
Belgian biscuits, packaging, and copywriting - kervokian
https://creativesamba.substack.com/p/belgian-biscuits-packaging-and-why-20-01-13
======
fvdessen
People don't buy Belgian biscuits for health, but because they want to
indulge. People expect and want them to have fat in it. When you write 'now
with less fat' people read 'probably tastes worse than before'. It's not the
packaging that is wrong, it's the product concept.

~~~
Dylan16807
> It's not the packaging that is wrong, it's the product concept.

Only if the article is blatantly lying about it tasting the same.

~~~
buckminster
The article seems confused.

> And research showed that most people couldn't notice any difference in
> taste.

> The new biscuit tasted just like the old one,

The second statement does not follow from the first.

------
hu3
> "There's your problem. It doesn't matter what something tastes like in blind
> tastings, if you put "low in fat" or any other health indicators on the
> packaging you'll make the contents taste worse".

Well we've trained our mental models to believe that healthier food has a
greater chance to taste worse. And rightly so because it usually does.

~~~
vharuck
>And rightly so because it usually does.

True. And this is being a rational consumer. The cookies may taste the same,
but I don't want to risk my money and pantry space to find out.

~~~
viklove
It's true. Most people are very averse to throwing away food, so they'll force
themselves to eat the cookies they don't like before they go back to the store
to buy the non-lowfat ones again (if they're even being produced anymore),
meaning you've just associated multiple bad memories with your brand. Not a
great move.

------
war1025
For those like me to whom it wasn't immediately obvious, this is talking about
marketing "copywriting" (i.e. the text you put out for marketing) and not
"copyright" which sounds the same but is a completely different thing.

------
umilegenio
I feel that these attacks on the rationality (and intelligence) of the average
person are misguided. Rationality means evaluating the information provided to
you. If you do not give importance to any qualitative information (e.g.,
taste), it makes sense to evaluate them on the quantitative information alone
(i.e., lower fat) which is not relevant for many people.

I would go as far as to say that even in cases such as the gluten-free fad,
people are somewhat justified. Producers started saying that their products
were gluten-free to serve the customers that needed that information (i.e.,
celiacs). However, the average person did not know about celiac disease, so
they reasonably thought that the information was for them. The logical
conclusion was that gluten was bad. Now, that is wrong, but to be fair how are
you supposed to know that? You are not a dietitian.

It's not a matter of rationality, but that is difficult to evaluate
information if you do not understand the context in which is produced.

------
blakesterz
Kind of reminds of of when Kraft did the opposite, they change their Mac &
Cheese and didn't tell anyone:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/business/media/kraft-
reve...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/business/media/kraft-reveals-
revamped-mac-and-cheese-50-million-boxes-later.html)

~~~
samatman
This is, far and away, one of the best bits of submarine marketing I've ever
read.

Every sentence is carefully crafted to hypnotize the reader into believing
that a) they have already had the new Kraft dinner b) it tastes identical c)
people who think it tastes different are wrong d) everything is okay, it's all
going to be ok.

Know what? It worked. Stuff tastes the same as it did when I was a kid.

------
heipei
Somewhat related, this reminded me of the story how companies are going
green/sustainable with their products without telling customers about it:
[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/08/producers-
ke...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/08/producers-keep-
sustainable-practices-secret) Quote:

 _Why would firms spearheading sustainable practices not publicise their good
work? It’s a question that puzzles Professor Steve Evans, director of research
in industrial sustainability at Cambridge University’s Institute for
Manufacturing, who suggests that such examples are widespread. He believes
this stems from a common perception that there must be some kind of downside
to the introduction of sustainable practices: either a reduction in product
quality, or an increase in the price of manufacturing, or both._

------
OedipusRex
This feels like an advertisement for the book more than an article about
Packaging and Copywriting.

------
TwoBit
I won't buy foods that say "lower sodium", "lower fat", etc. on the packaging.
It's not because I'm illogical like the article suggests, but rather that 80%
of the time such foods do in fact taste worse.

~~~
D13Fd
It's not just that they taste worse. Sometimes manufacturers reduce fat but
try to compensate by amping up sugar or artificial sweeteners.

~~~
kaffeemitsahne
How would you compensate less fat with more sugar? They taste totally
different.

