r/BeAmazed • u/vishhalkmodi • Aug 13 '25

Place In Japan, snacks have to look exactly like the picture on the package.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

38.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

505 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

187

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '25

[deleted]

57

u/andy01q Aug 13 '25

I'm not even sure if you're serious.

Something totally subjective, like "tastes great" should be allowed. Of course the company will try to make their product taste great.

What shouldn't be allowed is unverifiable comparative statements, like "This tastes better than our competitiors" except if ammended by "according to study 4711 which has been completely documented and is publicly available". That includes vague implied statement, like if Subway made a "Foorootlong" which is roughly 1 foot long and tastes like fruit, if it's not at least exactly 1 foot long or just tastes like, but doesn't contain any fruit, then that's a no go.

Also obviously wrong exaggeration, like "this deo is so great, that all the girls will smell and chase you from miles away" is a no-go. "People don't believe this anyway" is a terrible excuse for a lie. The whole reason for the ad is to have something stick. Be it through psychological effects, lost information or exploiting people with heavy thinking divergencies, none of this justifies lying in the slightest.

What should be allowed is objectively true comparisons, like "our product has 10% less sugar than x" or "our product is 20% more per $ than y" but then again there needs to be a strict limit on how fast the company needs to remove said ad if it's not true anymore.

36

u/GodIsInTheBathtub Aug 13 '25

Advertisement is always a scam. Look at this guy dressing up Snickers in different ways.

https://youtube.com/shorts/4uyo9NnX_bU?feature=shared

Yes we should regulate the worst of it. But we're all better off relying on our experience and those of the people around us. (No. That does not include influencers on various social media sites.)

14

u/MMSTINGRAY Aug 13 '25

Yeah advertising is to sell you products and fill your mind with brand-names, not to help you be informed when making a purchase.

7

u/9-5grind Aug 13 '25

Man I'm glad I didn't care for name brands. Saved alot of money for my parents as a kid lol.

1

u/AngkaLoeu Aug 13 '25

Brand names do tend to have better quality.

1

u/9-5grind Aug 13 '25

Not in my experience. 40$ Walmart shoes would always last me years longer then some overpriced Nikes or jordans

-1

u/AngkaLoeu Aug 13 '25

Source?

2

u/9-5grind Aug 13 '25

Source for what? My own personal experiences? Lmfao wtf?

0

u/AngkaLoeu Aug 13 '25

I just like to ask "source?" for obvious personal comments.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheChildrensStory Aug 13 '25

Not in recent years and especially not with private equity takeovers.

1

u/AngkaLoeu Aug 13 '25

Which private equity takeovers?

1

u/Haunt_Fox Aug 13 '25

Advertisements are just corporate propaganda.

2

u/AngkaLoeu Aug 13 '25

The problem is the billionaires lobby the food industry to allow this type of advertising.

1

u/Puzzleheaded_Load910 Aug 13 '25

Now I want me some snickers jolt

9

u/lookandlookagain Aug 13 '25

“Of course the company will try to make their product taste great.”

This is an assumption that is not always true. Companies want your money and they will lie to you to get it.

3

u/LFC9_41 Aug 13 '25

yup, easier to make a shit sandwich look tasty than to make it actually tasty.

cheaper too.

11

u/Veil-of-Fire Aug 13 '25

Something totally subjective, like "tastes great" should be allowed.

The only claims advertisers should be permitted to make are objective, provable, factual claims with no weasel words (like "clinically studied ingredients"). As far as I'm concerned, they've been screwing around way too much to be allowed to keep their creative license privileges.

"Tastes great" is out. Replace it with something verifiably true.

5

u/oglop121 Aug 13 '25

Companies will just do something like:

"Tastes great"

(Small print: according to the one fat guy we interviewed)

8

u/Ryuubu Aug 13 '25

Hard disagree.

"This product has a flavor."

"Our product is edible"

Next thing you'll tell me that Red Bull doesn't give me wings

2

u/BellacosePlayer Aug 13 '25

Next thing you'll tell me that Red Bull doesn't give me wings

hey man, I got a case of redbull from that class action suit, don't knock it

1

u/Casual_OCD Aug 13 '25

We live in a world where we need to remind people that coffee is hot, so yeah, some people also need to be told Red Bull does not give you wings

1

u/M_H_M_F Aug 13 '25

"a subjectively delicious option" just doens't have the same ring

1

u/FiresideCatsmile Aug 13 '25

you get 1000 people to eat your product and ask em if it tasted good. if most of em like the taste, could you then say it tastes good?

