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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
