Dessert Brand Tournament Challenge

In honor of the approaching NCAA Men's basketball tournament, I put together my own tournament challenge. Instead of colleges and universities, brands from different CPG categories will go head-to-head in a bracket style, 8-team tournament challenge. For this particular "region", dessert brands will face-off to determine which is the most preferred.

For the most up-to-date results, please click here

Fanta Soda - The Evil Origins

Fanta soda, typically known for their fun, upbeat commercials with dancing women asking "wanna Fanta?" has a darker past. The soda brand was developed in Nazi Germany during World War II.  That may come as a surprise to you or perhaps you already knew that tidbit of information.

It's one thing for a company to have Nazi ties, but have a forward looking approach. The companies that still exist with associations to that era have gone through radical transformations in the last 75 years and today, many are viewed as respectable. Here's a list of 10 other companies with Nazi ties. With that being said, it's probably not a good idea to revisit those Nazi origins - you might make some folks angry...even if it's unintentional.

But Fanta (and their ad agency) did exactly that. They referenced the "good old days" in a commercial that aired in Germany recently as John Oliver from HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver points out in the YouTube video below. Coca-Cola pulled the commercial immediately after customer backlash.

Pet Food Labeling Loopholes and Misconceptions

Sasha the Husky: Click HERE for more Pics

Have you ever thought about what is actually in your pet's food? Most people buy pet food that their
vet recommends, the brand from a commercial they saw, or maybe whatever is on sale. But the multi-billion dollar pet food industry may surprise you with what they put in your pet's food and how it can be deceiving to the consumer.

There are many varieties of pet food. "Beef for dogs", "Cat Food with Tuna Flavor", "Turkey and Potato Formula" but what do they mean? 

The 95 Percent Rule

If the product contains the named ingredient and is not modified, it must contain at least 95 percent of that ingredient (not including the water weight). So "Beef for Dogs" or "Tuna for Cats" would qualify. However, if it's a wet food, that percentage drops down to minimum of 70 percent of the listed ingredient.     

Pet Food Brands on store shelves

The 25 Percent Rule

If the product uses some sort of modifying word like "Formula, "Dinner", "Entree", "Treat", "Nugget", etc, then the product must contain at least 25 percent of that ingredient for dry food. However, that percentage drops down to 10 percent if it's a wet food. 

The 3 Percent Rule

If the product contains the word "with", the percent drops down to just 3 percent. For example "Cat Food with Salmon".   

The Flavor Rule  

If the product says "Dog Food with Lamb Flavor", there is no minimum percentage of lamb that needs to be included. In fact, the product doesn't even need to include any of the "flavored" ingredient. The problem with products like these is that they are placed next to items with higher percentages of actual ingredients and may deceive consumers.   

Combination Rule

If the product is a combination of ingredients, for instance "Salmon and Lobster for cats", then the combination must equal the minimum percent required. Also, the first ingredient listed must make up the majority of the two. So in essence, there could be 85 percent salmon and 10 percent of lobster. Also, this combination rule only applies to meats/proteins, so if the product name was "Turkey and Potatoes for Dogs", then there must be at least 95 percent turkey. 

Dry pet food

Other Loopholes 

Claims that a pet food is for a specific breed or age have no regulations. So if a product is made for "Seniors" or "Labradors", the manufacturer could very well be using the same formula as the "regular" product and may be charging a higher price.   

The Bottom Line 

The primary governing body for pet food in the US is AAFCO in addition to the FDA. All manufacturers must list the ingredients in descending order of weight. Marketers may use some of these loopholes to position various types of pet food in a potentially deceptive way, but just know the facts. If you're concerned about what's in your pet's food, check the ingredients or talk to your veterinarian.

Quaker Instant Oatmeal Labeling Misconception

What if you bought Fig Newtons and they were filled with raisins instead? Or perhaps Cherry Garcia ice cream and instead of maraschino cherries, Ben and Jerry used sweetened apples? Well, that's exactly what Quaker Instant Oatmeal's 'Fruit and Cream' line does.   

