Belgian biscuits, packaging, and copywriting | Hacker News Reader

Belgian biscuits, packaging, and copywriting

creativesamba.substack.com

60 pointskervokian52 comments

People don't buy Belgian biscuits for health, but because they want to indulge. People expect and want them to have fat in it. When you write 'now with less fat' people read 'probably tastes worse than before'. It's not the packaging that is wrong, it's the product concept.

Indeed. "I want an indulgence" and "I want a tempered (supposedly healthy) indulgence" are different markets, selling to different needs, and sometimes to different people.

The taste issue is a rationalisation. It goes deeper than that.

> It's not the packaging that is wrong, it's the product concept.

Only if the article is blatantly lying about it tasting the same.

The article seems confused.

> And research showed that most people couldn't notice any difference in taste.

> The new biscuit tasted just like the old one,

The second statement does not follow from the first.

I don't know. People will go to great lengths to lie to themselves just to justify indulging more often.

> "There's your problem. It doesn't matter what something tastes like in blind tastings, if you put "low in fat" or any other health indicators on the packaging you'll make the contents taste worse".

Well we've trained our mental models to believe that healthier food has a greater chance to taste worse. And rightly so because it usually does.

>And rightly so because it usually does.

True. And this is being a rational consumer. The cookies may taste the same, but I don't want to risk my money and pantry space to find out.

It's true. Most people are very averse to throwing away food, so they'll force themselves to eat the cookies they don't like before they go back to the store to buy the non-lowfat ones again (if they're even being produced anymore), meaning you've just associated multiple bad memories with your brand. Not a great move.

> And rightly so because it usually does.

Does it? I don't agree, I think this is a matter of what you're adapted to.

I think it also depends on what you view as "healthy". I don't see the processed foods advertised as "low fat" or "low sugar" or whatever as the "healthy foods", for me a healthy diet consists of fruits & veggies, nuts & seeds, starchy foods, and a small amount of meat & diary products. Everything else you can do without basically. Except chocolate of course :) Once adapted, "non-healthy" processed stuff will taste awfully dirty.

For those like me to whom it wasn't immediately obvious, this is talking about marketing "copywriting" (i.e. the text you put out for marketing) and not "copyright" which sounds the same but is a completely different thing.

I feel that these attacks on the rationality (and intelligence) of the average person are misguided. Rationality means evaluating the information provided to you. If you do not give importance to any qualitative information (e.g., taste), it makes sense to evaluate them on the quantitative information alone (i.e., lower fat) which is not relevant for many people.

I would go as far as to say that even in cases such as the gluten-free fad, people are somewhat justified. Producers started saying that their products were gluten-free to serve the customers that needed that information (i.e., celiacs). However, the average person did not know about celiac disease, so they reasonably thought that the information was for them. The logical conclusion was that gluten was bad. Now, that is wrong, but to be fair how are you supposed to know that? You are not a dietitian.

It's not a matter of rationality, but that is difficult to evaluate information if you do not understand the context in which is produced.

Kind of reminds of of when Kraft did the opposite, they change their Mac & Cheese and didn't tell anyone:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/business/media/kraft-reve...

This is, far and away, one of the best bits of submarine marketing I've ever read.

Every sentence is carefully crafted to hypnotize the reader into believing that a) they have already had the new Kraft dinner b) it tastes identical c) people who think it tastes different are wrong d) everything is okay, it's all going to be ok.

Know what? It worked. Stuff tastes the same as it did when I was a kid.

Somewhat related, this reminded me of the story how companies are going green/sustainable with their products without telling customers about it: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/08/producers-ke... Quote:

Why would firms spearheading sustainable practices not publicise their good work? It’s a question that puzzles Professor Steve Evans, director of research in industrial sustainability at Cambridge University’s Institute for Manufacturing, who suggests that such examples are widespread. He believes this stems from a common perception that there must be some kind of downside to the introduction of sustainable practices: either a reduction in product quality, or an increase in the price of manufacturing, or both.

This feels like an advertisement for the book more than an article about Packaging and Copywriting.

I won't buy foods that say "lower sodium", "lower fat", etc. on the packaging. It's not because I'm illogical like the article suggests, but rather that 80% of the time such foods do in fact taste worse.

It's not just that they taste worse. Sometimes manufacturers reduce fat but try to compensate by amping up sugar or artificial sweeteners.

How would you compensate less fat with more sugar? They taste totally different.

Here's a study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4742721/

> We found that the amount of sugar is higher in the low fat (that is, reduced calorie, light, low fat) and non-fat than ‘regular' versions of tested items

I hate these things too - invariably they also mean "more sugar", "more unsustainable palm oil", "more hydrogenated fat", "more corn starch", "more E-numbers", or just "more random old shit you've never even heard of!".

Same for me with "No MSG". MSG is excellent at adding flavor, so I subconsciously assume that an MSG-free product must taste bland.

Don't worry, it will probably have yeast extract or some other source of glutamates.

A little like “no added nitrates” foods often have celery extract in them.

I agree but I do have to buy low sodium products for personal reasons. Some things I’ve found are not as bad. Low sodium soups for example. Recently found out Kettle makes unsalted chips which has been huge for me.

I don't usually avoid "low fat" products (maybe I should, because most of them are unhealthy), but yes, "low sodium" is a sure telling that it will taste bad.

And cost 3x as much.

Similar to how some companies avoid putting the word ‘vegan’ on clearly vegan products. Even these new meat alternatives. There was a story a few years back about how half of the Girl Scout cookies are vegan but the soccer mom sellers didn’t want the logo on the product in case it reduced sales. Initially some said vegan on the box and those were crossed out to hide it!

