History of evolution of corporate colors of well-known brands
Where everything begins: color as a coincidence, not a strategy
Most legendary corporate colors emerged not as a result of audience research, but due to mundane technical or commercial reasons. Coca-Cola chose red not because psychologists counted energy and appetite in it — in the late XIX century, the American government marked alcoholic products with red tax stamps, and Coca-Cola, being a non-alcoholic drink, painted its barrels red to signal tax inspectors about the absence of tax obligations. IBM became 'Big Blue' partly because the blue casing of the first computers hid wear traces and looked good in the office interiors of that time.
McDonald's has stuck with the red-yellow pair from 1960-s not by accident: marketing expert Louis Chesenin justified the choice by the fact that these colors physically attract the gaze from afar and provoke appetite — the establishment must be noticeable from the road within seconds. That is, at the start the color solves a practical task, and the meaning and associations are built around it later, over years of use.
How brand colors actually changed
If you look at the history of several well-known companies, you can see that color rarely remains static — it either drifts smoothly or experiences sharp jumps after changes in leadership or printing technologies.
| Brand | What happened to the color | The reason for the change |
|---|---|---|
| Pepsi | From dark blue with a red ribbon at the beginning of the XX century to a dynamic blue-white-red circle at 1970-m, then to a flatter blue in the 2000-s | Competition with Coca-Cola, the desire to visually distinguish from the 'red' competitor |
| Starbucks | Initially a brown palette with a siren, later a transition to saturated green, which over time became lighter and softer | Growth of the network, the necessity of uniformity on signs in different countries |
| BP | From the green-yellow shield to the flower "sunflower" in green-yellow tones in 2000 year | Rebranding to an ecological agenda after the merger with Amoco |
| From the blue Polaroid camera to a gradient of purple-pink-orange in 2016 year | Moving away from literal iconography to an abstract, recognizable color spot |
A notable failure in the same logic — the redesign of Tropicana juice packaging in 2009 year, when the brand abandoned the familiar orange with orange and switched to a minimalist white packaging with a juice glass. Sales dropped so sharply that the company reverted to the old design within two months. The lesson is simple: the color and image that the association has already fixed in the buyer's mind at the checkout counter in a second of choice — this is an asset that costs money, and it cannot be changed for aesthetic considerations of the designer.
What is common in these stories
If we compare all the cases, the pattern is one: the color changes not because it "got old," but because the business context changes — a merger, entering a new market, changing production technology for signs, competition for the same color field. Revolutionary jumps (Instagram, BP) occur when a brand wants to abruptly break with the old positioning. A gradual drift (Pepsi, Starbucks) — when a company simply adjusts the shade to new media: screens, apps, outdoor advertising.
Another pattern: the longer a brand exists, the less it can afford a sharp color change without losses. A young company can change its palette unnoticed, while a giant with a half-century history transforms the change into a news story and a risk.
How to use this story when working with your own brand
It is useful to analyze other cases not out of curiosity, but to avoid repeating their mistakes. Here is what you should rely on when planning a change or retention of corporate color:
- Check whether the current color is tied to outdated technology (for example, chosen due to limitations of old printing) — if so, the update is justified;
- Evaluate how much the color is already 'occupied' in the audience's memory — an association test is more important than personal preferences of the team;
- Looking at competitors is not for copying, but to avoid blending into the same color field — that is how Pepsi has historically maintained blue precisely because red was occupied by Coca-Cola.
- Distinguish between changing shade (evolution, subtly) and changing color concept (revolution, requires communication support and a budget for explaining to the audience).
Common mistakes when changing a brand color
The first and most common mistake is changing the color for aesthetic renewal, without studying what this color already means to the audience. This is exactly how the Tropicana redesign failed: designers made the packaging 'cleaner' and 'more modern,' but removed the visual anchor by which buyers found the product on the shelf in a fraction of a second.
The second mistake is a sudden color change without a transition period for a large brand with a multi-year history. The audience perceives such decisions as a loss of identity, even if the new color is objectively more modern and convenient for digital media.
The third is blindly copying the color of the market leader. This works in reverse: instead of standing out, the brand dissolves in perception as a 'clone' of a larger player, and the entire story about the uniqueness of the color becomes devalued.
The main conclusion
Corporate color is not a decision made once and for all at the logo creation stage, but a living asset that the brand either strengthens over years of consistent use, or loses due to random or poorly thought-out changes. The history of McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and BP shows: color becomes 'cult' not because it was initially perfect, but because the company managed to hold on to it long enough and consistently enough for it to become a recognition code. Before changing the brand color, you should ask not 'do we like it now', but 'what will the audience lose if we remove it'.
