From a Simple, Colored Chocolate to a Heated, Sexual Topic of Conversation

M&M is one of the most well-known candies worldwide for its colors and taste. In 1941, Forrest E. Mars, son of the creator of Milky Way and 3 Musketeers, drew inspiration from the small, chocolate candies that soldiers snacked on during the Spanish Civil War (O’neal, 2023). They were first produced for the military in these cardboard tubes that were easy to carry around and access.

The significance of these candies was that they were suited for any climate as their special coating protected the candy from melting. So, when soldiers were in hot climates, the candies were still intact in their tubes, pockets, or in their hands. All of the first advertising techniques focused on the candies ability to withstand heat and likeability to soldiers. The slogan was that the candies “melt in your mouth, not in your hand”. By 2003, M&Ms had been sold in over 100 countries as sales skyrocketed around this time.

(Joy, 2017)

Everything has been perfect for the M&M candy since 1941 as they introduced new flavors, colors, personalities, and identities to each of the M&Ms that had positive impacts on their sales and consumers’ liking. Why change that? Why alter something that had been so successful for over eight decades? In 2022, M&M had thought they were smoothly transitioning themselves into the new “woke” culture, but instead, transitioned themselves and their brand into a controversy.

The recent M&M controversy has raised some relatively small yet important questions. Who would have thought that changing the look of a chocolate candy to fit into our new “woke” society create such a controversy? Why do the candies need their own individual personas and clothing? Does the sexual nature of the M&Ms matter? Who even cares about a green chocolate pellet? Well, you would be surprised…

It all started when an unprovoked change in appearance of the M&M characters were advertised in January of 2022.

(Eagle Era, 2022)

As the M&M characters emerged in 1954, and were slowly evolving into personalities,  the green M&M has projected a more feminine personality and look than the rest, along with the brown M&M. The green chocolate candy had always been the “sassy” one with the high heels, long lashes, arms crossed, etc. However, the public noticed a dramatic change in the look of mostly the green M&M. Why only Ms. Green?

Notice, there is a difference in skin color of the M&Ms from the original versus the 2022 version. There was not much backlash in that change as the brand wanted to be more ambiguous when it came to race, even though we are talking about chocolate candies…. not people. Anyways, there was much more backlash and commentary on how the femininity of Ms. Green had changed.

(Katsikopoulou, 2022)

As the M&M brand expected satisfaction with the public thinking, they were fulfilling their needs, the public had an adverse effect in claiming there was no need for the change at all. According to People.com, M&M argued their change in advertising was to “…focus on their personalities, rather than their gender.” The public responded in confusion as they did not push for this change. If anything, Mars brought about more attention to the gender controversy going on at the time rather than stepping back from it.

Critics claimed the new characters looks were too “woke” and a failure at being more inclusive. The main critics were members of feminists’ groups and conservatives. Feminists criticized the new advertisement as a failure at being more inclusive to all genders as M&M was getting rid of any femininity in the candy’s personalities. Conservatives, quite expectedly, argued that the new looks of the candies reflected how society is changing, in a pessimistic way according to this group. A specific conservative opinion that became highly publicized on many social media outlets was Tucker Carlson, a former news host. As a right-wing commentator, Carlson stated, “Bet you didn’t think M&M’s were pushing intolerance but they were…M&Ms will not be satisfied until every last cartoon character is deeply unappealing and totally androgynous…until the moment you wouldn’t want to have a drink with any of them, that’s the goal.” Though people agreed that changing the candies looks was not the best thing, many disagreed with Tucker’s reasoning behind why it was a failure. Tucker’s misogynistic comments and take on the M&M further proved the ongoing sexual/gender dilemma of our time. Should M&M have refrained from changing because the “woke” society was taking over too much at the time? Should M&M have refrained from changing because every brand needs a feminine, attractive aspect as Tucker suggested? Is there a healthy representation of femininity but without inviting misogyny? According to Tucker, it’s absolutely necessary to have femininity, even in a chocolate, or else he will be “turned off.”

When it comes to the business side of things, M&M also failed at promoting their candy in a successful way. Due to our society changing, it can be difficult for companies and brands to advertise their products in ways that will not offend anyone. Almost all commercials or advertisements are nit-picked by critics claiming the brands are not being inclusive or “woke”. However, there is a phenomenon of being too “woke”. For example, Bengtsson et. al (2024) “…found that woke marketing is generally well-received if it appears authentic and aligns with a brand’s values and identity. Forced or insincere efforts can, however, lead to perceptions of “woke-washing”, eroding consumer trust. Brands must carefully integrate inclusivity to resonate with target audiences without alienating others.” According to this study’s findings, M&M failed in 2022.

Overall, consumers believed the change did more harm than good. What was expected to be a modern take on gender turned out to be a failure at inclusivity. Some opinions claimed there was not a need for the new looks, candies do not need personalities, gender should not be associated with simple chocolate pellets, etc. Though the change in Ms. Green’s look is a mere failure in advertising on the part of M&M, the controversy that it had brought up revealed the nature of society today. When it comes to gender, sexuality, and feminism, everything can be debated…. even if it is a damn piece of candy.

References

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.