Pepsi: Breathtaking Design Strategy (2008) [pdf]

Post by thisOtterBeGood » Tue, Jul 12, 2022, 2:25 PM UTC

mrcartmeneses wrote: post #167

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their new design was just yet another example of how the currently in vogue "minimalism everywhere" design aesthetic sucks. The Tropicana case study is such a great example because the effects were so drastic, but only really because there were easily substituted goods - consumers basically thought the carton was just "generic store brand OJ". My guess is that other recent brand redesigns to this boring, same, sans-s…

Saying that this guy's designs were terrible therefore all modern design is terrible is like saying all children's TV presenters are pedophiles (apologies I know that's an extreme analogy). The truth is that the guy behind this design agency is not a good designer at all and his career seems to have been driven by confidence, greed and the incompetence of his clients. It's a sample of one. He's the Jimmy Saville of b…

Post by seba_dos1 » Tue, Jul 12, 2022, 2:40 PM UTC

Waterluvian wrote: post #35

mushufasa wrote: post #6

despite how silly this may seem to many in the HN audience, I will contend that: if you were running a multi-billion dollar sugar water company whose main moat is the brand, and spent hundreds of millions on ads each year as one of the key line items in the budget, you too would want this level of sophistication and thought put into a brand refresh. Probably even more. And you can imagine that this document was debat…

If I dump ten pounds of Lego on your desk, that’s not sophistication.

Post by mherdeg » Tue, Jul 12, 2022, 2:46 PM UTC

shoo wrote: post #45

PepsiCo Inc (PEP, Nasdaq) isn't merely a beverage company - as explained in this strategy document - it is a space company. The Pepsi Universe, with respect to its 8 light year characteristic length, reflects the scale of the total addressable market (TAM) that PepsiCo can expand into. Noted short-seller and equity valuation skeptic Jim Chanos once described the TAM of space companies as infinite, because space itsel…

Post by jbullock35 » Tue, Jul 12, 2022, 3:12 PM UTC

devindotcom wrote: post #113

jbullock35 wrote: post #106

I am surprised at how most of the comments here are -- I am guessing -- deeply misunderstanding the document. The document is almost unbelievably over-the-top. I think that it must be an intentional parody of marketing-speak. If you think that it's not, can you offer any evidence in support of your view?

It's 100% real and 100% serious. That's why it is so well known in the design world. I wonder if your comment exemplifies some corollary to Poe's Law - that someone mistaking real for parody or vice versa will confidently assert their view as obviously correct and challenge others (even if they constitute a seemingly informed majority) to justify their own.

Post by barbecue_sauce » Tue, Jul 12, 2022, 3:49 PM UTC

guiriduro wrote: post #243

autoexec wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell marketing is a very expensive pile of poop used to dress up some uncomfortable underlying truths about very real and unfortunate vulnerabilities we have as humans. It's also one of the few places where artists can reliably make money. The result is that a lot of creative and talented people are putting out some beautiful, powerful, and entertaining works which are ultimately used to lie and to ps…

I'm wholly in favour of artists getting paid work, but isn't there a vastly inefficient layer of design 'consultancy' that sits in between them, effectively wasting money to turn out bullshit for corporate bullshit (mostly marketing) departments? How many more artists could be paid and paid more by cutting out the bullshit merchants both inside and outside companies?