Coke Conspiracies

A post I shared about Coca-Cola’s latest packaging change went viral.

Hundreds of comments. Designers, strategists, researchers, retailers, Coke insiders and people with very strong opinions about artificial sweeteners all piled in.

My original point was simple.

Coca-Cola had made its portfolio more consistent, but potentially harder to shop.

By pushing more of the range into its iconic red, Coke Zero now looks more like Coke Classic. The masterbrand becomes stronger. The individual products become less distinct.

But the comments took the conversation somewhere much more interesting.

This is one of the best parts of publishing ideas publicly. You put forward a theory, then accidentally crowdsource feedback from some of the world’s smartest people for free.

Here are the theories that stood out.

This edition of supergoods is brought to you by Mind Control - the branding and packaging studio behind this newsletter.

We’re giving away a free audit - valued at $10K.

Are you thinking about a redesign? Do you have a gut feeling that your packaging could be more effective?

We’re partnering with Stickybeak to help you figure it out.

One lucky winner will get a Consumer Insights Package from Stickybeak (real research from real shoppers), combined with an audit from Mind Control (packaging analysis and recommendations).

Simply download the checklist and you’re in the draw to win.

^{Brent - Founder, Mind Control}

Zero is becoming the default Coke

The most compelling theory was that Coke is not simply cleaning up its design system.

It is slowly changing what people understand “Coca-Cola” to mean.

Historically, Coke Zero has been treated as an alternative. The black packaging made it clearly different from the original. It was Coca-Cola, but not quite the real Coca-Cola.

Turning the pack red changes that.

Zero now gets access to the full power of Coke’s most valuable brand asset. It feels less like the diet option and more like the standard product.

Several commenters suggested Coke may be preparing for a future where the no-sugar version becomes the default Coke, while the full-sugar product gradually becomes the niche alternative.

That sounds conspiratorial.

It also makes a lot of sense.

The friction may be intentional

My original argument was that Coke had accepted some extra shopping friction in exchange for a stronger, more consistent brand.

A few commenters went further.

What if the friction is not simply an unfortunate trade-off?

If Coke wants people to move from Classic to Zero, reducing the visual distance between the products could help. The familiar red reassures existing Coke drinkers. Zero feels less like a separate choice and more like a small variation on what they already buy.

The products become harder to distinguish, but easier to substitute.

That is a very different way to interpret the redesign.

The real risk happens after the shelf

Most of the discussion focused on shoppers accidentally grabbing the wrong bottle.

But some of the sharpest comments pointed out that the bigger issue may be fulfilment.

Think restaurants, takeaway shops, delivery orders and convenience stores. In those situations, the person drinking the product is not always the person selecting it.

An employee moving quickly may rely on colour rather than reading the small variant label. A customer orders Zero and gets Classic. For most people, that is annoying. For someone managing their sugar intake, it can be more serious.

Packaging does not only need to work for attentive shoppers standing calmly in front of a fridge. It has to work in messy, rushed, real-world environments.

Brand consistency is not always shopper clarity

Designers mostly admired the move.

The red wall becomes stronger. Every product contributes to the same brand. Advertising, packaging and physical spaces become easier to align.

People closer to retail operations were more sceptical.

Their argument was blunt: packaging is not just a brand billboard. It also has to help someone find the correct product quickly.

That is the tension at the centre of the redesign.

Coke has made every product feel more like Coca-Cola.

It may also have made each product feel less like itself.

Where does it go?

Everyone has a different opinion.

Some people saw a brilliant long-term portfolio strategy. Others saw a beautiful design system that creates unnecessary friction.

Both can be true.

The most interesting possibility is that Coke knows exactly what it is doing. It may be sacrificing a small amount of short-term clarity to reshape the meaning of Coca-Cola over the next decade.

Perhaps the redesign is not really about making Coke Zero look more like Coke.

Perhaps it is about making Coke Zero become Coke.