We’ve known for some time that naturally occurring compounds called flavonols found in cocoa have potentially good health benefits.
Ongoing scientific research suggests consumption of chocolate rich in flavonols may act as antioxidants to help defend the body from free radical damage. Researchers at Harvard and elsewhere have been studying the effects of cocoa flavonols on healthy blood flow and circulation.
Even the American Heart Association in its Scientific Sessions of November 2004 demonstrated in its study that Cocoa Via™ Snack Bars (based on Mars technology) consumed by adults twice per day saw a significant reduction in total—and especially LDL cholesterol.
And let’s not forget chocolate consumption provides a serotonin uptick in the brain; there’s nothing like releasing endorphins to make people feel happy!
So what’s the point from a marketing perspective?
Mars, the behemoth manufacturer of some of the world’s most beloved chocolate brands: Snickers®, Milky Way® and M&M’S®, has been proactive by supporting ongoing research for years to uncover the health benefits of chocolate. Fifteen years of research led to a patented, proprietary process dubbed Cocoapro® which retains the compounds in the cocoa bean.
Wise idea, right? Why not capitalize on consumer interest in healthier snack options? But this is no mere marketing ploy without substance.
Earlier this year, Mars and Swiss B2B chocolate supplier Barry Callebaut released a statement announcing they will work jointly to create a standardized measure to “increase the availability and uniformity of cocoa flavonol-rich chocolate products worldwide.”
This was announced in a Just Food article among other sources, including press releases from both companies.
“This agreement with Barry Callebaut will now guarantee reliable flavonol levels in more chocolate products around the globe,” stated Mary Wagner, general manager at Mars Botanical, a scientific unit of Mars.
In a nutshell: Careful handling of cocoa and measuring throughout the manufacturing process are necessary to ensure the important compounds in chocolate are delivered to consumers consistently, on a global basis. Otherwise much of flavonol benefits are lost in the manufacturing process.
I think this is a terrific strategy. As more science emerges, Mars will be positioned to capitalize: its brands will no doubt be marketed as containing “standardized flavonols” or “the ultimate flavonols.” Even better: Mars will no doubt be embraced as the chocolate company that took the initiative to make cocoa products healthier the world over. From a marketing perspective, it’s a brilliant strategy.
Questions:
• Would you be more likely to purchase Mars chocolate or another brand of chocolate if it marketed a “standardized flavonol” pledge to you? Do you think messaging about this will be understood by consumers if handled properly by marketers?
• Do you prefer to eat your favorite chocolate and just enjoy it without health-related information?
• Do you think confectionery and snacks, in general, will have to be “healthier” than they were in the past? Or is this a category where marketing decadence will always be acceptable to consumers?
I’d love to hear from you.
Tags: Advertising, Marketing
Ted, I’m surprised I’m the first one to comment on such a yummy topic.
To answer your first question…it’s possible that if the health benefits can be explained in lay language that resonates with health-conscious individuals, Mars can create a new niche. However, I do believe that taste will always win out. Chocoholics are particular about their chocolate.
No matter how beneficial chocolate can be for our health, it is still filled with calories, so partaking is a treat for many of us. For those who deem it to be an occasional indulgence, why not go for the best in quality and flavor? Like Belgian or Swiss.
Third question… yes, I believe we need healthier snacks, especially for children and adolescents. The obesity epidemic cannot be tackled if kids don’t have healthier options that actually taste good.
Hi Elaine,
Thanks for adding your insightful comments on my post. Agreed: chocoholics are more concerned about taste and we (I count myself in this number) play favorites. Still: isn’t it nice to know there might actually be some benefit to an otherwise decadent treat? Healthier snack options are one thing, but as you point out, if they don’t taste that great, kids and adults alike won’t eat them. So what good does that do? Lastly, most things eaten in moderation won’t kill us, but that has to be taken in context of an overall balanced diet, right?
Hey Ted:
I caught this story too. My take is a little like Elaine’s first paragraph – the ability of marketers to be able to explain (or not) the “lay language” of all these Frankenfood ingredients. It’s expensive to create awareness not only of your own product but also of a new ingredient category.
