself. But if you're going to be nit-picky about the misgivings in the original JPG, I'm going to be nit-picky about the misgivings in your article. Although I do applaud you for bringing this issue up. The original image was bothering me as well and I'm glad someone was intelligent enough to clear the air.
On Aug.11.2009 at 09:50 AM
Tony’s comment is:
You said it yourself, "The philosophical point it makes is indeed funny and, for the most part, accurate."
It's the "for the most part" that consumers remember...
On Aug.11.2009 at 03:31 PM
Gabriel Sperandio’s comment is:
The logo of Coca-cola has almost never changed. Only a little redesign to adapt to the means of reproducing on the beginning of the twentieth century. Sometimes, has changed a little not the brand, but the visual identity or simply the aplications. Meanwhile, Pepsi has changed the logo a lt of times...
On Aug.11.2009 at 04:45 PM
Vidar Flak’s comment is:
Don't forget Coke's "Life tastes good" - with the bubblicious supporting graphics, I guess early 2000s:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/purpleslinky/2008/06/24/190439_0.jpg
On Aug.11.2009 at 05:16 PM
website designer’s comment is:
hey that was really enlightening....
On Aug.12.2009 at 06:04 AM
Louis’s comment is:
I found this site a while back when debunking the jpeg for a coworker:
http://cocacolaloft.blogspot.com/2006/04/coca-cola-script-trademarklogo.html
I can't verify the validity, but it seems implausible that someone would make it up.
If it is genuine, it REALLY modifies your chart even further.
On Aug.12.2009 at 05:47 PM
???? ??? ?????’s comment is:
Very nice. Should compare more coke brands.
On Aug.13.2009 at 12:29 AM
todd’s comment is:
Pepsi logo was from 2003 not 2005. The dymanic ribbon was introduced on the packaging in 1970. The 1987 Coca-Cola/Coke logo was used intil 1997 on cans and bottles. The 2003 Coca-Cola logo is missing. Other than that I agree with everything you mentioned.
here are better refferences for your logos
www.usasoda.com has plenty of cans evolving from the 1950s to today.
On Aug.13.2009 at 02:40 PM
Drea’s comment is:
Armin,
Thanks for setting the story straight. The case can be made that Coca-Cola's font has stayed more consistent than Pepsi's, but the evolution certainly isn't as exaggerated as the viral jpeg suggests. I'm going to add your accurate version to the picture I posted on Business Pundit, so that people can see the exaggeration. I appreciate you putting forth the effort to give an accurate story.
Drea
On Aug.14.2009 at 11:06 AM
Jack ’s comment is:
this is an awesome article
www.europelogos.eu
On Aug.14.2009 at 03:27 PM
Nick Paul’s comment is:
I found this post really interesting considring I chose to re-brand Pepsi for a university project and I used the chart in my research. You can see my version of the logo and packaging at my website - www.nickpaul.co.uk
On Aug.19.2009 at 10:09 AM
Ofir’s comment is:
To me it just proves that since 1900 Coka Cola have the same logo. Even when it's printed on a cork it's the same, and in news papers it's bound to be black, but the same design.
Same Same Same
On Aug.19.2009 at 02:00 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
…the Coca-Cola evolution is admirable and few companies — probably just GE — can claim to have extended their identity heritage across three centuries…
What about John Deere? They’ve been around since the 1800s, and have a similar logo evolution. Incidentally, I’ve seen a similar image showing the consolidation of the ag equipment manufacturing industry over the years, trying to show Deere’s comparative longevity to its competitors, but I’m having trouble finding it at the moment.
On Aug.19.2009 at 06:36 PM
logo design ’s comment is:
A reliable logo is concentration. It is immediately identifiable and a fast glance at the logo design will be able to tell the audience which organization it belongs to. This is tremendous as logos can be used as a reliable advertising tool; from letterheads to banners to shopping bags.
On Aug.19.2009 at 11:13 PM
Dom Ulrich ’s comment is:
Excuse me have you seen this?
"As for the Coca Cola logo and how it started, accounts say that it was Pemberton's bookkeeper, Frank Mason Robinson, who designed it in 1885."
From -
http://www.logoorange.com/logodesign-C.php
The point here is that you have no cites Armin. The article shows why
the web is not a definitive information source. Swiss Miss was Showing that brand consistency is a good idea. Get over yourself.
On Aug.20.2009 at 08:05 AM
Marcos Zerene’s comment is:
Hi, great article guys!, i put this in my blog, with the link to you, please check it at:
http://www.arbolbranding.com.ar/blog/
Thanks and i will be reading Brand New often.
