How a Slab Serif Font Stirred a Storm

In a week that saw Coca-Cola unveil a polished “global visual identity system,” the strongest reaction wasn’t to a new logo or a can redesign — it was to a typeface. The slab serif font called Better With, meant as a complementary element to Coke’s famous Spencerian script, triggered a wave of online outrage because, paired with the brand’s signature red and white, it looked an awful lot like the lettering on a pack of Marlboro cigarettes.

“Am I the only one seeing Marlboro soda?” one commenter asked on X. “Any person over 40 realizes that this is the Marlboro font,” another chimed in. In reality, the fonts aren’t identical; Marlboro uses a proprietary design with structural differences, but the visual echo was strong enough to spark a firestorm. Coke did not respond to requests for comment.

The uproar sits inside a pattern of fan revolts over brand dress. Ikea visitors were furious when the retailer swapped its Futura typeface for Verdana in 2009; Tropicana’s carton redesign the same year prompted a quick retreat; Gap’s brief 2010 switch to Helvetica was so disliked it reverted after a week. More recently, Jaguar’s radical 2024 rebrand triggered a politician to call it “commercial suicide.” What feels distinct this time is the health-charged association — young consumers joking about “fridge cigs” — but experts argue something more fundamental is at play.

The Hidden Attachment We Feel to ‘Our’ Brands

Brands as ‘Wallpaper’ — and Why Changing It Stings

“Coke is wallpaper in people’s lives,” said brand strategy expert Allen Adamson, former Landor executive. “Change the wallpaper even a little, and people notice.” That observation gets to the heart of the backlash. For consumers who have grown up with a product — drinking it at barbecues, seeing it in movies, hearing its jingle — the visual identity becomes part of their own narrative. Any alteration can feel like a personal trespass.

Sabrina Babooram, partner at Toronto agency Academy, pointed to Coke’s generational anchoring: “The font became the focus because it’s a key identifier of a brand that’s been a part of our lives for generations.” There’s a psychological ownership at work, so even a newly introduced supporting typeface, never intended to replace the script, triggered a protective reflex.

The Unlikely Match with a Cigarette Pack

The Marlboro comparison added a layer of cultural friction. While the font isn’t the same, the combination of a sturdy slab serif, bright red backdrop and white lettering tapped into a deeply stored visual code. Jon Arriaza, creative director at Chase Design Group, noted that “with brands that own a very strong brand color, it’s upon us as creators to do diligence and look at other brands that own a similar color.” When the mind connects a beloved soda to a famously unhealthy product, the shock value intensifies — but the core problem isn’t health messaging. It’s that consumers feel they know what Coke is supposed to look like, and the new face violated that expectation.

Adamson also offered a telling detail: Better With had actually appeared in holiday marketing as early as 2023 without complaint. The difference this time was the official, system-wide rollout, which signalled permanence. That nuance underlines the lesson: context and framing of a change dictate whether people shrug or revolt.

What Brand Managers Can Take from the Backlash

  • Test colour and typeface associations early. As Arriaza advised, brands with a dominant colour must screen any new typography against other major labels that share that hue. A simple focus group could have spotted the Marlboro comparison before the launch.
  • Separate trial runs from big announcements. Better With’s quiet 2023 appearance drew zero criticism. When it was formally enshrined in the global identity, the threat level rose. Rolling out changes first in low-stakes settings can reveal what consumers really care about.
  • Acknowledge the emotional bond. Consumers don’t just buy a drink; they carry a lifetime of memories tied to the packaging. Brands that honour that history by explaining the reasoning behind a shift — and what stays unchanged — may temper the sense of possession that fuels outrage.
  • Prepare for pushback as the new normal. History shows that beloved brands inevitably face backlash when they alter their look. The key isn’t avoiding all criticism; it’s having a plan to respond and, if needed, pivot quickly, as Gap did after its Helvetica blunder.