It’s a now legendary document designed to promote Pepsi’s brand. They nailed it. That other stuff was covered in another document.

So, first of all, was this document actually meant for public consumption like you suggest?

Second of all, do you actually think anyone who reads this document will associate positive feelings with Pepsi?

All it's making me think is "Man, those Coke ads with the polar bears were pretty cool."

It doesnt matter. It’s all freestyling. All the wild bullshit in the document is there because some pepsi execs reacted to it positively so they went all in on that. Then the document becomes infamous so they will say it was purposely nuts and use it for their own marketing.

These things are done for the execs not consumers. Same goes for Tropicana.

I don't think so. My visceral reaction was: SMH, this is why I stick with Coke.

Why are you promoting the Coca Cola Company? I assume you're not paid to do so

Yes, they paid him to promote Coke on HN comment section.

> Research to see if the brand logos/names are misunderstood or offensive for a particular market/culture.

Can verify this is highly important. E.g. using the letters 'Af' as a prefix for a product marketed in Africa. Turns out that is a very offensive word.

https://dsae.co.za/entry/af/e00076