Pepsi Advertising: What 70 Years of Bold Bets Teach Us

Pepsi advertising has, across seven decades, produced some of the most studied and most imitated campaigns in marketing history. The brand has challenged category leaders, redefined what a challenger brand can do, and occasionally produced work so misjudged it became a case study in what not to do. If you want to understand how advertising strategy actually works at scale, Pepsi is one of the most instructive examples available.

But the lessons are not the ones most marketing articles draw. The real value is not in copying the tactics. It is in understanding the strategic logic underneath each era, why some bets paid off, why others collapsed, and what that tells you about building a go-to-market approach that holds up over time.

What Made Pepsi a Legitimate Challenger Brand

Pepsi spent much of the mid-twentieth century in Coca-Cola’s shadow. That is not a knock on the brand. It is context. When you are the number two in a category dominated by a brand with near-universal recognition, your advertising has to work harder and smarter. You cannot out-spend your way to the top. You have to out-position.

The Pepsi Generation campaign of the 1960s was the first serious attempt to do that. Rather than competing on taste or heritage, which Coke owned, Pepsi positioned itself around a demographic and a cultural moment. Youth. Energy. Optimism. It was a smart move because it created a frame where Coke, by definition, could not follow without undermining its own identity. You cannot be the timeless classic and the drink of the next generation simultaneously.

I have seen this strategic pattern work across categories. When I was running agencies and working with clients in crowded markets, the brands that found traction were almost never the ones trying to beat the category leader at their own game. They were the ones who reframed what the category was actually about. That requires genuine strategic clarity, not just creative bravado.

The Pepsi Generation worked because it was grounded in something real. There was an actual generational shift happening. The campaign did not invent a positioning and hope the market would follow. It identified a tension that already existed and gave it a brand home. That distinction matters enormously when you are building a go-to-market strategy from scratch.

For a broader look at how positioning decisions connect to growth strategy, the pieces I have written on go-to-market and growth strategy cover the underlying frameworks in more depth.

The Pepsi Challenge: A Go-To-Market Move, Not Just an Ad Campaign

The Pepsi Challenge, launched in 1975, is one of the most referenced campaigns in marketing. But most of the commentary misses what made it strategically significant. It is usually discussed as a clever creative idea. In reality, it was a go-to-market move that changed the competitive dynamics of the entire category.

Blind taste tests in shopping malls, with real consumers, on camera. Pepsi consistently winning. The campaign was not just saying “we taste better.” It was creating a mechanism that forced Coke to respond, and Coke’s response, the reformulation that became New Coke in 1985, was one of the most catastrophic brand decisions in history. Pepsi did not win the cola war in 1985. But it forced Coke into a mistake that Pepsi could never have engineered through advertising alone.

That is what a well-constructed challenger strategy can do. It does not just win attention. It changes the terrain the category leader has to operate on. Understanding market penetration strategy makes it clear why this matters: gaining share in a saturated category requires more than a better message. It requires a structural shift in how consumers make comparisons.

The Pepsi Challenge also worked because it was grounded in genuine product performance. The taste test results were real. This is a point that gets glossed over in retrospective analysis, but it is critical. Advertising can amplify a product truth. It cannot manufacture one. When I have seen campaigns fail despite strong creative work, it is often because the underlying product claim could not survive scrutiny. Pepsi’s could.

Celebrity Advertising at Scale: What Pepsi Got Right and Wrong

Pepsi’s use of celebrity endorsements across the 1980s and 1990s was, by any measure, aggressive. Michael Jackson in 1983. Madonna in 1989. Britney Spears in 2001. Beyoncé in 2012. The brand spent enormous sums associating itself with the biggest cultural figures of each era.

Some of it worked. The Michael Jackson partnership was genuinely significant for the brand’s cultural standing. It reinforced the Pepsi Generation positioning with the biggest pop star on the planet. The alignment between the talent and the brand idea was coherent. Jackson represented exactly the energy and cultural currency Pepsi was trying to own.

But as the decades progressed, the celebrity strategy became less coherent. The brand was signing major talent without always being clear about what it was trying to say. Celebrity endorsement without strategic grounding is expensive wallpaper. It generates impressions. It does not build meaning.

I have sat in enough planning meetings to know how this happens. A big name becomes available. The commercial opportunity feels obvious. The deal gets done before anyone has answered the harder question: what does this association actually say about our brand, and does that serve our positioning? When the answer is “it gets us attention,” that is usually a warning sign, not a strategy.

