A Coke by Any Other Name: What New Coke Can Teach about Having Trust, Losing Trust, and Gaining It Back Again

Abstract

For 99 years, Coca-Cola sold itself as an American icon made with a secret recipe that was locked away in an Atlanta vault. Then, in 1985, in an attempt to compete with Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola changed the taste of Coke. After an uproar, the old version of Coke was reissued as Coke Classic; New Coke faded away. Evidence shows that New Coke tasted better, so it should have been eagerly accepted by the public. But it was not. Why did changing a long-term brand to a better-tasting alternative fail? Examining this issue from both the psychological and legal dimensions, we come to understand many aspects of this failed experiment, which can be useful for other brands interested in making transitions. It is clear that if companies use psychological tools to connect consumers to a brand and trademark law tools to strengthen and protect that connection, they risk adverse reactions and criticism if they then change the brand. Tools that can guard a brand from competitors can also lock it into a cage with tightly defined expectations by the public. Because advertising through media and sports generates strong connections with these beverages, health concerns and possible future research on obesogenic behaviors are considered.

1. Introduction

There is significant research about brands and how to create customer loyalty. When creating an authentic brand, companies need to consider continuity, integrity, originality, and credibility [1]. These dimensions are all equally important and can suggest why Coca-Cola ran into difficulties when it introduced New Coke. Coca-Cola had been using the same original formula for 99 years. That continuity connected consumers with its brand and ensured those consumers knew what to expect every time they cracked open a bottle or can of Coke. It was made from a closely guarded secret formula. Throughout those 99 years, Coca-Cola acted with credibility and integrity. It gave consumers what they had come to expect in taste at a fair and reasonable price. Consumers remained loyal to the brand and expected the brand to remain loyal to them. They expected Coca-Cola to continue to provide the original and unique taste that they had come to anticipate.

In 1985 a new formula of Coke was introduced. Coca-Cola’s brand was being edged out of the market by Pepsi-Cola, which offered a sweeter cola taste. Pepsi-Cola advertised that it beat Coke in blind taste tests [2]. Coca-Cola adjusted its formula to meet this challenge. In blind taste tests, New Coke won over the old Coke version. It also beat Pepsi-Cola. Coca-Cola saw this as a way to take over an even larger share of the market. Yet, all that Coca-Cola received from this effort was significant criticism and controversy. Consumer outcry was so significant that after only 77 days, Coca-Cola had to reissue the original formula as Coca-Cola Classic [3]. This chapter reviews emotional and legal issues related to branding and the psychology of trust to help advance our understanding of what occurred within this failed experiment. Other brands or individuals can use this information to understand the psychology of trust as it relates to products—especially those that during their long history have taken on the status of an icon.

2. Methods

The literature was examined related to the psychology of trust and brands. First, historical data was reviewed to understand the timeline of the Coke/New Coke transition. Without understanding the history of the Coca-Cola brand, it is impossible to understand what occurred when they changed their formula. The authors then reviewed psychological and legal references to examine facets of this case. Psychological and legal arguments help us understand what Coca-Cola did not completely consider and why their new taste experiment failed. The literature also helps us understand how Coca-Cola was able to win back the public’s trust. Additionally, from the literature, the authors identify potential future health challenges related to branding and the complicated interaction between individuals and products.

3. History

In Ref. [4], the authors describe how the situation with New Coke occurred. “In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Coca-Cola’s market share was falling while Pepsi’s was on the rise. These trends were contemporaneous to PepsiCo’s ‘Pepsi Challenge’ national marketing campaign of public blind taste tests…. Even worse, the Coca-Cola Company conducted its own blind taste tests and found that, indeed, consumers preferred Pepsi by margins as high as 10–15 points.” [4, p. 1037] Even though the taste tests said that Pepsi was the winner, Coke was still holding strong. However, Coca-Cola worried about losing its market share.

The Coca-Cola Company spent over 2 years and 4 million dollars to develop an improved formula that beat Pepsi in blind taste tests [5]. “The new formula contained less phosphoric acid to give the drink less bite and a smoother taste. In addition, to replace the acidity lost by reducing the phosphoric acid, more citric acid was added; this provided more of a lemon aroma. The new formula also had more fructose and was therefore sweeter.” [4, p. 1038].

