Mast Brothers: $10 a bar for crappy hipster chocolate (2015)
qz.com
qz.com
All that said, it's delicious.
Same with Chai Tea.
Where specifically did you see this argument? In this WSJ article, this is the reasoning given:
> They hoped it would save energy, help lure environmentally conscious buyers, and, maybe eventually, cost less.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303714704576385...
>> They hoped it would save energy, help lure environmentally conscious buyers, and, maybe eventually, cost less.
The attempt to save energy (even though they only hope that someday it will cost less, which is a very chic way of saying that it is more expensive to do so) -- all of that virtue signaling combined with the understated costliness of doing so is almost guaranteed to make it taste better. Just ask anyone who has actually tried these confections.
Seeing an Apple ad of a shiny image of a new iPhone imprints that image into the customers mind, even after they purchase and use the product. Their perceived value of their iPhone one year after purchase is greater than if they have not seen any advertisements, because they keep associating the product in their hands with the very high quality image on TV.
This is what's happening here with Mast Brothers chocolate. The high price itself can increase perceived value ("If it's expensive, then it must make me happy!"), appeal to values held by the consumer ("I support small businesses so I value the purchase more!"), and the packaging or storefront proximity ("Imagine how much value the product is since the packaging is such high quality, or the presentation on the shelf is high quality"). None of these have anything to do with the edible substance they're buying (the "end product").
In fact, I would argue that the end product matters the least for this particular product. Beyond some point, the quality of product does not affect its intrinsic value. Mast Brothers is beyond that point. The marketer therefore must use the above methods to further increase perceived value.
If you are a business owner yourself, you can choose to increase perceived value of your product in ethical or unethical ways. Some customers will detect unethical practices, some won't notice (such as people who don't read this article), and some won't care.
Oh, and because wide bread is now "artisanal", long-slot toasters have acquired luxury pricing and are more expensive than four-slot toasters. Even though they have identical heating elements.
I still think white bread makes a better grilled cheese, pb&j, and brioche makes superior french toast. Those are all terrible on multi grain bread, which has its own uses.
"When you want to bake as much bread as possible, you need robotic assistance. You have to get out of the way. If you have 12 or 15 oven decks, you can't physically load it fast enough."
I just can’t imagine anyone even thinking that holding expensive chocolate is going to signal their status, and can’t imagine that anyone is so insecure that they would even feel a need to. A lot of people buy overpriced items because they actually believe they are higher quality (whether true or not, like with wine).
Yet, jewelry and expensive watches exist seemingly only for that purpose, so I have to call my own assumptions about others behavior into question on this.
Apple products are qualitatively different from its competitors products. Whether that makes them better is a personal preference. The same can absolutely be said about wine, and expensive watches. Watches can be used to signal status, or satisfy some aesthetic tastes, but they are also some of the most beautiful examples of high-precision mechanical engineering you can find. If I was filthy rich I’d absolutely by a nice watch with an exposed tourbillon, there’s no such thing as a cheap version of that.
Really? You can't imagine some hipsters having an "all artisanal" food gathering? Or a restaurant serving "all artisanal" dessert?
Some people do things because they are genuine. Far more people do things because they are a fad. Far more do things because it's profitable.
The business argument doesn’t apply, I’m talking about the consumer side. Of course a business would sell something if it’s profitable, regardless of why.
I guess many luxury goods are just good marketing and advertising.
It's actually deeper than that. It imprints the image into our collective minds. Even if YOU don't think iPhones are better, it may still be rational for you to buy one if you know that people will think more highly of you when they see you holding one.
In this specific case, and others like it where a truly common good is priced into a truly niche market, the marketing is the value.
It seems the primary charge is that 'some, but not all, of their earliest sold chocolate bars were made from mass-produced chocolate,' referencing bars sold at a flea market (wherein they allegedly acknowledged to a buyer that some-but-not-all were made from mass-produced chocolate).
The article then criticizes them for browsing the largest Chocolatier forum on the Internet for advice... Is this supposed to be a serious criticism?
Then it goes into the quality of the chocolate and alleges that it's overpriced. I would argue that it's subjective, and there isn't anything inherently wrong with strong marketing. Maybe their chocolate isn't that good (I've never heard of Mast before reading this) and they're just convinced it is?
Finally, the article ends with attacks based on mere speculation and attacks on the general chocolate industry as a whole.
I'm not making any judgment on Mast Brothers chocolate one way or the other. It's just that this article has a whole lot of aggressive language propping up some pretty weak evidence.
I am currently going down the deep rabbit-hole of chocolate making and re-read this just recently. Highly recommend the coverage on dallasfood.org as well: http://dallasfood.org/2015/12/mast-brothers-what-lies-behind...
...yeah. It taste like a slightly better quality hershey's bar, definitely not a $10 bar of chocolate. I was kind of floored, it was actually pretty bad.
But either way, the new M&M bars taste infinitely better than both Hershey's and Mast.
Now that I have been living in NYC for few years, my BS meter has improved.
There are enough tourists and young people that come and go in NYC, and that propels a whole industry for "expensive/overpriced" but crappy goods and services. Both Brooklyn and Manhattan are the place of 100$ haircuts, just because your barber has a hipster beard....
It's a real shame because friends/relatives who visit always zero in on that place for souvenirs and gifts for the family. Say what you will about the chocolate; their branding and design is on point.
The Mast Bros situation has been discussed to death, yawn.
I also wasn't aware of the dallasfood article either. You raise good points, but I don't know how I could have acted differently...
So they started out reselling (remelting) it for 3x the price. Fake it till you make it, indeed.
can't you say this about almost any high volume popular luxury brand?
And the 'crappy' label is a bit harsh?
I actually went to their store in Williamsburg before this drama unfolded, and I remember saying something along the lines to my wife 'Wow, I can't believe this is their only facility, it looks way too small to pump out so many bars'.
But what do I know. Based on the number of comments, readers love this post, so I was clearly wrong that it was off topic.