Why Pepsi’s polar bear ad feels familiar to creatives, and why that matters

New Delhi: Pepsi’s latest polar bear film has sparked conversation not just among viewers but also within the advertising community. 

While much of the public discussion has focused on the bear “switching sides” and the contrast with Coca-Cola’s recent AI-led campaigns, creative leaders are reading the film through a longer lens, one shaped by decades of brand rivalry, storytelling styles and cultural memory.

For many in the industry, the ad does not signal a sudden creative shift by Pepsi. Instead, it is being seen as consistent with how the brand has historically positioned itself against Coca-Cola. The polar bear’s quiet identity crisis may feel unexpected on screen, but the thinking behind it is familiar.

That sense of familiarity stood out to Nirmalya Sen, founder and CEO of The Rethink Company, who approached the film through the lens of brand memory and creative risk. Sen said what makes the commercial notable is Pepsi’s decision to bring together two of advertising’s most recognisable assets in one narrative.

“What makes Pepsi’s new commercial a standout one is that it brings together two of advertising’s most recognisable assets, their own Pepsi Challenge and Coca-Cola’s much-loved polar bear,” Sen said, describing the idea itself as the boldest part of the execution.

Calling the move audacious, Sen drew a striking historical parallel to underline the scale of the creative risk. “Imagine an ad with Stalin or Khrushchev enjoying a McDonald’s burger at the height of the Cold War!” he said, using the comparison to highlight how deeply the polar bear is tied to Coca-Cola’s identity.

At its core, Sen said, the ad reinforces Pepsi’s long-held belief that taste matters more than labels. “I think it is Pepsi’s most emphatic expression of their age-old premise: when labels disappear, taste wins,” he said, while noting that this idea has been central to Pepsi’s positioning for decades.

He added that the film goes a step further by playfully questioning brand loyalty itself. “It cocks-a-snook at loyalty towards one of the world’s most iconic brands by ‘turning’ its most loyal symbol,” Sen said, pointing out that the polar bear is treated as a conflicted character rather than a caricature.

From a craft perspective, Sen also highlighted how the film departs from traditional challenge advertising formats. “Typically, ‘challenge’ advertising is anchored in substantiation and methodology,” he said, explaining that the Pepsi film quietly avoids that structure.

“But, for once, I didn’t notice the ‘claim,’” Sen said, adding that he realised only much later that there was no explicit assertion at all. That absence, he noted, allows the story itself to do the persuasive work.

The therapy confession, the Queen track and the Coldplay kiss-cam spoof, Sen said, are what give the film its replay value. 

“The distraught Polar Bear ‘coming out’ to his therapist as a Pepsi lover, the use of the Queen superhit and the spoof of the Coldplay kiss cam moment make the commercial enjoyable,” he said, pointing to how humour emerges from situations rather than punchlines.

In the broader discussion comparing Coca-Cola’s AI-generated ads with Pepsi’s more traditional filmmaking approach, Sen played down the importance of the debate itself.

“As far as the ongoing debate on Coca-Cola’s AI-generated ad vs Pepsi creating a commercial the classical way is concerned, my point is who cares,” he said, arguing that the outcome matters more than the process.

“All that matters is the commercial reinforces the love that Pepsi drinkers have for their brand,” Sen said, adding that if it also manages to convert a few Coke loyalists, the campaign has achieved its objective.

A similar reading emerged from Vistasp Hodiwala, founding partner at Centrick and former JWT creative director, who said he does not see the film as a departure from Pepsi’s long-standing creative behaviour.

“I don’t see a significant difference from how Pepsi has been reacting through the decades,” he said, framing the campaign as instinctive rather than strategic reinvention.

In his view, the approach reflects habit rather than experimentation, something he described as “muscle memory.” He said Pepsi has consistently relied on humour and irreverence to counter Coca-Cola’s softer, feel-good universe, and the polar bear film fits squarely within that tradition.

“This is vintage Pepsi storytelling: cheeky, irreverent, and perfectly positioned against Coke’s softer, feel-good universe,” Hodiwala said, suggesting the ad draws strength from familiarity rather than novelty.

This reading places the film within a well-established creative pattern. Over the years, Coca-Cola has leaned into warmth, nostalgia and emotional continuity, while Pepsi has often used wit and disruption to challenge that tone, particularly when positioning itself as the challenger brand.

The therapy sessions, pop culture references and understated humour in the film serve as narrative devices rather than sharp attacks, reinforcing Pepsi’s long-standing challenger posture without turning the story into a direct provocation.

The wider debate around Coca-Cola’s use of artificial intelligence in recent campaigns, Hodiwala said, needs to be viewed separately from Pepsi’s creative choice. “The conversation around Coke’s use of AI is actually a separate issue,” he said, explaining that new technologies often face resistance before they are fully accepted.

“Every cultural shapeshifter invites an initial backlash before becoming normalised,” he said, pointing to earlier reactions to digital art and other technological shifts. From his perspective, discomfort around AI has less to do with the tool itself and more to do with repetition.

Hodiwala said Coke’s recent work has begun to feel predictable to audiences with limited patience for the ordinary, and AI has merely amplified that perception. “The real issue isn’t AI itself, but the fact that Coke’s narratives have started to feel predictable,” he said, while noting that this does not automatically call for a radical change in direction.

He added that Pepsi’s move is unlikely to force Coca-Cola into a dramatic rethink. “Coke can’t, and won’t, suddenly change gears to become what it isn’t,” Hodiwala said, underlining the strength of entrenched brand identities.

At the same time, he said the moment does underline a broader creative challenge. “The creative imperative Coke can’t afford to ignore, though, is sharper storytelling and more considered narrative execution (with or without the use of A.I.),” he said, framing it as a long-term issue rather than a reactionary one.

Taken together, these creative reactions suggest that the polar bear film is being interpreted less as a statement about technology and more as an expression of brand consistency. Rather than attempting to outdo Coca-Cola on emotion or innovation, Pepsi stays within its familiar creative territory, relying on humour, cultural timing and restraint.

In a category where both brands are deeply familiar to audiences, that clarity may be the real differentiator. The polar bear’s quiet rebellion feels effective not because it is shocking, but because it feels earned, grounded in decades of storytelling muscle memory.

As the competition between Pepsi and Coca-Cola continues to evolve, this episode highlights a broader reality of modern advertising. Tools will change. Formats will evolve. But brands that know who they are, and how to tell their stories with confidence, will continue to find ways to cut through, even if it’s with a polar bear on a therapy couch.