September 18, 2007
Mars Wants to Keep Cocoa in Chocolate
Others may be lobbying to be able to substitute vegetable oil for cocoa butter in the making of chocolate, but not Mars Inc.
The company came out in an attempt to differentiate itself as a purist among others that are looking to use less expensive vegetable oils in place of cocoa. Today, companies can substitute vegetable oils for cocoa butter in product manufacturing but are prohibited by the Food and Drug Administration from calling the item chocolate.
“Changing the definition of what chocolate is would be a mistake,” Todd Lachman, president of Mars Snackfoods US told The Associated Press. “The bottom line is that we’re not going to change our chocolate. Today, Mars US chocolate products are pure, authentic chocolate and they’re going to stay that way.”
Mars’ position is a break with its stance in the past. Back in 2000, the company had said it would support allowing up to five percent vegetable oil for use in chocolate.
Discussion Questions: Do you think consumers are supportive of a change from cocoa butter to vegetable oil to make chocolate? Will the Mars announcement give it added “chocolate legitimacy” with consumers versus the other major candy manufacturers?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Just came across this defense of getting rid of the cocoa butter in chocolate. As usual, the hypothesis seems to be that anyone who objects to change and implies that product quality will be negatively affected is scaremongering. Sound familiar?
Very few chocolate consumers are aware of any ingredient controversies. A tiny minority are interested in organic chocolate. If Mars wants to make an issue of vegetable oil substitution for cocoa butter, they could improve their labels and utilize a more effective publicity strategy.
Very smart move by Mars. Is there anything to be more passionate about? Now I know who to buy my Halloween candy from.
Again, to us, this is another indication of a strong move back to quality as a differentiator. Slowly but surely, consumers begin to snap (somewhat) out of their trance on price and notice that all things cheap are not what they seem.
Bravo Mars! (samples welcome!)
This is a wonderful opportunity for Mars to further differentiate itself from its competition through emphasizing its use of real chocolate versus vegetable oil.
One cannot argue against the growth of the natural and organic movement in this country (and the world). As long as Mars continues to offer the quality and value that its customers demand, the additional benefit of using pure chocolate versus vegetable oil will not lose them any customers, only put them in a position to gain more.
It’s a win for Mars.
Good for them. Chocoholics can tell…others not. Why not go for the best, whether the taste buds tell or not? Reputation is half the selling price.
Chocolate is a tasty category today. With more studies coming out suggesting that chocolate (especially dark chocolate) has health benefits, many brands have moved upscale. Today, it is easy to find chocolates with 60%, 70% and more than 90% counts. Against this upscale background comes the effort to dumb-down chocolate by replacing cocoa butter with vegetable oil. Mars will retain the loyalty of purists and those who care. Those manufacturers who switch to vegetable oil will play more to the crowd who is price sensitive (but not taste sensitive), or who look to chocolate more for the sugar than the chocolate. What a great marketing and differentiation opportunity!
Mars knows where their bread is buttered (cocoa butter that is)! This is an example of a company that will stand by their brand quality and not waver! Congrats to Mars! I also agree that this is an excellent marketing opportunity for the company.
Do you think consumers are supportive of a change from cocoa butter to vegetable oil to make chocolate? I don’t suppose many consumers are aware of any proposed change or what it means. As others have said, only those who love the stuff will pay attention or care and they will certainly not be supportive. As for the rest? If they don’t taste the difference, or see a significant change in price, they won’t notice or care. They won’t be either for it or agin it. Again, I agree with those who have said this represents an opportunity for Mars, though, to emphasise the difference and the quality in their product but, again again, only with those who care. How little effect steadily increasing publicity about food, nutrition, diet, health etc has had in the past few years was demonstrated by yet another study released this week by the British Food Standards Agency. Too many people have been bombarded with too much information for it to have had the desired effect.
I’ll join the bullish on Mars camp. Discriminating consumers will appreciate the difference and those that can’t tell will still be seduced by the differentiation strategy.
When Mars came to this key fork in the road, they took it.
thus Mars shall be true to any man/woman who loves chocolate.
TRUE CHOCOLATE
The chocolate bar gazing up at me
Must be what it purports to be.
Says Webster in one decisive mutter,
It must be made from cocoa butter.
I give this comment as a chocoholic and not a consultant. Purists can definitely tell the difference between vegetable oil and cocoa. Mars will be going upscale if they intend to keep cocoa butter in their product instead of vegetable oil (the utility grade stuff). I for one prefer the premium products when it comes to chocolate and Mars will be doing itself (and its market share) a great service if it maintains that premium stance and continues to use quality ingredients.
“Do you think consumers are supportive of a change from cocoa butter to vegetable oil to make chocolate?”
If we take a step back, this issue is insane. Why would someone change a food like chocolate just to reduce costs by substituting an industrial food ingredient? My grandpa never thought, “I wonder if the kids will notice if I grill soy protein instead of hamburgers…”
My answer to the poll is I don’t know. Corporations obviously must decide, with the understanding of consumer reaction, impact on sales, brand image deteriorating, and the long term impact on the business.
Mars made its decision. It appears other major brands went the other way. This later group, interestingly, have attempted to overcome the lessening of the mainstay brands’ quality, with new and upscale chocolate products…that aren’t cheap.
