'Breathtaking' Is One Word for Purported Arnell Pepsi Doc

Mad Ave Buzzing About the Deep Thinking That Supposedly Went Into Brand Logo Redesign

Posted by Rupal Parekh on 02.11.09 @ 01:20 PM

NEW YORK (Adage.com) -- Over the past 24 hours, adland has been abuzz about "Breathtaking," a 27-page document purported to be the thinking behind Arnell Group's recent revamping of Pepsi-Cola's logo. Littered as it is with marketing jargon, images of yin-yangs, mobius strips and Da Vinci's Vitruvian man, you'll maybe wonder whether Michael Phelps wasn't the only one hitting that bong.

See the 27-page document purported to be the thinking behind Arnell Group's recent revamping of Pepsi's logo.

"Breathtaking" theorizes consumers will feel a gravitational pull elicited by the new logo, one that will lead consumers to fill its shopping carts with Pepsi. At its most extreme, the presentation compares the reimagined Pepsi globe logo to the Earth's magnetic fields and the sun's radiation. "Emotive forces shape the gestalt of the brand identity," it muses.

Um, ok.

Some have suggested the document an internet hoax, or even a viral-marketing campaign from Arnell Group, the Omnicom Group agency that's led by Peter Arnell, the design guru who has had his hands all over brands from Chrysler to Home Depot and, recently, Tropicana.

But there is no shortage of ego for Mr. Arnell. Consider this is the same person who just last month compared a 3-D Super Bowl spot created by his agency to as historic a moment as Thomas Edison's invention of motion pictures. Of course, then there's this:

"When I did the Pepsi logo, I told Pepsi that I wanted to go to Asia, to China and Japan, for a month and tuck myself away and just design it and study it and create it," Mr. Arnell said earlier to Ad Age. "There was a lot of research, a lot of consumer data points ... and dialogue that I had with the folks at Pepsi, consumers and retailers. We knew what we were doing."

So what does such a "breathtaking" redesign cost, anyway? Ad Age earlier reported that experts estimate the cost for a top firm to work five months at north of $1 million. But that's just the beginning. The real cost, said an expert, is in removing the old logo everywhere it appears and putting new material up. When you add up all the trucks, vending machines, stadium signage, point-of-sale materials and more around the world, it could easily tally several hundred million dollars, the expert said.

Merely months old, Pepsi's new logo is no stranger to ridicule. It has already taken knocks for it's striking resemblance to President Barack Obama's campaign logo. Parent PepsiCo, meanwhile, is standing by its agency. Nicole Bradley, a spokeswoman for the beverage giant, declined to comment on the authenticity of the documents or on the online ridicule they've inspired. But she did voice continued support for Arnell Group's creation.

"We're very happy with the look of the logo," she said in a statement. "The new design and our packaging have a clean, contemporary look that has been very well received by our consumers."

Mr. Arnell didn't immediately respond to calls for comment.

The marketing world is, of course, more than used to attempts to associate things like sugary water to higher concepts. Some say this goes too far, but perhaps it had to.

"It goes way beyond reasonable. ... It's preposterous and extreme, and kinda layered with bullshit," said Charles Rosen, founding partner of New York ad agency Amalgamated. "But I understand the reason they went as far as they did with it.

"If you're talking to a company like Pepsi about the redo of their logo, which is one of the most powerful icons in America, I can only imagine the layers of bureaucracy that you'd have to get through to sell in a new logo," Mr. Rosen said. "Getting an ad through a company like Pepsi is next to impossible, this was probably a 100 times that. ... Anyone who has ever spent any time in the halls of Pepsi would sympathize with Peter."

~ ~ ~
Contributing: Natalie Zmuda

25 Comments

By Dvercelli | Capital Federal February 11, 2009 02:39:10 pm:

see this (artwork by Lawrence Yang)
http://www.suckatlife.com/pepsiLogoBlowatlife.html

Permalink

By Mike | San Anselmo, CA February 11, 2009 05:07:20 pm:

Obama was created by the most cynical branding campaign in American history. Seems only fitting that the Indra Nooyi led Pepsi would follow Obama.

Permalink

By Andrew | Santa Barbara, CA February 11, 2009 05:21:30 pm:

Davidson designed the swoosh in 1971 while a graphic design student at Portland State University. Phil Knight, who was teaching an accounting class at the university, noticed Davidson working on an assignment, and asked her to do some work for what was then Blue Ribbon Sports, Inc. Needing to choose a logo in order to meet looming production deadlines, Knight settled on the swoosh, after rejecting various other designs. At the time, he stated of the logo, "I don't love it, but it will grow on me." For her services, she billed the company $35.
VS
"When I did the Pepsi logo, I told Pepsi that I wanted to go to Asia, to China and Japan, for a month and tuck myself away and just design it and study it and create it," Mr. Arnell said earlier to Ad Age. "There was a lot of research, a lot of consumer data points ... and dialogue that I had with the folks at Pepsi, consumers and retailers. We knew what we were doing."So what does such a "breathtaking" redesign cost, anyway? Ad Age earlier reported that experts estimate the cost for a top firm to work five months at north of $1 million. But that's just the beginning.

