If I Were Marketing a Food, I Would Not Choose a Mascot that Was that Food

If I were marketing a food, I would not choose a mascot that was that food.

This is my opinion.  It is my opinion because of my quirks. One quirk is not wanting to snack on self-conscious beings.  "Twinkie the Kid" is a good example.  Hostess has unwittingly presented me with a dilemma I'd rather not confront. 

He's clearly a "self", a Twinkie-in-full, engaging in autonomous decision-making, and -- I think we can presume this -- even engaged in a career arc.  Twinkie the Kid uses his lasso to rustle up other twinkies.  He smiles.  He makes fashion choices.  He even engages in questionable moral behavior.  (As a winner of the evolutionary lottery for arms and legs, does he now have license to "round up" other, armless Twinkies?  Also problematic:  One cannot choose boots, but remain pantless.  I've learned this the hard way.)

Consider, as well, the "M&M Guys".  Clearly capable of friendship,  they truly seek to know, and to be truly known.  They demonstrate loyalty, and a brotherly "phileo" love, and possibly eros.  They are alive, sentient, and other-centered.  All this, and the Mars Company merely assures me they will not melt in my hands.

I struggle mightily with this.  Briefly.  Their taste pleases me.

If I were marketing a food, I would not choose a mascot that was that food.  I would design a talking, bipedal rabbit that desperately wants that food, but is -- for reasons we cannot fathom -- not permitted to eat it.

Comments

[kari]

yeah, why IS Trix just for kids? how's come rabbits can't eat it?

[Jerry Tyler]

Regarding the pantless Twinkie mascot; If you have a keen sense of animated commercial mascots, you will know that the Kool-Aid pitcher was originally created pantless also. However due to the large outcry from the public and several media investigative reports, he is now donning trousers. I wonder how Twinkie the Kid would look wearing chaps?