The BCG work on brand and go-to-market strategy makes a related point about alignment between brand investment and commercial outcomes. Attention without direction tends to dissipate. The brands that build durable equity are the ones where every significant investment connects back to a clear brand idea.

The 2017 Kendall Jenner Ad: A Case Study in Borrowed Purpose

The Kendall Jenner ad from 2017 is worth examining in detail because it illustrates a failure mode that is increasingly common. The ad depicted Jenner leaving a modelling shoot to join a street protest, in the end handing a Pepsi to a police officer to resolve the tension. It was pulled within 24 hours following widespread backlash.

The criticism focused on the trivialisation of protest movements, particularly in the context of the Black Lives Matter movement. That criticism was legitimate. But the strategic failure ran deeper than the creative insensitivity.

Pepsi had no earned right to speak about social unity or protest. The brand had not built that territory over time. It had not taken positions that would give the message credibility. It was attempting to borrow cultural capital from a serious social moment to make a soft drink feel relevant. That is a category of brand purpose that I would describe as decorative rather than genuine, and audiences are increasingly good at spotting the difference.

Brand purpose only works when it connects to something the brand has actually demonstrated over time. When it is applied as a campaign strategy without underlying substance, it tends to produce exactly this kind of outcome. The brand looks opportunistic. The backlash is disproportionate to what the campaign was trying to achieve. And the reputational cost far exceeds whatever awareness gain was intended.

I judged the Effie Awards, where effectiveness is the primary criterion. The campaigns that perform well on effectiveness share a common characteristic: the brand idea and the communication idea are the same thing. There is no gap between what the brand stands for and what the advertising says. When that gap exists, audiences feel it, even if they cannot articulate it precisely.

How Pepsi’s Advertising Reflects the Broader Challenge of Staying Relevant

One of the more interesting strategic questions around Pepsi is how a brand maintains relevance across multiple generations without losing coherence. The Pepsi Generation positioning worked brilliantly in the 1960s because it was genuinely differentiated. But “the drink of the next generation” is a positioning that has to be renewed constantly. Every decade produces a new generation. Every decade requires a fresh answer to the question of what that means for the brand.

This is harder than it sounds. The brands that manage it well tend to have a stable core idea that can express itself differently across time and context. The ones that struggle tend to mistake the expression for the idea. They try to stay relevant by chasing cultural moments rather than by having a clear enough brand idea that they can engage with those moments from a position of strength.

Earlier in my career, I overvalued the lower funnel. I was focused on capturing intent, on being present at the moment of decision. Over time, I came to understand that a significant portion of what gets credited to performance channels was going to happen anyway. The real work of building a brand is upstream. It is about creating the conditions under which people want to choose you before they are even in a purchase moment. Pepsi’s most effective advertising was always doing that work, shaping preference before the shelf, before the menu, before the search.

The Forrester intelligent growth model touches on this distinction between capturing existing demand and generating new demand. For a brand like Pepsi, which has near-universal awareness, the growth challenge is not awareness. It is preference. And preference is built through consistent, coherent brand communication over time, not through any single campaign.

What Pepsi’s Super Bowl Strategy Reveals About Reach and Relevance

Pepsi’s relationship with the Super Bowl is itself a strategic story. For years, the brand was a major advertiser in the game. Then, from 2022, Pepsi stepped back from buying Super Bowl ad slots while continuing to sponsor the halftime show. That shift is worth unpacking.

The halftime show sponsorship gave Pepsi something that a 30-second spot cannot: cultural ownership of a moment. The brand was not just present in the broadcast. It was the frame through which one of the most watched entertainment moments of the year was experienced. That is a different kind of media investment, one that prioritises depth of association over breadth of reach.

Whether that trade-off was the right one depends on what the brand was trying to achieve. If the objective was sustained cultural relevance with a broad audience, the halftime show makes sense. If the objective was driving short-term purchase consideration, a well-crafted 30-second spot with strong distribution might have performed better. Most brands never get precise enough about that distinction when they are making media decisions.

The reasons go-to-market feels harder now are partly about this fragmentation of attention. The environments where you can reach large, coherent audiences at scale are fewer than they were. That makes the decisions about where to invest more consequential, not less. Pepsi’s Super Bowl evolution reflects a brand trying to find the right answer to that problem.

