PepsiCo’s new identity tries to be human, lands somewhere in corporate limbo

New Delhi: If brand makeovers were judged like beauty contests, PepsiCo’s new logo would probably win the “Miss Congeniality” title. Nice, friendly, and full of good intentions, but perhaps trying a bit too hard.

PepsiCo, after nearly 25 years, decided to press refresh, not on its products, but on its personality.

The global food and beverage behemoth has unveiled a refreshed brand identity that leans into a sprawling portfolio of more than 500 brands, a palette drawn from “the real world,” and the simple promise: Food. Drinks. Smiles.

Chairman and CEO Ramon Laguarta calls it “a celebration of energy, optimism, and ambition,” while Chief Consumer and Marketing Officer Jane Wakely says putting smiles at the heart of the new system signals PepsiCo’s “obsession with consumers,” one that, in her words, “fuels our growth.”

The company says the new identity “boldly reflects who we are in 2025,” with a centred “P” that emerges from forms meant to signal consumer centricity, sustainability, and taste.

On paper, the reposition makes sense. Only 21% of consumers can name a PepsiCo brand beyond Pepsi, says the company, which means a corporate identity that stitches the portfolio together could have a real impact.

But here’s the thing: when a company as big as PepsiCo redraws its identity, the design isn’t the only thing under the microscope, the intent is too. Because for the creative community, a logo is never just a logo. It’s a conversation about brand evolution, emotion, and timing.

Behind all the poetic talk of soils, smiles, and sustainability, one question remains fizzing in the industry’s mind: Has PepsiCo created a timeless identity for its new era or just another global refresh trying too hard to look humble?

The lean on green

Lloyd Mathias, a business strategist and a former PepsiCo executive, calls the change “a clear break from the past.”

He noted the absence of Pepsi’s classic red and blue and the prominence of green as signalling the company’s intent to position itself more squarely on sustainability. But he also warned, in plain terms, that this pivot comes with a cost.

The historical red and blue have been replaced by various tones of green. The absence of red is quite glaring. “The company seems to be positioning itself as more environmentally conscious and sustainability-driven. I think it’s a little generic. It seems to be trying too hard to align with sustainability and green initiatives,” said Mathias.

Mathias pointed out that the core appeal of the company is about fun, entertainment, and energy, be it Pepsi or Lay’s. Its entire portfolio is highly consumer-centric, outward-facing, and firmly positioned within a strong B2C space, reflective of its global stature.

According to him, some of that energy and excitement seem to be missing here. The new logo feels somewhat generic and passive, almost resembling the identity of a company dealing in agricultural produce.

“This one feels too goody-goody and corporate. Maybe they focused too hard on sustainability. It doesn’t really stem from what most consumers associate with PepsiCo and its lively portfolio of brands,” Mathias noted.

“PepsiCo realises it’s under the scanner. Their products aren’t exactly health symbols; sugary drinks, fried foods, and they’re among the world’s largest users of PET and plastic packaging for products like Lay’s. Hence, this logo partly feels like virtue signalling, almost guilt-driven. I wouldn’t call it outright greenwashing, but it’s close. They’re trying to say, ‘We’re environmentally conscious,’ without backing it up fully yet,” Mathias told BestMediaInfo.com .

He added, “But credibility won’t come from the logo. It’ll come from real actions moving toward healthier products, paper-based or biodegradable packaging, and genuinely sustainable practices. Trying to course-correct through a logo alone may not be the best idea.”

According to Manoj Deb, Founder & Specialist Branding, Strategy & Design at Venacava Designs, the earthy tones do soften the aesthetic but risk breaking the corporate design landscape.

“The earthy tones and lowercase typography effectively soften the corporate aesthetic, introducing warmth and accessibility. This typographic tone is humanised, which aligns with current design trends, especially in this digital-centric era. However, in doing so, the visual identity risks breaking the so-called corporate design landscape,” he said.

