Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
#1
Exclamation 
Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
Here in Australia, we've had a local confectionery company named "Allen's" which is still
producing lollies (candy) today, and which was founded in 1909.  Allen's has always been
one of the largest confectionery makers in the country, and the brand name is currently
marketed by Nestlé.

Two of its long-standing product names are "Redskins" (red, raspberry-flavoured and chewy)
and "Chicos" (gelatinous, similar to Jelly Babies, flavoured with cocoa).

[Image: 3fa141712b35590ec0e4b86ba5d9f570bca92560]

This report is from today's Guardian Australia:

The names of two products produced by Nestlé are to be changed, the food company announced
on Tuesday, in response to concerns raised over many years that the names are racist and offensive.  
Nestlé will change the name of its Red Skins and Chicos sweets, produced by Allen’s. "Redskin" is
a derogatory US term for Native Americans and First Nations Canadians, while "Chico" can be an
offensive US term for people of Latin American descent.

Red Skins and Chicos sweets to be renamed, with Nestlé calling brands 'out of step'.

In Australia, this is simply political correctness going totally overboard.  Neither of these names have
ever been considered "racist" here, and both lollies have been sold for decades—Redskins and many
other Allen's brands for more than 60 years for example.  

Chico is nothing more than the Spanish language for small boy or child, and is also the nickname for
Francisco in the Portuguese language.  The word was never known or used other than as a name for
lollies here, so it's absurd to claim it's racist.  This is nothing more than yet another attempt by our
SJW rent-a-crowd to create an unwarranted furor for no rational reason.

And the term "redskins" needs clarification, as it does not mean what most SJWs want it to do, as per;

Lexicon Valley: The Real History of the Word Redskin.

As a mature-aged person, I'm getting increasingly fed up with the increase of this sort of thing,
stirred up in many cases by bored millennials with nothing better to do with their self-entitled lives.
Over-the-top political correctness is one of their favourite playthings.

[Sidebar note]   The overall ages of the BLM protesters in the US is skewed heavily in the 18-34 age
group
—ranging from 66% in New York and Los Angeles, up to 74% in Minneapolis, and 69% in Atlanta.  
Protesters in the 55+ age group ranged from 24% in New York, 23% in Atlanta and Minneapolis, to
20% in Los Angeles.
Mobilewalla, 18 June 2020

And of course, we have this dilemma.....

[Image: 2013324122827707734_20.jpg]
Many fans of the Washington Redskins football team, including the
Mayor of Washington, DC - try to avoid using the name at all costs,
instead referring the team as "our Washington football team"
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 3 users Like SYZ's post:
  • adey67, Mad Hatter, Aractus
Reply
#2

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
What do these name-changes cost you?
On hiatus.
The following 4 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Mr Greene, epronovost, tomilay, mordant
Reply
#3

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-24-2020, 12:59 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: What do these name-changes cost you?

What seems to bother him is that things are changing to please some people and somehow pleasing some people is bad because then we might have to please other people or something like that. If a company wants to change the name of their product for whatever reason they want, they can and probably should. If tomorrow Coke want's to rename it's most famous beverage name to Fart I would look forward to drinking a can of Fart.
Reply
#4

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-24-2020, 02:45 AM)epronovost Wrote:
(06-24-2020, 12:59 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: What do these name-changes cost you?

What seems to bother him is that things are changing to please some people and somehow pleasing some people is bad because then we might have to please other people or something like that. If a company wants to change the name of their product for whatever reason they want, they can and probably should. If tomorrow Coke want's to rename it's most famous beverage name to Fart I would look forward to drinking a can of Fart.

They run a business, and will follow public opinion. It costs me zero-point-zero fucks if they change the name of their product even to adapt to public opinion and nothing else. If I'm going to get angry about something, I'd rather be angry about the racist policing that made people think this kind of branding should have been gone a long time ago. Aunt Jemima never killed anyone, but Officer Bagadonuts sure has over the years.

