Thursday, June 20, 2013

History of Soda Can Logos

I just came across a post (that's a few years old) with the history of some soda can designs :








I'm sad that the "bubbles" so prominent in the 7-Up design (in 1961 and 1980 - 1994) have disappeared.

And I prefer many of the older more simple designs.  The 1960s - 1970s have the most of my favorite designs above.  I like the 1965 and 1972 Crush cans and the 1990 7-Up can.  What do you like?

5 comments:

  1. I can tell that I stopped drinking soda in 1989 from these! [I generally prefer the first tapered top can in each series]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't even pay attention to when the can design changed. I like the ones right before or right after the taper.

      Delete
  2. I prefer the older designs. Coca-Cola got it right...their font is exactly the same since 1955.

    When Pepsi came out with the modern design and the logo...I absolutely hated it.

    I like:
    Crush - 1981
    7up - 1990 and 1994 (I always liked the Spot commercials)
    Dr. Pepper - 1997 (and I drank a lot of these when I was in college...)
    Pepsi - 1987, somewhat 1997-8. Absolutely hate the modern one...did I say that already?
    Coke - 1971 and 2002. I like both, somewhat similar in design, but 2002 is more modern, but just enough for Coke/ Coca-cola to be very recognizable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I still don't like Pepsi's "new" logo. I like the simplicity of their 78 or 87 cans.

      And Yeah, I love how LITTLE has changed with Coke over the years. "When you find something that works...."

      Delete
  3. 7Up: 1972
    Dr Pepper: 1968
    Pepsi: 1971, 1987, and maybe 1990 (Neon).

    I suspect Coke knows the value of brand loyalty, especially after the unfortunate unpleasantness 29 years ago. We can talk about our favorite "classic soda logos" but Coke's will always be classic :D In some weird way, and I'm sure this is factored into the marketing, it's comforting to know there is some continuity, and something you can psychologically "count on" to be what it is.

    ReplyDelete