1

Sarah Bell

13005017

MP0541

An Investigation Into the Brand Identity of Pepsi-Cola

During the 1990’s, and the Failed Brand

Extension Crystal Pepsi.

Crystal Pepsi (1993)

2

To begin to understand how Pepsi-Cola implemented brand identity; Healey within his book

‘What is Branding?’ explains that “Human civilisation is dependent upon signs and systems of

signs, and the human mind is inseparable from the functioning of signs– if indeed mentality is

not to be identified with such functioning (Charles Morris, Foundations of the theory of

signs)” (2008, 6). This begins to explain how human beings relate to symbols, and when such

symbols and meanings are applied to a company, humans will associate the company with those

meanings. Therefore adding symbols of signs, colour and meaning to products to create “a

single insight or idea in the customers mind” (Healey, 2008, 54).

Sarah Bell

13005017

MP0541

Introduction

This case study will discuss the branding and identity of Pepsi-Cola and how this was developed

throughout the 1990’s. It will also explore the failure of one of its previous brand extensions,

Crystal Pepsi.

The Identity

In the 90’s, Pepsi-Cola was, as it still is, second to Coca Cola within the soda market. Over the

years, Pepsi has created an identity that Haig describes as being “a young and fresh identity

even though it was actually founded in 1889” (2006, 114). This company was among the first to

fully understand the importance of implementing identity, values and personality to a brand.

Fig. 1 . Pepsi Logo. 1999 Fig 2. Pepsi Can. 2013

An Investigation Into the Brand Identity of Pepsi-Cola During the 1990’s, and the Failed Brand

Extension Crystal Pepsi.

3

Healey also explains how “branding can do several useful things, all of which help to ensure the

success of the products or service. It can: reinforce a good reputation; encourages loyalty; assure

quality; convey a perception of greater worth, allowing a product to be priced higher (or a

product of equal price to sell more); and grant the buyer a sense of affirmation and entry into an

imaginary community of shared value” (2008, 10). Pepsi-Cola exploited this theory by nurturing

a reputation of quality and good taste, yet this was made difficult because of the presence of

the rival company Coca-Cola.

Coca-Cola had already established an identity of quality, value and tradition and remained at the

forefront of consumers’ minds, often making it the first choice for a soda product. Pepsi-Cola

created a tactic to differentiate itself from Coca-Cola’s dominating branding strategy, a method

that included choosing logo colours the opposite to that of Cola-Cola and having a separate set

of brand characteristics.

Franzen, et al, introduce a theory that “a brand is not a product but rather a means of

representing and identifying a product or range of products. Branding is the process of creating

a unique identity for a product and the system of cues that make it recognizable to its customers.

An easily recognizable brand is the secret behind the phenomenal success of McDonalds and

Coke over the years” (2009, 108).

Sarah Bell

13005017

MP0541

Fig 3. Coca-Cola Logo (2014) Fig 4. Coca-Cola Can (2014)

4

Sarah Bell

13005017

MP0541

It is true that recognition worked for Coca-Cola in regards to its logo, word mark and identity.

Pepsi-Cola also created a unique, recognizable identity; one that distinguishable from that of

Coca-Cola.

First, Pepsi-Cola’s logo colour-scheme was opposite to Coca-Cola’s, ensuring a noticeable

differentiation between the two brands. However Ries and Ries discuss within their book of The

22 Immutable Laws of branding, “Red is a retail colour used to attract attention. Blue is a

corporate colour used to communicate stability” (2002, 87). Therefore; while the Pepsi blue is

not ideal within semiotics, to differentiate from the Coca-Cola red, it was imperative.

Pepsi-Cola, unlike Coca-Cola, aimed at only the specific market of the younger generation.

Haig (2006, 117) explains that “Pepsi was one of the first brands to shift from selling a product

to selling an entire lifestyle, with the arrival of Pepsi Generation”, resulting the well-known 80’s

advertisement featuring Michael Jackson as a celebrity endorsement. This was the beginning of

Pepsi-Cola using celebrities to promote a lifestyle alongside a cool, youthful identity for the

brand.

Healey explains that “every society can be broken down into segments, or so the theory goes,

and the defining characteristics of each segment can be used to build an attractive picture of how

customers could live if they bought the products being sold” (2008, 80). In the case of Pepsi-

Cola, the consumer demographic would range from young teens to adults in their late twenties.

This limited their share of the market, but also created a unique brand identity, one that could

relate and develop with a younger market.