Point one's anger in the right direction, I say.
On hiatus.
Reply
#5

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
I don't even understand what the beef is about Aussie political correctness. It's Nestlé, a Swiss company who's largest market is likely the US, driving the change. Maybe they want to expand their brand by offering these products in the US (we don't currently have items like these in wide distribution here) and are concerned about push back. Maybe they've received some negative feedback on their web site. When it comes right down to it, they're their products and they can call them "Shit in a Sack" and be 100% within their rights.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 3 users Like TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, isbelldl, mordant
Reply
#6

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
The American football team known as the Washington Redskins is facing renewed calls to change its name,
as a growing number of US brands do away with racially insensitive trademarks.

Change the name of the Washington NFL team. Now.

Daniel Snyder, owner of Washington’s NFL football team for 20 years, has been dismissive, if not downright
contemptuous. "NEVER —you can use caps" he famously told USA Today in 2013.

And a Washington Post  survey found that  90% of Native Americans aren’t offended by the Redskins' name.
Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period more than 70% said they didn't feel the word
"Redskin" was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number—80% said they would not be offended if a
non-native called them that name.

[Image: Screenshot-2020-06-24-New-poll-finds-9-i...s-name.png]
19 May 2026.

This Redskin issue is yet another example of political correctness going overboard, this time in the US.
Bear in mind too that most of the rent-a-crowd mob just has to have a cause célèbre to be angry about.  
And if not, they'll manufacture one in order to to self-justify their own SJW status.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Dānu, adey67
Reply
#7

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-24-2020, 07:31 AM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote: I don't even understand what the beef is about Aussie political correctness.

With due respect, that's simply because you don't live here.  Just as I have little knowledge of
any ground-level socioeconomic issues in the US.  Although nominally similar societies, there are
vast differences in each populace's attitudes to these sorts of things—racism, religion, politics,
education, corporatism, health care etc.  Many Americans are often far more anally retentive
than Aussies; we have a much more laid-back attitude, as in "she'll be right mate".

Quote:It's Nestlé, a Swiss company who's largest market is likely the US, driving the change.

Allen's is a fully Australian-made product, with its own production facilities, and with all its sales
being within Australasia.  The decision (confirmed today) to rename its Redskins and Chicos brands
of lollies was made by parent company Nestlé, and not by Allen's.  The Swiss directors of Nestlé
obviously have no idea of the historical significance to Australians of these two traditional names.  
I've never heard even one Aussie suggest they were racist—even unintentionally.  This sort of bullshit
has been catalysed here by the US's black lives matter protests (which have blown out of all proportion
to the cause of racial equality).

Quote:When it comes right down to it, they're their products and they can call them "Shit in a Sack" and be 100% within their rights.

Well, not exactly.  They're 100% Australian products, made here by Aussies, and sold here to
Aussies—as they have been for more than a century.  My advice to the Swiss parent company?  
Fuck off outa here and let us decide what we do or don't do within our own fucking society.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • adey67
Reply
#8

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-24-2020, 12:40 PM)SYZ Wrote: Well, not exactly.  They're 100% Australian products, made here by Aussies, and sold here to
Aussies—as they have been for more than a century.  My advice to the Swiss parent company?  
Fuck off outa here and let us decide what we do or don't do within our own fucking society.

If enough Aussies share your views, the market will send them the message.

And if not enough Aussies share your views, you may have to learn to live with opinions you don't share.

You never did answer the question of how it hurts you that the company is changing this branding.
On hiatus.
The following 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • SYZ, tomilay
Reply
#9

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-24-2020, 12:44 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(06-24-2020, 12:40 PM)SYZ Wrote: Well, not exactly.  They're 100% Australian products...

You never did answer the question of how it hurts you that the company is changing this branding.

As a "traditionalist" (and an old fart) I'm disappointed to see more and more iconic Australian
customs, branding and societal traditions being subsumed by overseas financial interests, to
the point of our country becoming a virtual "mini-me" America.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#10

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
Perhaps your real beef is with the globalization of everything, that the original company was purchased by megacorporation Nestle.
They have a sordid history of abuses. They continue to do questionable shit all over the world for profit, so renaming some candy brands across the world is a cheap way to appease people while still lining their pockets.
https://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/n...sm/2263241

The corp is doing this all over the world.
The following 2 users Like skyking's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, SYZ
Reply
#11

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-24-2020, 02:09 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(06-24-2020, 12:44 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(06-24-2020, 12:40 PM)SYZ Wrote: Well, not exactly.  They're 100% Australian products...

