a one with a whole LOT of zeros..gets you ....

a big report and your old logo rotated 30 degrees. :laughing:

Sounds like a bunch of designers start their brainstorming by smoking a big fatty. There should be a BS award for this one. What would the trophy look like?
Don’t over think it. :slight_smile:

What better way to blow sunshine up a client’s ass than to tell them that their product is the foundation of space, time, and the universe.

I like this interpretation better: blow at life: Pepsi Logo - a response

They got the award a huge fat check.

As always the comment section is the best:

Ironically, the consultants were on coke when they came up with this.

These are amazing salesmen, and horrendously horrible designers.

Pepsi really thought releasing this document would save them? And act as support for their decision?

Anytime I make a bad decision in life, I will point to this document, stating it was due to space, time, physics, and gravity of the new Pepsi logo, it was in my DNA.

We should have a Pepsi logo photoshop contest ala Fark.com.

I have yet to see the authenticity of this document verified…

I smell viral propaganda. It’s almost too good(bad) to be true…

it’s fun, but I also highly doubt that this is real.


Oh no… at least some aspects of it are apparently real. Pay close attention to the video.

My thinking is this was some kind of ex post facto exercise. Maybe to market the campaign, maybe to cover their asses in case things turned sour, maybe for fun. Sometimes the internal exercises take on a life of their own.

In this day of inept upper management, who makes billions of dollars in bonuses for running their companies into the ground, it would be quite apropos if this were real, but there’s no way.

Very funny though.

Having worked with Arnell, I can see where this would be real. This truly is the way they think. On the other had I could also see them doing a viral campaign around it as well. I really question the document in the other thread as being real as I would think that the Arnell group would have found it and had it quickly removed. Either way it is a ridiculously terrible brand refresh.

I can believe that they came up with the ‘Geometry of Aesthetics’ part during or maybe right after the process. There’s a lot of schools of thought floating around out there about the value (or lack of) of this type approach. Fibonacci sequences and golden ratios are big right now. So is the ludic fallacy and seeing monuments in clouds.

And the color theory might actually have some merit.

But the dynamic forces and attraction theory can not be real. That’s like a bad sitcom.

A couple thoughts:

  1. Isn’t all graphic design based on geometry? Every GD book that I’ve read starts off with grids. The second part is proportion. Why is it hard to believe that early in this logo project someone didn’t rip out a ruler & grid paper? Why does it have to be that the logo came first and the geometry second?

  2. Doesn’t anyone have to justify their design decisions? I’ve tried hand waving and saying, “this is the trend…I’m right, I’m the designer”. Sometimes it works. Other times I draw up a little presentation to show the trends that I’m working with and where I want to move the products perception. I’m sure that half the presentations make no sense without me explaining them.

The dynamics and gravity make no sense, but perhaps because we are only getting the visuals of this presentation.

  1. I don’t know if this is real. It’s still early for April Fool’s Day jokes. Pepsi and Arnell might not care that it’s leaked because maybe this isn’t the complete presentation and seeing as the logo is already on shelves, this is only showing a little bit of the process.

Clarification on the costs: Arnell’s agency only recieved about 1 million, but the total cost to convert over to the new logo (packaging, advertising, etc.) will be estimated as 100’s of millions:

“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.”

From the AdvertisingAge article (cached by google):


I see what you are saying. It is just the incredible arrogance that transcends through these slides that gets people worked up.
it’s a logo, not a cult.

Of course Arnell had to back up his design decisions, but what is up here is way over the top and then some.
That is why I just can’t think that this is real. Plus all those factual research mistakes plus the bad spelling make me suspicious.
Arnell might be cocky fellow but he is also a professional. I am a hundred percent certain that he has an army of 100 interns doing nothing but proof reading the presentations for a week.

i only wish that were true, but large companies with high brand recognition are always vying for first place, they don’t just want to advertise, they want people to “join” their brand not just sell you stuff, they want to “own” you. If this document is legit, which I think it is, it goes to show you the insane level companies will go to differentiate.

Because their explanation of the logic behind their proportions is so ridiculous. And their confusing perimeter oscillations are definitely conjuring tempests in teapots and a clear departure from reality. It lays the groundwork for their subsequent (fraudulent) justifications of the importance of their new geometry by comparing it to universal antecedents. I must say their timeline is hilarious though.

well, here is what I didn’t know before I saw the video mgnt8 posted.
Every logo for each type of cola are different to accent different emotions. Totally missed that. That actually I like.
What I then still don’t understand is the historical mumbo-jumbo.