Creator-Led Advertising and What It Means for Legacy Brands

Pepsi, like most large consumer brands, has had to reckon with the shift toward creator-led content and social-first advertising. The challenge for a brand with Pepsi’s history is that its advertising identity was built in an era of broadcast media. Big productions. Single messages. Mass reach. The creator economy operates on different principles: authenticity, specificity, community.

The tension is real. A brand that has spent decades building a certain kind of cultural authority cannot simply pivot to lo-fi creator content without risking incoherence. But it also cannot ignore the environments where its target audiences are spending their time. The answer is probably not either/or. It is about understanding which parts of the brand communication job require the production values and reach of traditional advertising, and which parts benefit from the credibility and specificity of creator partnerships.

The Later resource on go-to-market with creators is useful context here. The brands that are making creator partnerships work are the ones that are clear about the brief, what the creator is being asked to do, what they are not being asked to do, and how that fits into the broader campaign architecture. The ones that are not working are usually the ones where the creator brief is vague and the integration into the overall strategy is an afterthought.

I have managed campaigns across thirty industries, and the pattern holds consistently. The medium changes. The underlying discipline does not. Clear objectives, honest measurement, a brand idea that can survive translation across formats. Those things matter regardless of whether you are buying television time or briefing a creator with two million followers.

The Measurement Problem Behind Pepsi’s Advertising Decisions

One of the less discussed aspects of Pepsi’s advertising history is how difficult it is to measure the contribution of brand advertising to business outcomes. The Pepsi Challenge generated enormous attention and almost certainly shifted preference in measurable ways. The Kendall Jenner ad generated enormous attention and almost certainly damaged brand equity. Both produced high levels of awareness. Awareness alone tells you very little.

This is a problem I have seen close up. When I was growing an agency from twenty people to over a hundred, one of the persistent tensions was between clients who wanted to measure everything in the short term and the reality that brand-building effects accumulate over time and are genuinely hard to isolate. The honest answer is that most measurement frameworks are better at capturing what happened in the short term than at attributing long-term brand value to specific campaigns.

That does not mean measurement is pointless. It means you have to be honest about what your measurement is actually telling you. A campaign that drives a spike in search volume is not necessarily building brand equity. A campaign that produces no measurable short-term response might be doing significant long-term work. The brands that make consistently good advertising decisions are the ones that hold both of those truths simultaneously, rather than defaulting to whichever metric is easiest to report.

The BCG perspective on go-to-market strategy addresses the challenge of aligning marketing investment with genuine commercial outcomes rather than proxy metrics. It is a tension that applies as much to a global beverage brand as it does to a financial services firm.

What Pepsi’s Advertising History Actually Teaches Marketers

The temptation, when writing about a brand like Pepsi, is to extract a clean set of lessons and present them as a framework. That is not quite right. The honest takeaway is more complicated.

Pepsi has produced genuinely brilliant advertising that changed the competitive dynamics of its category. It has also produced expensive failures that set the brand back. What separates the two is not the size of the budget or the quality of the creative production. It is the clarity of the strategic thinking underneath. When Pepsi had a clear, defensible brand idea and built its advertising around that idea, the work tended to perform. When it chased attention without a coherent strategic rationale, it tended to misfire.

That is not a particularly surprising conclusion. But it is one that gets ignored repeatedly, by Pepsi and by most other large advertisers. The pressure to do something new, something that generates coverage and social conversation, is real. And it is not always wrong. But novelty without strategic grounding is a gamble, not a strategy.

Early in my career, I was handed a whiteboard marker in a brainstorm for a major brand when the founder had to step out. The instinct in that moment was to reach for the most interesting idea in the room, the one that would generate the most energy. Over time, I learned that the most interesting idea and the most strategically sound idea are not always the same thing, and that the job is to find the place where they overlap.

Pepsi’s advertising history is, in many ways, a long illustration of that same challenge. The brand at its best found that overlap. At its worst, it chose interesting over sound. The lesson is not to avoid boldness. It is to make sure the boldness is doing strategic work, not just generating noise.

If you are thinking through how advertising strategy connects to broader commercial growth decisions, the work I have been doing on go-to-market and growth strategy covers the frameworks that tend to hold up across categories and market conditions.

About the Author

Keith Lacy is a marketing strategist and former agency CEO with 20+ years of experience across agency leadership, performance marketing, and commercial strategy. He writes The Marketing Juice to cut through the noise and share what works.

Frequently Asked Questions