You never did answer the question of how it hurts you that the company is changing this branding.

As a "traditionalist" (and an old fart) I'm disappointed to see more and more iconic Australian
customs, branding and societal traditions being subsumed by overseas financial  interests, to
the point of our country becoming a virtual "mini-me" America.

Changes aren't permanent. Change is.

I'm not a big fan of traditions, myself. Especially when they're so adamant that they aren't viewed in the context of how others might feel about our own traditions.
On hiatus.
The following 4 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • SYZ, Mr Greene, TheGentlemanBastard, M.Linoge
Reply
#12

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-24-2020, 12:40 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(06-24-2020, 07:31 AM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote: I don't even understand what the beef is about Aussie political correctness.

With due respect, that's simply because you don't live here.  Just as I have little knowledge of
any ground-level socioeconomic issues in the US.  Although nominally similar societies, there are
vast differences in each populace's attitudes to these sorts of things—racism, religion, politics,
education, corporatism, health care etc.  Many Americans are often far more anally retentive
than Aussies; we have a much more laid-back attitude, as in "she'll be right mate".

Quote:It's Nestlé, a Swiss company who's largest market is likely the US, driving the change.

Allen's is a fully Australian-made product, with its own production facilities, and with all its sales
being within Australasia.  The decision (confirmed today) to rename its Redskins and Chicos brands
of lollies was made by parent company Nestlé, and not by Allen's.  The Swiss directors of Nestlé
obviously have no idea of the historical significance to Australians of these two traditional names.  
I've never heard even one Aussie suggest they were racist—even unintentionally.  This sort of bullshit
has been catalysed here by the US's black lives matter protests (which have blown out of all proportion
to the cause of racial equality).

Quote:When it comes right down to it, they're their products and they can call them "Shit in a Sack" and be 100% within their rights.

Well, not exactly.  They're 100% Australian products, made here by Aussies, and sold here to
Aussies—as they have been for more than a century.  My advice to the Swiss parent company?  
Fuck off outa here and let us decide what we do or don't do within our own fucking society.

Mr D42 has a problem with Nestles for a couple of decades and it has nothing to do with the name of candies.   They encouraged African women to use their baby formula instead of breast feeding and of course poor African women couldn't afford this. Not only that but the Nestles baby formula they sold in Africa didn't have the nutritian it should have had.  It was sort of subpar formula.  It kinda pissed Mr D43 off.  Then there's something about Nestles and selling water.  I think they were illegally tapping into some of Americans streams and rivers and selling the water in plastic bottles at 100% profit.  I can't remember exactly what it was but whatever it was  it kinda sucked so he's been boycotting Nestles for something like 20 years or so.  He's a fun guy to be married to.
                                                         T4618
The following 5 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Dānu, Vera, Fireball, skyking, SYZ
Reply
#13

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-24-2020, 04:22 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Mr D42 has a problem with Nestles for a couple of decades and it has nothing to do with the name of candies.   They encouraged African women to use their baby formula instead of breast feeding and of course poor African women couldn't afford this. Not only that but the Nestles baby formula they sold in Africa didn't have the nutritian it should have had.  It was sort of subpar formula.  It kinda pissed Mr D43 off.  Then there's something about Nestles and selling water.  I think they were illegally tapping into some of Americans streams and rivers and selling the water in plastic bottles at 100% profit.  I can't remember exactly what it was but whatever it was  it kinda sucked so he's been boycotting Nestles for something like 20 years or so.  He's a fun guy to be married to.