On Aug.21.2009 at 09:44 AM
pozycjonowanie’s comment is:
Between 1940-2009 logotype coca-cola almost has not change. Really strong brand. Impressive.
Not only logotype has not change - taste too.
On Aug.25.2009 at 12:19 PM
Steve Price’s comment is:
This is an amazing article, thank-you.
On Aug.28.2009 at 09:04 AM
Alaska Web Design’s comment is:
We went to Atlanta Coke museum last year. This certainly brings back memories.
Our Affordable Alaska Web Design Company has made the same mistakes by trying to maintain brand identity while stifling creativity.
On Sep.01.2009 at 03:03 PM
Logo Design’s comment is:
Lol .. coca cola is still the leader in the world of beverages.
On Sep.03.2009 at 11:47 PM
Erin C.’s comment is:
Armin, I think you've restarted the cola wars :)
I love this article and I love the fact that people are so brand-loyal when it comes to soda. It's incredible and sort of wonderful that fizzy water can inspire such fierce emotion, and most of it is due to shrewd marketing.
Cola loyalty is usually something that starts in childhood and I think that may be why folks feel so strongly about it.
Thanks for this!
On Sep.08.2009 at 04:06 PM
Emily N.’s comment is:
While the Coke logo has changed some over the years, they are minor changes, and it remains the most recognized logo world wide. They've stumbled on to something pretty great if it's worked so well for them for so many years. Of course, classic is always best in my book. Not to mention, that as an avid Coke drinker, I think it tastes much better, but I am a little biased.
On Sep.10.2009 at 11:13 AM
Stan Andrew’s comment is:
It was nice of you to defend Pepsi here but let’s get realistic; they don’t need defending. I was looking for the new Pepsi logo to teach somebody something in Photoshop when I found your post.
Realistically neither logo has changed that much that often. Minor tweaks here and there like switching to italics, adding slight serifs, adding a different background (fishtails and bottle cap - which is really not the logo). In 1962, when everybody thought we would be flying in cars by now, Pepsi went modern to distinguish itself to capture the youth market which has focused on ever since. The 1982's brought the cola wars with Michael Jackson, yada, yada, yada. Pepsi also ran a bunch of national taste tests. Coke got scared and introduced new Coke which tasted suspiciously like?....drum roll... PEPSI!!!! My father owned a grocery store and Coke tanked! Shortly after "Classic" coke was back on the market and not too much later new Coke was dead.
Now I am a Coke man; personally I feel like Pepsi tastes like feet. I grew up with Pepsi in the house and the aesthetic changes to its appearance were largely unfelt. If you think about it, the white wave through the Pepsi globe looks a lot like the Coke wave. Again, I think the Pepsi bunch is trying to distinguish itself from king Coke and they are actually doing a good job. This article - that jpeg – it is all free "buzz", tech savvy, youth-market buzz. Who are we talking about here? We are not talking about Coke; Coke is your favorite aunt - she is always going to be there. What's new, what's different, what's all the hubbub about? Pepsi. Pepsi wins.
On Sep.10.2009 at 12:41 PM
Danny Iovane’s comment is:
Nice rectification (: Hehe. You can say a lot about Pepsi and Coca Cola, but both have done a great job over the years. In my opinion Coca Cola's marketing approach is one not to be compared to any other at all. The consistency in their logo shows confidence, rather than the semi-desperate approach which would be trying to completely spice up their logo all the time. Coca Cola also is also sending out the message that it's still the same as 'back then'. By innovating their logo that message would've be neglected. I wouldn't be one to put Pepsi and Coca Cola up against each other and compare them by logo. Mostly because I don't know that much about Pepsi's intentions really. Which actually makes my point, everyone knows where Coca Cola stand for, as they never changed their ways. Or so are we let to believe, perhaps - it's working, however.
On Sep.10.2009 at 04:10 PM
Richard Sharpe’s comment is:
I had to admire cokes consistency too
On Sep.13.2009 at 06:08 PM
Martin from Uruguay’s comment is:
GO GO PEPSI go !! Remember still LEMON BROTHERS fall down .....
On Sep.15.2009 at 02:15 PM
ads’s comment is:
COCA-COLA rules PEPSI sucks
On Sep.27.2009 at 02:17 AM
Lake Geneva personal injury lawyers’s comment is:
With the changes it's gone through it is nothing compared to the changes that pepsi has incurred. It's been basically the same for the time, with a few exception where at least once a decade pepsi rolls out a complete overhaul.
On Sep.29.2009 at 02:39 PM
Raul’s comment is:
I love the comparison because it gives a little bit of "fairness" to it.
But saying Pepsi tastes better, is fucking retarded.