Where everything begins: color as a coincidence, not a strategy
Most legendary corporate colors emerged not as a result of audience research, but due to mundane technical or commercial reasons. Coca-Cola chose red not because psychologists counted energy and appetite in it — in the late XIX century, the American government marked alcoholic products with red tax stamps, and Coca-Cola, being a non-alcoholic drink, painted its barrels red to signal tax inspectors about the absence of tax obligations. IBM became 'Big Blue' partly because the blue casing of the first computers hid wear traces and looked good in the office interiors of that time.
McDonald's has stuck with the red-yellow pair from 1960-s not by accident: marketing expert Louis Chesenin justified the choice by the fact that these colors physically attract the gaze from afar and provoke appetite — the establishment must be noticeable from the road within seconds. That is, at the start the color solves a practical task, and the meaning and associations are built around it later, over years of use.
How brand colors actually changed
If you look at the history of several well-known companies, you can see that color rarely remains static — it either drifts smoothly or experiences sharp jumps after changes in leadership or printing technologies.
| Brand | What happened to the color | The reason for the change |
|---|---|---|
| Pepsi | From dark blue with a red ribbon at the beginning of the XX century to a dynamic blue-white-red circle at 1970-m, then to a flatter blue in the 2000-s | Competition with Coca-Cola, the desire to visually distinguish from the 'red' competitor |
| Starbucks | Initially a brown palette with a siren, later a transition to saturated green, which over time became lighter and softer | Growth of the network, the necessity of uniformity on signs in different countries |
| BP | From the green-yellow shield to the flower "sunflower" in green-yellow tones in 2000 year | Rebranding to an ecological agenda after the merger with Amoco |
| From the blue Polaroid camera to a gradient of purple-pink-orange in 2016 year | Moving away from literal iconography to an abstract, recognizable color spot |
A notable failure in the same logic — the redesign of Tropicana juice packaging in 2009 year, when the brand abandoned the familiar orange with orange and switched to a minimalist white packaging with a juice glass. Sales dropped so sharply that the company reverted to the old design within two months. The lesson is simple: the color and image that the association has already fixed in the buyer's mind at the checkout counter in a second of choice — this is an asset that costs money, and it cannot be changed for aesthetic considerations of the designer.
What is common in these stories
If we compare all the cases, the pattern is one: the color changes not because it "got old," but because the business context changes — a merger, entering a new market, changing production technology for signs, competition for the same color field. Revolutionary jumps (Instagram, BP) occur when a brand wants to abruptly break with the old positioning. A gradual drift (Pepsi, Starbucks) — when a company simply adjusts the shade to new media: screens, apps, outdoor advertising.
Another pattern: the longer a brand exists, the less it can afford a sharp color change without losses. A young company can change its palette unnoticed, while a giant with a half-century history transforms the change into a news story and a risk.
How to use this story when working with your own brand
It is useful to analyze other cases not out of curiosity, but to avoid repeating their mistakes. Here is what you should rely on when planning a change or retention of corporate color:
- Check whether the current color is tied to outdated technology (for example, chosen due to limitations of old printing) — if so, the update is justified;
- Evaluate how much the color is already 'occupied' in the audience's memory — an association test is more important than personal preferences of the team;
- Looking at competitors is not for copying, but to avoid blending into the same color field — that is how Pepsi has historically maintained blue precisely because red was occupied by Coca-Cola.
- Distinguish between changing shade (evolution, subtly) and changing color concept (revolution, requires communication support and a budget for explaining to the audience).
Common mistakes when changing a brand color
The first and most common mistake is changing the color for aesthetic renewal, without studying what this color already means to the audience. This is exactly how the Tropicana redesign failed: designers made the packaging 'cleaner' and 'more modern,' but removed the visual anchor by which buyers found the product on the shelf in a fraction of a second.
The second mistake is a sudden color change without a transition period for a large brand with a multi-year history. The audience perceives such decisions as a loss of identity, even if the new color is objectively more modern and convenient for digital media.
The third is blindly copying the color of the market leader. This works in reverse: instead of standing out, the brand dissolves in perception as a 'clone' of a larger player, and the entire story about the uniqueness of the color becomes devalued.
The main conclusion
Corporate color is not a decision made once and for all at the logo creation stage, but a living asset that the brand either strengthens over years of consistent use, or loses due to random or poorly thought-out changes. The history of McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and BP shows: color becomes 'cult' not because it was initially perfect, but because the company managed to hold on to it long enough and consistently enough for it to become a recognition code. Before changing the brand color, you should ask not 'do we like it now', but 'what will the audience lose if we remove it'.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