Viral Pandya, Founder and CCO, Young&Hungry, believed that while the green tones humanise the logo, they strip off the energy entirely. “The earthy tones make it look like PepsiCo just joined a wellness retreat and decided to speak softly about chakras. And lowercase typography, while friendly, risks saying, ‘we sell oat milk,’ not ‘we invented cola wars’.”

According to Siddhesh Pednekar, Partner and COO at BRANDED, the usage of green brings out a challenge for PepsiCo “to make it feel like PepsiCo and not just another global refresh.”

He noted, “The earthy colours do humanise the tone, the palette brings warmth, and the lowercase gives it ease, but it walks a fine line. A lot of global brands are now speaking this softer, friendlier language. The challenge for PepsiCo will be to make it feel like PepsiCo and not just another global refresh.”

The smile speaks

The next big talking point? The smile.

The new PepsiCo logo introduces a gentle upward curve meant to convey positivity, optimism, and warmth. But to many, it’s less a grin and more a polite, corporate smile.

Deb put it clearly. While the smile does ensure emotional resonance, it fails to distinctly differentiate PepsiCo within the sphere of global corporate identities. “The ‘smile’ serves as an instantly recognisable and universally positive visual cue, reinforcing the brand’s optimistic ethos. Honestly, it is too safe and makes it feel somewhat conventional in approach,” he said.

Pandya had an eccentric simile he used to convey his perspective. “At this point, the 'smile' in logos has entered the dad-joke territory of design. Everyone does it, but few still laugh. Once upon a time, it was clever. Today, it’s as surprising as a 'Live, Laugh, Love' wall sign. If optimism had an emoji, this would be its corporate cousin,” he said.

When asked if the smile felt predictable, a trope of ‘feel-good’ branding that’s everywhere from energy companies to ESG reports, Mathias replied, “The smile is a nice touch. That part I like. But it’s a slightly more generic logo. Maybe it takes time to grow on you. It’s not as memorable as the earlier logo, which basically evoked a sense of a consumer goods company. I think it’s a little kind of generic.”

For Shubho Sengupta, digital marketer and a former Coca-Cola executive, the smile fits right into what he calls “corporate politeness.”

Commenting overall on the overhaul of the logo, Sengupta said, “Pepsi keeps changing its logo every other decade, and I think it’s a sign of underconfidence. Look at Coca-Cola. Barring very minor touch-ups, it has been the same since 1900.

I understand that the Pepsi business is bullish on foods and doesn’t want to be seen as a cola-only brand, especially when they have well over 500 brands, but I wonder what message this sends to consumers and the market. On the other hand, one could say that Pepsi as a brand is comfortable with discontinuity… why not? Let’s see.”

The tagline tug

If green was the paint and the smile the brushstroke, the tagline is the caption that completes the artwork. PepsiCo’s new corporate message, one that subtly leans into “positivity” and “progress,” aims to show an evolved, conscious conglomerate.

But as Young&Hungry’s Pandya pointed out, the tagline came out as “too simple.”

“The three-word combo 'Food. Drinks. Smiles.' reads less like a bold brand vision and more like a bullet point on a very mid-90s P&L deck. It captures, well, nothing distinct. If you planted that line in a random corporate brochure from 2005, nobody would blink,” Pandya told BestMediaInfo.com .

Pandya highlighted a glaring irony. It’s not offensive, just so broad that it captures everything and therefore nothing. Instead of a grand roar, we get a polite nod. As Pandya quipped, “It’s like showing up to a branding duel with a handshake instead of a mic drop.”

In categories as cluttered as food and beverages, differentiation isn’t just decoration; it’s survival. A tagline should carry weight: define belief, incite action, and signal change. ‘Food. Drinks. Smiles.’ instead signals, ‘We make food and drinks, and we hope people enjoy them.’

What could have worked better? Maybe a tension-based claim that suggests a stance. Or a brand-owned territory, one unique axis where PepsiCo doesn’t just compete but dominates.