Yabut what does Mr D44 have to say about it? Angel

And they're both (hehe) absolutely right. Nestle are vile. Good thing we have lindt (well, that and I don't like chocolate that much... say I, literally after eating a bit of chocolate. Lindt, naturally. Belgian is even better but this one is ok too. The chocolate in Bariloche, Patagonia, was great too... But yeah, I really don't like chocolate that much ;-) Them raspberry alfajores was amazing though)

[Image: rapa-nui.jpg]
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 2 users Like Vera's post:
  • skyking, Dancefortwo
Reply
#14

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-24-2020, 12:40 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(06-24-2020, 07:31 AM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote: I don't even understand what the beef is about Aussie political correctness.

With due respect, that's simply because you don't live here.

No offense, but I don't have to live there to understand that it's a decision made by a Swiss company and is therefore not a case of Aussie anything. Whether you like it or not, Allen's is no longer an Australian company whether it's produced there for consumption there or not. Allen's allowed themselves, for whatever reason, to be purchased by Nestlé, and in doing s, gave up all creative control, including naming products. Would you prefer Nestlé rebrand all the Allen's products to one of their other, perhaps an American, brand? That would be within their rights.

And, none of this even addresses the reasons they might have for the change. As I have pointed out, and you've ignored, they may be interested in expanding their product offerings in other markets and with the US being one of, if not the, largest of those markets, a name change becomes a matter of necessity, not because of Aussie sensibilities or Swiss sensibilities, but the sensibilities of the target market(s).
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#15

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-24-2020, 02:09 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(06-24-2020, 12:44 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(06-24-2020, 12:40 PM)SYZ Wrote: Well, not exactly.  They're 100% Australian products...

You never did answer the question of how it hurts you that the company is changing this branding.

As a "traditionalist" (and an old fart) I'm disappointed to see more and more iconic Australian
customs, branding and societal traditions being subsumed by overseas financial  interests, to
the point of our country becoming a virtual "mini-me" America.

Had you led with this I would simply have liked your post and moved on. Smile
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#16

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-23-2020, 12:21 PM)SYZ Wrote: Here in Australia, we've had a local confectionery company named "Allen's" which is still
producing lollies (candy) today, and which was founded in 1909.  Allen's has always been
one of the largest confectionery makers in the country, and the brand name is currently
marketed by Nestlé.

Two of its long-standing product names are "Redskins" (red, raspberry-flavoured and chewy)
and "Chicos" (gelatinous, similar to Jelly Babies, flavoured with cocoa).

[Image: 3fa141712b35590ec0e4b86ba5d9f570bca92560]

This report is from today's Guardian Australia:

The names of two products produced by Nestlé are to be changed, the food company announced
on Tuesday, in response to concerns raised over many years that the names are racist and offensive.  
Nestlé will change the name of its Red Skins and Chicos sweets, produced by Allen’s. "Redskin" is
a derogatory US term for Native Americans and First Nations Canadians, while "Chico" can be an
offensive US term for people of Latin American descent.

Red Skins and Chicos sweets to be renamed, with Nestlé calling brands 'out of step'.

In Australia, this is simply political correctness going totally overboard.  Neither of these names have
ever been considered "racist" here, and both lollies have been sold for decades—Redskins and many
other Allen's brands for more than 60 years for example.  

Chico is nothing more than the Spanish language for small boy or child, and is also the nickname for
Francisco in the Portuguese language.  The word was never known or used other than as a name for
lollies here, so it's absurd to claim it's racist.  This is nothing more than yet another attempt by our
SJW rent-a-crowd to create an unwarranted furor for no rational reason.

And the term "redskins" needs clarification, as it does not mean what most SJWs want it to do, as per;

Lexicon Valley: The Real History of the Word Redskin.

As a mature-aged person, I'm getting increasingly fed up with the increase of this sort of thing,
stirred up in many cases by bored millennials with nothing better to do with their self-entitled lives.
Over-the-top political correctness is one of their favourite playthings.

[Sidebar note]   The overall ages of the BLM protesters in the US is skewed heavily in the 18-34 age
group
—ranging from 66% in New York and Los Angeles, up to 74% in Minneapolis, and 69% in Atlanta.  
Protesters in the 55+ age group ranged from 24% in New York, 23% in Atlanta and Minneapolis, to
20% in Los Angeles.
Mobilewalla, 18 June 2020

And of course, we have this dilemma.....