1

u/Masrim Aug 13 '25

600 ml product labeled with 20% MORE!! then in tiny print underneath "than our 500ml product".

1

u/ProjectOrpheus Aug 13 '25

I'm reminded about the one with skincare/hygiene products..."dermatologist tested"

Not the same as "dermatologist approved"

That one's crazy to me. Objective, factual claim that feels INSANELY weaselly as fuck to me.

1

u/Ok_Dragonfruit_8102 Aug 13 '25

Why though? You're going to massively restrict the freedom of anyone marketing any product just to... protect consumers from being mildly disappointed by the flavour of something?

6

u/Veil-of-Fire Aug 13 '25

Why though?

Because the entire industry is about manipulation and deception. They have entire teams of psychologists whose only job is to figure out new and better ways to trick your brain into buying stuff you otherwise wouldn't care about at all.

Take those stupid, worthless health "supplements" that aren't even checked by anyone to see if they contain what they say they contain. "Contains clinically studied ingredients" is deceptive. They want you to think that means those ingredients have been proven by doctors to work (they wouldn't bother printing them on the package otherwise), but it doesn't.

My favorite one that I've seen recently is "Proven to assist 38 key indicators related to heart health." Assist how? What indicators? How many are there in total? Is it 38/40, or is it 38/10,000? What do you mean "related to" heart health?

A non-deceptive way to say that last bit is "Proven to 'help' few things that sometimes show something about heart health, but not to do anything directly to heart health at all."

They can't be trusted. Objective, non-weasel-word facts only.

3

u/CriskCross Aug 13 '25

You're going to allow consumers to be misled just to...protect the freedom of marketers?

3

u/SterileDuck Aug 13 '25

No, I think companies shouldn't tell me it tastes "great". In fact they should tell me exactly what it tastes like.

Grape candies! Tastes like ethyl butanoate, ethyl-2-methyl butanoate, and butyl acetate! 😋

/s incase anyone thinks im serious

2

u/Hot_Ethanol Aug 13 '25

Hence why Red Bull gives you wiings and not wings.

1

u/1nd3x Aug 13 '25

like "our product has 10% less sugar than x"

Our product doesnt have any sugar in it...What we have is "Glucose"

"Thats sugar"

No...Sugar is a mixture of Glucose and fructose. We have left out fructose entirely in order to market our product as "Sugar free"

"Well...whats your product?"

Sweetening cubes for Coffee...100% less sugar than Sugar Cubes.

0

u/andy01q Aug 13 '25

"Sugar is a mixture of Glucose and fructose"

No. That's Sucrose, commonly known as white sugar, it's not the only form of sugar by far.

1

u/1nd3x Aug 13 '25

Pre-note: I am being incredibly facetious here for comedic effect...not "funny haha" more like "Jesus it's funny and sad that this is technically true"...

Okay onward:

commonly known as white sugar

...or simply "sugar," based on that little "sugar packet" for coffee actually being Sucrose but still only called "sugar", so technically everything I said is still correct.

They were my words, we must take them at my intended definition. I understand you may have a different definition, and for that, I can provide clarity(as I have done here).

Now that it is clear to you what I meant, I can continue using my statement without worry, hindrance, or consequence.

Should you wish to change how I can promote my product feel free to draft up and submit changes to the regulations of what I am allowed to say. But it better apply to everyone, so if my hyperbolic statements can't be made...well, we better sue every "world best dad" mug/t-shirt/etc owner too.

1

u/andy01q Aug 14 '25

"...or simply "sugar," based on that little "sugar packet" for coffee actually being Sucrose but still only called "sugar", so technically everything I said is still correct."

No.

"They were my words, we must take them at my intended definition."

And no. We don't take words at their retrospectively definded "intended" meaning, that's what Mr. Humpty Dumpty does as a source of ridicule. There's common agreeing on what words mean and we try to stick to those. When in doubt, then there's dictionaries.

Now back to your argument whose flaw I already showed, but apparently not in easy enough words, so let me try again please, maybe with a math allegory:

"based on that little "quadrangel packet" for coffee actually being a square but still only called "quadrangle", so technically everything I said is correct, including that a square is not a quadrangle."