(and let's not forget Doritos killed everyone at the Bowl with a spot that cost $2K to produce) -AB

Permalink

By kagoffena | Hamilton, OH February 12, 2009 12:31:57 am:

I'm reading this article for a kind of current event assignment due in my journalism class. I thought people might be interested to know that tonight I went the the market to buy water. I dont drink pop. Never do.. havent for years. When I did used to drink pop, I had always preferred coke. Never liked pepsi. A girl walked by me drinking a pepsi (one of the new bottles) The design was just soo cool and refreshing and simple looking.. I was attracted. I went over the the drink section and searched out the pepsi's. I honestly thought about buying one.. then decided against it. The design didnt just grab my attention cause it was cool looking or new. It actually caught my eye AND made me ignore all prior feelings i had towards the product. I can't imagine how it would make me feel if i drank the beverage often? Everything i felt towards pepsi was just gone and I felt like it would be refreshing to drink one. I think its ironic I ended up reading this article tonight.

Permalink

By kagoffena | Hamilton, OH February 12, 2009 12:31:59 am:

Permalink

By rjennings | Edmonton, AB February 12, 2009 01:42:33 am:

Wow. Perhaps the major award shows can add a new category: Most stunning example of post-rationalization.

Permalink

By PdominoD | New York, NY February 12, 2009 09:31:37 am:

wow, that's the most ludicrous thing i've ever read. hahaha... wow. shockingly stupid.

Permalink

By Steve | Westmont, IL February 12, 2009 09:32:27 am:

Of the six logos shown in this article I still don't know which one is the new Pepsi logo. The end result seems hardly worth the effort or money spent.

This kind of wasteful spending probably doesn't sit well with the many employees of the company which are just as much a part of the brand as the logo.

If you cannot successfully sell a much improved logo, then do something else with the money to inspire and renew the brand.

Permalink

By LEON | SHOREVIEW, MN February 12, 2009 09:35:20 am:

But, isn't the empiror naked?

Permalink

By mssrcorp | RIDGEFIELD, CT February 12, 2009 09:52:09 am:

"When you add up all the trucks, vending machines, stadium signage, point-of-sale materials and more around the world, it could easily tally several hundred million dollars, the expert said."

When Pepsi lays off employees, as it inevitably will over the coming months, it should give each one a piece of the old logo signage that cost several hundred million dollars to replace. That way, at least it won't have gone completely to waste and those thousands of employees who are losing their jobs at the worst possible time will realize that this was all necessary.

Permalink

By tsmuse | Seattle, WA February 12, 2009 10:03:41 am:

Since when does a company have to come out publicly and defend their creative with a 27 page doc? I agree with Rob that it feels very much like post-rationalization, but who but industry people care? Honestly I think it shows a weakness in your brand if you have to come out and defend it like this.

Permalink

By GEORGE | BOISE, ID February 12, 2009 10:31:11 am:

Rupal... Good stuff as usual. It would seem that commenter Kathy Goffena has been having a toke on Mr. Phelps bong if Arnell's logo had that much of an effect on her! Perhaps if she didn't have to go out to "buy" water when there's plenty of "free" stuff in the tap, she could calm her fluttering heart enough to realize this is yet another example of why ad people are in the basement along with used car salesmen and most of the clowns in Washington.
Cheers/George

Permalink

By loftyjames | singapore February 12, 2009 10:33:56 am:

The fact that everybody's talking about it would make me classify it as marketing genius, if it weren't so obviously a stunt.
On the other hand I guess it IS marketing genius, because you're all talking about and I just need to reset my public gullibility barometer.
I can't wait for the perpetrator to step forward.

Permalink

By h3athrow | NEW YORK, NY February 12, 2009 10:41:42 am:

Regardless of whether this is a legitimate document, whether it was done before or after the redesign, or whether it's earnest or a parody of the design process, the PDF's a fun read. Anything that makes me think about how I might apply the Golden Ratio to my work at 10 in the morning is alright by me!

Permalink

By nycdesigner | New York, NY February 12, 2009 11:53:45 am:

That artwork by Lawrence Yang was a precious exclamation point to the real effect Pepsi and its high-fructose corn syrup will have on the New Generation. That was the missing last page!

I am grateful to whoever created this document, and left it in vector format, so that we can easily make all sorts of parody items in a jiffy. So many parts would make great one-off t-shirts, gag gifts, etc.

