The Throwbacks were with us for an 8 week run\u2026 and then disappeared, much to our dismay. Based on all the comments posted here on BevReview, as well as on Twitter and Facebook, we weren’t alone in that thought! Even the folks at National Public Radio were interested; they interviewed us on the air!<\/p>\n
Thus when Pepsi announced in August that we’d see another limited return of the Throwbacks starting in December, there was much rejoicing! Things got more exciting when we started to see the improved designs that both products featured, making up for the poorly-executed visual design we saw in April. With these new looks, the “new” Throwbacks should stand out in the marketplace more effectively.<\/p>\n
That said, the rereleased Pepsi Throwback is finally here!<\/p>\n
Let’s start by taking a look at the new label design. In Pepsi’s original announcements in August, they mentioned that we’d see the “Same formula, but cooler vintage look!” (Facebook) and “With the same formula, but new awesome vintage look!” (Twitter).
\nLong gone is the blue label color that was used in the April release. Instead, we’ve actually gone retro, somewhat in the spirit of the prototype Pepsi Throwback design. The Pepsi logo in the December 2009 version of Throwback seems to be a callback to the 1971 vs. the 1987 version seen on the prototype bottle (note the differences in the “PEPSI” font, especially the way the “E” is crafted).
\nPepsi Throwback Comparison: Prototype, April 2009, & December 2009 Designs
\nPepsi Throwback Comparison: Prototype, April 2009, & December 2009 Designs<\/p>\n
The logo and branding is now set horizontally instead of vertical and sideways, more in line with standard can design, which was more popular back then vs. the 20 oz. bottles which dominate sales today.<\/p>\n
Careful observers will also note a change in the way sugar is described. You’ll recall the April 2009 version of Pepsi Throwback referred to the product as “made with natural sugar”, however now we have a callout to being “made with real sugar” (just likethe prototype originally noted). Of course, the use of this language seems a lot clearer vs. the question of “just what is natural sugar?” If the formula stays the same as has been previously shared, it should still be a combination of cane and beet sugar. Ironically, the use of the “real sugar” line may also prompt potential customers to ask, “so, if this is real sugar, what was the stuff in Pepsi before?” I’m sure the folks over at the Corn Refiners Association would love to answer that question.<\/p>\n