What did this new formula mean? It meant that in blind taste tests, this new taste of Coke outperformed that of Pepsi and the original Coke. As Levy and Young [4, p. 1038] describe, “The efforts appeared to have paid off: after an exhaustive battery of 190,000 blind taste tests, the new formula was beating Pepsi by a margin of 6–8 points. (It was also beating the original Coca-Cola in these taste tests.) New Coke was introduced with a huge fanfare in New York City on April 23, 1985. It was made clear to consumers that the drink had undergone a substantial quality change.” [4, p. 1038].

The public was not impressed.

The Coca-Cola Company even tried to entice consumers with a new ad campaign, using Bill Cosby, who at that time was seen as an attractive, humorous, appealing character. He tried to push the belief that “new is good.” [6] The only individuals who were persuaded that New Coke was good were those who initially had negative or neutral attitudes toward Coke. In taste tests, they liked New Coke. However, individuals who usually drank Coke and held positive feelings toward this product now felt betrayed and rejected New Coke [6].

What was Coca-Cola’s response? They brought back the old formula of Coke rather than risking the loss of even more of the market share. “Less than 3 months—and more than 40,000 letters and 400,000 phone calls from angry consumers—later, Coca-Cola Classic (the original “Secret Formula”) was brought back, while New Coke was gradually pulled off the market.” [4, p. 1032].

This chapter will consider factors in this failed attempt to change a product.

4. Emotional connection

It is clear that consumers had an emotional connection to Coke. Consumers react to products, such as Coke, in more ways than can be measured by a taste test. Individuals could remember when they had their first Coke. In Ref. [7], the authors worked with individuals to understand memories related to Coke and learned about the many connections that individuals had to Coke. Many had memories of sharing a Coke as a bonding experience with a parent or an older family member. Others spoke of receiving a Coke as a reward for good behavior or grades. “In these special parental bonding experiences, the underlying emotion is love and a feeling of belonging or acceptance.” [7, p. 331] A depth of feeling became connected with Coke.

All brands want to create memorable experiences. Coke did that by creating a wealth of connections between individuals. Even simple moments were imbued with such a rich emotional experience that they took on more than the causal sharing of a drink. It became a “sacred totem.” In Ref. [7], we understand the many mythic images that Coke took on for individuals. It was the transformer—a Coke shared as someone came of age, the hero—always there to give a special boost to parties, and the mother/caretaker—shared at a grandmother’s house, a safe and secure place. It is as if these early emotional experiences were “imprinted” and led to a preference for that beverage later in life. When we connect memories of Coke to the mythic structure, we recognize that Coke moved from being a simple beverage to being a placeholder for many emotions. And like the trauma of losing a treasured teddy bear or blankie, the change to New Coke rocked people emotionally. This is why the reaction against New Coke was so strong.

Even neurobiology demonstrates the emotional connection to Coca-Cola. A study [8] demonstrated that the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), which is involved in emotions, affected individuals’ connections to specific brands. They completed a blind taste test with three categories of subjects: (1) normal controls, (2) individuals who had brain damage in their VMPC, and (3) individuals who had experienced brain damage but which did not affect the VMPC area. In blind taste tests between Coke and Pepsi, all of the individuals preferred Pepsi. (This replicates some of the famous taste challenges that prompted Coke to try and redesign its formula.) However, in taste tests that included brand information, only the individuals with damage to the VMPC area kept their Pepsi preference. When brand information was provided, the other two groups switched their preference from Pepsi to Coke. It was believed that since the VMPC is important in emotional processing, and brands ensure brand loyalty through emotional connections, the individuals with VMPC damage lost that emotional connection to the brand and only the taste itself determined their preference. Another study found more activation in the right amygdala with a Coca-Cola cue versus Pepsi-Cola; again, this is part of the brain that is associated with emotional processing [9]. In their taste test, they used the exact same mixture of colas for every tasting but found a higher rating of pleasantness and a preference for the drink when the taster believed it to be Coca-Cola or Pepsi-Cola (strong brands) when compared with “weaker” or less-well-known brands. One’s emotional connection to a brand affects an individual’s perception of a product.

