3 ms·

LOL, this is not "sophistication", this is bullshit. A million(s?) dollar study for a global brand is justified by things like: * Research to see if the bra

LOL, this is not "sophistication", this is bullshit. A million(s?) dollar study for a global brand is justified by things like: * Research to see if the brand logos/names are misunderstood or offensive for a particular market/culture. * Research regarding brand recognition before/after the proposed changes. * A lot of design/thought behind how the brand will look in the many communication channels/products that it owns. There's nothing even close to that in this document. Actually, the first time I saw it posted I thought it was a joke from some internet troll, but no, it turned out to be the real thing.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
flycaliguy 4y ago
It’s a now legendary document designed to promote Pepsi’s brand. They nailed it. That other stuff was covered in another document.
- dereg 4y ago
  I don't think so. My visceral reaction was: SMH, this is why I stick with Coke.
  - awestroke 4y ago
    Why are you promoting the Coca Cola Company? I assume you're not paid to do so
    - just-tom 4y ago
      Yes, they paid him to promote Coke on HN comment section.
- Teever 4y ago
  So, first of all, was this document actually meant for public consumption like you suggest? Second of all, do you actually think anyone who reads this document will associate positive feelings with Pepsi? All it's making me think is "Man, those Coke ads with the polar bears were pretty cool."
  - omnimus 4y ago
    It doesnt matter. It’s all freestyling. All the wild bullshit in the document is there because some pepsi execs reacted to it positively so they went all in on that. Then the document becomes infamous so they will say it was purposely nuts and use it for their own marketing. These things are done for the execs not consumers. Same goes for Tropicana.
dhsysusbsjsi 4y ago
> Research to see if the brand logos/names are misunderstood or offensive for a particular market/culture. Can verify this is highly important. E.g. using the letters 'Af' as a prefix for a product marketed in Africa. Turns out that is a very offensive word. https://dsae.co.za/entry/af/e00076 https://dsae.co.za/entry/af/e00076

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

flycaliguy 4y ago

It’s a now legendary document designed to promote Pepsi’s brand. They nailed it. That other stuff was covered in another document.

dereg 4y ago
I don't think so. My visceral reaction was: SMH, this is why I stick with Coke.
- awestroke 4y ago
  Why are you promoting the Coca Cola Company? I assume you're not paid to do so
  - just-tom 4y ago
    Yes, they paid him to promote Coke on HN comment section.
Teever 4y ago
So, first of all, was this document actually meant for public consumption like you suggest? Second of all, do you actually think anyone who reads this document will associate positive feelings with Pepsi? All it's making me think is "Man, those Coke ads with the polar bears were pretty cool."
- omnimus 4y ago
  It doesnt matter. It’s all freestyling. All the wild bullshit in the document is there because some pepsi execs reacted to it positively so they went all in on that. Then the document becomes infamous so they will say it was purposely nuts and use it for their own marketing. These things are done for the execs not consumers. Same goes for Tropicana.

dhsysusbsjsi 4y ago

> Research to see if the brand logos/names are misunderstood or offensive for a particular market/culture. Can verify this is highly important. E.g. using the letters 'Af' as a prefix for a product marketed in Africa. Turns out that is a very offensive word. https://dsae.co.za/entry/af/e00076 https://dsae.co.za/entry/af/e00076