Jezebel: 100 calorie snacks

100-Calorie Pack Fad: Finally Finished

Intern Katy — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:30:00 EDT

100-calorie packs were once labeled the next big thing! in snacking, a fact we weren't exactly thrilled about, but recent data shows that sales of the tiny packs have dropped, Brand Week reports. What happened?

The trend started in 2004, when Kraft introduced their 100-cal packs of Oreo Thin Crisps (they also introduced an infuriating commercial to promote these cardboard wafers), Wheat Thin Minis and Nabisco Mixed Berry Fruit Snacks. The next year, Kellogg and General Mills followed suit. Kraft's individually packaged bags of cookies and crackers sold extremely well: more than $75 million in sales in their first year (a figure that does not include Walmart sales).

In the past year, however, sales of the mini-packs have drastically fallen. Although Kraft maintains that its products are still selling well, dollar sales of Kraft's Nabisco 100-calorie Oreo Thin Crisps fell 30.5%, and other items show a similar trend. Some believe that the 100-cal packets are over:

Tom Vierhile, director of product launch analytics for Datamonitor, said the segment has run out of steam. Vierhile's research shows that there's still a lot of products on the market making the 100-calorie claim-190 were introduced last year and 68 have come out so far this year, but they may be too late to market. "This has been a big trend the last couple of years, but has dropped off this year and at this point it looks like we're going to come in below where we were last year," he said.

It seems that most people have realized that 100-calorie packs aren't at all useful. They don't taste as good, they fill our landfills with useless packaging, and they provide servings that are way too small to sate most cravings. Phil Lempert, a food analyst who calls himself the "Supermarket Guru," says that one reason the 100-calorie snack craze has fizzled is due to the ability of "newly frugal customers" to measure servings by themselves.

Furthermore, it appears that the strict portion control imposed by 100-calorie packs may not actually work for weight loss. A study conducted last year found that participants given 100-calorie snacks while watching TV ate significantly more than those who were handed a regular-sized bag. Brand Week also points out that portion control dieting may be on its way out, to be replaced by the already annoying weight loss buzz word "satiety."

100-Calorie Packs Pack It In [BrandWeek]

100 Calorie Packs Turn Women Into Crazy, Screaming Lunatics

hortense — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:30:00 EST

Can we just talk about this ridiculous 100 Calorie Packs commercial for a second? Because it has played at least 8 times since I started writing this morning, and it is officially driving me insane.

The ad depicts a horde of completely insane women, screaming with excitement as a truck carrying 100 Calorie Packs of Oreo Cakesters rolls down a city street. We're supposed to find this hilarious and wacky, but this commercial just pisses me off. First of all, NOBODY ON EARTH gets that excited about a snack pack of pre-portioned soft Oreos. NOBODY. And secondly, if, as the ad claims, these packs are "goodies for grown-ups," then why are women the only ones going crazy over the cookies in this ad? The men in this ad react to the woman with a mix of "WTF" and "oh my god, you're crazy" which only serves to make the women look even more pathetic and ridiculous.

What say you, commenters?

Earlier: 100 Calorie Snacks Are The Downfall Of American Civilization

100-Calorie Snacks Are The Downfall Of American Civilization

Moe — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:00:00 EST

100-calorie snacks are, among many other things, the reason I despise the word "innovation" when used in the context of the defense of market capitalism. Inventing the Dorito: that is "innovation." Crushing nine Doritos into small pieces and selling them in miniature bags because our landfills aren't being occupied fast enough is just...at best, it is baby food. A hundred calories is a retarded unit of food to try to consume. People in GULAGS didn't dole out food in 100-calorie increments. And the type of food that comes in 100-calorie packs is precisely that sinister brand of carbs that were invented with the sole purpose of making you want MORE.

And, of course, if you spend the 256% unit price markup for the luxury of buying your food in 100-calorie portions, that's the nice thing: you're allowed to have more than one. Encouraged, even! That's the innovation. Of course, the 100-calorie snack packs prey on our perceptions that we have no self-control.

But consider this: of all the reasons psychologists have been pointed to for conspiring to make us binge on massive quantities of food, that's number one — the sense you've lost control. (Well, that and pot.) (Also, I'm sort of making that up, but it's true.)

So why buy into that evil notion? Why not just, say, eat when you're hungry? Skip dinner if you go overboard? Go take a walk, change into sweatpants, whatevs? Because it wouldn't feed the CYCLE. The cycle tempting, daring, BEGGING us all to buy something, ANYTHING, to help us cope with the fact that we hate ourselves. It started with King Size snickers bars and Super Size meals and double quarter-pounders and ended with Alli and Anna Nicole Smith's tragic, tragic death.

It's a cycle I see before me every time I find myself confronted with a drugstore rack of 100-calorie snack packs.

Break the cycle.

And oh yeah, don't forget not to buy the new 100-calorie Girl Scout cookies.

100 Calorie Packs Are Convenient, But At What Cost? [Detroit News]
Guide To 100-Calorie Snack Packs Taquitos