Individuals connected Coke with certain experiences and emotions. When the taste of Coke was not only changed but the change was advertised and presented as a good thing, those memories were affected. Customers are not just consumers but “complex and multi-dimensional human beings.” [10, p. 1] Products are not just a thing; they create emotional connections. Coca-Cola promised and delivered on many emotional experiences related to its product. It was precisely because of these connections that its customers felt so violated by the change to New Coke. Consider that when a branded product has been around a long time and is heavily advertised, it can pick up emotional freight [11]. With all of that emotional freight, is it any wonder that the change to New Coke derailed?

5. Coke as an icon and resistance to change

Coca-Cola wove itself into the American fabric. When Coke changed, individuals went to great lengths to hold on to their icon. Some stories included grandparents who stocked cases of Old Coke or news announcements on the radio in Georgia announcing what locations still had Old Coke and any restrictions on the amount people could buy [7]. One can hear in these memories the uproar that the change in Coke had on families. That was especially true in the South and even more so in Atlanta, Georgia, home of Coca-Cola headquarters. It prompted individuals to hoard old Coke or go in search of the remaining cases. There are many potential reasons for this almost fanatical devotion to Coke. It could be the fact that Coca-Cola was made in the South, it could be the memories associated with this drink that caused such angst, or it could be the fact that traits associated with a conservative ideology, measured by voting behavior and religiosity, are linked with a preference for established national brands. Individuals with conservative leanings have a lower tendency to buy newly launched products. These individuals prefer tradition and the status quo. They avoid uncertainty and are skeptical about new experiences [12]. Coca-Cola did not factor those tendencies into its decision to make the change from its tried-and-true formula to something new.

Reference [13] considers that there are two types of brands—sincere and exciting. Coca-Cola was and is within the sincere grouping—it is stable and reliable. The exciting brand category includes Mountain Dew, which tries to inspire the rebel spirit. Sincere brands often have stronger relationships with their customer base, which is part of the reason that New Coke stumbled. The consumers placed the original Coca-Cola on a pedestal. It was as American as the Constitution. However, because of this strong and trusting relationship, sincere brands can run into more difficulties than exciting brands if a transgression occurs. In Ref. [13], they found that transgressions (substantial changes) weakened the relationship with a sincere brand. However, the exciting brand not only wasn’t as affected by a change but was also at times reinvigorated. It seems that with the exciting brand, consumers are willing to be more flexible. They are willing to expect the unexpected [13]. Coca-Cola was able to recover from its transgression. Perhaps it was because they acknowledged their mistake and quickly brought back the requested original formula. They had believed from their taste test research that they knew what consumers wanted. When it was clear that they had misinterpreted the evidence, instead of trying to convince the consumer that the new Coke was better, they brought back the original, which had become an icon and was a sincere and stable brand

6. Trust and brand

“The brand name is the customer’s guarantee that he will get what he expects.” [11] That is where trademark law comes in. As Bone [14, p. 549] notes, one of the foremost goals of trademark law is “information transmission.” Trademarks are used “as devices for communicating information to the market” and trademark law works to “prevent others from using similar marks to deceive or confuse consumers.” In this conception, trademarks and trademark law serve to both guide and protect consumers [14, pp. 555–56]. Trademarks are guideposts, landmarks that a consumer can look to and rely on when making a purchase. Trademark law is a shield against attempts to deceive consumers into purchasing products based on a false belief that it is the brand they desire. Trademarks also aid consumers by providing incentives to businesses to produce high-quality products, which consumers will know to return to and purchase again because of the reliable association with that business’s trademark. The Supreme Court succinctly summarized this overarching goal when it noted that a trademark “helps consumers identify goods and services that they wish to purchase, as well as those they want to avoid.” [15, p. 1751] Trademark law helps prevent knockoffs that will affect the trust that they (the brands) have worked to establish with the consumer.