5

Sarah Bell

13005017

MP0541

Crystal Pepsi

Despite this; connecting with a younger market can often prove difficult. Healey explains that

“One of the most distinguishing features of modern pop culture is its emphasis on the new and

constant thirst for “the next big thing”. Brands that intend to stay relevant need to keep up with

constantly shifting trends and tastes in pop culture and adapt swiftly and regularly in line with

them in order to avoid being perceived as passé” (2008, 19). To keep identifying with its

younger target market, Pepsi-Cola needed to stay relevant and up to date with modern pop

culture.

The 1990’s may have been a particularly hard time for Pepsi-Cola to apply this. The 1990’s was

a time of technological, social and cultural change. The rise of the computer, the infamous

internet and health fads were just beginning to transform consumers buying habits and

consequently, the way that they lived.

Of course, this meant that there were multiple brands also trying to keep up with the

transforming market. The use of cutting-edge branding strategies led to the desire for brands to

look futuristic and to appear to support a healthy lifestyle throughout the 1990’s.

Pepsi-Cola pursued this same brand association; and therefore, David Novak created a futuristic

concept for a brand extension called Crystal Pepsi.

Crystal Pepsi abandoned the traditional reddish-brown colour of cola, adopting a clear

water-like look while still maintaining the traditional taste of Pepsi. Figure 5 demonstrates how

the product looked.

Fig 5. Crystal Pepsi (1993)

6

Sarah Bell

13005017

MP0541

Haig in his book brand failures explains that “they also produced a diet version– Diet Crystal

Pepsi. Both products, Pepsi believed, answered the ‘new consumer demand for purity’. After all,

this was a time when consumers were starting to opt for a bottle of Evian or Perrier just as often

as they were picking up a bottle of Coke or Pepsi.” (2011, 39). Novak may have hoped that the

radical concept of clear cola, applied with Pepsi’s established values, could essentially represent

the younger generation’s involvement with the 1990’s cultural changes.

This extension was introduced in 1992; airing its promotional advertisement in the 1993

Superbowl. The one minute advertisement captured how Crystal Pepsi aimed to be perceived; a

soundtrack with Van Halen’s song “Right Now” was used to emphasise that the brand related to

the now and the future. The video contained themes of wildlife and nature, and then included

transitions to astronauts and computers to represent how Crystal Pepsi was a product of the

future. Figures six and seven show examples of the advertisement.

Despite the efforts of Novak and Pepsi’s marketing team, this concept of clear cola did not take

off for a number of reasons.

The first was the fault of the actual product; Haig explains that “the only problem was that a

product with the word ‘Pepsi’ in its name was expected to taste like, well, Pepsi. But it didn't. In

fact, nobody seemed to know what it tasted of” (2011, 39). The taste of the product is arguably

the most significant feature for this kind of brand, once you have tampered with what makes

Pepsi taste good, loyal customers will notice. However, despite Haig’s statement, taste was not

the only fault with the extension.

Fig 6. Crystal Pepsi advertisement (aired

1993)

Fig 7. Crystal Pepsi Advertisement (aired

1993)

7

Sarah Bell

13005017

MP0541

The faults lay within the minds of the marketing team. The product did not taste like Pepsi and

did not look like Pepsi, therefore it completely lost the essence of what it was to be part of the

Pepsi brand. The product that they had made represented different values; a drink that looks like

water did not appeal to the younger generation who only wanted a drink of soda that tasted good

and looked appetising.

Nevertheless the hype of the product made $474 million within the year it was launched, which

may have predominantly been due to customer’s curiosity in regards to the concept.

Healey states “In the short term, extensions and merchandise make money, build hype, and give

customers a way to “live the brand”. Longer term, they may be detrimental, leading to

overexposure and loss of focus. Hurting sales and market share” (2008, 41). Crystal Pepsi

indeed lost the focus of the brand, as the brand was pushing concepts of nature and technology

within advertisements, rather than emulating the youthful style and the young generation.

This loss of focus can be verified by Ries and Ries, “Can a brand be marketed in more than one

model? Sure, as long as those models don't detract the essence of the brand, that singular idea or

concept that sets it apart from all other brands. When you feel the need to create sub-brands, you

are chasing the market, you are not building the brand” (2002, 76). Crystal Pepsi was a brand

extension rather than a sub-brand, yet the theory still applies as Crystal Pepsi was chasing the

market rather than building upon Pepsi’s brand essence.

However, under Ries and Ries’ ‘Law of Extensions’, they make the relevant point that “Many

manufacturers are their own worst enemies. What are line extensions like light, clear, healthy,

and fat free actually telling you? That the regular products are not good for you” (2002, 54).

Crystal Pepsi would only emphasise the notion regular Pepsi was in fact bad for you; Ries and

Ries continue to debate: “Crystal Pepsi? What is wrong with the colour of regular

Pepsi?” (2002, 54). This opinion is valid when applied to Crystal Pepsi, nevertheless the change

of colour to look like water could have been a subtle tactic to make the logo colour of blue

relevant within the laws of semiotics.

