Hacker News Reader

Comment by moralestapia | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

I don't think so. My visceral reaction was: SMH, this is why I stick with Coke.

Why are you promoting the Coca Cola Company? I assume you're not paid to do so

Yes, they paid him to promote Coke on HN comment section.

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."

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.

> 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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com