This past weekend, the entire Singh family crammed into our GMC Safari van for a road trip to Washington D.C. At one of the many stops at random and weird rest stations along the way, I noticed a strange product in the drink section of a sketchy fast food restaurant.
This product was a can of Pepsi.
Now this didn’t look like any regular can of Pepsi that I had seen before.
They changed the logo!
Was this really necessary?
I can completely understand that product packaging needs to change over time in order to respond to changing consumer tastes and to take advantage of new technologies. But to change the logo of the 39th most powerful brand in the world (according to an April 2008 study by Millward Brown Optimor) seems a little… unnecessary?
The Pepsi logo is an iconic symbol that can be recognized instantly by billions of people around the world… so why change it?
Entries
February 27th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Check this out! There is an entire document (genius) about how the ‘new’ logo. http://gawker.com/5150582/breathtaking-document-reveals-pepsis-logo-is-pinnacle-of-entire-universe Real or not, it is very interesting.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Logos, like everything else in this attention-deficit age, seem to have an ever decreasing shelf life. It’s a trend that saddens me, because we’re ultimately left with fewer things we can hold onto, to trust. And isn’t trust a central pillar of building brand identity in the first place?
I noticed Electrasol is changing its name to Finish. Never mind that perhaps the old name doesn’t resonate as strongly with today’s twentysomethings as it did their parents. But Googling the new “brand” will ultimately be an act of futility. Sure, it’s new. But it’s also infinitely more disconnected and useless than the brand it replaces.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Hey, I saw that Finish thing and was curious about it as well. I was convinced it must have been something where, internationally, the product was known as Finish and it was just Electrasol here in Canada, or perhaps just in North America… I was certain that this was an integration of some sort – perhaps short-term frustration would lead to long-term consistency – or why would they have done it? But nope, after much Googling, I ended up with zero evidence around this rationale. (Correct me if I’m wrong, please!) So… why go from evocative to non-descript with the naming strategy? I can’t quite get my head around this one.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
History in the pop market shows that if you change something iconic you may disturb consumers enough to drive interest. Coke cancelling ‘classic’, reformulating and launching ‘new’ coke was a classic example, the backlash created a tremendous amount of PR and drove people to buy up the classic.
Also, younger consumers don’t seem to mind changing things up a bit. NHL hockey teams ALL have 3rd, 4th and retro jerseys that they play in occasionally. The only person you’ll see in a Canadian’s 3rd jersey is an 11 year old kid.
I call Pepsi’s move a 3rd jersey aimed at young consumers.