Pepsi’s Super Bowl ad pits its own product against Coca-Cola, in a cheeky campaign that shows a polar bear conducting a blind taste test. But is it a touchdown or a 10-yard-line fumble?
Ehrenberg-Bass Institute’s senior marketing scientist Cathy Nguyen ran a multi-market study to discover how well comparative ads work at evoking the correct brand in viewers’ minds.
Marketers adore a good showdown. Mac versus PC. Burger King nudging the golden arches. And back in the spotlight once again, Pepsi versus Coke. Comparative advertising is the industry’s version of a public battle bold, theatrical and designed to get people talking. But while the creative drama plays out on screen, a quieter contest unfolds in people’s minds.
The trouble with sharing the stage
Pepsi’s high profile Super Bowl ad for 2026, directed by Oscar-winning filmmaker Taika Waititi, leans heavily on competitor references and cultural callbacks.
The polar bear is not just a cute animal. For some viewers, it is a well-rehearsed mental shortcut to Coca-Cola. Layer onto that additional cues such as taste test tropes that feature the competitor’s product, a classic rock soundtrack and a nod to a certain stadium concert moment that had the internet in a spin – a single ad becomes cluttered very quickly.
It makes for entertaining viewing, yes. But at what cognitive cost? It raises the question: how well do comparative ads work at evoking the correct brand in viewers’ minds?
We put it to the test
In a multi-market study across the US, India, China and Brazil, we tested a past comparative ad for Pepsi that playfully referenced Coca-Cola as the inferior choice. The print execution features a Pepsi can alongside a competitor-coded can, identifiable through its distinctive red and white colouring.
In the visual, a straw appears to strongly resist entering the competitor can, forming the basis of the comparative joke. We analysed this ad against another print execution that featured only Pepsi. Everything else remained consistent across the two ads.
After ad exposure and a short distraction task, we measured brand linkage and ad-likability among more than 1,600 respondents.
The results were sobering. So much so it might make you want to add some Jack Daniels or Absolut to that cola…
Most people recalled only one brand, with only 10% remembering more than one brand in the comparative ad execution.
Introducing Coke to the ad meant linkage to Pepsi dropped. Most concerning was that a notable proportion of people (about one-fifth) walked away believing the ad was actually for Coca-Cola. In other words, introducing the competitor reduced correct brand linkage for the advertiser and sometimes handed memory credit to the rival. That is not just reminding people the category exists. That is strengthening the wrong brand.
Just showing the Pepsi can with a straw scored 3.6 likeability out of 5, not surprising as it was a pretty uninteresting ad. However, add in the competitor, the straining straw, the joke, and likeability shot up to 3.8.
Not exactly reaching creative heights. Nevertheless, enjoyment without attribution is a poor investment.
Read the full article in Mumbrella.