I just can’t get around the blatant lifting of the Tony’s Chocolonely and Cadbury’s graphic design. Presumably they went as close to line as they possibly could, with the careful advice of lawyers, to be able to avoid getting sued out of business. But why? Why put the focus on the companies they’re not rather than on the product inside? It’s doing my head in.
Interestingly it's a marketing method used by Tony's themselves. Back in 2021 they launched four 'lookalike' bars spoofing the design on KitKat, Twix, Ferro Rocher and Toblerone but after launching in UK supermarkets they were pulled from sale after alleged pressure from the companies they were inspired by
Fair. But Tony’s does have its own signature look separate from that campaign in which it is well established. Maybe Win-Win does as well, and I just haven’t seen it. It’s just throwing me to come across a new brand and all I’m seeing is something positioning itself as an “alternative to” chocolate with its packaging strongly focusing on “alternative to” Tony’s, Cadbury’s, etc., which isn’t, to me, helping establish the brand as something noteworthy in its own right rather than as an off-brand knock-off. Tony’s has the benefit of being, at least in the US, considered a high quality chocolate that people want to buy as a superior option at a 10x markup to something like Twix or KitKat, so it would be obvious that a marketing campaign like you describe would be a spoof, even if nonetheless ill-advised.
Came here to say this. Being in the design industry myself, this company is flying FAR too close to the sun with their product design, and I'm pretty surprised how far they've pushed it to be honest.
It could be extreme naivety, or maybe somehow they've found a loop hole that allows them to get away with what in my eyes is coat tail riding, but it's not a good look for an "ethical" company either way. However, if the "chocolate" is as meh as Edd says it is, maybe it's a pr stunt to just get lots of people buying out of curiosity?
Interestingly when I showed my partner, who is a lawyer, the bars he had a very similar feeling but from a legal standpoint, he wondered if it was too close and could cause problems for the company.
I know it’s not the same but it’s like a vegan sausage roll. I WANT a proper sausage roll. Not a meat free one. I’d still be interested to try this new cocoa free chocolate though.
I looked at the macronutrient list and was somewhat surprised to see dramatic differences in sugar and protein, I knew they would be different but didn't expect that much. The sugar content is very high. Personally, I struggle with carob as a cacao replacement, it just doesn't taste the same. But, I also understand where they're coming from.
After seeing the images of the products, I actually was surprised and confused when after waiting to read whether the (seemingly) Tony’s cocoa-free version was any better…the article ended.
It’s only in reading the comments that I realised the plain milk version isn’t actually a Tony’s bar called “Win-Win” (which I thought was a descriptive clever product name, using their established formats) at all. Interesting concept and I can get why they’d want to take a spoof-type challenge angle. This feels a bit more than cheeky though, and a lot more like passing off - which is a shame for them because I think in being too close their actual messaging opportunity is getting lost and confused in it along the way
I just can’t get around the blatant lifting of the Tony’s Chocolonely and Cadbury’s graphic design. Presumably they went as close to line as they possibly could, with the careful advice of lawyers, to be able to avoid getting sued out of business. But why? Why put the focus on the companies they’re not rather than on the product inside? It’s doing my head in.
Interestingly it's a marketing method used by Tony's themselves. Back in 2021 they launched four 'lookalike' bars spoofing the design on KitKat, Twix, Ferro Rocher and Toblerone but after launching in UK supermarkets they were pulled from sale after alleged pressure from the companies they were inspired by
Fair. But Tony’s does have its own signature look separate from that campaign in which it is well established. Maybe Win-Win does as well, and I just haven’t seen it. It’s just throwing me to come across a new brand and all I’m seeing is something positioning itself as an “alternative to” chocolate with its packaging strongly focusing on “alternative to” Tony’s, Cadbury’s, etc., which isn’t, to me, helping establish the brand as something noteworthy in its own right rather than as an off-brand knock-off. Tony’s has the benefit of being, at least in the US, considered a high quality chocolate that people want to buy as a superior option at a 10x markup to something like Twix or KitKat, so it would be obvious that a marketing campaign like you describe would be a spoof, even if nonetheless ill-advised.
Came here to say this. Being in the design industry myself, this company is flying FAR too close to the sun with their product design, and I'm pretty surprised how far they've pushed it to be honest.
It could be extreme naivety, or maybe somehow they've found a loop hole that allows them to get away with what in my eyes is coat tail riding, but it's not a good look for an "ethical" company either way. However, if the "chocolate" is as meh as Edd says it is, maybe it's a pr stunt to just get lots of people buying out of curiosity?
Interestingly when I showed my partner, who is a lawyer, the bars he had a very similar feeling but from a legal standpoint, he wondered if it was too close and could cause problems for the company.
I know it’s not the same but it’s like a vegan sausage roll. I WANT a proper sausage roll. Not a meat free one. I’d still be interested to try this new cocoa free chocolate though.
I would go further and say these are like vegan sausage rolls but without meat or puff pastry
That’s not good. The pastry is just as important as the filling!!
Me too. I’ll try just about anything (food-wise) once.
I love trying new foods. I’ll try anything once except mushrooms I hate them. They’re the devils food lol.
Just to clarify, the raw ingredients are "cacao", not "cacoa".
I spell that wrong every time! Thanks for spotting
I looked at the macronutrient list and was somewhat surprised to see dramatic differences in sugar and protein, I knew they would be different but didn't expect that much. The sugar content is very high. Personally, I struggle with carob as a cacao replacement, it just doesn't taste the same. But, I also understand where they're coming from.
Loved this article. thank you - so interesting to read and well balanced.
After seeing the images of the products, I actually was surprised and confused when after waiting to read whether the (seemingly) Tony’s cocoa-free version was any better…the article ended.
It’s only in reading the comments that I realised the plain milk version isn’t actually a Tony’s bar called “Win-Win” (which I thought was a descriptive clever product name, using their established formats) at all. Interesting concept and I can get why they’d want to take a spoof-type challenge angle. This feels a bit more than cheeky though, and a lot more like passing off - which is a shame for them because I think in being too close their actual messaging opportunity is getting lost and confused in it along the way