A reader named Jerrod Savage sends in a couple images that seem to show a rather clever marketing strategy. Turns out that when you reduce the size of a container of Nesquik chocolate syrup, you also reduce the sugar content! It’s possible the actual syrup has less actual sugar — but, judging from the label, it’s also possible that it doesn’t.
Photo: Jerrod Savage The Original
Photo: Jerrod Savage The Low-Sugar (Smaller!) Alternative
and 
. You can also watch it on 
It’s not only the size of the bottle but the size of the serving has been reduced by 30%, 20ml to 14ml. I bet the price stayed the same!
I like the serving size of 14 ml.
That is less than one measuring tablespoon of the brown substance.
Given that syrup is essentially no more than a saturated or nearly saturated sugar solution, I’m curious as to how many OTHER ways you know of to reduce the sugar content of a bottle of syrup?
My favorite is how cooking spray will always say “Fat Free”, when it’s essentially a can of pure fat. It turns out you can list 0g of fat if your serving size makes the fat turn out to be less than 1g.
What is the serving size? 1/3 seconds of spray (or .226g). I want to see someone try to cook their eggs with that little oil in the pan.
This is a bogus post. A quick review of the two products at the link below shows that the regular has 16g of sugar PER SERVING and the reduced sugar alternative only has 10g.
http://www.nestle.ca/en/products/brands/Nesquik/syrup_chocolate.htm
The question is whether the changed serving size is legitimate: i.e., does the 14ml serving make your milk just as chocolatey as the old 20ml serving? If so, then the reduced sugar claim is also legitimate, as would maintaining the previous price (in fact, the number of servings increased from 35 to 36).
Personally, I always wonder why food companies change the labeling on their products. The gestalt of the label allows customers to find it by color and design, even if the size changes a bit.
Recently I couldn’t find my cat’s preferred food in the dimly-lit grocery store because the cat food company decided to change the color and graphics on the label. Can’t they just get their marketing department’s I.Q. above room temperature fer-krisakes? My cat can’t tell one label from another, but I have to find the darned can under fluorescent lighting that was installed during the Eisenhower administration. I wrote to the company…they sent me some coupons. Hah!
I would not characterize this as a “rather clever marketing strategy.” If there was no change to the product except package size and suggested serving size, then it would be correct to classify it as an intentionally deceptive and fraudulent marketing strategy. I hope you would reserve the more positive designation of clever to those strategies that are innovative and honest.