...is full of Oreo's this week (and has been for a few days). Amazingly not depleted by mini-me being here for the last few days. Think he forgot about them!
Nothing much more than that on this blog update..
..check my recent posts for something slightly more interesting.
P
Showing posts with label chocolate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chocolate. Show all posts
Friday, 17 August 2012
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
CHOCOLATE MICE..
Two important news items almost slipped me by this month.
Chocolate is good for you. We all know that already - it releases feelgood chemicals in the brain and makes life happier, not counting the benefits of sharing chocolates with your friends which it turns out builds up social capital and goodwill - note to friends: I will love you more if you share with me!
A recent research study exercised mice and measured their fitness levels. A control group were fed small chunks of dark chocolate over the same period and they appeared to have the same if not better levels of fitness as the runners. Here's the link if you don't believe me.. onlinelibrary
Don't get too excited though, a second run of the experiment was undertaken on middle aged mice and the group that ran and had chocolate too did better than the couch-mice who sat around all day (well, I say sit.. but that's quite hard for a mouse to do properly? more like lay around) eating chocolate.
The second is the not so surprising revelation that Cadbury's, purveyors of fine boxes of chocolates that have seen me through many a stressful report writing time, is reducing the number of chocolates in the tin just ahead of the busy Christmas buying period..
No real surprise given the continual reducing size of various chocolate bars over the past years (and don't get me started on cakes!!! see my December 2010 blog on that one here), but I bet they won't reduce the size of the tin they come in. Oh no. How many people are going to be duped into buying what they think are the same number of chocolates?
You know who I think the real culprits are? The stores that continually offer tins of chocolates as loss leaders to draw people in - stacks and stacks of them greeted me last time I walked into Tesco at 'half price' allegedly. Who would pay £10 for a tin? And our local Co-op never seems to have an end to the 2 for £8 offers on Roses tins? If the stores are offering the discounted product, then you can bet they have been squeezing the manufacturer on cost. The manufacturer is then only able to maintain their required profits by doing two things.
The first is to substitute cheaper raw materials into the mix - not something advised in the UK chocolate market which is dominated by only a few brands and where any reduction in quality, if perceived by the customer, would lead to mass switching of brand loyalty and significant pain to the business.
The second option open to manufacturers is to reduce the number of chocolates in the tins. This latest reduction sees Roses down to 1 lb 14 oz from 2 lb 2 oz. That's a reduction from 964g to 850g for metric-heads. Equivalent to an 11.8% reduction. Not a small graudal amount in anybody's book??? Cadbury's Heroes - always and unexplainedly a slightly more expensive purchase for a less luxurious set of chocolates I think you'd agree? - go down from 936g to 794g, a whopping reduction of 15.2%...
Not much we can do about it - except switch brand or get wise and stop buying the Heroes on rational economics grounds. Cadbury's Roses were always my favourite anyhow.
Chocolate is good for you. We all know that already - it releases feelgood chemicals in the brain and makes life happier, not counting the benefits of sharing chocolates with your friends which it turns out builds up social capital and goodwill - note to friends: I will love you more if you share with me!
A recent research study exercised mice and measured their fitness levels. A control group were fed small chunks of dark chocolate over the same period and they appeared to have the same if not better levels of fitness as the runners. Here's the link if you don't believe me.. onlinelibrary
Don't get too excited though, a second run of the experiment was undertaken on middle aged mice and the group that ran and had chocolate too did better than the couch-mice who sat around all day (well, I say sit.. but that's quite hard for a mouse to do properly? more like lay around) eating chocolate.
The second is the not so surprising revelation that Cadbury's, purveyors of fine boxes of chocolates that have seen me through many a stressful report writing time, is reducing the number of chocolates in the tin just ahead of the busy Christmas buying period..
No real surprise given the continual reducing size of various chocolate bars over the past years (and don't get me started on cakes!!! see my December 2010 blog on that one here), but I bet they won't reduce the size of the tin they come in. Oh no. How many people are going to be duped into buying what they think are the same number of chocolates?
You know who I think the real culprits are? The stores that continually offer tins of chocolates as loss leaders to draw people in - stacks and stacks of them greeted me last time I walked into Tesco at 'half price' allegedly. Who would pay £10 for a tin? And our local Co-op never seems to have an end to the 2 for £8 offers on Roses tins? If the stores are offering the discounted product, then you can bet they have been squeezing the manufacturer on cost. The manufacturer is then only able to maintain their required profits by doing two things.