There's actually a term for those "normal" foods that are vegan but not labelled as such - you'll often see them called "accidentally vegan" foods in the vegan community.

Oreos are a famous (and my favourite) example :)

The Euphemism Treadmill dictates that "vegan" is now "plant-based diet."

Among those that herbivores would like to convert, "vegan" is saddled with negative perceptions.

Strangely enough, plant-based doesn't necessarily mean vegan. Some 'plant-based' diets include eggs and dairy at times. I've yet to find a plant-based food item that wasn't vegan though, so perhaps the diet aspect needs further refining.

This makes sense to me, doesn't "based" or "base" mean that the food is _mostly_ made from plants.

As someone who's trying to follow a vegan diet I am very happy about "plant-based" food generally being vegan though!

There is actually a difference between 'vegan' and 'plant-based diet'. A car can be 'vegan'. A car is not part of a 'plant-based' diet.

Understood, but that difference doesn't apply when we're talking about food specifically. I'm saying that the "vegan" label is marketing liability if you're trying to sell to the general public (and not just to the existing vegan community).

If we're talking about shoes, or cars, then the euphemism will be something like "cruelty-free". No car company is going to associate their cloth interiors with veganism. Well, maybe Subaru would :)

Don't forget about the subset of vegans who avoid palm oil/almonds and other particularly environmentally taxing plant-based products.

That's why the common parlance is 'plant-based upholstery' for these situations.

Oddly enough the gluten free ones are proudly labeled gluten free.

Kirkland shampoo is labeled "gluten free"! Just in case people are going to drink it; it won't interfere with their gluten free diet.

People often mock gluten free labeling for products that should either be obviously gluten free or are not food. But the range of gluten sensitivity does vary, and there are people who react to gluten in cosmetics (where it can be added). There are also cases where gluten is added to food where it would not be expected.

If you are gluten free because you can't tolerate gluten, that labeling is very helpful.

I get the feeling that's because gluten-free food is - for some people - medically necessary, while people with, say, allergies to some animal product e.g. eggs will usually just buy normal food and be careful not to buy anything containing egg. As a result, "vegan" food has a negative perception that "gluten free" escapes.

Gluten free does not escape a negative reputation. There are many people who follow a gluten free diet because it's somewhat of a fad, and there are many others who, as a result, don't take it seriously.

As someone who is gluten free because I can't tolerate gluten, I would add that, for those who don't have that issue, gluten free food is not always the healthiest choice. In particular, gluten free baking is tricky, and gluten free baked goods are generally much higher in sugar.

It may totally not be the case, but this story sounds like something a marketing guru would make up to post on LinkedIn.

Checks out. The correct amount of snark not-so-subtly implying that consumers are stupid/irrational as well.

Another related urban legend in the marketing world, the flip side of this anecdote: A low-calorie, healthy soda called "Tab", sold in the USA in the 70s, once sold a version that actually tasted good (Tab Orange). Sales stalled. It turned out that the people who wanted to drink Tab didn't want it to taste good. They wanted to feel healthy and virtuous. If it tasted good, they would not feel like they were sacrificing for health. They later repackaged Tab Orange as Fanta Zero, and it did well.

Here in New Zealand they just launched Coke Zero Orange. Looks like Coke, tastes like Fanta. I am pretty sure it is just Fanta Zero minus orange dye plus whatever they dye Coke with.

Most of what we 'feel' comes from preconceived notions. The famous example of taking a drink from your glass without looking, gagging on it because it tastes all wrong, only to find out you had orange juice and not milk as you remembered. Once you know its orange juice then it tastes ok again.

Everything is filtered through pre-conceived notions. Everything.

I guess this is "a classic marketing mistake," as the author says, but I see this more as a mission-based problem. It sounds from what little is written that increasing sales was the manufacturer's priority, not a product that would be better for consumers.

I run a small, wholesale bread bakery. I made a similar kind of ingredient change about two years ago, replacing a small amount of refined sugar with an even smaller amount of malted barley flour. Either way, the products got hints of both color and sweetness. I made the change because I know there are people who are put off by refined sugar as an ingredient. I only made it a point to tell the one customer that packages my breads in a way that requires nutritional labeling. I have told other customers when the change was pertinent to some conversation we were already having, but I never did this as a selling point.

> They assumed consumers make rational decisions.

Maybe they believe that low-fat sugar and simple carbs is worse for you than sugar and carbs combined with fat, due to the lower glycemic index?

(Obviously not, but the biscuit maker is guilty of jumping in on the sugar-industry nonsense dietary advice that fat is the only bad thing, and should be replaced with sugar).

One thing is certain: If any product says "New Taste!" it is unquestionably a regression and tastes horrible.

My personal score is about 20/20 here.

> One of Belgium's leading biscuits manufacturers made a classic marketing mistake.

> They assumed consumers make rational decisions.

When I see "low fat" on a traditionally high-fat food, I make the rational decision to avoid the product, because it's not going to taste good and it's going to be less healthy.

In New Zealand a "Belgian biscuit" is a specific type of biscuit. Would recommend.

https://www.greggs.co.nz/Our-Recipes/Baking/Belgian-Biscuits

Side note: Substack's font kerning is wrong and if this website is designed to be a blog - they really need to look at the font settings.

Edit: it appears to be an issue with the font itself. I just turned off the custom font the website is so much more tolerable.

the book he recommends at the end of the article looks interesting. My only issue with it is the lack of a TOC.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com