4 ms·
In the case of cinnabon, I'd profoundly disagree with you: "The company anticipated mega sales when it opened bakeries in a handful of Seattle-area QFCs in 199
by Aloha 9y ago
In the case of cinnabon, I'd profoundly disagree with you:
"The company anticipated mega sales when it opened bakeries in a handful of Seattle-area QFCs in 1996. Instead, remembers Greg, “We’d get a three-month boost, and sales would just die.” In marketing speak, Cinnabon suffers from high levels of “product fatigue.” In real talk, it’s not the type of thing most people can eat on a regular basis and maintain their self-respect—or their pant size. Grocery store regulars eventually learn to resist the siren song of icing, dough, and cinnamon goo."
In any case, you choose to smoke, you choose to eat too much, you choose to do things - while yes, you can get addicted to nicotine (and likely will), and you might get addicted to junk food - you made the choice in the first place - its not as if the risks are unknowns.
While I'm in favor of a gradual delegalization of tobacco, banning food is beyond the pale for me - moderated consumption of even calorie bombs like cinnabon, has not been proven harmful - what alternative do you have?
- toomuchtodo 9y agoSugar triggers the same parts of your brain as cocaine, while also causing severe health problems when overconsumed. Please don’t say “you made the choice” when talking about substance abuse, regardless of the substance. While I’d advocate outlawing tobacco, I think products based on sugar should carry a hefty tax to fund healthcare costs and dissuade their consumption. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-rea...
- yters 9y agoShould we legislate against exercise too, which can cause death when done to extremes? We should also outlaw extreme dieting, due to similar health effects. We also might want to enforce a bit of overeating since somewhat overweight people live longer.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoI didn't say legislate; my workplace health insurance plan charges me less if they detect I'm using the gym plan they pay for and my blood tests show I'm not smoking. I have the option of paying more per month if I don't want to participate in these wellness activities. Internalize the economic externalities. You can lead an unhealthy life if you want, but you should pay for it.
- noarchy 9y ago>I didn't say legislate; Are you sure? You also said: >While I’d advocate outlawing tobacco, I think products based on sugar should carry a hefty tax to fund healthcare costs and dissuade their consumption. Were you talking about costs related to private insurance, or government-imposed taxes?
- toomuchtodo 9y ago> Were you talking about costs related to private insurance, or government-imposed taxes? To be clear, I'm for both, as I believe that government should provide a single payer system and activities that make you unhealthy and have an excessive cost to treat should be taxed to fund those treatments.
- noarchy 9y agoFair enough, I just wanted it to be clear that you are for some kind of legislation (or other government involvement) in this matter.
- solotronics 9y agothe difference being 99 people die from being too fat for every one that dies from exercising too much
- yters 9y agoIf numbers are a concern, we should outlaw having sex with multiple partners, as that spreads enormous amounts of disease and leads to many unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
- khedoros1 9y agoEither you can say that consuming addictive substances isn't a choice, or you can tax people for their choices. I don't see how you could have both.
- autarch 9y agoThe idea of choice as free will untethered to outside influences is clearly nonsense. However, people do respond to external stimuli when making decisions. Translation: the machine that is my brain considers things like cost when following the laws of physics and chemistry down a deterministic path. In other words, taxes can influence behavior, regardless of the role of "choice".
- Aloha 9y agoI'm saying this as an overweight tobacco user.
- underwater 9y agoThe company know that their product is bad for people and that people try to avoid it, yet Cinnabon use manipulative tactics to wear their customers down: > “Let’s face it, people really want to avoid us,” Greg Komen once told an audience. “We have to get in your way.” What if this were a tech company? Facebook got a lot of heat for supporting an experiment where they influenced people’s emotions. This seems a lot worse because there are negative mental and physical effects. And they can’t even try and justify it with any sort of “connecting the world” style message. It’s purely about making cash.
- Aloha 9y agoThis is marketing - and while it might be brash to say so, people have been doing this for well over 100 years - again, Cinnabon isn't bad for you unless consumed all the time - the same could be said about Facebook. The difference is, facebook is targeted in such a way to encourage constant engagement, and Cinnabon markets itself in such a way as to encourage occasional engagement.