On Oct.06.2009 at 10:36 AM
Jorge Eyzaguirre’s comment is:
Let us all not miss the fabulousness of american enterpreneurship that brought us all this. Absolutely true, it seems unconcievable that we have to tolerate yet another year with the same old looks but it is also the same old beverage. What these people are trying to do (don't tell me Pepsi looks anywhere even acceptable at first!) is let us know that there is a standard of "immovableness". That their quality promises to be the same, that the brix will hold, that the water will always be pure, the sugar super-extra refined and the general product taste the same. Until the apocalyptic day when the world will loose its industrial capability, its stability, its "here we are, as we always have been" is what we expect industry to give us as the texture of a sense of security. After all, a god must be the same "yesterday, today and forever". Somebody in our social fabric has to have the capacity to maintain himself standing despite the winds and the earthquakes that rock us, materially, virtually and spiritually. Have we forgotten that corporations are registered as TRUE PEOPLE? Or is it that we lost our Common Sense? Hence, these biggies are trying to say "We are thy stability" and for that purpose alone, "Thy Name Changeth Not" gives many people a silent, subliminal sense of protection.
We live in a society built by the 20th to be connected to stability, a good fine way of life, a higher status, a multiplicity of resources... none of which is bad except that we cannot live without any of it anymore... therefore, we NEED them to "changeth not". I don't particularly feel protected or secure with it, all the contrary. But I do recognize man needs some sense of compass-like security to look up to. So, for the good of the weak, hail the logo!
On Oct.06.2009 at 05:07 PM
logo design’s comment is:
Coca-Cola evolution is the penchant for Coca-Cola to use the shape of its bottle as an icon
On Oct.07.2009 at 01:12 AM
hwang145’s comment is:
I think there are many difference between Coca-cola and Pepsi,but I prefer Coca rather than pepsi,it is the best!!! coca cola is still the leader in the world of beverages.Although it has many drawbacks,it owns many atvantages!
On Oct.08.2009 at 07:46 PM
Corner’s comment is:
This is really an interest article? I have never noticedthat the logo of Coca-Cola and Pepsi has changed so many times. To be honest, comparing these two marks, I like Pepsi's logo better, bucause it is cooler. But if you asked me what kind of drink I like, I would certainly choose Coca-Cola, Pepsi is too sweet.
On Oct.10.2009 at 01:05 PM
jingwei’s comment is:
thanks for your posting. I think most people don't notice the both logo changing so many times. from your chart I think Pepsi logo-shape changed more than Coca-cola. Pepsi logo is more cooler than Coca-cola. but Coca-cola logo is easy to remember. for drinking I like more Coca-cola.
On Oct.11.2009 at 04:32 AM
leslie’s comment is:
hey..wats up?i miss the combination of pepsicola and coca-cola..its really great..try it at home..deliciousooooooo..my bf and i enjoyed it so much as every drop..
On Oct.11.2009 at 09:22 PM
Mohammed ’s comment is:
this is a great article. What i can see now a days is that coke is growing and advertising more than how it was in the past. But on the other hand Pepsi is getting weaker in the market and as a compete-tar to Coke.
On Oct.11.2009 at 11:20 PM
Mubarak’s comment is:
Coca-Cola is better than papsi in taste cause, papsi is more sweeter than coca-cola, which make it taste bad somehow.
i prefer Coca-cola more, because it has the original taste ;), (Go Coca-cola)
On Oct.11.2009 at 11:21 PM
Adam Alharoon’s comment is:
Most of my foreigner (out of USA) friends prefer Coke (including myself) and they say Pepsi is full of sugar. On the other hand, the americans in general (based on my experience) prefer Pepsi. In fact, americans prefer sugary food in general unlike foreigners especially asians.
On Oct.11.2009 at 11:43 PM
Abdulla ’s comment is:
I think coke is better then Pepsi because , it has more than one flavor so you will not get bored buying one kind of coke, you will have several chances to choose and its more well-known over the seas
On Oct.12.2009 at 02:23 AM
Saif ’s comment is:
From what I see Coke is on the right track for some reasons. First, the ads are everywhere. Second, Most people prefer Coke. I can see that from the previous comments. Third, Coke company always develops different things such as the company logos,and the cans design. In sum up, Coke controls the market by using different techniques that make each generation accept coke products more and more.
On Oct.12.2009 at 07:42 AM
Hung T. Nguyen’s comment is:
the information in here is really good but they most concentrate on the label of the soft drinks,
On Oct.12.2009 at 11:11 AM
Choon’s comment is:
In my opinion that Pepsi still has something which is better. That special taste. Ans the Logos are always change so it does not stay boring. But it still keeps its main style.