[Image: 2013324122827707734_20.jpg]
Many fans of the Washington Redskins football team, including the
Mayor of Washington, DC - try to avoid using the name at all costs,
instead referring the team as "our Washington football team"

Nestle wants to sell lollies.  They are in it for a profit.  If Political Correctness is good for business, it would make sense for them to embrace it.  Maybe their data tells them they'll lose some people(are you one of those?), but gain more for the long haul.  It's nothing personal.  I suspect the lollies should still taste the same.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't matter how fast it doesn't work. ~ ???
The following 4 users Like tomilay's post:
  • Mr Greene, TheGentlemanBastard, Dānu, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#17

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-24-2020, 02:09 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(06-24-2020, 12:44 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(06-24-2020, 12:40 PM)SYZ Wrote: Well, not exactly.  They're 100% Australian products...

You never did answer the question of how it hurts you that the company is changing this branding.

As a "traditionalist" (and an old fart) I'm disappointed to see more and more iconic Australian
customs, branding and societal traditions being subsumed by overseas financial  interests, to
the point of our country becoming a virtual "mini-me" America.

I can understand nostalgia.  But companies change, mostly in response to the market.  The younger Aussie farts Chuckle might have different buttons.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't matter how fast it doesn't work. ~ ???
Reply
#18

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
Every age has certain groups of people drawing little circles and demanding others live in them through social pressure or outright violence. For most of recent history, certain white Christian males have enjoyed that privilege.
Now, having learned at the altar of intolerance, the next generation have a few ideas about what is right and what isn't.
Some of which is good. I don't agree with everything the "regressive lefties" - as i believe they are called - are up to, but as of yet they are not killing gays, lynching black people, jailing people for "race-traitor marriage" or demanding our kids recite a particular text every morning in school.

I can live with irritating.
"The advantage of faith over reason, is that reason requires understanding. Which usually requires education; resources of time and money. 
Religion needs none of that. - It empowers the lowliest idiot to pretend that he is wiser than the wise, ignoring all the indications otherwise "
 - A. Ra
The following 4 users Like M.Linoge's post:
  • Fireball, Thumpalumpacus, Dānu, tomilay
Reply
#19

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
Here's a fair question re changing stuff for the sake of changing it...

If the new owners of the brand, Mondelez International, were to change the name of of the OREO cookies to,
say, "Creamos" would there be any outcry from American traditionalists (or old farts) bemoaning such an
unnecessary change?  And bear in mind that the 108-year-old OREO name largely defines the traditional US
cookie business in the eyes of foreign countries such as Australia.       Here, OREO = America.



Sidebar:  In the 1976 movie A Star Is Born, Barbra Streisand plays
Esther Hoffman, a white member of "The Oreos", a three-girl singing group
with two black actresses, Venetta Fields and Clydie King.

Uhhh... black actresses' characters named after a predominantly brown cookie?
Nobody sees even a hint of 70's racism in that?  Do we recast the characters or
rename the cookie?

And even my dictionary cites this definition of "oreo":

oreo [n]   —a stereotype created by blacks to be used for other blacks
who are "black on the outside, white on the inside". Black being their skin
color, and white meaning to display characteristics of a "white" person,
therefore "betraying their black roots".
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • adey67, Mad Hatter
Reply
#20

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
Nobody gives a damn about "New Coke" anymore.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#21

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-26-2020, 04:55 PM)SYZ Wrote: Here's a fair question re changing stuff for the sake of changing it...

If the new owners of the brand, Mondelez International, were to change the name of of the OREO cookies to,
say, "Creamos" would there be any outcry from American traditionalists (or old farts) bemoaning such an
unnecessary change?  And bear in mind that the 108-year-old OREO name largely defines the traditional US
cookie business in the eyes of foreign countries such as Australia.       Here, OREO = America.