I challenge everyone cynical about the Arnell Group's windfall to make something "refreshing" and "cool" with this bounty of clip art.

And if, perchance, it wasn't an Arnell document: Great Work!

P.S. Now I've got to choose what vectors from Pepsi's DNA my Craft ROBO will cut out of t-shirt transfer material.

Permalink

By studebaker | Fort Worth, TX February 12, 2009 02:34:13 pm:

Wow, that's a lot of justifying, over-spending, and perhaps, ego. Please google 'Studebaker logo' from the company that went out of business in the 1960's and then relook at the Pepsi logos of recent years then the new one. Could it be overspending and over-justification on something that was recycled? The new logo is also just a modification/tweak from their previous. It does not seem innovative nor breathtaking, just justification of a high price tag with the hopes of a world-wide boondoggle thrown in for fun. Don't necessarily bash JUST Wall Street...

Permalink

By William | East Rockaway, NY February 12, 2009 04:20:06 pm:

For all the controversy about the cost and design of the new Pepsi logo, I actually like it. But wonder how much more Pepsi might have gotten for their $1,000,000 had they turned this assignment over to a real branding agency such as Landor or Interbrand. bcrandallnyc@aol.com

Permalink

By stephenpbyrne | Australia February 12, 2009 07:35:13 pm:

why isn't anyone suprised by this? such a hoo haa over nothing. it's rare for a post-design rationalisation to ever appear. i'd be suprised if this no more than just an interim document used for abriefing. the cost is nothing to debate. everyone knows this kind of work for a major world brand has to be valued at more than a $1. what's interesting is that people even bother to debate it these days. and yes, the likes of Interbrand, Landor, Wolf Ollins would have charged the same level of fees. that's just how they work and charge. i noticed no one dare mention the agencies involved in the multi-million advertising support campaign designed to launch the new logo. the problem, as always, is that advertising agencies completely fail to understand the strategy and process behind brand creation and development. which is why they weren't asked to do it in the first place. get over it people.

Permalink

By eve23 | MASSAPEQUA, NY February 12, 2009 11:47:06 pm:

this is all about ego and justifying the cost of $1 mill to do a logo. it's as bad as giving out $100 mil bonuses of our money. thats why this country is in a tailspin. snap out of it.

Permalink

By AdamJ | Melbourne February 14, 2009 07:07:36 pm:

"Breathtaking"?! Pisstaking more like.

Why not just keep the old logo and stick a little halo over it. Then Pepsi's marketing efforts could focus around CSR as a point of difference and they could go after "evil" Coke (e.g. see War on Want website). Of course, Pepsi might have to get their own house in order first. But then let the litigation begin!!*

*Disclaimer: the commentor is using a device called 'humor' and is not in any way claiming Coke, Pepsi, or any derivatives or affilatives of either, are in fact evil (or indeed worthy of a halo). Note to self: gotta be careful in the US...

Permalink

By vikingtim | MINNEAPOLIS, MN February 17, 2009 12:35:34 pm:

Well, if you're a graphic design student, there's a lot of intriguing stuff in this PDF. The craft is very thorough. For the rest of us, it's wonderful grist for the blog. http://usefullunacy.typepad.com/useful_lunacy/2009/02/breathtaking.html Oh, and I think I figured out who at least created the PDF.

Permalink

By David St.-Lascaux | Fairfield, CT March 7, 2009 11:55:57 am:

One must credit the agency with restraint in not citing the most obvious similarity in its rationale -- to the Kama Sutra's "congress of the crow" (= 69), http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/kama/kama209.htm. This iconic position is also a fine metaphor for the cited agency/client relationship. I say this not to be insulting or personal, but in awe-filled admiration of a deeply thought-out Design.

David St.-Lascaux
http://www.esequiturs.com

Permalink

By jkrawl | Chicago, IL August 5, 2009 11:06:18 pm:

I also like the new Pepsi logo! However, I am always amazed at the huge lengths companies are willing to take to enhance a particular brand logo. Although, I'm not an advertising "connoisseur", I wonder how much extra benefit could have been added to the marketing of the product, if the million dollars were spent on other advertising ideas?

Frank
http://www.absrocketpro.com

Permalink

By gmiddleton | Indiana, PA August 25, 2009 09:02:27 am:

I like the new logo also; however, I think the cost of $1,000,000 is more than extreme. I honestly believe that any 7th grade art student could have produced something of that caliber (no disrespect), or a quick trip to Staples to purchase a $49.00 logo software program could have produced quite similar results...

Best,

Gaston
http://www.Ultimate-Resell-Rights.com

Permalink

By stugraham2002 | tulsa, OK October 29, 2009 10:20:19 am:

That is not a new logo, that is a WNBA Basketball!

Permalink