On Oct.12.2009 at 02:44 PM
Hyewon Yoon’s comment is:
This article is very specific about the history of two companies' logos, but did not have other information rather than the history of logos. The writer presented in historical order,so that it's easy to understand and read.
On Oct.12.2009 at 02:52 PM
Tom’s comment is:
In this essay, the writter not only illustrated the information about the different logos between Coca-cola and Pepsi, but also defined the better one - Coca-cola as the better drink than pepsi. I still think that Pepsi is better. It's better tasted.
On Oct.12.2009 at 03:08 PM
Taeyoung Yoo’s comment is:
I think this article is really specific about the logo of coca-cola and Pepsi. Author researched very well about the history of the logos and it was easy to read. It was very detail, but it has less information than my essay. For my essay, i had advertisement, nutrition facts and value of brand. Although it has less information, i think there were enough information to understand logos of coca-cola and Pepsi.
On Oct.12.2009 at 03:11 PM
Ema’s comment is:
I prefer coke-cola than pepsi, becasue it tases and designs, and another maybe it is the first softdrink that i have when i was young. Haha.
On Oct.12.2009 at 03:45 PM
Di Wu’s comment is:
The Pepsi has change brand a lot of times. And Coca-cola is alwys red. In my opinion, I like Coca-cola's brand better. Because it always like that, that makme people feel more familiar with it.
On Oct.12.2009 at 03:59 PM
Jun Ho Yun’s comment is:
This article is mostly about the logo of coca-cola and Pepsi. I wish to see the more information about nutrition fact, advertisementm, and taste. I could see the big change from pepsi's logo, but coca-cola's logo is pretty same for long time. Anyway, the article was pretty interesting to me
On Oct.12.2009 at 10:11 PM
Alicia Tian’s comment is:
great article, i had never noticed the logos of these two...but taste is more crucial than logo...I like Coca-cola especially cherry coke.
On Oct.14.2009 at 03:24 AM
Blueplate’s comment is:
The other thing going on here is Coke has had two logos at the same time since the 1980s: "Coca-Cola" and "Coke". If one is on the label, the other will usually be in small print by the copyright notice.
Every few years the four-letter "Coke" has been subtly redrawn, with usually a little blurb about it hitting the news somewhere.
Coke (for reasons unknown to me) has tons of collectors of its ephemera, so it wouldn't be too hard to go back to package designs of the 1980s, 1990s and now to see how many iterations of the "Coke" lettering there have been (thin, wispy Bodoni-like letters in the 70s, bolder strokes and serifed Rockwell-like letters in the 1980s, and so forth.)
Cherry Coke went through a terrible phase in the early 2000s where their lettering was all-caps, jagged and almost a cheesy "Halloween" script. Now, it's "Coca-Cola Cherry", or "Coke Cherry" in a small corner of the can.
So, totally agree, no one should promote the canard that the Coke logo hasn't changed. They have at least two at any one time, and (especially the 4-letter Coke logotype) they're redrawn periodically.
Maybe not as much as the Pepsi logo, but the original Jpeg is classic wrong internet urban myth. Anybody up for a good chain letter?
On Oct.22.2009 at 07:21 PM
custom logo design’s comment is:
O wow! great job, make me happy..........nice logoes.
well i like the 2005's logo of "Pepsi", and 2009's logo of "Coca cola" the most.
On Oct.24.2009 at 02:53 AM
Glen German’s comment is:
I guess nobody went to the Coca-Cola heritage site and looked at the pdf. Even the company shows there were more than one logotype. In fact shortly after the original, there was a weird bug looking logotype.
If you want to argue that the Coca-Cola logotype didn't change it was simply additional features depending on the marketing campaign, the same could be said for Pepsi. In fact the Pepsi logotype transitions from conception through 1940 mirror that of Coca-Cola from its conception through the 1950's (which introduced the Globe) with similar but different logotypes.
Pepsi did start a totally different direction in in 1960 with the San Serif font, which had a slight change in in 1973 to a more angled and sharper edged font, but it stayed the same until 2008 with the fail of the logo change.
So while the Coca-Cola essential had variations on two logos since conception, Pepsi has only essentially had 4 logo changes (3 if you take the script, san serif, and the globe and mix, plus the 2008 logo) in 111 years, not the 11 changes the jpg depicts.
On Oct.29.2009 at 12:04 AM
Jonathan J B’s comment is:
Sorry but this is pretty elitist to say the least.
The jpeg is to illustrate that over the years, the coke logo's general branding hasn't really changed that drastically, slight exaggeration was added to make a stronger and more humorous point and to pick it apart is silly.