8

Sarah Bell

13005017

MP0541

Pepsi-Cola was competing with the brand leader Coca-Cola, while also being pushed aside for

bottled water. Saving the brand by creating another product was detrimental; Ries and Ries state

that “When customers are not exactly rushing out to buy your product, why would you need

more brands to satisfy those customers? Logic suggests you would need fewer brands” (2002,

50). If Pepsi refrained from chasing the changing market, and concentrated only on building its

existing brand image, it could have made itself to be a unique product within the market, rather

than a literally watered down brand.

This concept of building a brand rather than changing it refers to Ries and Ries ‘Law of

Consistency’, as they state that “Markets may change, but the brands shouldn’t. Ever. They may

be bent slightly or given a new slant, but their essential characteristics (once those

characteristics are firmly planted in the mind) should never be changed.” (2002, 97). Crystal

Pepsi was a change that completely vanquished the essential characteristics of Pepsi-Cola’s

branding, therefore seeming odd and out of character to loyal customers.

As previously discussed, humans depend on signs and the system of symbols. This can work for

branding, yet more importantly it can work for identifying people. To express their values and

beliefs, people can associate themselves with products that symbolise such aspects. Ries and

Ries explain their theory that, “Brands are used as personality statements (some marketing

people call these statements “badges”). Your choice of a badge is often determined by the

statement you want to make to friends, neighbours, co-workers, or you want to make it to

yourself.” (2002, 98). To some people, Pepsi-Cola may have been psychologically important to

demonstrate part of their personality statements; Crystal Pepsi would not have held the symbols

and meanings that had already been established.

9

Conclusion

To conclude, Healey explains that “great brands never change, and change constantly. The core

of what appeals to a customer—a brands meaning and values, its promise, and the satisfaction it

gives—should be constant, giving customers something to believe in and remain loyal to, over

the long term” (2008, 18). Theoretically, Pepsi actually could change with the market, yet

Crystal Pepsi was a notion that was too fast and too soon. Customers could only be loyal if

Pepsi-Cola kept their brand attributes long enough to be used as a personality statement.

Inconsistent attributes lead to a weakened brand identity. Customers could not show off their

identity using Pepsi-Cola, if the brand itself held no attributes.

Thus, Crystal Pepsi’s sales plummeted, and by late 1993 it was taken off the shelves.

Interestingly, Pepsi-Cola made the mistake of clear cola twice again with the introduction of

Crystal- from Pepsi and 7-UP Ice Cola. Both of these brands failed within the year of launch.

Perhaps now David Novak understands that the clear cola concept is not effective for a brand

extension.

Sarah Bell

13005017

MP0541

10

Sarah Bell

13005017

MP0541

References

Crystal Pepsi (1993) [image] at: http://www.wallstreetsentinel.com/wp-content/

uploads/2013/12/Crystal-pepsi1-640x360.jpg (accessed 29.4.2015)

Fig 1. Pepsi Logo (1999) [image] at: http://www.berkowitzkleinllp.com/2013/the-10-most-

ridiculous-business-litigation-cases/ (accessed 1.5.2015)

Fig 2. Pepsi Can (2013) [image] at: http://sojo.net/blogs/2014/08/21/stopped-cold-pepsi-can

(accessed 1.5.2015)

Fig 3. Coca-Cola Logo (2014) [image] at: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/

article/222935/whats-not-to-like-in-heinekens-the-legendary-po.html (accessed 29.4.2015)

Fig 4. Coca-Cola Can (2014) [image] at: http://simplymeasured.com/blog/2014/05/22/lessons-

from-coca-colas-social-media-strategy-cohesive-campaigns-and-creative-content/ (accessed

1.5.2015)

Fig 5. Crystal Pepsi (1993) http://www.examiner.com/article/no-crystal-pepsi-is-not-coming-

back (accessed 1.5.2015)

Fig 6/ 7. Crystal Pepsi Advertisement (1993) https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=KPvyq_KmXhc (accessed 29. 4. 2015)

Franzen, G. Moriarty, S. The Science and Art of Branding (2009) ME SHARPE INC. USA

Haig, M. Brand Failures: The Truth About the 100 Biggest Branding Mistakes of All Time,

2011, (2ND EDITION), Kogan Page Limited, UK

Haig, M. Brand Royalty: How The World’s Top 100 Brands Thrive & Survive. 2006. Kogan

page publishers.

Healey, M. What is Branding? 2008, RotoVision SA, Switzerland

Ries, A. Ries, L. The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding, 2002, Harper Collins Publishers, USA