Brand banter or brand blunder? The fine line in cola wars

When JWT Delhi launched Pepsi’s ‘Youngistaan’ campaign in 2010, Titus Upputuru was a creative director at Ogilvy. He recalls how his agency immediately came up with another campaign for Sprite within four days. This was a spoof about ‘Youngistaan’, which was created by JWT’s then executive creative director, Soumitra Karnik. Upputuru likes to believe that such brand rivalry has always been healthy.

When a brand reacts with a fun take on the competitor’s idea, the competitor knows it’s also aiding recall of the latter’s campaign, so it’s all in good humour. “Incidentally, Karnik and I are good friends today,” Upputuru, the founder of The Titus Upputuru Company, laughs.

Few things grab consumer attention quite like a well-placed jab at a rival. Competitive advertising—where brands subtly (or not-so-subtly) poke fun at each other—has been a fixture in marketing playbooks for decades. From iconic cola wars to fast-food feuds, brands have turned rivalry into entertainment, using wit, confidence, and a touch of audacity to stand out.

Upputuru, the founder, The Titus Upputuru Company.

But while playful shade-throwing can spark engagement, boost brand affinity, and generate free media coverage, it’s not a one-size-fits-all strategy. There’s a fine line between clever competition and coming across as mean-spirited or desperate. Done right, competitive advertising is an art—blending humor, intelligence, and confidence to boost brand awareness while keeping things lighthearted.

The real trick? Making sure the joke isn’t just on the competition, but also in favour of your brand. Because at the end of the day, the best marketing doesn’t just throw shade—it shines a spotlight where it matters.

The art of the quick comeback

The cola wars are back, as Pepsi has fired the first shot in a witty response to Coca-Cola's 'Half Time' campaign for the ICC Champions Trophy 2025. After the beverage company urged people to embrace life’s pauses through its ‘Half Time’ advert, Pepsi flipped the script—because why stop at halftime when it's 'Anytime is Pepsi Time'?

Commenting on the campaign, a PepsiCo India spokesperson said, "At PepsiCo India, consumer-centricity drives everything we do. With the launch of the ‘Anytime is Pepsi Time’ campaign, we are defining refreshment for the upcoming summer season—turning every moment, big or small, into an opportunity to enjoy an ice-cold Pepsi."

Competitive advertising can be a powerful engagement tool, but it also risks making a brand look reactive rather than original. Upputuru believes that the 'Anytime is Pepsi Time' response to Coca-Cola’s 'Half Time' campaign, is a smart strategic move and a timely one too.

“For these kinds of exercises, timing is so essential. Coca-Cola must have taken months to plan the ‘Half Time’ campaign, as large brands usually do. While Pepsi could only respond when the competitor’s campaign broke. But they did it, and that’s what paid off,” he opined.

Thought Blurb Communications’ founder and chief creative officer Vinod Kunj.

According to Thought Blurb Communications’ founder and chief creative officer Vinod Kunj, competitive advertising is nothing new; Pepsi and Coca-Cola have always been at each other's throat for years. “It’s always done in good humour. And when it is as blatant as the way Pepsi does it, it builds on the brand. Pepsi has always seen themselves as a bit of a rebel, so this kind of advertising plays into that image,” he noted.

When rivalry works—and when it doesn’t

In the soft drinks category, consumer perception drives differentiation more than the product itself. This makes a competitor’s presence a strategic asset rather than a hurdle. Reactive advertising, often dismissed as unoriginal, is actually a creative skill—much like improv, where quick thinking adds depth. Pepsi’s latest move leverages Coke not as a crutch but as a creative catalyst. The real challenge isn’t reacting; it’s ensuring the response delivers something fresh and meaningful.

However, Shivangi Shekhar, chief strategy and creative officer of Chord offers a cautionary perspective. She believes that understanding an insight-led brand narrative is far more valuable than simply jumping on trends out of fear of missing out.