I think (as someone else said) the idea of the jpeg still remains true, that the core branding of coke, has stayed very similar for so long, and that yes, pepsi has really tried to reinvent its self many times.
Looking at your picture examples of how coke actually has "changed" over the years is again, elitist. It is far too picky for anyone who is not a designer to even care about.
On Nov.02.2009 at 03:33 PM
Darren’s comment is:
Boy all this reading is making me thirsty. Sure could go for a Mountain Dew. :)
On Nov.05.2009 at 09:51 AM
Adrian’s comment is:
I think the new Pepsi sign looks cool.
On Nov.08.2009 at 09:33 AM
Levinson Axelrod’s comment is:
I will say that coke stayed closer to their original, the initial jpg is of course wrong but is truer than it would be pepsi.
On Nov.09.2009 at 12:17 PM
Canada Jenkins’s comment is:
I am a dedicated coke drinker and nothing pepsi does can change that. But it doesn't mean that I don't like pepsi. I am just in love and not willing to let go a great thing such as coke. Enjoy cola drinkers!
On Nov.11.2009 at 11:42 AM
Josh’s comment is:
Thank You!
On Nov.24.2009 at 07:44 PM
natalie hildebrandt’s comment is:
welllllllllll
On Dec.08.2009 at 01:10 PM
David’s comment is:
I just think there just soda with kick
On Dec.13.2009 at 10:33 AM
Mabel’s comment is:
i like both :) like mmmm... i like drinking coke with doritos but when it comes to
On Dec.15.2009 at 09:28 AM
Aj’s comment is:
FUCK
On Dec.15.2009 at 10:28 AM
Pennsylvania wrongful death lawyer’s comment is:
It is a common misconception, I think that it's just that coke as stayed close to the their original some of the redesigns have either been before it entered the common consciousness or due to the fact that a lot of the changes are subtle enough that the untrained, or unobservant eye glazes over them. Where as pepsi flips the logo on its ear every so often.
On Dec.15.2009 at 10:36 AM
Prezzident’s comment is:
While you bring some clarification to the issue, I think you all need to get a life becuse IT'S JUST POP
On Dec.15.2009 at 04:10 PM
mk’s comment is:
I guess both companies could achieve a temporary sales peak if for a limited time they'd sell bottles in their original size, with their original logo on it (whatever they'd consider original) ... and maybe even filled with their original mixture?
On Dec.26.2009 at 05:40 AM
Norik’s comment is:
I love the posts in here, this one was on the core of branding.
You missed the international logos on Pepsi and Coke. Here is a glimps of that : http://varabic.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/american-international-companies-in-the-arab-world/
On Dec.26.2009 at 07:14 AM
Michel VR’s comment is:
That was an amazing explanation. Congratulations! There is a lot of mistakes on internet. People just need to be aware of it.
On Jan.03.2010 at 05:16 PM
Lois Lane’s comment is:
Coca Cola rules. No need to make dramatic changes to the logo...or formula...
Pepsi, uhm, second rate by any standard.
On Jan.03.2010 at 09:30 PM
alex’s comment is:
I think that essentially the same point was proven. Coca Cola's logo has been proven superior. Yet again. Despite what people think about the actual drinks.
Does it follow superior design? Yes. Is it simple? Memorable? Timeless? Versatile? Appropriate? Yes. And so, by its- I think fair to say- consistent design, it deserves to be praised. Much more so than Pepsi. It accomplishes much more.
Kudos to whoever did the jpeg in the first place, for noticing such a trend in brand marketing and success. Because even after your more detailed version, the same thing still rings true.
On Jan.05.2010 at 12:01 PM
Amy Grayson’s comment is:
Very cool. But, is that first Coke logo really considered to be first when what is shown is from a very small print ad in a newspaper?
On Jan.22.2010 at 12:11 AM
English tutor’s comment is:
The Pepsi Coke competition is one of the case studies I use in teaching business studies at our school. Great article.
On Jan.24.2010 at 06:48 PM
web advertising Adelaide’s comment is:
coke vs.pepsi that was a nice,but i have to go to the coke...its taste good than the pepsi..:)
On Jan.30.2010 at 03:29 AM
Discussing, and looking for, what is relevant in, and the relevance of, graphic design. [Archives Only]
Corraling the most relevant and creative on- and off-line bits that pertain to the design community — and said community is openly invited and encouraged to add their hard-earned links.
Encouraging creative diversity in the community through monthly, one-word challenges.
Celebrating the reality that print is not dead by showcasing the most compelling printed projects.
Describing, tracking and explaining culture, commerce, politics, media, sports, brands — everything possible, really — through design.
Designing corporate and brand identities and full development of printed and digital matter for clients and us.