Sidebar:  In the 1976 movie A Star Is Born, Barbra Streisand plays
Esther Hoffman, a white member of "The Oreos", a three-girl singing group
with two black actresses, Venetta Fields and Clydie King.

Uhhh... black actresses' characters named after a predominantly brown cookie?
Nobody sees even a hint of 70's racism in that?  Do we recast the characters or
rename the cookie?

And even my dictionary cites this definition of "oreo":

oreo [n]   —a stereotype created by blacks to be used for other blacks
who are "black on the outside, white on the inside". Black being their skin
color, and white meaning to display characteristics of a "white" person,
therefore "betraying their black roots".

I would have exactly zero fucks to give about the renaming/rebranding of Oreo's (or Coke, or Doritos, or Ford's, or The Washington Redskins, or...). I simply don't give a shit what product's are called. I would understand, even if I didn't agree with with their angst, if others didn't like it. What I didn't understand about your initial post and the title of this thread is how it could possibly be Aussie political correctness when it's a Swiss company driving the change. You're blaming your fellow Aussies for something the Swiss are doing.

(06-26-2020, 05:05 PM)Dānu Wrote: Nobody gives a damn about "New Coke" anymore.

To be fair, that wasn't a branding issue. That was an outcry against reformulating Coke to appeal more to Pepsi drinkers, and that shit tasted nasty.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
Reply
#22

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-26-2020, 09:53 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 05:05 PM)Dānu Wrote: Nobody gives a damn about "New Coke" anymore.

To be fair, that wasn't a branding issue. That was an outcry against reformulating Coke to appeal more to Pepsi drinkers, and that shit tasted nasty.

The point is that people get over it.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#23

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-26-2020, 11:51 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 09:53 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 05:05 PM)Dānu Wrote: Nobody gives a damn about "New Coke" anymore.

To be fair, that wasn't a branding issue. That was an outcry against reformulating Coke to appeal more to Pepsi drinkers, and that shit tasted nasty.

The point is that people get over it.

But, people didn't "get over it." They bitched so loudly that Coke reintroduced the original formula as Coke Classic just three months after dropping it.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
Reply
#24

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-27-2020, 06:43 AM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 11:51 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 09:53 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote: To be fair, that wasn't a branding issue. That was an outcry against reformulating Coke to appeal more to Pepsi drinkers, and that shit tasted nasty.

The point is that people get over it.

But, people didn't "get over it." They bitched so loudly that Coke reintroduced the original formula as Coke Classic just three months after dropping it.

Quote:Coca-Cola dubbed the product it reintroduced in July 1985 “Coke Classic,” [emphasis in original] but it wasn’t quite the recipe everyone at The Varsity was drinking in the ’40s. That version was made with cane sugar. Coke Classic—the new old Coke, or was it the old New Coke?—was made with high-fructose corn syrup instead. Eager to press the advantage won by Mullins and his pals, the sugar industry launched a new campaign arguing that the new old Coke was still not “the real thing.” And that was how America would come to learn something significant about the man whose rebellion, more than anything else, brought down a soda giant: He didn’t even like Coke.

After the dousing ceremony, Mullins hardly took a break. At the end of July, he held a press conference to announce his next crusade. He would not rest until Coke was once more made with real sugar. Coke Classic had made him sick, he reported. He felt ill after drinking only two rum-and-cokes.

A few days later, a group of sugar-industry reps from Hawaii, where the product was still made with sugar, invited reporters to watch them ship an eight-pack of old Coca-Cola to Mullins—bottles, of course—to encourage him to keep up his attack. “We wish you well in your crusade,” they said. “One man has made a difference.”

Within a few weeks—August 15—the Sugar Association, the Washington, DC–based lobbying shop for the beet- and cane-sugar industry, took out full-page ads in national newspapers echoing Mullins’ complaints:

Quote:The “Old Cola Drinks of America” is an organization that monitors consumer responses to soft drinks and other products. At a July 31 press conference, they turned their noses up at “Classic Coke” because it is sweetened with a cheaper sweetener—corn syrup—instead of sugar.

