You always suspect that this kind of claptrap is being sold to F500 companies, but it doesn't make it any less shocking to actually see how ridiculous it is.
i wish there was a word like schadenfreude that captured that sublime feeling of seeing someone miss the satire in something and pile contempt on it at the same time.
It's unclear whether this is a hoax or not. Anrell -- Pepsi's ad agency at the time -- refused comment. Certainly parts of the document are straight (even if they're recreated). The Pepsi circle does echo a smile, and when the off-kilter smile logo was unveiled, it was unveiled with each product getting it's own customized logo. See the various 2008 - 2010 product pages on http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/Pepsi
The document is clearly a joke. There is no way in hell someone produced this with a straight face, and that people then accepted it. But either the whole internet is in on the joke, or the articles about it really support your version: That it is not sure whether that's a joke. That the world this stems from is so absurd that it just might be the real thing.
Care to cite any hard evidence that the document was a hoax? Certainly, some pages of the document are vaguely legitimate explorations in design history, whereas others are ludicrous to the point of satire.
I've always loved this absurd document. I think it must have been made after the new logo was designed, as a way to back-annotate a fake history of how it was developed.
Based on the last two pages of the document which seem to outline a unified theory of the universe centered around Pepsi, I would tend assume the same.
Aww c'mon man look at the URL - it's not that hard to figure out! ;P It's linked from the blog of a former principal designer @faaborg - now working on Google's VR stuff.
There is a 2009 article where he talks about the new Firefox icon, Tropicana, and references the infamous Breathtaking document.
I read this thing and it really becomes clear how the private equity firm 3G is able to buy these old consumer products companies like Budweiser and Heinz and fire half the company and cut all sorts of other expenses and have it not adversely affect the sales. The amount of waste and overspending at these companies on autopilot that generate a lot of cash flow anyway must be astonishing.
Design has a high degree of subjectivity so we (designers) can't always have great ideas.
When great ideas don't appear we must be prepared to be called at our work once we are "bluffing". The best strategy to "win the hand" is by making a valid logical argument. We know who is calling our bluff (logical minds) so we adapt to the "opponent". "Folding" is not an option, our management will never allow that.
Normally good design doesn't need a valid argument and speaks by itself. But unfortunately we can't be sure that we will achieve it until the deadline.
32 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 83.3 ms ] threadThis level of BS has been seen before, lest Lucent Technologies's old red ring logo, and the story that came with its unveiling. http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/08/10/lucent_logo_captures...
The document is clearly a joke. There is no way in hell someone produced this with a straight face, and that people then accepted it. But either the whole internet is in on the joke, or the articles about it really support your version: That it is not sure whether that's a joke. That the world this stems from is so absurd that it just might be the real thing.
Looking at the new Pepsi logo, this is all I can see: http://blowatlife.blogspot.com/2009/02/pepsi-logo-response.h...
The real process was drinking whiskey and smoking pot (ala Mad Men). Then came the search for a board room palatable process to reach the same design.
There is a 2009 article where he talks about the new Firefox icon, Tropicana, and references the infamous Breathtaking document.
https://blog.mozilla.org/faaborg/2009/05/21/new-firefox-icon...
When great ideas don't appear we must be prepared to be called at our work once we are "bluffing". The best strategy to "win the hand" is by making a valid logical argument. We know who is calling our bluff (logical minds) so we adapt to the "opponent". "Folding" is not an option, our management will never allow that.
Normally good design doesn't need a valid argument and speaks by itself. But unfortunately we can't be sure that we will achieve it until the deadline.