Pepsi Throwback: Fad or Sign of Change?
Retro is in . . . again!
Last year, I began this post with all intentions of finishing it, after I heard the news of Pepsi’s ‘Throwback’ experiment. I speculated a little on their reasons, mostly whether or not the mounting HFCS backlash had anything to do with it, and planned a long diatribe on using a planned fad disguised as nostalgia to mask another layer of a market experiment. Needless to say, it got pushed back, and the eight-week run of the stuff ended, the sodas disappeared, and the post was largely forgotten, buried amongst review corpses in the drafts folder.
The idea resurfaced again when Pepsi rolled out another round of Throwback’s with different designs back in December. This week, a co-worker showed up toting a twelve pack of it into the break room, and invited me to have one at my leisure. I put it off for a few days, then grudgingly accepted the open offer on an experimental basis. I sat down for lunch with a can, and snagged a regular Pepsi out of the soda machine with an idea. I would write about the marketing angle, and throw in a taste test for good measure. Now, since I don’t care for Pepsi much, I feel I can remain unbiased when it comes to the taste difference.
The Test: I pulled two paper cups from the water machine and set up my taste test on the table, Pepsi on the left and Throwback on the right. My palate cleaner sat ready at my elbow for better distinguishing of tastes. I began with the classic, and was greeted with pretty much what I expected; the Pepsi was syrupy-sweet and over-carbonated, with a slight acidic tang to it. The sweetness lingered like a sweet glove on my tongue. I readied my tongue again and had my first ever taste of the Throwback. The sweetness was more pronounced, but not syrupy, it reminded me of table sugar melting on my tongue. The carbonation was surprisingly lighter, not giving as much bite as the regular Pepsi. the same acidic tang is there, but the sweetness fades away much quicker that the HFCS does. If I had to choose, I would pick the Throwback over the regular Pepsi. I still don’t care for it, though.
The Complaint: Now that I got that out of the way, I can focus on the more important implications of this second run of Throwback sodas. The first run came with a press release lavished with self-praise over their new, nostalgic sodas. In a Throwback review on BevReview, a Nicole Bradley of Pepsi-Cola North America Beverages noted that, “these products were not created because of any health concerns…” Many have a hard time believing this, due to the soda industry’s near dependence on HFCS to keep costs lower, and the (at the time) escalating backlash. The corn industry was already leading their own ‘information’ campaign, yet SoBe, a subsidiary of Pepsi, began switching their products to sucrose from HFCS at the same time. Sugar still isn’t good for you, but many see it as better than HFCS, and the industry must ultimately bend to the will of the consumer if they can’t convince them.
I see this as Pepsi testing the waters of a sugar switch, at least on a small scale, to see how their consumer base reacts. The reaction has been generally positive; the first run of Throwback sold out, and the second seems to be well on its way to doing so as well. I’m sure Pepsi is far from ever considering switching their entire supply back to sucrose (the sugar in the Throwback’s being a combination of cane and beet sugars), but the timing may hint at their apprehension with the stirrings in the soda-drinking population about HFCS. We’ve talked plenty about it and the questions and health concerns its use raises, and would be more than happy to see it disappear from use in drinks of any kind, but know this is still wishful thinking, as long as the population at large remains uninformed about and addicted to HFCS. Let us just consider the Throwback experiment as a nod to those of us who have become informed, and rejoice.
Score: 3 out of 5. I still don’t care for Pepsi, but it tastes better than its HFCS counterpart.
– WiseGuise
User Ratings: 
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
