Having (at least nominally) studied marketing in both my business degrees, it just seems like a bad idea. But from looking at the original 1940s box, it looks like that was its selling point: you didn't *need* to add any more sugar.
Now, I'm of an age that's old enough to remember when it changed, and yet still curious enough to check Wikipedia for a confirmation. (Despite what my parents say -- "You can't trust what Wikipedia! Anybody can anything in there!" -- I seriously doubt there's a breakfast cereal misinformation conspiracy is going on.) So I looked it up.
Sure enough, there was an age when cereal companies *deliberately* marketed kids! Can you believe that? Incredible. Nowadays, though, we have parents out there who know *exactly* what "Golden Crisp" is about (having been marketed *to* all those years ago), yet still buy the stuff anyway. Shame on them.
I mean, shame on me. Though I was fully aware that Golden Crisp has so much sugar that I can actually smell it in my urine, I still bought it and fed it to my children.
*sigh*
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
"No sugar needed!"
I was looking at the back of our Golden Crisp box a while ago and I finally got a longstanding question answered:
"Why did Golden Crisp ever market itself as 'Sugar Crisp?'"
Having (at least nominally) studied marketing in both my business degrees, it just seems like a bad idea. But from looking at the original 1940s box, it looks like that was its selling point: you didn't *need* to add any more sugar.
Now, I'm of an age that's old enough to remember when it changed, and yet still curious enough to check Wikipedia for a confirmation. (Despite what my parents say -- "You can't trust what Wikipedia! Anybody can anything in there!" -- I seriously doubt there's a breakfast cereal misinformation conspiracy is going on.) So I looked it up.
Sure enough, there was an age when cereal companies *deliberately* marketed kids! Can you believe that? Incredible. Nowadays, though, we have parents out there who know *exactly* what "Golden Crisp" is about (having been marketed *to* all those years ago), yet still buy the stuff anyway. Shame on them.
I mean, shame on me. Though I was fully aware that Golden Crisp has so much sugar that I can actually smell it in my urine, I still bought it and fed it to my children.
*sigh*
Having (at least nominally) studied marketing in both my business degrees, it just seems like a bad idea. But from looking at the original 1940s box, it looks like that was its selling point: you didn't *need* to add any more sugar.
Now, I'm of an age that's old enough to remember when it changed, and yet still curious enough to check Wikipedia for a confirmation. (Despite what my parents say -- "You can't trust what Wikipedia! Anybody can anything in there!" -- I seriously doubt there's a breakfast cereal misinformation conspiracy is going on.) So I looked it up.
Sure enough, there was an age when cereal companies *deliberately* marketed kids! Can you believe that? Incredible. Nowadays, though, we have parents out there who know *exactly* what "Golden Crisp" is about (having been marketed *to* all those years ago), yet still buy the stuff anyway. Shame on them.
I mean, shame on me. Though I was fully aware that Golden Crisp has so much sugar that I can actually smell it in my urine, I still bought it and fed it to my children.
*sigh*
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Heh. "Sweet Pee."
Post a Comment