FEATURED POST

When Linus Met Sally and Other Famous Fictional Couples

VALENTINE'S DAY
You have to be pretty hard-hearted to not get a least a little lump in your thought when you think of some of fictional couples. But have you ever stopped to think just how these crazy lovebirds ever got together? The answers may surprise you.

Linus Van Pelt and Sally Brown
According to the comic strip, Charlie Brown’s sister, Sally was born on May 26, 1959 where Charlie marked the occasion by passing out chocolate cigars to his friends. She grew up quickly. She took her first steps on August 22, 1960 and she fell in love with Linus, Lucy’s brother, on the next day. It was love at first sight, at least on her part. Sally has often referred to Linus as her “Sweet Baboo.” Her dedication to her man seems endless. She has missed out on “tricks and treats” by sitting in a pumpkin patch waiting for the Great Pumpkin and she was incensed that Linus would snub her a Valentine’s gift in favor for his teacher, Miss Othmar. Still, she clings hopelessly in love with the stripe …

You Call This 'Fun' Size?

Should "fun size" candy be re-labeled "skimpy size?"
Are these really the FUN size?

 MUSINGS 

Guest Post by Ted Vail

Since Halloween is knocking at our door, let’s talk a little about candy, and notably, those little candies that say “Fun Size” on the wrapper. First of all, when it comes to candy, “Fun Size” means more candy not less. Apparently, someone replaced the word “skimpy” with the word “fun.” There is nothing fun about less candy. 

Have you ever used this phrase: “Sometimes less is more”? There are probably situations where that is true, but I suggest one situation where it is not true: Candy!  I’d like to be mindful of another phrase as it pertains to candy, “Most of the time, less is less”. 

Can we sue?  We could petition for truth in advertising, requesting that skimpy candy wrappers say one of the following:
  • “Not as Fun Size”
  • “Just Kid-ding Size”
  • “We Can’t Believe You were Duped into thinking this is Fun Size”
Or at least:
  • “Fun for Us Size" and then in small print: "Fun for us as Profiting Manufacturers to Sell Consumers Scrawnier Candy for the Same Amount of Money and Tell You it’s Fun (p.s. we got sued and have to say this)”. 
On a less cynical tone, there are three positives about “fun size” to encourage you with: 
  • Perhaps in a win for humanity, when it comes to candy, we’re not so focused on the exterior wrapper; we actually do judge for content on this one.
  • I was going to say, better health, but are we really going to put the word “health” anywhere on a candy bar?
  • Umm…ok I guess there’s only one positive, but I’ll keep thinking.
Here’s the reality; we’re not suing, it’s candy and we’re going to buy whatever they sell us. So let’s celebrate the Fun Size revolution as we take our young ones out in the neighborhood with some “fun size” candy baskets, then return to our "fun size" homes and celebrate the season by kicking back in our "fun size" chairs (capacity .5 people) and watch a 19” "fun size" TV while answering the door and handing out unhealthy portions of "fun size" candy.

Ted Vail is a longtime time friend of mine who has shared this rant with me and others many of times and I thought that it was time that it was shared with the masses.

Comments



promote my blog BrandBacker Member