CBS Sunday Morning
had a segment about health foods like fruits and vegetables, and how they’re
being outmatched by junk foods in advertising to kids. Then they had on some
guy we’ve all seen on The Daily Show
talking about the marketing terms being used for junk food, like:
“Crave-ability” and: “Snack-ability”. Well, maybe junk foods, to prevent
wholesome foods from catching on, should accuse them of having:
“Crave-disability” and: “Snack-disability”. Oh, but when something has a
disability, then the government can step in and help them, so this will be the
perfect invitation to government intervention into snack food advertising. Then
they can mandate that junk foods may only use compound words that are bad,
like: “Vomitrocious” and: “Obesityrannical”. Then we’ll all want to eat health
foods, right? (Or will the new negative language seem like a dare to kids?)
But from what I understand, products that use death-related
marketing tend to sell even better than those that don’t. So will this warning
strategy even work at all? Because the more junk food companies have to reveal
about the dangerousness of their products, the more they can legitimately claim
that eating their stuff makes people like food-consuming daredevils. Then the advertising
can claim you’re Eating Knievel, or Eater Knievel, when you dare to eat Devil
Dogs! Yes, only daredevils eat Devil Dogs, or Daredevil Dogs: You’re taking
your life in your hands when you eat Daredevil Dogs! Only badasses would even dare to try it! (And only pansies
won’t. But that goes without saying, doesn’t it?)
Hmm, maybe if advertising people could think of a way to
make health foods seem more dangerous? Maybe that’s what will really work.
