Above you’ll find a comparison chart between two of the world’s most recognizable brands: Pepsi and Coke. I have always found it interesting to analyze and study the evolution of brands and logos and how the changes, although sometimes very subtle, have extremely large consequences (sometimes good too!).
Obviously there have been some stylistic changes throughout the life of the product and business.
But I suppose the biggest question is whether or not the changes in the brand look have directly affected the profitability and growth of the business?
And how does this apply to ministries and non-profits? Are they subject to bigger consequences upon a brand/logo change? Or less?
I’m not a “brand” expert by any stretch of the imagination, but this question was asked of me the other day. I shared a few things that I know to be true from an online perspective, but, not much more than that.
What are your thoughts?
Also, sometimes you’ll find someone showing the following brand comparison table which has obviously been doctored to “prove a point”:
The same “then” and “now” I suppose. But this doesn’t directly say, contextually, whether or not one is better than the other for the changes (or not).
I think it's cool how each Pepsi logo takes a little bit from the previous one. & those logo's stood for 10-12 years each.
But every branding student goes: "ooh coke, yea, classic." Pepsi can't compete in branding.
i'm experimenting for the first time with designing graphics for our mini-church leadership conference. we developed a concept and the logo. all of this is moving towards our next-gen approach…but we have to be careful explain this to existing followers/members
I think it's interesting how much Pepsi has changed compared to how much Coke has NOT changed. It's doing something, 'cause Pepsi is definitely the one I associate with "hip" and Coke is "the classic." What's it's doing for sales would be an interesting study.
I really want a Coke right now.
It is interesting to look back at the old logos of coke and realize how cool they are. Back in the day they probably were alright, but now it is funny how retro is back in style.
the dude who did the 1898 pepsi one has terrible handwriting!!
or maybe he had awesome hand writing and we all stink.
haha
@Lex: "…cause Pepsi is definitely the one I associate with "hip" and Coke is "the classic." <— I think this is the key.
If you are confident in your brand, and your brand is concreted in your vision/market then the two should work together as long as your vision/market remains.
Pepsi tends to target 'an image' through celebrities etc., therefore their logo is bound to change as often as society changes – Coke tends to target a lifestyle, which can last a whole lot longer and brings about a focus on the product and service, not the image.
Pushing this into the church context; if a church is targeting a market of people based on today's culture, the logo will soon be going through an upgrade… if it is targeting a lifestyle, ultimately the logo isn't as important to that market; it's what that church brings to the table.
And while it's nice to think that churches should appeal to everyone… we all know that isn't true.
my 2c.
Pepsi is Evil and non muslim. it MUST be banned
first of all, the guy who did the 1983 logo for pepsi was obviously a pirate, look at the handwriting! that has “i’m a pirate” all over it! don’t be fooled, he probably had a hook hand and could catch fish if they lowered him into the water when they were flying across the ocean on their pirate ship….
anyways, i think it’s sad how a lot of churches are trying to “redesign” themselves to attract people. It’s not the sign that brings people to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus alone, it’s the Holy Spirit. The church i grew up at recently hired a “church growth expert”… how utterly sad and pathetic… it’s not necessarily bad to change the name or the logo of a church, but i think a lot of the pastors doing this have the wrong heart, and the wrong idea: thinking the logo and name of the church is what’s going to attract people… maybe it will, but it’s usually those people that you don’t want in your church. Then again, a lot of pastors also wont kick people out of the church if they’re not forwarding the mission of the church “to lead people to Jesus.” – because every person with a wallet is worth something.
The emergent movement is all about attracting people with names and logo’s, and it’s that mentality that’s got those churches teaching people that Jesus accepts all people and that He’s only loving and not judgmental… but He’s very judgmental, cause He’s a judge. and He will judge.
anyways, have a wonderful day ^_-
thanks for your thoughts here! i think you’ve made some interesting and valid points. do you think it’s just in the emergent movement though?