Brand New blog's revised Pepsi vs. Coke branding chart | Hacker News Reader

Brand New blog's revised Pepsi vs. Coke branding chart

underconsideration.com

39 pointstptacek16 comments

I'm not sure I agree with the criticism of Pepsi over their changing brand. I think changing their brand to be distinct and more modern to contrast against Coca-Cola's is a reasonable decision, and through the early years Pepsi looked like the cheap Coke knock-off they essentially were, which presumably was the image they were trying to shed through their more modern branding.

To be sure, even in Armin's revised timeline, the earliest script Coca-Cola logo is very similar to today's version, where the Pepsi logo went through many drastic changes. This, rather than absolute accuracy, I believe, was the point of the original JPG.

He's pretty clear in his post that the "gist" of the image was valid, which makes it all the more unfortunate that it had to resort to dishonesty.

And Pepsi is sure to have at least another drastic change in the future since I don't know a single person that doesn't think the current logo is terrible.

To me, it's not even the logo that's the problem with their current branding (as represented on actual bottles/boxes of product); it's the fact that, given the solid, sparse colors and the lack of copyright emblems or extra PR-shpeel on the label, they look like a no-name brand, a cheap knock-off of themselves made by a company that's not allowed to be them.

It just doesn't look like anything.

The first time I saw the logo was at O'Hare aiport. I thought it was an ad for Korean Air.

BTW: Coke describes their logo as the "dynamic ribbon device" (in Australia, anyway).

Fun fact: Coke has added some BS to the legal fine print on the can:

    "(C) 2008 The Coca-cola company, LOVINGLY CRAFTED by Coca-cola Amatil (AUST.) PTY LED, ..." etc
    "This TOTALLY IRRESISTIBLE  cola drink contains: carbonated purified water, ..." etc.

I mean, why not use the legally required fine print for advertising? It's post-modern. I've had this thought myself, though I can see someone eventually going too far and regretting it in court.

a uk magazine I write for ends their disclaimer on the back page with a jokey sentence or 2 about their week. It's the first thing I read now that I knoew about it - like a cult thing.

I think it's more informative to judge a brand by the profitability of the company owning it. I like to use return on equity:

                   | Coca-Cola Co. | PepsiCo
  return on equity | 27.51%        | 34.83%

I was expecting Coke (KO) to be way ahead, but actually Pepsi is trouncing them - over the last 12 months, according to Wolfram).

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=KO+PEP (you need to change the drop-down menu from "Fundamentals" to "ratios" - wolfram doesn't seem to have a way to get a link with a particular menu selection).

OK, so here's data that better fits my preconceptions, looking at the rat e of growth of equity, over the last 3 years:

         2005          2008 
  Coke:  29,427.00 --> 40,519.00 = 37.7% over 3 years
  Pepsi: 31,727.00 --> 35,994.00 = 13.4% over 3 years

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:KO&fstype=ii (balance sheet, annual data)

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:PEP&fstype=ii (balance sheet, annual data)

But the logos are just for their flagship products, not for the companies themselves. PepsiCo sells Aquafina, Tropicana, Fritos, Aunt Jemima and Life cereal (they also used to own Pizza Hut, if I recall.) The Coca Cola Company sells Dasani, Powerade, Minute Maid, Nestea and Rockstar. These facts have a lot more to do with your stats than one product's branding.

I think you should look at return on assets, return on equity is too easily skewed by leverage.

How so? I thought debt will cancel out in calculating net equity (e.g. you borrow $100 million to buy a $100 million plant, and the net equity is unchanged).

I don't think anyone took the original graphic too seriously, it obviously omitted a lot of things, but was always in jest. All that aside, Coca-Cola has the most synergy throughout their logos. That's 100 or so years of roughly the same logo.

It would be pretty difficult to find another global company that's been around for more than 100 years. I think if you look at local companies that have been around for that long, you'll find that their logos have been pretty stable - after this many years, keeping the old logo is the marketing move to make.

But that's where you're wrong, there are quite a few global brands that have been around for much more than 100 years. Heinz, Levis, Wines, Champagnes, Newspapers, Banks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies

I actually took a quick glance at the list before I posted but couldn't immediately see any recognizable names.

Thanks for looking into it though!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com