Back to the directoryFind in the timeline
New Coke and the return of Coca-Cola Classic
Coca-Cola changed its formula in April 1985 after taste tests that the company says involved nearly 200,000 people, then restored the original in July. The company says its tests missed attachment to the brand. Other readings differ.
- Where it sits
- Consumer applicationUse of psychology, or claims about it, in commerce, policy or product design.
- Evidence level
- Company self-reportThe main evidence is the company’s own account. It has not been independently audited.
- Organizations
- Coca-Cola, PepsiAn organization is listed where the sources concern it. The text says exactly how.
- Sources inspected
- 4 of 44 with the relevant text, company document or archive item checked, 0 as an abstract or reference article, 0 not verified.
What happened
On 23 April 1985 the Coca-Cola Company announced a new formula, sold as New Coke. Complaints and protests followed. On 11 July 1985 the original returned as Coca-Cola Classic, ending what the company calls 79 days. The new product was later renamed Coke II and, the company says, is no longer available in the United States.
The psychological idea
The case is about the limits of preference testing. A short sip test asks which of two small samples a person likes. It does not ask what a brand means to them, or how they will feel when a familiar product is removed. A journalist notes that Pepsi had built an advertising campaign around taste tests, the Pepsi Challenge, which a pop-culture article dates to Texas in 1975.
In practice
The company says its share lead over its chief competitor had slipped for 15 straight years, and that taste tests of nearly 200,000 consumers led it to the new formula. It says the tests did not show the bond people felt with the original. Its hotline calls rose from about 400 a day to 1,500 a day by June 1985. A company retrospective quotes a former archivist saying leaders underestimated people's psychological attachment.
Why it mattered
New Coke is taught as a case where research answered a narrow question well and missed a wider one. It also shows how a brand can carry meaning beyond taste, though the sources do not agree on what drove the backlash.
Limits and qualifications
Almost all the evidence here is the company's own account of its own tests, which cannot be checked against internal data. Neither company page cites a psychological theory as a reason for the change. A journalist argues the backlash was a reaction to the change, not a verdict on taste, and reports a narrow 52 to 48 edge for New Coke in the South. That is an interpretation, as is any claim that sip tests favor sweeter drinks.
Evidence behind the claims
The Coca-Cola Company states that the new formula was announced on 23 April 1985 and the original returned as Coca-Cola Classic on 11 July 1985, after 79 days, and that the new taste was later renamed Coke II and is no longer available in the United States.
The company says its share lead over its chief competitor had slipped for 15 straight years and that taste tests of nearly 200,000 consumers led to the new formula.
The company says the tests did not show the bond consumers felt with their Coca-Cola, and that consumer calls rose from about 400 a day to 1,500 a day by June 1985.
A company retrospective quotes former chief archivist Phil Mooney saying senior leadership underestimated the deep psychological attachment people had to Coca-Cola.
Mother Jones reports a narrow 52 to 48 edge for New Coke over the old formula in the South, says Pepsi built an ad campaign around taste tests, and argues the backlash, not taste, drove the withdrawal.
A Mental Floss article says the Pepsi Challenge began in Texas in 1975 with unlabelled sips marked M and Q, and that Coca-Cola ran its own test with Coke in both glasses, which more people chose as M.
People involved
- Phil Mooney. Former Coca-Cola chief archivist, quoted in a company retrospective
In the Psy101 course
- OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 12.3: Attitudes and PersuasionChapter 12, Social Psychology. Context. The section discusses this topic.Covers attitudes and persuasion, including advertising examples, which bear on brand meaning.
This is course relevance only. It is not evidence for the historical or corporate claims on this page.See the full course map.
Sources and inspection
4 of 4 sources were opened and read at the level shown. A source marked as not verified supports no claim on this page by itself.
- [1]New Coke: The Most Memorable Marketing Blunder Ever?The Coca-Cola Company. The Coca-Cola Company, Undated. Company document. Company document.Company document readRead the company history page as returned by the fetch tool: dates, reasons, taste-test sample, hotline calls, Coke II. It does not name Pepsi (it says chief competitor) and mentions no psychological theory. The publication year is as reported by the researcher and was not seen on the page. Follow-up correction: publication date is unconfirmed, so the year field is null; a footer, plan or prior researcher’s assumption is not publication evidence.
- [2]Veteran Employees Remember Infamous 1985 Launch of New CokeThe Coca-Cola Company. The Coca-Cola Company, 2015. Company document. Company document.Company document readRead the employee recollection page as returned by the fetch tool. It carries the Mooney statement and gives no taste-test figures.
- [3]New Coke Didn't Fail. It Was MurderedMurphy, T. Mother Jones, 2019. News report. Secondary account.Relevant text checkedRead the article as returned by the fetch tool. It is a journalist's argument that cites Oliver and Gladwell, who were not read. It does not use the name Pepsi Challenge.
- [4]11 Classic Blind Taste Test CommercialsMental Floss staff. Mental Floss, 2019. News report. Secondary account.Relevant text checkedRead the Pepsi Challenge entry in a pop-culture article, used only for the 1975 Texas start and the M and Q tests.
Access note: The Pepsi Challenge date rests on a pop-culture source. The company pages were read as returned by the fetch tool, not as full page scans.
Independent source review: Claude review agent, independent of the research agent, 2026-10-21. Verdict: pass-with-edits.