First, you've GOT to read this nugget. The article is about how Heinz is removing the pickle logo from its ketchup bottles.
Done? Good. So what part stuck out at you? No, I wasn't talking about the "Milwaukee" byline (although it is odd that a company in Pittsburgh and on a New York website would have anything to do with Milwaukee). It's this:
In testing, mothers — the target buyers — said having the tomato on the label helped them make the connection with the product's main ingredient. Mothers want to have more information about the foods they're serving their families and they want to feel that the foods are natural and wholesome, Geoffrey said.
So you are telling me that mothers will not know that ketchup is made with tomatoes if there is an itsy-bitsy pickle on the label? And just as curious, since when aren't pickles natural and wholesome?
Think of all the money that went into consultants and focus groups; on salaries of the Heinz folks and the PR firms and the graphic houses, etc. Think about the PR blitz that was mentioned in the article. That's a lot of scratch for a "down economy".
Now think of the braniac that spoke up in a company meeting and said "Um, I think we should remove the pickle from the ketchup label". No, notwithstanding whether that is a good idea or not (and personally, I can't stand ketchup so I have no stake in this) the answer in that meeting should not have resulted in focus groups and media blitzes. It should have resulted in "Sure, Phil. Sounds good." Or, possibly "Phil, you're excused". But to end up with an article that actually includes the admission that some mothers don't know that ketchup is made of tomatoes? Good Lord, please help their children