Sahin, Zehir, and Kitapçı [16, p. 1297] describe that “brand experience has positive effects on brand satisfaction, trust and loyalty.” Brand experience creates the consumer’s trust with the brand and leads to their loyalty. This idea, too, is accounted for in trademark law through the concept of “goodwill.” Scholars such as Robert Bone have identified tension between the traditional information transmission theory of trademark and the ways in which trademark law has expanded to protect trademarks that are not necessarily required for them to serve their signaling purpose to consumers [14]. In other words, companies defend their trademarks not just to protect against encroachment on their brand by a similar but lesser quality alternative but also to defend the trademark or name of the company itself. This is to ensure that other products cannot weaken the trademark or the emotional connection that consumers have with these brands.

These expansions are a company’s efforts to protect “the special value that attaches to a mark when the seller’s advertising and investments in quality generate consumer loyalty.” [14, p. 549] Companies, recognizing the value that exists in the trust and the goodwill they have built with consumers, zealously protect their trademarks against misappropriation in all circumstances. As Bone notes, “It does not matter whether consumers are confused or even whether the defendant’s use diverts business from the plaintiff.” [14, p. 550]. As the Supreme Court noted, trademark law often intervenes simply when a malfeasor attempts to “reap where it has not sown.” [17] As brands and their associated marks become more saturated with goodwill, and thus more and more valuable, these efforts can skyrocket. One need only look to Apple Computer’s challenges to marks ranging from the logo of the school district in Appleton, Wisconsin, to an exploding pineapple grenade logo to see the lengths valuable brands will go to protect their name and goodwill [18]. Even though these products would not be confused with Apple, it defends against these efforts because it wants to ensure that no one can encroach on its name. It is like a slippery slope. A company defends against any potential encroachment so that another brand cannot gain a foothold and rely on the goodwill that the original company has created with consumers.

While goodwill-based explanations about trademark law are often focused on companies’ efforts to protect marks (and associated goodwill) that they view as property, the relationship between trust and brands provides a more public- and consumer-focused rationale. We have seen how individuals’ experiences with Coke led to trust in the brand. Trademarks played an important part in this trust-building process. Coke spent decades building consumer trust in its iconic trademarks so that consumers knew what exactly to expect from a bottle (often glass and shaped with iconic contoured lines) that was emblazoned with a recognizable, flowing script spelling a ubiquitous name: Coca-Cola. Trademark law protects these vessels of trust and goodwill from those who would misappropriate them.

But even trademark law cannot protect a company from itself. When Coke was changed, that trust was violated. Reference [16] describes that satisfaction with a brand is part of what determines brand loyalty. When Coca-Cola changed from its classic formula to New Coke, customers were not satisfied. They had pledged their loyalty to Coke and had come to trust and expect a certain taste from Coke. When that was suddenly and unexpectedly changed, consumers felt that Coke had let them down. In many ways, the depth of the reaction was because Coke was felt to be such a part of the American culture [7]. Coca-Cola connected with the American dream through many avenues, including sports, and used these events as an “advertising arena” [19]. Later, they went on to try and conquer the world through the 1970s ad campaign that focused on teaching “the world to sing in perfect harmony.” [19] When a company works so hard to build a brand and seep it into a country’s culture, it should expect pushback when it then changes that brand.

This emotional attachment, this built-up trust, not just in a brand itself but also in a particular form of a brand, casts complexity into the basic framework of our understanding of trademarks. One could view the standard information transmission model as somewhat paternalistic—trust us, the brand says, because we always deliver quality and will continue to deliver quality (even if that quality comes in a somewhat different form). As long as the consumer knows, trusts, and can seek out a brand, those goals of trademark law are satisfied. The uproar around New Coke casts doubt on this simplistic view. Consumers trusted Coke not just because it was Coke but also because of the core memories and specific attachments they had formed around Coke as it was. As Desai [20, p. 985] notes, “Consumers often buy branded goods not for their quality but as badges of loyalty, ways to express identity, and items to alter and interpret for self-expression.” A brand, and the trademarks that often sit at the heart of that brand, do more than the mechanical task of directing customers to good companies and products and away from bad ones. Instead, brands and the specific products they embody often become organically entwined in the hearts and minds of consumers and our culture as a whole.