Does this make sense, in light of fewer sales and consumer trials with the new brands’ upscale products, and most importantly, do not market appropriately and reduce dollars from the ‘flagship’ brands’ items?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
I’m with Bernice here, but from a different standpoint.
Fact is, chocolate is yummy. But when I look at the amount of saturated fat as a percentage of my daily value…it is a treat which my body can sparingly afford. With this nation as overweight as it is, I think companies that can create great tasting chocolate and effectively communicate its better health benefits can gain a great market share.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Just came across this defense of getting rid of the cocoa butter in chocolate. As usual, the hypothesis seems to be that anyone who objects to change and implies that product quality will be negatively affected is scaremongering. Sound familiar?
Very few chocolate consumers are aware of any ingredient controversies. A tiny minority are interested in organic chocolate. If Mars wants to make an issue of vegetable oil substitution for cocoa butter, they could improve their labels and utilize a more effective publicity strategy.
Very smart move by Mars. Is there anything to be more passionate about? Now I know who to buy my Halloween candy from.
Again, to us, this is another indication of a strong move back to quality as a differentiator. Slowly but surely, consumers begin to snap (somewhat) out of their trance on price and notice that all things cheap are not what they seem.
Bravo Mars! (samples welcome!)
This is a wonderful opportunity for Mars to further differentiate itself from its competition through emphasizing its use of real chocolate versus vegetable oil.
One cannot argue against the growth of the natural and organic movement in this country (and the world). As long as Mars continues to offer the quality and value that its customers demand, the additional benefit of using pure chocolate versus vegetable oil will not lose them any customers, only put them in a position to gain more.
It’s a win for Mars.
Good for them. Chocoholics can tell…others not. Why not go for the best, whether the taste buds tell or not? Reputation is half the selling price.
Chocolate is a tasty category today. With more studies coming out suggesting that chocolate (especially dark chocolate) has health benefits, many brands have moved upscale. Today, it is easy to find chocolates with 60%, 70% and more than 90% counts. Against this upscale background comes the effort to dumb-down chocolate by replacing cocoa butter with vegetable oil. Mars will retain the loyalty of purists and those who care. Those manufacturers who switch to vegetable oil will play more to the crowd who is price sensitive (but not taste sensitive), or who look to chocolate more for the sugar than the chocolate. What a great marketing and differentiation opportunity!
Mars knows where their bread is buttered (cocoa butter that is)! This is an example of a company that will stand by their brand quality and not waver! Congrats to Mars! I also agree that this is an excellent marketing opportunity for the company.
Do you think consumers are supportive of a change from cocoa butter to vegetable oil to make chocolate? I don’t suppose many consumers are aware of any proposed change or what it means. As others have said, only those who love the stuff will pay attention or care and they will certainly not be supportive. As for the rest? If they don’t taste the difference, or see a significant change in price, they won’t notice or care. They won’t be either for it or agin it. Again, I agree with those who have said this represents an opportunity for Mars, though, to emphasise the difference and the quality in their product but, again again, only with those who care. How little effect steadily increasing publicity about food, nutrition, diet, health etc has had in the past few years was demonstrated by yet another study released this week by the British Food Standards Agency. Too many people have been bombarded with too much information for it to have had the desired effect.
I’ll join the bullish on Mars camp. Discriminating consumers will appreciate the difference and those that can’t tell will still be seduced by the differentiation strategy.
When Mars came to this key fork in the road, they took it.
thus Mars shall be true to any man/woman who loves chocolate.
TRUE CHOCOLATE
The chocolate bar gazing up at me
Must be what it purports to be.
Says Webster in one decisive mutter,
It must be made from cocoa butter.
I give this comment as a chocoholic and not a consultant. Purists can definitely tell the difference between vegetable oil and cocoa. Mars will be going upscale if they intend to keep cocoa butter in their product instead of vegetable oil (the utility grade stuff). I for one prefer the premium products when it comes to chocolate and Mars will be doing itself (and its market share) a great service if it maintains that premium stance and continues to use quality ingredients.
“Do you think consumers are supportive of a change from cocoa butter to vegetable oil to make chocolate?”
If we take a step back, this issue is insane. Why would someone change a food like chocolate just to reduce costs by substituting an industrial food ingredient? My grandpa never thought, “I wonder if the kids will notice if I grill soy protein instead of hamburgers…”
My answer to the poll is I don’t know. Corporations obviously must decide, with the understanding of consumer reaction, impact on sales, brand image deteriorating, and the long term impact on the business.
Mars made its decision. It appears other major brands went the other way. This later group, interestingly, have attempted to overcome the lessening of the mainstay brands’ quality, with new and upscale chocolate products…that aren’t cheap.
Does this make sense, in light of fewer sales and consumer trials with the new brands’ upscale products, and most importantly, do not market appropriately and reduce dollars from the ‘flagship’ brands’ items?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
I’m with Bernice here, but from a different standpoint.
Fact is, chocolate is yummy. But when I look at the amount of saturated fat as a percentage of my daily value…it is a treat which my body can sparingly afford. With this nation as overweight as it is, I think companies that can create great tasting chocolate and effectively communicate its better health benefits can gain a great market share.