“It is not the original formula; it is not the Coke of my youth,” OCDA leader, Gay Mullins said at the time.

They were right. For 94 years Coca-Cola was in fact “The Real Thing”—a classic sweetened with real sugar—an unvarying taste standard known and trusted the world over. But five years ago, Coca-Cola quietly began to change its formula.

But wait a second. What was that last part? Coca-Cola had actually changed its formula five years earlier?

The real story slowly emerged. The Detroit Free Press put two and two together and asked Mullins why he had not previously mentioned, during his two-month campaign to bring back old Coke, that the stuff made him physically ill. Mullins said he thought at first the problem was with his own body, but he’d since come to understand that it was actually the beverage. He also blamed the switch for his inability to taste the difference between New Coke and regular Coke in a nationally televised taste test: Drinking Coke had killed his taste buds.

When Oliver, the author of The Real Coke, The Real Story, started digging around, the rest of Mullins’ story started to unravel. Old Cola Drinkers of America didn’t start off as a populist campaign. It was a hustle, plain and simple. Its founder hoped to sow conflict and cash in on it by getting either Coca-Cola or Pepsi to buy him out. It was an astroturf operation—or at least it would have been if either company had ponied up. After Coke Classic was reintroduced, Mullins even asked Coca-Cola to pay him $200,000 for an endorsement. (The company declined.)

His pivot to high-fructose agitation wasn’t exactly disinterested either. Mullins hoped that by joining the pile-on, he might entice the trade association to cut him in on some profits.

“We were interested in being supported by the Sugar Association,” he admitted to Oliver.

When the money he was hoping would come in from Big Sugar never materialized, he canceled a planned protest in Atlanta. The organization’s anti-Coke activism slowly faded. Membership in the group fell by 90 percent after New Coke was killed off, and the sugar-vs.-corn fight would be fought in the suites, not the streets. But Mullins made one last run of headlines before he and his group faded from view.

“Coke isn’t it anymore, not for Gay Mullins,” the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reported.

(Mother Jones)
[emphasis mine]

Quote:1. New Coke Stuck Around For Years. Despite the marketing fiasco that ensued by getting rid of the old formula altogether, New Coke was not hated by everyone. Rather than get rid of the product, Coca-Cola began simply calling it "Coke" as it shared the shelf with Coke Classic. The Max Headroom experiment was a success with young drinkers, exactly the people Coke had hoped to woo with the new formula in the first place. By the end of 1985, New Coke was selling well, albeit behind Coke Classic. In 1990, with little fanfare, it began appearing as "Coke II" in some markets and officially took that name everywhere in 1992. It was still being sold that way in the Midwest USA (where it still sold well) up through 1998. It wasn't discontinued in North America until 2002. To this day, it's still sold in some American territories.

(Huffpost)
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#25

Aussie Political Correctness Becoming Ludicrous
(06-27-2020, 12:32 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(06-27-2020, 06:43 AM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 11:51 PM)Dānu Wrote: The point is that people get over it.

But, people didn't "get over it." They bitched so loudly that Coke reintroduced the original formula as Coke Classic just three months after dropping it.

Quote:Coca-Cola dubbed the product it reintroduced in July 1985 “Coke Classic,” [emphasis in original] but it wasn’t quite the recipe everyone at The Varsity was drinking in the ’40s. That version was made with cane sugar. Coke Classic—the new old Coke, or was it the old New Coke?—was made with high-fructose corn syrup instead. Eager to press the advantage won by Mullins and his pals, the sugar industry launched a new campaign arguing that the new old Coke was still not “the real thing.” And that was how America would come to learn something significant about the man whose rebellion, more than anything else, brought down a soda giant: He didn’t even like Coke.

After the dousing ceremony, Mullins hardly took a break. At the end of July, he held a press conference to announce his next crusade. He would not rest until Coke was once more made with real sugar. Coke Classic had made him sick, he reported. He felt ill after drinking only two rum-and-cokes.