Here is my shameless promotion of my blog post on the topic (I also covered tagatose, acia and DHA omega 3 – an ingredient grand slam!!!!):
http://lairigmarketing.typepad.com/lairig_marketing/2010/02/if-you-can-pronounce-it-you-can-eat-it.html
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for weighing in on my post. Had to laugh when I read your comment about explaining (or not) Frankenfoods. You know I don’t think it has to be that complicated telling people that just “one or two ounces of chocolate per day are beneficial because of naturally-occurring compounds”. More than that on a daily basis: expect to put on weight! Thanks for sharing your link with us, Kevin. Love your shamelessness, guy. The more people read about this, the more informed they’ll be.
Q. Would you be more likely to purchase Mars chocolate or another brand of chocolate if it marketed a “standardized flavonol” pledge to you? Do you think messaging about this will be understood by consumers if handled properly by marketers?
A. Understood maybe. Considered important? Not likely.
Q. Do you prefer to eat your favorite chocolate and just enjoy it without health-related information?
A. Yes. Chocolate and salty snacks (e.g., potato chips, Doritos, etc.) are not purchased primarily for health reasons, unless you count mental health. I prefer to eat them in moderation without having to think twice about their nutritional value.
Q. Do you think confectionery and snacks, in general, will have to be “healthier” than they were in the past? Or is this a category where marketing decadence will always be acceptable to consumers?
A. There have been gadflies trying to reform the snack food and confections market for years. I’m not convinced that we’ll be able to legislate reform when it comes to comfort food. When I was Director of Marketing at Frito-Lay (many moons ago), the issue was advertising on children’s programming. Eventually that ended, but consumption per capita didn’t decline.
Net: We do have a problem with childhood obesity, but the solution to that is going to have to come from better parenting and from grassroots community efforts, not from some regulatory agency or other Big Brother organization.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for framing such thoughtful answers to the questions I posed on my post. We pretty much agree. I do think some folks are likely to enjoy their chocolate even more, if they believe it’s healthier than they thought it was. Still, for most of us, “healthier” isn’t our primary motivator in purchasing and enjoying chocolate. Let’s face it: we Americans love our snack foods both savory and sweet. Being armed with more information should help us to make more informed choices. At the end of the day, we choose chocolate and other snacks for emotional (translate: “mental health”) vs rational reasons. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your comments, Michael. Thanks again for weighing in.
The health authorities are advising that we should consume dark chocolate, 70% cacao content or higher. They also say that milk binds the beneficial molecules in cacao, rendering them useless. So don’t eat your dark chocolate with milk and don’t eat milk chocolate.
I also like raw cacao nibs.
• Would you be more likely to purchase Mars chocolate or another brand of chocolate if it marketed a “standardized flavonol” pledge to you? Do you think messaging about this will be understood by consumers if handled properly by marketers?
Personally I would prefer less tinkering with the chocolate and I would assume that the standardized flavonol would accomplished in a lab. On the other hand, the research on chocolate has made me more likely to choose it above other sweets.
• Do you prefer to eat your favorite chocolate and just enjoy it without health-related information?
No, I prefer my health information along with my chocolate. I find they complement each other well.
• Do you think confectionery and snacks, in general, will have to be “healthier” than they were in the past? Or is this a category where marketing decadence will always be acceptable to consumers?
I think you can have chocolate and eat it too. Combine some decadence with a bit of Aristotelian restraint and you have a winner. That said, I think there are plenty of people out there who just want some candy and could care less about the health benefits.
A great marketing strategy, I agree! Who wouldn’t want guilt-free indulgence? However, I feel that marketing chocolate as a “health food” could be potentially misleading if not properly explained. I’m doing a project on the media representation of the health benefits of chocolate and from my readings have found that chocolate is only beneficial to one’s health under certain constraints. For example, only 7.5g a day (or 6g in some studies) of a bar that’s at least 70% cocoa, without milk etc. That’s basically less than 1 and a half Hershey’s Kisses, barely indulgent at all. If people buy into this idea of chocolate as health food, they need to know it’s limits. And I’m not sure how successful marketing chocolate as a health food would be then.
Just my take! (:
Hi Cheryl,
Right you are! First the notion of chocolate as a healthy food gets people’s attention, doesn’t it? Then: once marketers have their attention, it’s the perfect time to follow up with the amount of chocolate that helps ensure health without packing on the pounds. The science is still emerging on this, too. Most researchers used to say dark chocolate was best, but not too long ago, I was reading that milk chocolate is being reconsidered, as well. Until the science is clear, conflicting ideas and reports make it even more difficult for consumers to discern their best option, doesn’t it? Thanks for weighing in, Cheryl. Best of luck with your project.