Later, long after the New Coke debacle, Coke seemed to recognize this fact and became attuned to the attachment consumers had to both the brand and the taste of Coke. A 2007 humorous ad campaign focused on the idea of “taste infringement” to highlight the similarity between Coke Zero and Coca-Cola [21]. Now, instead of wanting to change the flavor of Coke, the company wanted to link a new product to the iconic original.

7. Implicit contract

Reference [4] discusses how Coca-Cola had entered into an implied contract with the American public over the 99 years that it produced its drink using its secret formula. “An implicit contract is an unwritten, legally non-binding understanding that all parties have incentives to preserve.” [4, p. 1033] Coke had used its brand and trademark to lead to consumer expectation. It felt like an implied contract—you are buying Coke and will get the same product that we have provided for the last 99 years. When Coca-Cola completely changed its formula and taste, it broke its side of the deal. The consumers had the option of walking away from the product (and many did boycott Coca-Cola) or voicing their displeasure. Loyal customers did not feel like they had other good cola options; they did not want to exit. They wanted their original Coke back. And so they voiced their opinions!

Here are some examples from reference [22, pp. 335–336]:

My littele sisther is cring because coke changed and she sayed that shed is not going to stop cring every day until you chang back…. I am getting tryer of hearing her now if you do not chang I’ll sue evne if I’m just 11.

Changing Coke is like breaking the American dream, like not selling hot dogs at a ball game.

For years, I have been what every company strives for: a brand-loyal consumer. I have purchased at least two cartons of Coke a week for as long as I can remember…. My “reward” for this loyalty is having the rug pulled out from under me. New Coke is absolutely AWFUL…. Do not send me any coupons or any other inducement. You guys really blew it.

Millions of dollars worth of advertising cannot overcome years of conditioning. Or in my case, generations. The old Coke is in the blood. Until you bring the old Coke back, I’m going to drink RC.

Would it be right to rewrite the Constitution? The Bible? To me, changing the Coke formula is of such a serious nature.

As Levy and Young [4, p. 1047] describe, “The Coca-Cola Company assumed that its brand equity would transfer to New Coke; instead, the replacement of the original Coca-Cola was harmful to that equity.” The authors go on to say [4, p. 1047], “This was true because that brand equity was based, in large part, on an implicit promise of constant quality; and after nearly a century, that promise was reneged on.” The key word here is “constant quality.” For 99 years, Coke had offered an original and authentic product, gained loyalty, and then suddenly announced that the original product was gone and being replaced by New Coke, which was supposed to taste better. That is what the taste tests showed.

This can become complicated. Certainly, there are times that products can be upgraded and improved and the consumers are happy for the change instead of fighting against it. This case allows us to consider the other side of innovation. Taste is, after all, subjective and thus features an emotional component. Even if a certain taste is “better” objectively in tests, the lack of that emotional resonance can make it subjectively worse. If the culture aligns itself with the product, there will be the expectation by many that it should remain stable. Also, as we will see below, there was an element of the consumer immediately losing the old product, which triggered a psychological reaction. The taking away of something can feel like an assault especially when significant emotions are connected to that product.

8. Recovering from the error

In many ways, Coca-Cola was fortunate. As LaTour, LaTour, and Zinkhan [7, p. 329] describe, “The success of Coca-Cola following the New Coke debacle may be due in part to the brand’s personality as well as fitting a defined myth (American dream). The brand was able to recover so quickly because the market ‘knew’ the brand to be sincere and when the company apologized for their ‘marketing mistake’ consumers not only forgave them, but came back to them with reinvigorated passion.” In many ways, they wanted to return to the myth. They had used their American gumption and brought an American company back to heel. Once they got their original Coca-Cola back, they were willing to look past that transgression. It has been pointed out that although Coca-Cola lost the millions of dollars that it invested in research, through the whole debacle, it may have gained three times as much in free advertising [3].

