Pepsi “Stole” Coke’s Polar Bear — and That’s the Point
There are brand mascots… and then there are brand shortcuts.
For decades, Coca-Cola’s polar bears have functioned like an emotional QR code: you see the bear, your brain fills in the rest—cold soda, cozy nostalgia, holiday glow, and that familiar red-brand comfort.
Now Pepsi has dropped a very deliberate disruption into that mental autopilot: a polar bear at the center of its Super Bowl LX campaign, “The Choice,” where the bear takes a blind taste test and ends up choosing Pepsi Zero Sugar over Coke Zero Sugar.
Online discourse has been loud for one reason: it feels like somebody walked into your childhood memory, moved the furniture, and said, “Actually… this is our house now.”
And from a marketing strategy standpoint? That emotional whiplash is exactly why it works.
What Pepsi did (in plain English)
Pepsi’s campaign frames a polar bear, long coded in pop culture as a Coke symbol, as a “cola lover” who has an identity crisis after choosing Pepsi in a blind taste test. The spot is directed by Taika Waititi, uses Queen’s “I Want to Break Free,” and leans into the idea that removing labels removes bias (what Pepsi calls “The Pepsi Paradox”).
Pepsi also anchors it in “proof”: the company says its 2025 Pepsi Challenge tour found 66% of participants preferred Pepsi Zero Sugar over the competitor’s zero-sugar cola. [PepsiCo]
So you’ve got:
A familiar character
A public “switch”
A product claim
A cultural moment
A rivalry narrative
That’s not an ad. That’s a brand event.
Why people are mad: “You can’t just take that”
To understand the backlash, you have to understand what Coke’s polar bear is in brand terms.
Coke has used polar bears in advertising for a long time (print ads date back to 1922), but the bear becomes a major modern icon through the “Always Coca-Cola” era, especially the 1993 “Northern Lights” ad that helped cement the bear as a recognizable Coke symbol.
That matters because iconic brand assets don’t live in ads, they live in people’s heads. They’re “owned” psychologically even when they aren’t literally owned in a legal sense.
So when Pepsi puts a polar bear front-and-center and basically says “he’s with us now,” viewers feel:
Territorial about nostalgia (“That’s not yours.”)
Protective of meaning (“You’re messing with something ‘pure.’”)
Manipulated (“This is a trick.”)
And ironically, that emotional reaction is free amplification.
The psychology: why co-opting a competitor’s symbol gets so much attention
This move hits several brain buttons at once:
1) Mental availability beats persuasion
Most buying isn’t debate-club logic. It’s “what comes to mind first.” A polar bear is a fast mental shortcut. Pepsi didn’t spend 30 years building the bear—Pepsi used the bear to borrow speed.
2) Associative learning gets hijacked
If you repeatedly pair “polar bear + Pepsi,” you start to weaken the old association (“polar bear + Coke”) and create a new competing link. The faster the repetition and cultural spread, the stronger the interference effect.
3) Cognitive dissonance is sticky
People hate holding two conflicting ideas:
“Polar bear = Coke”
“Polar bear chose Pepsi”
That internal friction makes the campaign memorable, because the brain wants to resolve the contradiction.
4) Identity narratives outperform feature narratives
Pepsi didn’t just say “we taste better.” It created a storyline about someone realizing the thing they “always were” wasn’t actually true, then choosing differently. That’s why the therapist gag lands: it makes brand preference feel like identity work.
5) It triggers the internet’s favorite sport: refereeing
Online culture loves calling fouls. “Copying,” “stealing,” “homage,” “parody,” “fair game”…people pick sides, and every argument is basically unpaid distribution.
The deeper strategic play: Pepsi isn’t just trolling; this is market positioning
Here’s the part marketers should clock: Pepsi didn’t lead with “Pepsi.” It led with Coke’s cultural dominance, then used the Pepsi Challenge as the “objective judge.”
That’s a classic challenger-brand maneuver:
Acknowledge the leader’s cultural position (implicitly)
Reframe the decision criteria (“taste without bias”)
Insert “proof”
Make switching feel rational and emotionally liberating
Pepsi’s own materials explicitly frame this as confronting label-driven bias and re-centering “taste.”
What small brands should take from this (without getting sued or looking desperate)
You don’t need a polar bear, or a Super Bowl budget, to use the same mechanics. You need the principles.
Lesson 1: Build one “unfair” memory asset
Coke has the bear. Other brands have colors, shapes, characters, sounds, phrases—anything that becomes instantly recognizable.
Small-brand version:
A signature visual motif (one pattern you use everywhere
A mascot or recurring character
A “hero prop” (your packaging silhouette, icon, or distinct label system)
A repeatable tagline that’s actually ownable
Rule: if your audience can’t describe your brand without looking, you don’t have a memory asset yet.
Lesson 2: Don’t copy the leader—contrast the category story
Pepsi can flirt with the leader’s icon because rivalry is baked into cola culture. Most small brands can’t pull that off without looking like the little sibling begging for attention.
Safer approach: borrow the category language, not the competitor identity.
“Here’s the old way everyone does it…”
“Here’s what nobody admits…”
“Here’s the blind test / side-by-side / before-after…”
You’re not saying “we’re them.” You’re saying “we’re the better choice under the right lens.”
Lesson 3: Create a “choice moment” customers can repeat
Pepsi built an entire narrative around a single decision point (the taste test). [Marketing Dive]
Small-brand version:
A 10-second “compare” demo
A quiz that reframes what matters
A trial kit with an “A/B” experience
A one-question selector: “Do you want X or Y?
The magic is not the content, it’s the structure: the customer feels like they discovered the truth themselves.
Lesson 4: If you’re going to “poke,” do it with warmth and precision
Rivalry marketing works when it’s:
Playful (not bitter)
Specific (one clean claim)
Backed by something (data, demo, clear proof point)
On-brand (you’re not cosplaying as a snark account)
If you’re a boutique brand, the goal isn’t humiliation—it’s differentiation.
Lesson 5: Protect your own symbols like they’re revenue (because they are)
The whole reason this polar bear move is explosive is because Coke’s bear is a high-equity asset built over time.
Small brands should treat their distinctive assets like:
IP (even if informal)
Consistency systems (style guides, lockups, usage rules)
Brand training (so partners don’t dilute it)
Repetition strategy (same few cues, over and over)
Your goal: when someone tries to “borrow” your thing, the audience immediately says, “Nope—that’s theirs.”
So… did Pepsi “win” by using the polar bear?
Hot take: Pepsi already won before the game airs.
Because the real win isn’t persuasion, it’s forcing a cultural conversation where:
Coke’s iconography becomes the stage
Pepsi’s product claim becomes the plot
Everyone else becomes the media buy
Whether consumers switch long-term is a different KPI. But attention? Memory? Relevance? Pepsi absolutely bought those with one well-aimed character choice.
Ok But… Can They Do That?
Is the polar bear “owned” by Coke?
Coke has a long history of polar bear advertising (notably modernized in 1993), but “ownership” in the cultural sense and the legal sense aren’t always the same thing. The key takeaway is that audiences emotionally assign the bear to Coke. [Coca-Cola Company]
Why would Pepsi reference its competitor at all?
Because challengers grow fastest by reframing the decision criteria and inserting doubt into the leader’s default status.
How can a small brand do competitor marketing safely?
Aim for category contrast, proof-led comparisons, and distinctive assets, avoid copying recognizable characters/branding cues. When in doubt, get legal review.