A few days later, a group of sugar-industry reps from Hawaii, where the product was still made with sugar, invited reporters to watch them ship an eight-pack of old Coca-Cola to Mullins—bottles, of course—to encourage him to keep up his attack. “We wish you well in your crusade,” they said. “One man has made a difference.”

Within a few weeks—August 15—the Sugar Association, the Washington, DC–based lobbying shop for the beet- and cane-sugar industry, took out full-page ads in national newspapers echoing Mullins’ complaints:

Quote:The “Old Cola Drinks of America” is an organization that monitors consumer responses to soft drinks and other products. At a July 31 press conference, they turned their noses up at “Classic Coke” because it is sweetened with a cheaper sweetener—corn syrup—instead of sugar.

“It is not the original formula; it is not the Coke of my youth,” OCDA leader, Gay Mullins said at the time.

They were right. For 94 years Coca-Cola was in fact “The Real Thing”—a classic sweetened with real sugar—an unvarying taste standard known and trusted the world over. But five years ago, Coca-Cola quietly began to change its formula.

But wait a second. What was that last part? Coca-Cola had actually changed its formula five years earlier?

The real story slowly emerged. The Detroit Free Press put two and two together and asked Mullins why he had not previously mentioned, during his two-month campaign to bring back old Coke, that the stuff made him physically ill. Mullins said he thought at first the problem was with his own body, but he’d since come to understand that it was actually the beverage. He also blamed the switch for his inability to taste the difference between New Coke and regular Coke in a nationally televised taste test: Drinking Coke had killed his taste buds.

When Oliver, the author of The Real Coke, The Real Story, started digging around, the rest of Mullins’ story started to unravel. Old Cola Drinkers of America didn’t start off as a populist campaign. It was a hustle, plain and simple. Its founder hoped to sow conflict and cash in on it by getting either Coca-Cola or Pepsi to buy him out. It was an astroturf operation—or at least it would have been if either company had ponied up. After Coke Classic was reintroduced, Mullins even asked Coca-Cola to pay him $200,000 for an endorsement. (The company declined.)

His pivot to high-fructose agitation wasn’t exactly disinterested either. Mullins hoped that by joining the pile-on, he might entice the trade association to cut him in on some profits.

“We were interested in being supported by the Sugar Association,” he admitted to Oliver.

When the money he was hoping would come in from Big Sugar never materialized, he canceled a planned protest in Atlanta. The organization’s anti-Coke activism slowly faded. Membership in the group fell by 90 percent after New Coke was killed off, and the sugar-vs.-corn fight would be fought in the suites, not the streets. But Mullins made one last run of headlines before he and his group faded from view.

“Coke isn’t it anymore, not for Gay Mullins,” the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reported.

(Mother Jones)
[emphasis mine]

Quote:1. New Coke Stuck Around For Years. Despite the marketing fiasco that ensued by getting rid of the old formula altogether, New Coke was not hated by everyone. Rather than get rid of the product, Coca-Cola began simply calling it "Coke" as it shared the shelf with Coke Classic. The Max Headroom experiment was a success with young drinkers, exactly the people Coke had hoped to woo with the new formula in the first place. By the end of 1985, New Coke was selling well, albeit behind Coke Classic. In 1990, with little fanfare, it began appearing as "Coke II" in some markets and officially took that name everywhere in 1992. It was still being sold that way in the Midwest USA (where it still sold well) up through 1998. It wasn't discontinued in North America until 2002. To this day, it's still sold in some American territories.

(Huffpost)

"When Oliver, the author of The Real Coke, The Real Story, started digging around, the rest of Mullins’ story started to unravel. Old Cola Drinkers of America didn’t start off as a populist campaign. It was a hustle, plain and simple. Its founder hoped to sow conflict and cash in on it by getting either Coca-Cola or Pepsi to buy him out. It was an astroturf operation—or at least it would have been if either company had ponied up. After Coke Classic was reintroduced, Mullins even asked Coca-Cola to pay him $200,000 for an endorsement. (The company declined.)  "
(emphasis mine)

Upset over the change or seeking an opportunity to scam Coca-Cola. Sounds a lot more like the second than the first.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)