I heard about this two weeks ago from a checkout attendant at Woolworths. She warned me that the Mars bar I was buying was about to get smaller — for the same price. Rather than explain it as a reaction to tough times (obviously she didn’t buy the anti-obesity spin), she thought it was yet another example of corporate greed. So Mars has already succeeded in alienating its own sales representatives. Nice one!

[Reply]

You’re too nice to be an antagonist Paul.

And yes, this is pathetic spin. Cascade were forced to return to it’s original size after a customer strike decimated their sales.

I feel some sympathy towards Cascade, they had a bottle size that was a legacy of decades which didn’t correlate to their current positioning as a semi-premium product. Now they’re stuck with it. But to reduce size without compensating customers is poor brand management.

I’ve noticed many food items have reduced in size in recent years, no doubt a result of higher input costs.

[Reply]

One wonders whether the minds behind this ‘repositioning’ actually deem it a success… internally. Or whether they are currently wandering through the hall of mirrors (ie – having a good hard look at themselves).

[Reply]

Well, well, we have suddenly learned that the bars had artificial colouring – because they mention they are “reducing” them… would not be better to remove them completely..?!?
And BTW -the size recuction with maintaining the same price is happening everywhere. 20 years ago spirit bottles used to be 750ml, same size as wine bottles, and then in unison globally they changed to 700ml. Wine bottles will eventually follow suit. Beer bottles went from 375ml to all sorts like 335ml, same with Strongbow which is now in thinner looking bottles of smaller size. So nothing new – the only thing that would stop the companies doing it, because there is cost associated with change in packaging, would be the customer revolt – not likely to happen in most cases. But if government introduces the mandatory per unit price display in supermarkets then everyone would see the price rising… My guess is many products will change packaging just before that change goes through!

[Reply]

You know what? Mars was already one of the better chocolate bars for total fat content. They should know that, and should have stepped up their marketing on that element rather than reducing their size.

They might as well have said that it will reduce the carbon emissions as they’ll be able to transport more bars without increasing transport.

[Reply]

[...] Here is the original post: The corporate spin FAIL of the year so far – Anthill Magazine [...]

[...] Original post: The corporate spin FAIL of the year so far – Anthill Magazine [...]

Paul,

This reminded me of two other entertaining examples of out of control corporate spin (there’s a pun in there somewhere, but never mind) –

The first is Coles Supermarkets’ reasonably benign use of a silly corporate euphemism at their checkouts when the word “closed” would do: “Let us serve you at another checkout”. This reminds me of the age-old parent’s trick…
Child: “Can I have one of those new healther Mars Bars, please, Mum?”
Mother: “You can have one on the weekend”

The second example took place in the UK recently and is a PR person’s worst nightmare. Neal’s Yard, a vendor of herbal an homeopathic supplies, agreed to answer readers’ questions on the Guradian’s Ethical Living Blog. The resulting comment stream is a tirade of hard-hitting questions about homeopathy and ethics… and in the end Neal’s Yard declined to even turn up – making them look all the dodgier.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/may/26/you-ask-neals-yard-remedies

[Reply]

Spin is in obviously but Mars bars are now out at my place!

[Reply]

Stu Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm

Come on Greg – give me a break – so do you not eat Vegemite , Peanut Butter , bread , laundry detergent , or toilet paper

[Reply]