Coke had tried to do its homework before introducing New Coke. One thing that they forgot is that the lab is not life. In blind taste tests, New Coke outperformed Pepsi and Old Coke [2]. Reference [23] reminds us that in the past, Coke had changed its formula without fanfare or pushback. In the 1960s, Coke slowly and subtly reduced its caffeine content to 1/3 its previous level. At additional times, minor changes were made either because they were legally mandated or to maintain quality. In 1942 a small amount of saccharine was added and the amount of caffeine and coca leaves decreased because of WWII and rationing [4]. However, none of those changes were major or were announced to the public.

Could Coke have gradually changed the taste such that the consumer did not notice and eventually have gotten from Old Coke to New Coke? In [23], the authors discuss this prospect and suggest that it could have been accomplished. Part of the issue for Coca-Cola was that they changed Coke’s taste drastically, announced the change so that individuals had an emotional reaction, and took away Old Coke. Undoubtedly, Coke officials were worried that if they started tampering with the Coke formula and that came to light, it could also destroy the trust in Coke completely.

It wasn’t just taste that was the issue. The Coke experience held emotion and myth. Coca-Cola did not consider “how groupthink could poison individuals into thinking that the new product was actually inferior, and that taking away the old formula was a mistake.” [5, p. 3] Even though the taste tests suggested that New Coke was superior, once negative emotion got stirred up and related to New Coke, it was seen as inferior. Newspapers and radio stations bemoaned the fact that old Coke had been replaced.

It does seem that one of the main reasons for the consumer discontent was that old Coke was replaced by New Coke. If New Coke had been introduced alongside and not instead of old Coke, consumers might not have had such a strong reaction [5]. This was demonstrated with later introductions of flavors and with the addition of Diet Coke and then Coke Zero. Diet Coke was not eliminated when Coke Zero was introduced. Psychologists and Ringold [24] define a reactance effect—that when something is taken away, it leads to a potential negative response for a few reasons. One, individuals do not like to be restricted. Replacing something that you are using with something else is essentially taking away the individual’s choice. In addition, once something is gone, there is a yearning for what cannot be had. This increases the negative response. These emotional responses can lead to aggression against the perpetrator in an attempt to restore the previous freedom. We have discussed that consumers did turn their aggression against the Coca-Cola Company when the New Coke phenomenon occurred.

9. Possible future research: Branding concerns as related to negative health effects

This chapter shows the power of brands and the dangers to companies when they break from the brand that they created. Brands can become emotionally intertwined with our lives, our self-perception, and our daily behaviors. Brands can connect with public consciousness and our individual sense of self. Companies welcome that attachment to their brand. It ensures loyalty.

As individuals, clinicians, and consumers, we must recognize the other side of the coin. In the end, the public influenced Coke’s behavior. Yet there are many more times that soft drink and snack food companies influence consumers’ behaviors. We see the potential risks of branding and loyalty as societies battle the negative health risks of obesity.

In particular, there are concerns about how branding (where and how it is presented) might impact individuals, especially children and teens. In Ref. [25], the authors considered recent PR campaigns of Coca-Cola, which were designed to target teenagers and their mothers. These campaigns are a significant concern from the public health arena because of rising obesity rates. Authors in Ref. [26] found that a child’s ability to recognize food brands predicted health outcomes such as a preference for foods that are obesogenic and lead to children being at an increased risk to be overweight. In particular, children who watch more TV advertisements develop a more positive association to certain food and drink brands. This attachment was not seen for children who did not watch the commercials—either watched broadcasts with no advertisements or skipped through the commercials [27]. Clearly, there is a concern. As children and adolescents are exposed to unhealthy products and develop a connection to these brands, they start to desire them and demand them. This can start unhealthy food-and-drink patterns from an early age.