  

Quaker Instant Oatmeal Fruit & Cream

Most of us are familiar with those beige, paper baggies that you mix with hot water, introduced in the 1950's. The Fruit and Cream line includes flavors such as 'Strawberries and Cream', 'Peaches and Cream' and 'Blueberries and Cream'. So naturally you'd expect little, dehydrated pieces of those fruits in the instant oatmeal. 

Reality suggests otherwise. Strawberries and Cream; no strawberries, instead they use dehydrated apples and strawberry flavor. Blueberries and Cream; again no blueberries, instead Quaker uses dried figs. Peaches and Cream; dehydrated apples. Here's a list of ingredients per Quaker's website if you want to double check.  

So don't be fooled by the puffy, white haired man on the box. These line extensions are merely a flavored illusion. Ironically, Quaker's website (who was bought by PepsiCo in 2001) says "His image is that of a man dressed in the Quaker garb, chosen because the Quaker faith projected the values of honesty, integrity, purity and strength." 

  

Goldschläger Myths

So what are those gold flakes that float around in bottles of Goldschlager? Could they actually be gold? Do they cut your throat so that the alcohol can enter your bloodstream faster? Does it make your poop twinkle?                                                                  

The Cinnamon flavored liqueur has done a solid job differentiating itself from other schnapps and they have the history to back it up. With Swiss origins, a German name, a reasonable price, and freakin' gold floating in the bottle, the brand has positioned itself to be a somewhat popular cinnamon schnapps for younger and older drinkers. However, Fireball has become increasingly more popular among younger demos. Often compared to Big Red chewing gum, Goldschlager is often consumed straight out of the bottle, but can also be mixed. Those gold flakes make it such a novelty, so here are some misconceptions about Goldschlager.    

Do the gold flakes cut your throat or stomach so that the alcohol can enter you bloodstream faster? 

No, your throat and stomach are not receiving microscopic cuts to get you drunk quicker. Gold is actually a very malleable metal, so in its naturally soft state, that would be extremely difficult. Plus the gold is stamped so thin, it couldn't harm your throat. You're worse off eating Cap'n Crunch than drinking Goldschlager when it comes to injuring your mouth and throat. And c'mon, do you think the FDA would let a beverage that cuts your throat be sold in the US?   

 In the 2006 film, Beerfest, Todd Wolfhouse takes a long pole of Goldschlager 

Are the gold flakes actually gold? 

Surprisingly, yes. Based on Internet research, it's a very tiny amount, approximately 13mg of 24K gold which equates to about 50 cents in US currency in today's market. The name Goldschlager literally means "gold beater", so we're talking toilet paper thin pieces of actual gold. 

Will Goldschlager make my poops twinkle? 

This is the most burning question, literally and figuratively. I can neither confirm or deny this myth. I imagine if you have consumed enough Goldschlager to get a twinkle, then be proud you're sitting on a gold mine.

As the saying goes, all that glitters is not gold, however for Goldschlager it's actually true...but just barely.

     

How Old Spice Got its Swagger Back

Old Spice more than quadrupled their sales of a failing brand by literally not changing the product at all. How did they do it?  

Up until 2008, Old Spice's Glacial Falls deodorant was the worst performing deodorant not only in the Old Spice portfolio, but in the entire category. Glacial Falls had little identity and positioned itself on the basis of scent, protection, and performance - not exactly unique. Their target consumer varied in age and had mixed associations from not knowing what a Glacial Falls was to feeling that the brand felt "old". Old Spice considered everything from discontinuing the product, changing the fragrance, repositioning it, and rebranding it.

But in 2008 things changed. Wieden + Kennedy, an ad agency from Portland, Oregon was hired to help the Proctor and Gamble brand change the image of Glacial Falls. Meanwhile, Axe, a new player in the category had begun to differentiate itself not on the way it smelled or how well it protected, but how "women can't resist" guys who use Axe and really focused in on young men. Using a similar positioning strategy, Wieden + Kennedy helped reshape the product by emphasizing the emotional benefits that the user would get. Confidence, energy, but most importantly Swag.     