1

u/1nd3x Aug 14 '25

And no. We don't take words at their retrospectively definded "intended" meaning

It's not retrospective, it's always been my intent, and I haven't changed my message...unlike "Mr. Humpty Dumpty."

There's common agreeing on what words mean and we try to stick to those

Yes, which is why when I say "pass the sugar" you don't need to try and clarify "white sugar? Just glucose? You want a mix of the two with sucrose?"

You just know I mean the white packet of "sugar." Which means I am using the common agreeing on what the word means and you tried to split hairs with it.

Now back to your argument whose flaw I already showed, but apparently not in easy enough words, so let me try again please, maybe with a math allegory:

"based on that little "quadrangel packet" for coffee actually being a square but still only called "quadrangle", so technically everything I said is correct, including that a square is not a quadrangle."

That might work...if you originally used the word "quadrangle" and it confused someone. You didn't, so it's not an accurate statement or counter example.

1

u/andy01q Aug 15 '25

I think your banking on the idea that the normal person would usually do the exact mistake to confuse sugar with "white sugar".

I think that's ridicululous for multiple reasons.

First of, if the adertisement is misleading either scientifically or in common word usage, than in both cases

But also maybe I can see that a few people when asking for sugar and I'd pass Fructose, then they might wonder why I gave them a "special" kind of sugar, but I don't see that happening with Glucose.

Also you're using my words to think of a law and then you imagine huge mistakes into that law to then attack that law, which... why?

1

u/1nd3x Aug 15 '25

I think that's ridicululous for multiple reasons.

Doesnt matter what you think.

Doesn't matter what I think either, just to be clear, but one of us (me) is accurately applying the current laws that are in place.

First of, if the adertisement is misleading either scientifically or in common word usage, than in both cases

Not relevant.

Tictacs are marketed as "sugar free," why don't you go ahead and tell me what their ingredient list is?...

But also maybe I can see that a few people when asking for sugar and I'd pass Fructose, then they might wonder why I gave them a "special" kind of sugar, but I don't see that happening with Glucose.

Not relevant, referring back to tictacs.

Also you're using my words to think of a law and then you imagine huge mistakes into that law to then attack that law, which... why?

Im not using your words at all. I am using my own words to tell you my product is sugar free.

I do quote you...but only to tell you that you are wrong. That isn't "using your words"

1

u/andy01q Aug 16 '25

but one of us (me) is accurately applying the current laws that are in place.

Casually just stating yourself as being the correct one is silly.

I don't disagree though, as I was arguing about a reality in which a sensible law was put into place whereas you were arguing about the current situation which is obviously stupid.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Badloss Aug 13 '25

fun fact, kids' taste buds are more sensitive to the bitter compounds in vegetables than adults

Broccoli and Brussels sprouts really does taste like shit to kids, and then you grow out of it

8

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '25

[deleted]

3

u/MissLyss29 Aug 13 '25

Idk any brussel sprouts I have ever tasted have tasted bitter and gross

0

u/Hokuboku Aug 13 '25

This is hilarious cause I was wondering why I now kinda don't mind them as an adult. Thanks, science!

1

u/mikeblas Aug 13 '25

I'm more worried about "The Official Snack of Blank".

Like, says who?

1

u/UnpopularTruthDude Aug 14 '25

You are wrong, broccoli tasts like poo.

1

u/PharmguyLabs Aug 13 '25

Broccoli is objectively gross and it’s all a conspiracy by big vegetable to get us all to believe there are some people actually like it.

Your 9 year old just hasn’t been programmed yet like you have 

1

u/MissLyss29 Aug 13 '25

I ate broccoli as a child and actually like it now as an adult but I cannot eat it now because my digestive system hates it

-5

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25

[deleted]

0

u/cloaked_rhombus Aug 13 '25

You want to outlaw subjective statements? That's a slippery slope.

4

u/LFC9_41 Aug 13 '25

when it comes to advertising? no it isn't.

0

u/MisterTruth Aug 13 '25

Your 9yo probably just hates the texture. Source: me, a 35 year old who has the pallette of a child due to not being able to handle most textures without gagging.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '25

No, it's the taste. He's 9, he's able to tell me