This paper analyzes four advertising campaigns from Coca-Cola and Pepsi to evaluate their effectiveness, rhetorical strategies, and audience appeal. The campaigns examined include Pepsi's community-focused "Refresh Project," Pepsi Max's controversial Super Bowl commercial "Love Hurts," Coke's inspirational "Stay Extraordinary" campaign, and Coke's inventive Super Bowl spot "Border." Drawing on concepts of ethos, pathos, and product messaging, the paper argues that while Pepsi's charitable aims are commendable, Coca-Cola's willingness to take creative risks — producing more cinematic, innovative, and entertaining content — makes its advertising more compelling and its product more appealing to consumers.
This paper demonstrates comparative rhetorical analysis: it does not simply describe each advertisement, but evaluates how each deploys specific persuasive strategies (ethos, product messaging, humor, visual style) and then uses those evaluations to support a thesis. The writer also incorporates trade-press sources (Advertising Age, Beverage Digest) to anchor subjective impressions in industry context.
The paper opens with a thesis stating Coke's advertising superiority, then dedicates roughly equal space to each of the four campaigns. Each section analyzes audience, message, rhetoric, and product relevance. The conclusion synthesizes the findings into a final verdict. The structure follows a classic compare-and-contrast pattern: present all evidence, then judge.
The battle between two soda giants, Coca-Cola and Pepsi, has been raging for many years. Both products are enormously successful, with worldwide brands and a wide array of products beyond their flagship sodas. Similarly, their advertising campaigns and the competition that ensues — especially during high-profile events like the Super Bowl — are legendary. Both companies recently unveiled several new campaigns worthy of analysis. Pepsi launched the "Refresh Project," aimed at encouraging civic participation and charitable endeavors, and also released a more conventional Super Bowl commercial. Coca-Cola introduced a new campaign called "Stay Extraordinary" and, likewise, created a one-off Super Bowl advertisement. While Pepsi's charitable aims are admirable, Coke provides more compelling, innovative, and amusing content in its advertisements, which in turn makes the product more appealing to consumers.
The "Refresh Project" takes aim at social activism. The campaign began in 2010 and "saw the brand focus on doling out $20 million in grants to consumers, rather than run its traditional celeb-studded marketing campaigns" (Zmuda, 2011). The people featured in the advertisement are real consumers, most engaged in some form of physical activity — fixing a bike, sledding, running — which implies that Pepsi's aim is not only charitable but also an overall investment in health. The ad highlights monetary figures Pepsi has contributed to various community programs, including winter coat donations and bike trail construction. The voiceover, music, and cast combine to create a young, vibrant mood. Although the ad targets a broad audience, the mention of online submissions suggests the demographic skews toward younger, politically active viewers. The ad also takes care to show people from several different communities, conveying the sense that Pepsi is involved across the country and that no one is excluded.
While the ad encourages viewers to become more involved in their communities, it does not attempt to guilt them or portray tragic circumstances. The central message is: "Last year, Pepsi put hundreds of your good ideas into action. This year we're doing even more" (Pepsi, 2011). There is, therefore, a degree of credit extended to the viewer for participating in the program. The name "Refresh Project" itself carries a double meaning: refreshment is what a drink provides — quenching a thirst — but "refresh" here also implies the rehabilitation of a community through civic engagement. "Refresh your world" is the slogan the viewer is left with, functioning as an exhortation to become as involved in one's community as Pepsi claims to be. While there is a degree of pathos at work — particularly in the implication that failing to support Pepsi means failing to support the broader good — the dominant rhetorical mode is ethos. Pepsi positions itself as a responsible civic actor, directing its audience in imperative terms to communicate their ideas and help their communities.
Most notably, beyond a brief sound effect of a can opening at the start and an image of cans at the end, the advertisement contains no soda-related content. Because Pepsi is a nationally recognized brand, product recognition is presumably not a pressing concern. A viewer with no prior knowledge of Pepsi would learn little about the product itself, but would come away with the impression that Pepsi is a responsible, charitable company. That is precisely the ad's goal: to improve overall brand reputation rather than to promote a specific product.
The aim of Pepsi's Super Bowl advertising is quite different from the "Refresh Project" — in fact, the two campaigns could hardly be more divergent. Where the "Refresh Project" is family-friendly and centers on community involvement, "Love Hurts" is primarily comedic and attempts to generate shock value that will get viewers talking. This approach is consistent with most Super Bowl advertising, a prime platform where many viewers tune in specifically for the commercials. Accordingly, Pepsi created an ad designed to generate attention, conversation, and possibly even controversy.
"Love Hurts" features a couple in which the wife repeatedly hits, shoves, or kicks her husband whenever he orders unhealthy food. He is forced to order a fruit cup instead of French fries, and she puts a bar of soap in his mouth when she catches him hiding in the bathtub eating a hamburger. She is portrayed as scowling and shrewish, while the husband whines in complaint. The ad is problematic from a feminist perspective from the outset. It escalates further during its climax, in which the couple is seated on a park bench, both drinking Pepsi Max. The husband, startled, assumes he has been caught disobeying again — but the wife says, "Pepsi Max: Zero calories" (Pepsi Max, 2011). It seems to be a rare moment of accord for the couple, and the husband responds, "Maximum taste" (Pepsi Max, 2011). A young female jogger then passes by and waves to the husband, who is caught staring at her. The wife hurls her Pepsi can at him, misses, and strikes the woman, knocking her to the ground. The couple then runs away.
It is undeniably bold to end an advertisement with the product being used as a weapon against an innocent bystander. The couple comes across as thoroughly unlikable: the husband a simpering, deceptive weakling, and the wife an abusive figure. Yet Pepsi chose this couple as their spokespeople on one of the largest national advertising platforms available. The implicit message appears to be that this dynamic is relatable — targeting men, perhaps married, in the young adult to middle-age bracket who might identify with the husband's situation.
Despite its tonal issues, the ad does deliver two critical pieces of product information that the "Refresh Project" campaign entirely omits. John Sicher of Beverage Digest is quoted in Advertising Age as saying, "the Refresh Project by itself isn't enough to market Pepsi's cola brands. They need, in addition, more product-oriented advertising and marketing" (qtd. in Zmuda, 2011). Judged on that criterion, "Love Hurts" performs well: it communicates that Pepsi Max is low in calories yet flavorful — the ideal solution for the husband's food cravings. The ad also succeeded commercially, earning placement on numerous critics' "best of" Super Bowl lists and generating substantial online discussion. Online viewership is a key metric in today's advertising landscape, and the ad's climactic moment — a woman being struck by a soda can — was exactly the kind of scene viewers wanted to revisit and share. It is worth noting that this ad marked Pepsi's return to the Super Bowl after sitting out the previous year entirely, and that it advertised Pepsi Max specifically, not Pepsi itself (Zmuda, 2011).
Pepsi and Coca-Cola are both companies that generate a great deal of advertising every year, including several campaigns with divergent themes, messages, and styles. When viewed as a whole, it is difficult to declare a clear winner in terms of overall advertising effectiveness. But within the microcosm of these four campaigns, Coca-Cola edges out Pepsi largely due to its willingness to take creative risks. While Pepsi relied on familiar tropes — the bickering husband and wife, the corporate charity campaign that sidelines the product — Coke gave viewers entertaining mini-films with genuine narrative and visual ambition. This makes the viewer want more advertising from Coke, which, it stands to reason, will make them want more Coca-Cola.
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.