Old Spice ended up re-Branding/Positioning/Targeting Glacial Falls to Old Spice Swagger and heavily targeted middle schoolers to college dudes. This was the deodorant to give you the Swag you need to get through the day and be confident. Robust online campaigns were used to promote the new product in addition to some funny TV ads, including NFL player Brian Urlacher below.        

As a result, the campaign was hugely successful. Old Spice literally kept the same exact formula and fragrance as before, and by rebranding it, they more than quadrupled their sales. So if there are any hardcore Glacial Falls fans out there, buy some Swagger, it's the same exact thing. Conversely, for those loyal Swagger fans, you're using the boring, old Glacial Falls stick.  

Confessions of an Oreo Cookie

Oreos are a delicious and dangerous cookie. Dangerous in the sense that they test people's self-control on a regular basis. Throwing down half of a package in one sitting is the norm for many people including myself. Hello, my name is Mike and I'm a cookieholic. But this blog post isn't about the health aspects or people's aptitude for consuming large quantities in one-sitting, but rather is what they say on the package what you get?

'Double Stuf' Oreos aren't actually doubled stuffed. The black and white confectionary was called out in August of 2013 by Dan Anderson, a high school math teacher and his class. In their analysis, regular, Double Stuf, and Mega Stuf (implied as three times the filling) were weighed with the filling and without. The result: Double Stuf Oreos had 1.86 times more filling than regular, not 2 as the package would indicate. That's a 7 percent reduction in the advertised amount of stuffing, so even with a +/- error of 5 percent, that's a fail. The teacher's findings created quite the buzz around various media sources who picked up the story.

The Mega Stuf Oreos faired even worse. Instead of 3 times the filling, the cookies only had 2.68 the amount of stuffing compared to regular Oreos. That's over a 10 percent shortfall.

I'm willing to give the Mega Stuf Oreos the benefit of the doubt because nowhere on the package or website does it explicitly say 3x the filling. It's just kind of implied by some consumers. However, Double Stuf has no excuse.

This analysis by Anderson and his class was conducted about 18 months ago. A lot can change in 18 months. Perhaps Nabisco corrected the issue since then? Or maybe Anderson's sample was too small or flawed?

In order to draw my own conclusions, I bought three packages of Oreos  (purely for academic purposes ;)  ) - Original, Double Stuf, and Reduced Fat. I bought Reduced Fat because I let the Mega Stuf shortfall slide (3x filling wasn't explicit). However, I also wanted to test a new hypothesis about the Reduced Fat cookies. That hypothesis being that Reduced Fat often times means reduced quantity, not an actual change in the recipe/formula. Was Nabisco reducing the amount of filling in those cookies? To the experienced pallet or even eyeball, it sure seems like it.

So being a graduate student at a large university, I hopped over to one of the science buildings to access a digital scale to conduct my own analysis to answer those questions.

                                 

                                             Oreos being weighed

Oreo wafers and creme separated   

Weight of different lines Oreos 

My findings: Double Stufs were just slightly under-stuffed at a 1.95x multiple (2.5% below) vs his 1.86x (7% below). This is because the weight of the originals I weighed were on average .12 grams less than Anderson's (11.45g vs 11.57g). If my Originals weighed the same as his, the creme multiple would have been 1.88x, which would have been more in-line with his findings. Our measurements for the Double Stufs were on par with each other. Anderson also did a followup with larger sample sizes where he produced similar results. However, in both of his measurements, the original Oreo's weighed more than mine. Has Nabisco since reduced the volume of stuffing in their original cookies? This seems plausible, but not conclusive.

Reduced Fat Oreos were a different story. On average, they had 12% less filling than the originals. So it appears that Nabisco reduces the amount of filling (the fattier substance) in their "Reduced Fat" Oreos and do not necessarily change the recipe. This is an excellent example of how many CPG companies and brands use the Reduced Calories or Fat selling point on their package, but often times just reduce the volume.