Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The New Faces of Coke

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: The New Faces of Coke

#11

Post by Nadya »

First, a quick aside. I was surprised to see this, way to go Medium! http://i.imgur.com/XwJRGKV.png

Now onto an actual on-topic comment:

This comes at no real surprise to me. I'm certain Coke isn't the only soda company to be paying people off. Let alone the only company. It's nice the author researched enough into the people and the not-so-subtle advertising going on; but really... anyone with public outreach is a potential advertiser and if they're mentioning a name-brand product, you'd likely win a bet that they received a donation in some form or another.

The problem should be that these sorts of implicit bribes are legal in the first place.

Re: The New Faces of Coke

#13

Post by CyberDildonics »

jobu wrote: post #8

There definitely are some shady endorsements happening here, but I really don't see a problem with this one: “Sometimes only the real thing will do when it comes to soda, so I am a big fan of the new Coke mini can! It is real soda classic, but it’s in a cute portion-controlled can that keeps my bubbly treat to only 90 calories!” - Sarah Bedwell I would argue that this is actually the kind of endorsement we should be…

The thing is that isn't what happens and Coke knows that.

First they can sell the smaller cans for more money for the same amount, which doesn't matter from cost of making it, but does matter to the amount someone will consume.

It's the same rationale behind 99% payouts of slot machines in the casino. It just allows someone to play longer.

Soda is loaded with sugar and nothing else. It has to be extreme moderation to not have an effect on someone's health (relative to what we think of as normal now). Coke is trying to reframe soda as somehow ok.

One way to do that is to have small cans and say 'no problem they cans are obviously tiny'. Someone will buy them and drink as much as they want anyway because what they want isn't to take a long term view of their health, they want a rationalization. That is what Coke is offering and it does happen to be what people want.

Re: The New Faces of Coke

#14

Post by bad_user »

jobu wrote: post #8

There definitely are some shady endorsements happening here, but I really don't see a problem with this one: “Sometimes only the real thing will do when it comes to soda, so I am a big fan of the new Coke mini can! It is real soda classic, but it’s in a cute portion-controlled can that keeps my bubbly treat to only 90 calories!” - Sarah Bedwell I would argue that this is actually the kind of endorsement we should be…

I'd argue that no, ice cream is not worse than coca-cola. Few things are.

Re: The New Faces of Coke

#15

Post by snappy173 »

batbomb wrote: post #7
joe5150 wrote: post #5

"When you’re watching your favorite Food Network show and Coca-Cola is used as an ingredient, do you know that Coke is paying the chef? It never occurred to me." Why wouldn't it occur to someone that a brand-name product used on television has been paid for? Especially when every other product used has been conspicuously genericized, labels covered up and whatnot. Also Coca-Cola as a glaze for food doesn't strike me…

The striking thing is this: virginia willis and 9 others recommended The author actually misspelled the name in the article (it's Willis, not Wills, as it appears in the article) Also, Coke has been around as an ingredient for a long time in BBQ because BBQ sauce has to have... sugar.

"Also, Coke has been around as an ingredient for a long time in BBQ because BBQ sauce has to have... sugar."

and acidity. it's kind of perfect.

Re: The New Faces of Coke

#16

Post by ssharp »

joe5150 wrote: post #5

"When you’re watching your favorite Food Network show and Coca-Cola is used as an ingredient, do you know that Coke is paying the chef? It never occurred to me." Why wouldn't it occur to someone that a brand-name product used on television has been paid for? Especially when every other product used has been conspicuously genericized, labels covered up and whatnot. Also Coca-Cola as a glaze for food doesn't strike me…

"Why wouldn't it occur to someone that a brand-name product used on television has been paid for? Especially when every other product used has been conspicuously genericized, labels covered up and whatnot."

You're correct on labels but there isn't really a generic version of Coke that tastes the same. It's not unreasonable to think a professional chef would specifically want Coke over another cola.