To be clear, “Food. Drinks. Smiles.” isn’t a bad line. It’s clean, positive, and fits neatly under the umbrella of optimism PepsiCo often projects. But it doesn’t feel like PepsiCo. This is a company that built its empire on pop culture, youth energy, and a touch of defiance. The new line, while correct in tone, seems too corporate, too safe, like it was proofed by a committee of lawyers rather than born out of a creative war room.

It’s a smile when you expect a grin.

So yes, the strategists and creatives have done a competent job, but they’ve played it safe.

Cues on P and the wordmark

If there’s one thing you can’t miss in the new PepsiCo logo, it’s the big, bold P. It’s not just the first letter anymore. It’s the face, the anchor, the corporate flag. But for many industry minds, that P also raises a few brows.

Giving his analysis on the same, Pednekar from BRANDED said, “The new ‘P’ feels expressive and intentional. It suggests movement and collaboration, a company that sees itself as part of culture, not above it. It’s a reminder that PepsiCo doesn’t need to shout to be relevant; it just needs to design meaningfully. The abstraction of the form captures a certain openness, almost like the brand is inviting the world in, rather than broadcasting from the top down.”

Chiming in, Deb noted, “It embodies the principles of the pep+ (PepsiCo Positive) initiative, emphasising modernisation, sustainability, and purposeful growth. Through this design, the company positions itself as a forward-thinking, resilient organisation that embraces both its legacy and its diverse portfolio of brands in response to evolving cultural and consumer expectations.”

Arnab Ray, Executive Creative Director at Landor, offered a practitioner’s critique that is both granular and candid. Highlighting the wordmark, he said, “It’s nicely crafted, has personality, and somewhere cues human aspects and a sense of wholesomeness. I think they could have perhaps stopped at the wordmark itself and maybe added a small supporting element or a variable identity that could express the various aspects of the brand.”

Qualifying the symbol, he said, “It feels generic, not well-crafted, and somewhat unnecessary. They could have built an entire design language around the wordmark itself and perhaps created a different symbol or shorthand for smaller or digital spaces.”

Pandya, without mincing words, said, “It says PepsiCo has looked deep into the mirror and decided it really, really liked fonts that play safe. The ‘P’ feels like a PowerPoint-friendly pat on the back, steady, corporate, and cautious. It’s more 'we’re stable' than 'we’re sparking cultural joy.' You can almost hear the strategy deck whisper, ‘Let’s not scare anyone, team.’”

Signing off the skeptics

Across the board, the creative industry’s prescription is practical and clear. First, tie design to demonstrable change: healthier SKUs, visible packaging shifts, and supply-chain moves will make the sustainability signal credible. Lloyd’s advice is blunt here: visuals must be backed by behaviour.

Second, allow the corporate iconography to be expressive locally. Viral’s and Arnab’s pleas for distinctiveness suggest PepsiCo needs adaptive systems that can feel bold in Mumbai and mischievous in Mexico City while still sitting under the same master brand.

Third, evolve the identity through experience, not just aesthetics. Manoj says the design “articulates sustainability and innovation with minimalism and balance,” which is a promising start. But to become memorable, the identity must spark repeated, relevant consumer interactions, not just appear on the corporate blog.

Verdict

PepsiCo’s new brand is neither a catastrophe nor a triumph. It is a considered, quite safe corporate reset that prioritises approachability and sustainability language. For some in the creative world, that is the problem; it feels a little too cautious, too eager to be inoffensive in a moment that rewards distinctiveness.

The good news for PepsiCo is that a corporate identity alone can be guided into meaning. With disciplined activation, demonstrable product moves, and a smarter local expression strategy, the new P and its smile could indeed become shorthand for a modern, responsible food and drinks conglomerate. Without that, the logo risks becoming a tidy cover for work the company still needs to do.

At the end of the day, PepsiCo has given itself a new language. The industry’s verdict is that the voice is polite, proficient, and promising, but not yet persuasive. The brand now has to prove the smile is more than an icon. It must be a behaviour.