Comments on: Functional Candy?

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:33:33 +0000

Good one, Dawn. If there was ever a product that ran counter to having vitamins added to the formula, Diet Coke has to be at the top of the list. It just doesn’t make any sense. What was the rationale for that one, I wonder. . .Let’s see. Kids are drinking colas rather than milk with their lunches; they’re not getting enough nutrients, so let’s add vitamins. Brilliant!
Thanks for sharing, Dawn. Great comment.

By: Dawn

Dawn — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:17:11 +0000

Ted, I forgot to mention what I think is the funniest and most riduculous functional junk food products: vitamin-enriched Diet Coke. God Bless America!!!!

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:55:27 +0000

Dawn,
We all know the results of ingesting a high sugar diet. Obesity and diabetes are running rampant in this country. You’re right: sugar is still sugar. . .and too much of a good thin is, well, too much.
I do believe, as you do, that this functional candy development is a fad. Nothing like taking advantage of success in other categories. Bottled water companies and juice companies have seen success by adding vitamins, minerals and other “health benefits” (some of them quite dubious) to their products, so why not candy? That seems to be the prevailing attitude. My guess? Most of this will be pretty short-lived, but we’ll have to wait and see.
Thanks for adding some very important comments to this post, Dawn. I appreciate it.

By: Dawn

Dawn — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:42:30 +0000

Sugar and its cohorts (my favorite being “organic dehyrated cane juice”, I’m not kidding) have taken such a beating with the advent of Atkins and the whole low-carb way of thinking that candy marketers had to once again come up with a new way of repositioning their products.
When they’ll get me is when they can make Reese’s Peanut Butter cups in a variety that will help me grow 4 inches…lol..(FYI the sugar-free variety of Reece’s is pretty damned good.)
As with just about all food marketing, they’re taking the hot, “buzz” benefits and incorporating them into their products. Usually the amount of vitamins, minerals or whatever that will turn my favorite junk food product into the saving grace that will allow me to have white teeth, fresh breath, shiny hair, clear skin is less than miniscule enough to even be considered an actual ingredient.
Remember when green tea was supposed to make weight miraculously fall off? Why is it that we’re fatter than ever?
Sugar is a known enemy of most vitamins and minerals (I suggest everyone pick up a copy of Earl Mindell’s Vitamin Bible”). So to put these miraculous ingredients and mix them in with a ton of sugar is defeating the purpose. Yes, they will make money in the beginning, but if I’ve worn out my jaw chewing gum and my teeth ain’t no whiter, trust me I’m going back to the old stuff. Better yet, I’ll have an apple or an orange if I have a sugar craving…
Over-hype and under deliver is no way to stay in business.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:32:19 +0000

Hi Patricia,
Laughed out loud when I read your post. Real stand-outs: George Carlin (RIP) riffing on functional candy. Rationalization: it’s better for you than regular candy. And the best of all: “But I think it’s a load of something else that’s functional.” You stated what other DF readers didn’t, and I thank you.

By: patricia

patricia — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:24:46 +0000

I’m only sorry that George Carlin left us before he could come up with a riff on “functional candy.”
Agree with Lewis too. Anyone who gravitates toward candy that promises “function” just doesn’t get it. I believe this just exploits Americans’ inability to show restraint & self-discipline in their eating habits and portion sizes. Any decent nutritionist/dietician will tell you that you’re better off — and doing yourself no harm — enjoying a small square of real (dark) chocolate every day. I admit I’ve rationalized some overindulgences that claimed health benefits or were reduced fat, lo-cal, etc (remember Snackwell’s?). But it’s short-sighted and not a real trade-off.
I also wonder — how much gum do you need to chew in order to realize the whitening benefits? I’m guessing A LOT. Which ain’t good for you, sugar-free or not.
Will functional candy purveyors make money off this stuff? Sure. But I think it’s a load of something else that’s functional.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:38:34 +0000

There is more than a kernel of truth–and wisdom–in your comments, Lewis. Spoken like a veteran marketer!
From a marketing perspective, candy is all about pleasure and enjoyment, isn’t it? Forget functional benefits. Thanks for setting them straight on this issue, Lewis. Dead on. I appreciate your insights, as ever.

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:35:26 +0000

Ted,
I sense that Elaine, Claire and Paul are in subtle ways (or not) reacting the same way as I. Can candy be healthful? (You know, I never think of gum as candy, so for my purposes, I exclude gum from the question.)
My response: Candy was never meant to be anything but fun and great tasting. Give me more fun at lower prices and I might start eating it again. In other words, return to the core purpose: Creating a great taste experience that is a guilty pleasure. I could market the heck out of that.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:07:01 +0000

You raise an interesting point, Paul. But recent articles have pointed to the fact that American consumers might feel that we’re in a recession, and might be cutting back on other things, but apparently, not candy. According to the National Confectioners Association, the candy industry did more than $29 billion in retail sales in 2007; an almost 3% increase over 2006. With this kind of constant growth, I wonder whether the big candy companies are thinking in terms of improving operational efficiencies. It seems to me that if smaller quantities and/or higher prices eventually impact America’s sweet tooth, that might be the impetus for them to consider efficiencies.
Thanks for weighing in with substantive comments as usual, Paul. I appreciate it.

By: Paul Barsch

Paul Barsch — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:48:45 +0000

Ted, my take is these companies should be working on operational efficiences, improving processes and removing waste so as to keep their margins intact, or even better offer us more for less. With food costs going through the roof, consumers are getting less for more, or sometimes less for the same price.
I’m sure there’s a place for both strategies (efficiences and product innovation), but I’d like to see these manufacturers concentrate on the former.