The first is to substitute cheaper raw materials into the mix - not something advised in the UK chocolate market which is dominated by only a few brands and where any reduction in quality, if perceived by the customer, would lead to mass switching of brand loyalty and significant pain to the business.
The second option open to manufacturers is to reduce the number of chocolates in the tins. This latest reduction sees Roses down to 1 lb 14 oz from 2 lb 2 oz. That's a reduction from 964g to 850g for metric-heads. Equivalent to an 11.8% reduction. Not a small graudal amount in anybody's book??? Cadbury's Heroes - always and unexplainedly a slightly more expensive purchase for a less luxurious set of chocolates I think you'd agree? - go down from 936g to 794g, a whopping reduction of 15.2%...
Not much we can do about it - except switch brand or get wise and stop buying the Heroes on rational economics grounds. Cadbury's Roses were always my favourite anyhow.
Friday, 6 August 2010
Friday, 16 July 2010
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Monday, 8 March 2010
POLKO'S BOWL...
is having a Flakey old time at the moment!
but I'm sure they won't last long after the next weekend is upon us!
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
POLKO'S BOWL...
..is full of..
avid folllowers of my blog (anyone?) know that this headline tends to crop up randomly when my favourite glass bowl standing on the dining room side cabinet gets filled with something nice.. always food, usually chocolate.
So.. Polko's bowl is currently full of Creme Eggs.
Not for the first time I hear you shout!
No.
But this time the picture is accompanied by this great video that I have been directed to at youtube. Enjoy!
Friday, 22 January 2010
CREME CHEESE EGGS..
Story of the week for me has to be the Kraft takeover of Cadbury's to yield the world's largest confectioner (behind Willy Wonka of course!).
Question: Will Creme Eggs ever be the same again?
Given that Kraft's processed cheese business is the largest in the world (by a long way) I do hope they don't start stuffing gloopy cheese into those eggs in place of the sweeter delicacy of sugary filling that graces them at present! I'd give it a go, but only once I think?
Some of the objections in the UK appear to revolve around the fact that a social institution such as Cadbury's - large Victorian family, built a village around their factory, invested in a lot of social infrastructure, etc etc - should be eaten up by a US mega-corporation. Like it doesn't happen every week of the year? But this time it's personal - a very large % of the UK population have been brought up on Cadbury's products and there will always be resistance to change. Think Marathon's re-branding to Snickers (possibly a bad example?) or the takeover of another staple Victorian social institiution Rowntree by Nestle..
Perhaps more worrying for those who have part of their pension pot stuffed into Creme Eggs, Dairy Milk and drinking chocolate (that'd be nice!) is the fact that Cadbury's largest shareholder, the billionaire and clearly exceedingly wise investor Warren Buffet, thinks it's a bad idea...
The takeover is going ahead at a 500p per share cash payment plus shares in Kraft which bring the valuation to 840p per share (up from an original approach by Kraft of 770p). Looks ok given that in the last year Cadbury shares have traded between 486.50 and 836.50 per share.
But, and it's a big BUT! At the same time, Kraft Foods rating has been severely downgraded to the lowest investment grade BBB- because they are not buying Cadbury with their own money (which they do not have enough of.. sound familiar?) but with leveraged finance (posh word for approximately $11 billion of debt!) and Kraft stocks which are at poor value.
Will they get away with it? Only time will tell.
On a lighter note if you take a look at the portfolio of Kraft and Cadbury products and mash them up a little, the possibiltiies are endless and mind-boggling..
Cadbury already own; Green & Black's organic chocolate, Maynards, Bassett's licorice, Fry's, Trebor, Trident in addition to their staples Curly Wurly, Dairy Milk, Creme Eggs, Crunchie, Cluster Bars, Flake, Double Decker, Wispa, Twirl, Fudge and on and on
Kraft own; Nabisco, Maxwell House, Oreo's, Milka Products, Philadelphia cheese, Oscar Mayer (cold meat products/hot dogs etc), Vegemite, Peek Freans (Bourbon and Garibaldi biscuits etc)..
Licorice Allsorts with Philadelphia creme cheese filling?
Extra Strong Mint Creme Egg anyone?
Hot Dog flavoured Dairy Milk?
Vegemite Green & Black's?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