“Coca-Cola’s ad taps into a universal human truth—people naturally seek a break when engaged in physically or mentally draining activities. In contrast, Pepsi’s execution leans on humour with two characters engaging in light-hearted banter, which, while entertaining, may not feel as purposeful. The risk here is that such reactive advertising can appear opportunistic rather than strategic, potentially diluting brand authenticity," Shekhar notes.

Shivangi Shekhar, chief strategy and creative officer of Chord.

Brand rivalries can be entertaining, but do they truly influence consumer choice? From a behavioural standpoint, do these competitive campaigns have a long-term impact on brand loyalty, or are they more effective as short-term buzz creators?

Kunj notes that the purpose of competitive advertising is to generate comment and make waves. While both brands are in the public eye, it's a win for both.

“But yes, both need to know how long the news cycle will sustain the attention. Then everybody goes back to their corners and the story becomes legend,” he conceded.

According to Navonil Chatterjee, founder of Brand Chatter, a brand’s long-term success isn’t built solely on outshining a competitor with clever jabs. “‘My joke is better than yours’ can hardly be the prime driver of long-term consumer behaviour and brand purchase. But the interesting part is, however hard human beings try to justify their acts as rational decisions, a huge majority of everything we do is actually irrational,” he pointed out.

Short-term buzz versus long-term loyalty

While competitive advertising is inherently short-term, it shapes a brand’s persona—edgy, sharp, and engaging—helping to build affinity. Burger King, for instance, thrives on poking fun at McDonald’s, with campaigns like “Why eat with a clown when you can dine with a king?” alongside its Flame Grilled proposition. Interestingly, these rivalries may not just boost individual brands but also fuel overall category growth.

Talented’s co-founder and CEO, Gautam Reghunath, observes that loyalty in this category is fragile. “If Coke is out of stock on their quick commerce app, usually Pepsi will do just fine. Both brands don’t need to create awareness or shift behaviours, as everyone already knows them. So, banter and reactive advertising are cheat codes to staying culturally visible. They may not convert lifelong loyalists, but they keep the brand in the conversation."

Gautam Reghunath, co-founder and CEO, Talented.

In the cola wars, rivalry plays a key role in shaping the category itself. When Pepsi takes on Coke or vice versa, they’re not just pushing their own products—they’re reinforcing the duopoly, making consumer choice simpler.

This strategy strengthens brand loyalty, as consumers align with a competitive stance. However, lesser-known brands risk over-reliance on this tactic, potentially becoming defined by competition rather than building their own unique identity.

The legal and ethical tightrope

While competitive advertising can generate headlines, there’s always a risk of crossing regulatory or ethical boundaries. Chatterjee warns, "Companies spend a fortune on big-ticket global events and sponsorships. It is but natural that they would not want the competitor to have the last laugh at their expense. Any brand taking on the competition should therefore go through the rulebook thoroughly, or otherwise, the joke can be on them, with lawsuits flying in thick and fast."

Navonil Chatterjee, founder, Brand Chatter.

Reghunath loves how Gut's co-founder and creative chairman, Anselmo Ramos, often says that “a great team includes a writer, an art director and a lawyer.” So, his practical suggestion is to befriend lawyers!

“Debate fiercely about what’s right and what’s over the line. Creative advertising should push boundaries, but not at the cost of being tone-deaf or reckless. The difference between controversy and consequence is often just knowing when to stand your ground and when to step back,” he advises.

As long as rivalry stays witty and blithe, it works. The goal is visibility, and no brand wants to lose that. But outright public feuds rarely benefit anyone.

Kunj cites the example of Liril and Cinthol’s lime soap ads—they were so similar that swapping logos barely altered the message. This is ambush marketing and just makes both brands and their messaging forgettable. “That is stepping over the line with no advantage to either brand. So, it's not in the interest of any brand to cross industry guidelines. It's common sense and frankly, is not a factor of policing by the industry,” he notes.

As brand rivalries evolve, the key lies in ensuring competitive advertising remains playful, engaging, and ultimately beneficial to both the challenger and the market leader. Because in the end, marketing should be about more than just who gets the last laugh—it should be about who stays memorable for all the right reasons.