Pepsi's Nonsensical Logo Redesign Document: $1M for This?(cbsnews.com)
cbsnews.com
Pepsi's Nonsensical Logo Redesign Document: $1M for This?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pepsis-nonsensical-logo-redesign-document-1-million-for-this/
14 comments
Exactly, the document reads like some kind of numerology for graphical designers...
The new logo itself looked like a vintage airliner logo. I kind of see the one in my mind's eye but cannot quite place it. Googled for it but couldn't find it.
The new logo itself looked like a vintage airliner logo. I kind of see the one in my mind's eye but cannot quite place it. Googled for it but couldn't find it.
More likely the old KAL logo:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Tailfin_...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Tailfin_...
That was the one I think!
holy shit yes, that's uncanny
The Pepsi logo was like an airliner logo, that is
It is possible to pay a lot of money for branding - it’s a huge part of company’s image and it may be worth it. Chermayeff & Geismer, Pentagram, Interbrand, etc. can deliver exceptional value for $$$ spent.
But man, this Pepsi logo presentation reeks of ill-informed executives drinking the branding coolaid to fix the company image. There cannot be any other explanation. This logo was presented to executives at Pepsi Co and was approved by them. How did they not realize the amount of bullshit in that presentation, it’s truly perplexing.
But man, this Pepsi logo presentation reeks of ill-informed executives drinking the branding coolaid to fix the company image. There cannot be any other explanation. This logo was presented to executives at Pepsi Co and was approved by them. How did they not realize the amount of bullshit in that presentation, it’s truly perplexing.
There are two completely separate issues here. One is the cost. No doubt the $1m (if that was what was spent) is what this type of work costs. There could be various phases, testing, steps, research, experts that go into coming up with a new logo design. [1] But the story would not have any interest (in a mainstream news site; 2009 or otherwise) without the 'dog bites man' angle in this case 'and it cost $1m'. Leave out the $1m (or some other large number that a common man would understand) and nobody would care.
Next are the issues highlighted. The document is apparently large so we have no idea of the context or what else was said. While on the surface it sounds screwy (and probably is) the outtake is clearly presented in a way to show the most interesting angle to grab attention.
[1] I am also reminded of military contracts with the $100,000 hammer the story then details how the same hammer would cost $5 at home depot and nothing else as far as why the hammer is priced at $100,000 (and there are reasons I say that as someone who has bid and worked on military contracts).
Next are the issues highlighted. The document is apparently large so we have no idea of the context or what else was said. While on the surface it sounds screwy (and probably is) the outtake is clearly presented in a way to show the most interesting angle to grab attention.
[1] I am also reminded of military contracts with the $100,000 hammer the story then details how the same hammer would cost $5 at home depot and nothing else as far as why the hammer is priced at $100,000 (and there are reasons I say that as someone who has bid and worked on military contracts).
> Next are the issues highlighted. The document is apparently large so we have no idea of the context or what else was said. While on the surface it sounds screwy (and probably is) the outtake is clearly presented in a way to show the most interesting angle to grab attention.
The original briefing is only 27 pages long -- including a lot of whitespace -- and the bits excerpted in the article are representative. It's full of bizarre, grandiose comparisons to popular icons of art history like the Mona Lisa, the Parthenon, and the golden ratio, or to emoji, or to pop science concepts like "gravitational pull" and "energy fields". About a third of the entire document is pages with ellipses and lines drawn over historical Pepsi logos, ostensibly an analysis of the "perimeter oscillations" of those logos. (The term "perimeter oscillations" is unique to this document, not a real design term.) The overall impression the document gives is that the authors must have been high as a kite while writing it.
There is exactly one sensible page in the entire document, which appears near the end. It's a proposal for a color scheme to be used for different Pepsi products.
The original briefing is only 27 pages long -- including a lot of whitespace -- and the bits excerpted in the article are representative. It's full of bizarre, grandiose comparisons to popular icons of art history like the Mona Lisa, the Parthenon, and the golden ratio, or to emoji, or to pop science concepts like "gravitational pull" and "energy fields". About a third of the entire document is pages with ellipses and lines drawn over historical Pepsi logos, ostensibly an analysis of the "perimeter oscillations" of those logos. (The term "perimeter oscillations" is unique to this document, not a real design term.) The overall impression the document gives is that the authors must have been high as a kite while writing it.
There is exactly one sensible page in the entire document, which appears near the end. It's a proposal for a color scheme to be used for different Pepsi products.
Please add (2009) to the title.
To me, the obvious reading of this was always pretty simple: they wanted to rip off the Obama for America branding, to capitalize on a massive youth movement, and created this doc as a kind of “parallel reconstruction” of how they got there.
Relevant Lemon Demon song "Redefine your Logo" which appears to be about the Pepsi Logo.
https://youtu.be/qImHuiYnVQ0
I'm still not 100% this document is really real and not just an elaborate troll, but I think that may be my mind the idea that this remarkable piece of surrealist art was passed off as a serious business document.
The Pepsi Kendall Jenner ad was largely criticized for being tone-deaf. I wouldn't put it past being a real document based on previous works of Pepsi's marketing department.
With nine of the pages (one third of the total 27) appearing to be mainly the result of running a vectorise tool:
$333333/9 gives $37037 per page
$37037/30 (assuming a generous 30 clicks to assemble the page) gives $1234.56 per mouse click
Nice work if you can get it - I suspect their facial expressions on submitting the invoice resembled one of the smiley faces on page 23.
$333333/9 gives $37037 per page
$37037/30 (assuming a generous 30 clicks to assemble the page) gives $1234.56 per mouse click
Nice work if you can get it - I suspect their facial expressions on submitting the invoice resembled one of the smiley faces on page 23.
Super-cheap compared to Gillette's recent target consumer feel-bad ad.
Phil Knight (Nike) paid $35 for their first logo. Also he had just randomly found the designer (a student at the time) while walking through an art department hallway.
Does anyone have a link to the PDF mentioned in the article? The one in the article redirects me to a job posting site...
The infamous PDF goes by the name "Breathtaking". https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell...
First result on google [1]. It's been a few years since I browsed the presentation, so I'm having a hard time deciding if this is a parody or the actual one, but the actual one is just about as silly:
https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell...
https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell...
>having a hard time deciding if this is a parody or the actual one
Thats the one.
Thats the one.
on the other side, an art school graduate was rumored to be paid much less than $1000 for the Safeway Groceries logo, which they used in every imaginable way for the next fifty years to build their extensive business
I actually think this work is genious. Although I cannot understand it.
They should make their logo a blue and red potato.
It's like the Apple document for their logo redesign that showed that it was really something like 37 distinct circles placed in mathematically-relevant positions.[1] Yeah, no.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/05/17/does-the-apple...