Re: The New Faces of Coke

#17

Post by bad_user »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #13
jobu wrote: post #8

There definitely are some shady endorsements happening here, but I really don't see a problem with this one: “Sometimes only the real thing will do when it comes to soda, so I am a big fan of the new Coke mini can! It is real soda classic, but it’s in a cute portion-controlled can that keeps my bubbly treat to only 90 calories!” - Sarah Bedwell I would argue that this is actually the kind of endorsement we should be…

The thing is that isn't what happens and Coke knows that. First they can sell the smaller cans for more money for the same amount, which doesn't matter from cost of making it, but does matter to the amount someone will consume. It's the same rationale behind 99% payouts of slot machines in the casino. It just allows someone to play longer. Soda is loaded with sugar and nothing else. It has to be extreme moderation to…

> Coke is trying to reframe soda as somehow ok.

The whole industry is continuously doing that for processed foods. It's called nutritionism. Margarine is still around, after provoking cancers and heart disease, isn't it? Now enriched with omega-3.

Re: The New Faces of Coke

#18

Post by Elepsis »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #13
jobu wrote: post #8

There definitely are some shady endorsements happening here, but I really don't see a problem with this one: “Sometimes only the real thing will do when it comes to soda, so I am a big fan of the new Coke mini can! It is real soda classic, but it’s in a cute portion-controlled can that keeps my bubbly treat to only 90 calories!” - Sarah Bedwell I would argue that this is actually the kind of endorsement we should be…

The thing is that isn't what happens and Coke knows that. First they can sell the smaller cans for more money for the same amount, which doesn't matter from cost of making it, but does matter to the amount someone will consume. It's the same rationale behind 99% payouts of slot machines in the casino. It just allows someone to play longer. Soda is loaded with sugar and nothing else. It has to be extreme moderation to…

It seems like you're suggesting that people are buying the small cans of Coke based on endorsements like this one, and then chugging three cans in one go to make up for the super-sized drink they'd otherwise have gotten.

What exactly is that assumption based on?

It's been abundantly demonstrated that smaller servings do help people follow through on efforts to reduce their food intake. I don't see any reason Coke should be different.

Re: The New Faces of Coke

#19

Post by wonkaWonka »

snappy173 wrote: post #15
batbomb wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The striking thing is this: virginia willis and 9 others recommended The author actually misspelled the name in the article (it's Willis, not Wills, as it appears in the article) Also, Coke has been around as an ingredient for a long time in BBQ because BBQ sauce has to have... sugar.

"Also, Coke has been around as an ingredient for a long time in BBQ because BBQ sauce has to have... sugar." and acidity. it's kind of perfect.

From now on, I shall think of coca-cola forever as a BBQ precursor substance.

Re: The New Faces of Coke

#20

Post by zappo2938 »

jobu wrote: post #8

There definitely are some shady endorsements happening here, but I really don't see a problem with this one: “Sometimes only the real thing will do when it comes to soda, so I am a big fan of the new Coke mini can! It is real soda classic, but it’s in a cute portion-controlled can that keeps my bubbly treat to only 90 calories!” - Sarah Bedwell I would argue that this is actually the kind of endorsement we should be…

Oreo has a line of cookies called Thins which is thin cookies with cream filling in a 10 oz. package rather than a 16.6oz package for the same price. I often ask myself knowing that I can get more for the same price how much is the price to my health. So once in a while I will buy the mint Oreo Thins. Nothing beats an Oreo, that is fact.

I often wish restaurants had the same deal. A person should be able order a normal portion or just order a smaller portion paying the same price. I want the side of garlic roasted mash potatoes but I only need four bites so give me 1/2 the serving and charge me $4, I don't care. Restaurants have fallen into a trap of having to put a huge amount of food on a plate. A customer should be given the option to state how hungry they are, they are paying for the ambiance, experience, and food that can't easily be made at home not just the quantity of food.

I was a private yacht (120ft) chef for 6 years. I cooked everyday lunch and dinner for an older couple cruising anchorages and marinas on the Eastern Seaboard, Bahamas, and Caribbean months at a time. I'd make plain simple food everyday and serve leftovers knowing there are very few chefs on salary making more than I did. I served small portions and figure if they were hungry they would ask for more. It takes a lot of courage for a chef to make plain food and serve small portions of it. They know if they have guests on board, I'm in the mood to do something fancy like a Beef Wellington, or it is a special occasion, I can turn on the intensity, but nobody wants that all the time.

Post reply on HN