When non-nutritious foods are targeted to adolescents, they develop a desire for these substances, and that can fuel soda consumption and weight gain and affect health. Studies have looked at the prevalence of food-and-drink marketing on livestreaming platforms and have raised concerns about the potentially negative effect on overall health. Energy drinks dominate the brands mentioned, but soda and snacks are also prevalent. There was also a huge growth in the use of these platforms during the Covid-19 pandemic, thereby targeting more consumers, many who are young adults [28]. YouTube video bloggers (influencers) who are popular with children often present unhealthy foods in a positive way by describing them more positively as compared to healthy foods, inserting specific brands into their videos, and being engaged in marketing campaigns [29]. Other influencers, music celebrities who are popular with adolescents, often endorse energy-dense, nutrient-poor products, with specifically full-calorie soft drinks being highly endorsed [30]. A study in Australia looked at Facebook and found that energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods, including high-calorie soft drinks, were frequently marketed and integrated seamlessly with online social networks [31]. The authors found that adolescents and young adults engaged with these products almost daily and willingly shared the messages, which continued to spread this relationship to non-nutritious foods and drinks [31]. We see that Coke and other sodas are integrating into these new cultural experiences, connecting with children and teens, and fostering a brand loyalty that can lead to increased soda consumption.

We discussed previously that Coke helped connect itself to the American dream through its selling of the drink in different venues, such as athletic arenas. We see ongoing concerning challenges in this area as well. In Ref. [32], the authors looked at sponsorships of US sports organizations and found that food and beverage were the second largest category of sponsors and the majority of the products in sponsorship commercials were unhealthy. Other studies also demonstrate that sponsorship of sports by brands that sell unhealthy products is common. They advise that this creates an association for fans that links potentially unhealthy products, such as fast food and high-calorie soft drinks, with specific sports, making these products even more appealing [33]. All of these authors express concerns that these brands are being pushed to millions of viewers and urge that marketing pledges should be expanded to limit these potentially negative effects.

Reference [34] looks at the placement of soft drinks in movies and especially the effect of actor endorsement, showing an actor consuming the product. This is a concern because as reference [34] describes, if healthy and physically fit individuals on screen are demonstrated as having a preference for a soft drink and have no negative consequences for repeatedly drinking the soft drink, the message conveyed is that this a normal and healthy behavior. Public health officials worry about these messages especially in light of the obesity challenges that many Americans face. Often these product placements are in children’s movies. They are often prominently and positively displayed and are shown as being consumed more often than healthy alternatives. These images are present for all age-rated movies, with no effect of the year (1991–2015) or country of production [35]. As Ref. [36, p. 468] describes, “Movies are a potent source of advertising to children, which has been largely overlooked”

Will this be one of the future challenges of trust in messaging and trust in brands? When loyalty to certain brands occurs because of their connection to movie stars, social media, sports, and other leisure activities, we can see the huge impact that brands and branding can have on the consumer. At times, our trust in brands can lead us astray to nonhealthy behaviors. As we examine the history of Coca-Cola, we see the effect that the public can have on a large corporation. The public brought back the old Coke. Perhaps, public outcry is currently needed to highlight and defeat this current health risk—the subtle marketing of brands that bond children and teens to obesogenic drinks and foods. We know that once someone is firmly connected to a brand, it can, for better or worse, be a significant influence in their life. The way sodas are portrayed in movies, on social media, and through sporting events can clearly foster an unquestioning loyalty that can lead to increased health risks.

10. Limitations

Even though both the psychological and legal literature were used to examine this topic, it is not an exhaustive treatise on the topic of brands as they relate to the psychology of trust. The authors used this one case example to look at many factors that can come into play in the relationship between consumers and brands, especially when brands are changed. The authors also started the conversation of looking at the effect that branding can have on negative health outcomes, such as obesity. This is an area that would benefit from further exploration.

11. Conclusion

Walking down a store aisle, surrounded by product after branded product, it is easy to believe that each brand is simply an attempt by a company to attract your attention and, ultimately, your money. What we know is that brands matter—not just to companies but also to us. A brand like Coca-Cola can work its way into the framework of our lives, into some of our fondest memories. We grow to trust the brand and view it as a friend more than a product or company. That trust has significant implications if a brand tries to change or reshape the terms of that trusting relationship. As New Coke shows, when that trust is broken, it can verge on disaster. With many of the brands that have a constant presence in our life, the attachment is emotional, not logical. That reality has a significant impact on how brands interact with the law, our culture, and ultimately the psychology of how, why, and who we trust.