~~~
jzwinck
Here's a study:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4742721/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4742721/)

> We found that the amount of sugar is higher in the low fat (that is, reduced
> calorie, light, low fat) and non-fat than ‘regular' versions of tested items

------
xvx
Similar to how some companies avoid putting the word ‘vegan’ on clearly vegan
products. Even these new meat alternatives. There was a story a few years back
about how half of the Girl Scout cookies are vegan but the soccer mom sellers
didn’t want the logo on the product in case it reduced sales. Initially some
said vegan on the box and those were crossed out to hide it!

~~~
function_seven
The Euphemism Treadmill dictates that "vegan" is now "plant-based diet."

Among those that herbivores would like to convert, "vegan" is saddled with
negative perceptions.

~~~
blendergeek
There is actually a difference between 'vegan' and 'plant-based diet'. A car
can be 'vegan'. A car is not part of a 'plant-based' diet.

~~~
function_seven
Understood, but that difference doesn't apply when we're talking about food
specifically. I'm saying that the "vegan" label is marketing liability if
you're trying to sell to the general public (and not just to the existing
vegan community).

If we're talking about shoes, or cars, then the euphemism will be something
like "cruelty-free". No car company is going to associate their cloth
interiors with veganism. Well, maybe Subaru would :)

~~~
paulcole
Don't forget about the subset of vegans who avoid palm oil/almonds and other
particularly environmentally taxing plant-based products.

------
murican22
It may totally not be the case, but this story sounds like something a
marketing guru would make up to post on LinkedIn.

~~~
_underfl0w_
Checks out. The correct amount of snark not-so-subtly implying that consumers
are stupid/irrational as well.

------
rendall
Another related urban legend in the marketing world, the flip side of this
anecdote: A low-calorie, healthy soda called "Tab", sold in the USA in the
70s, once sold a version that actually tasted good (Tab Orange). Sales
stalled. It turned out that the people who wanted to drink Tab didn't want it
to taste good. They wanted to feel healthy and virtuous. If it tasted good,
they would not feel like they were sacrificing for health. They later
repackaged Tab Orange as Fanta Zero, and it did well.

~~~
teruakohatu
Here in New Zealand they just launched Coke Zero Orange. Looks like Coke,
tastes like Fanta. I am pretty sure it is just Fanta Zero minus orange dye
plus whatever they dye Coke with.

------
JoeAltmaier
Most of what we 'feel' comes from preconceived notions. The famous example of
taking a drink from your glass without looking, gagging on it because it
tastes all wrong, only to find out you had orange juice and not milk as you
remembered. Once you know its orange juice then it tastes ok again.

Everything is filtered through pre-conceived notions. Everything.

------
NaOH
I guess this is "a classic marketing mistake," as the author says, but I see
this more as a mission-based problem. It sounds from what little is written
that increasing sales was the manufacturer's priority, not a product that
would be better for consumers.

I run a small, wholesale bread bakery. I made a similar kind of ingredient
change about two years ago, replacing a small amount of refined sugar with an
even smaller amount of malted barley flour. Either way, the products got hints
of both color and sweetness. I made the change because I know there are people
who are put off by refined sugar as an ingredient. I only made it a point to
tell the one customer that packages my breads in a way that requires
nutritional labeling. I have told other customers when the change was
pertinent to some conversation we were already having, but I never did this as
a selling point.

------
strbean
> They assumed consumers make rational decisions.

Maybe they believe that low-fat sugar and simple carbs is worse for you than
sugar and carbs combined with fat, due to the lower glycemic index?

(Obviously not, but the biscuit maker is guilty of jumping in on the sugar-
industry nonsense dietary advice that fat is the only bad thing, and should be
replaced with sugar).

------
laggg
One thing is certain: If any product says "New Taste!" it is unquestionably a
regression and tastes horrible.

My personal score is about 20/20 here.

------
caymanjim
> One of Belgium's leading biscuits manufacturers made a classic marketing
> mistake.

> They assumed consumers make rational decisions.

When I see "low fat" on a traditionally high-fat food, I make the rational
decision to avoid the product, because it's not going to taste good and it's
going to be less healthy.

------
slyall
In New Zealand a "Belgian biscuit" is a specific type of biscuit. Would
recommend.

[https://www.greggs.co.nz/Our-Recipes/Baking/Belgian-
Biscuits](https://www.greggs.co.nz/Our-Recipes/Baking/Belgian-Biscuits)

------
systemvoltage
Side note: Substack's font kerning is wrong and if this website is designed to
be a blog - they _really_ need to look at the font settings.

Edit: it appears to be an issue with the font itself. I just turned off the
custom font the website is so much more tolerable.

------
tmaly
the book he recommends at the end of the article looks interesting. My only
issue with it is the lack of a TOC.

