4 ms·

To add a little more color, the "which is sweeter" question, which drove the shift to New Coke, was as a leadership failure actually secondary to the deeper bra

by yodon 7y ago

To add a little more color, the "which is sweeter" question, which drove the shift to New Coke, was as a leadership failure actually secondary to the deeper brand failing that was New Coke. Coke's brand has always been a golden-age concept, a celebration of all the good times you've had in the past drinking coke with family and friends (think of all the old timey photos and artwork you've seen in Coke ads, and it's been like that pretty much from the start). Pepsi's brand is the reverse, it's new and exciting and the future (for many years their slogan was "The choice of a new generation"). You'd think this was because Coke was the older product and Pepsi was the newer product, but they were both launched around the same time, and both are ancient compared to the age of their average consumers. When Coke became New Coke, it wasn't just making its flavor look like Pepsi's, it was committing the much bigger sin of making its brand look like Pepsi's. Given how tremendously much stronger Coke's brand was than Pepsi's, the idea of rebranding itself as "New" was the much deeper failing on Coke management's part than the flavor change, and arguably was the thing consumers actually reacted most negatively to, because it was destroying their relationship to one of the strongest brands in the world. No one wanted Coke to be New. They had Pepsi for that. They preferred Coke to be their connection to the golden age of all their past good times.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> because it was destroying their relationship to one of the strongest brands in the world. No one wanted Coke to be New. They had Pepsi for that. They preferred Coke to be their connection to the golden age of all their past good times. I don't believe anything resembling this kind of thinking process goes through a typical customer's head, even subconsciously. It doesn't pass the smell test as a rationalization, and sounds to me like something people in advertising industry write to each other in reports to justify their high salaries. I propose a simpler hypothesis: customers have already self-selected themselves into preferring Coke or Pepsi. New Coke didn't introduce any new value - people who would like it were already drinking Pepsi. At the same time, its existence was received as a threat by Coke customers, as a New Coke seems like something that's going to replace the good ol' Coke. People don't like change; in particular, they don't like when a product that works for them is changed, because that change is almost universally for the worse[0]. The difference between the above and what you described is that my hypothesis doesn't require from a customer to have anything other than a "Coke = cola drink that hits the 'sweet spot' for me" relationship. I don't see the reason to believe consumer brand perception to be anything more than that. Especially not consciously thinking about how a brand reminds one of the past, or something. -- [0] - Short-term. Sometimes it's worth to e.g. mix up user interfaces in software to enable further improvement. But with soft drinks, there's nothing other than short term.
- NoodleIncident 7y ago
  I find it strange how many people on the internet are convinced ads and branding just... don't work? They obviously do. Even if you think they don't work on you (which you're probably wrong about), they work on everyone else.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I didn't say they don't work. They do. And in tune with the article on averages (and curse of dimensionality) on the front page now[0], I'll happily concede that different brands may work strongly on different people at different times. Hell, myself I had periods in my youth when I had fanboy-level attachment to a brand or two. My point is that I doubt that the typical relationship with a brand is as sophisticated as 'yodon described. If it was, we'd all be falling victim to advertising bullshit much more often. So e.g. when Coca Cola airs another commercial with a grandfather pulling up coke during family supper, I believe almost everyone watching either smiles or rolls their eyes. I don't think their minds race to the memories of their family dinners, or old times, or whatever. That would be a dangerously strong emotional reaction to an ad. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22956832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22956832
    - jasonv 7y ago
      A possible rebuttal from my corner of the peanut gallery: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/faqs/did-coca-cola-invent-santa https://www.coca-colacompany.com/faqs/did-coca-cola-invent-s...
  - renewiltord 7y ago
    No no, I think we buy the branding thing. I'm pretty sure part of the reason I have the car I do is a branding thing, etc. etc. I'm like the #1 brand sucker on the planet. But that's at the "these guys are outdoorsy", "you're sophisticated", "you're cool" level not at the "this represents classic American values vs. this is the new generation" thing. That sounds like nonsense to me. Just clarifying that it isn't whether branding works but the shape of the working. Like, I admit being easily influenced by them, just not in that direction. Like Red Bull is cool action sports, right? But I've never had a Red Bull when I've gone skiing. Not saying branding doesn't directly modify my associations, just that the way isn't what yodon said.
mixmastamyk 7y ago
Interesting, reminds me of the steady "Chrome-ification" of Firefox, something I've never asked for. Thankfully a few things have been reversed, like the silly tab shape.

by yodon 7y ago

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> because it was destroying their relationship to one of the strongest brands in the world. No one wanted Coke to be New. They had Pepsi for that. They preferred Coke to be their connection to the golden age of all their past good times. I don't believe anything resembling this kind of thinking process goes through a typical customer's head, even subconsciously. It doesn't pass the smell test as a rationalization, and sounds to me like something people in advertising industry write to each other in reports to justify their high salaries. I propose a simpler hypothesis: customers have already self-selected themselves into preferring Coke or Pepsi. New Coke didn't introduce any new value - people who would like it were already drinking Pepsi. At the same time, its existence was received as a threat by Coke customers, as a New Coke seems like something that's going to replace the good ol' Coke. People don't like change; in particular, they don't like when a product that works for them is changed, because that change is almost universally for the worse[0]. The difference between the above and what you described is that my hypothesis doesn't require from a customer to have anything other than a "Coke = cola drink that hits the 'sweet spot' for me" relationship. I don't see the reason to believe consumer brand perception to be anything more than that. Especially not consciously thinking about how a brand reminds one of the past, or something. -- [0] - Short-term. Sometimes it's worth to e.g. mix up user interfaces in software to enable further improvement. But with soft drinks, there's nothing other than short term.

NoodleIncident 7y ago
I find it strange how many people on the internet are convinced ads and branding just... don't work? They obviously do. Even if you think they don't work on you (which you're probably wrong about), they work on everyone else.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I didn't say they don't work. They do. And in tune with the article on averages (and curse of dimensionality) on the front page now[0], I'll happily concede that different brands may work strongly on different people at different times. Hell, myself I had periods in my youth when I had fanboy-level attachment to a brand or two. My point is that I doubt that the typical relationship with a brand is as sophisticated as 'yodon described. If it was, we'd all be falling victim to advertising bullshit much more often. So e.g. when Coca Cola airs another commercial with a grandfather pulling up coke during family supper, I believe almost everyone watching either smiles or rolls their eyes. I don't think their minds race to the memories of their family dinners, or old times, or whatever. That would be a dangerously strong emotional reaction to an ad. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22956832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22956832
  - jasonv 7y ago
    A possible rebuttal from my corner of the peanut gallery: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/faqs/did-coca-cola-invent-santa https://www.coca-colacompany.com/faqs/did-coca-cola-invent-s...
- renewiltord 7y ago
  No no, I think we buy the branding thing. I'm pretty sure part of the reason I have the car I do is a branding thing, etc. etc. I'm like the #1 brand sucker on the planet. But that's at the "these guys are outdoorsy", "you're sophisticated", "you're cool" level not at the "this represents classic American values vs. this is the new generation" thing. That sounds like nonsense to me. Just clarifying that it isn't whether branding works but the shape of the working. Like, I admit being easily influenced by them, just not in that direction. Like Red Bull is cool action sports, right? But I've never had a Red Bull when I've gone skiing. Not saying branding doesn't directly modify my associations, just that the way isn't what yodon said.

mixmastamyk 7y ago

Interesting, reminds me of the steady "Chrome-ification" of Firefox, something I've never asked for. Thankfully a few things have been reversed, like the silly tab shape.