I have not blogged in a very long time, and I regret that. Blogging gives me that ‘coffee-house intellectual’ feeling. I’ve decided to break my blogging dry spell, and I’m sure everyone is rejoicing.
In more relevant news, the other day I was enjoying a tasty package of Fig Newtons at lunch. I’ve never really considered any cookie healthy, but I have always placed Fig Newtons in a category of their own on the ‘cookie standard’. They aren’t healthy but they aren’t as unhealthy as deep fried Oreos (which are delicious I might add).
While I ate, I noticed that on the side of the wrapper there was a large green box with stark white lettering that read “Now made with 100% more real fruit”. That simple statement on the side of a cookie package may have confused me more than anything I have ever come across in my entire academic career. More real? More real than what? What is ‘less real fruit’ then?
I know we’ve moved on from semantics, but I couldn’t pass this little nugget of information up. At first I thought that I wasn’t reading it correctly and that perhaps someone else would understand it better. I passed the package to the 7 other people that sit with me at lunch, and no one could produce a substantial ‘translation’ for the statement. If anyone who reads this can decode the meaning of the statement please feel free to enlighten me and my lunch mates (including you Mr. Laz).
The thing that really struck me after I realized that the statement made no sense was how many people would buy Fig Newtons because of that label? I eat Fig Newtons because my dad eats them, and my dad eats them because he ate them as a kid. But did my dad’s mom see them in the store and say ‘oh 100% more real fruit, I’ll get this for my kids’ or did a friend tell her about how delish they were? Or perhaps she had them at a friend’s house and asked for the brand name.
My conclusion to all of this is that advertising does not need to reach everyone; in fact I believe it is only intended for the few people who are willing (or gullible enough) to buy a product based on labels. Companies trust in word of mouth, and the habitual use of something throughout generations to propel their product more than merely the advertising. It’s almost as if it is a chain reaction. So, if people were to not have ‘brand loyalty’ or discuss the products they used with others, would advertisers have to work harder? I feel that the answer to that is yes.
3 comments:
Hey, it's Erin. That's an interesting example. The only thing that I can think of that might be an explanation of "100% more real fruit" is that they doubled the amount of "real fruit". But knowing what we now know about advertising, I might be wrong.
Yes, I agree that could be a possible explanation. But why the need for real? Couldn't they have just said 100% more fruit? It's almost as if they are implying that there is a 'fake' fruit that other cookie makers use as opposed to their product. Also, the percentage is also unnecessary, because wouldn't saying now with more fruit be much simpler to appear on a cookie package?
I think it has something to do with signal reactions. People have a signal reaction when they see 100% and MORE and REAL. So even if the words don't make sense at all the fact that they are there is all that matters. It'd be interesting to observe if people would have the same reaction if the words had been completely random like "now fruit more 100% real".
Hey guys. It's Ashley
I had a similar experience today. I was looking for a tasty after-school snack when I discovered some apple sauce in our refrigerator. The packaging said it was "Homestyle." Well, I looked at the ingredients list and sure enough, the highest concentrated ingredient (behind apples) was high fructose corn syrup. And I thought "Mmmm, gotta love the delicious taste of sugary additives. Just like mom used to make!"
Post a Comment