OT: Why Oreo vs. Hydrox Matters
There are many posters on here who believe the logo on the cookie doesn’t matter. Here is another reason why it matters to others.
Hydrox Cookie: Made with cheap, thin white creme, and it tastes stale.
Oreo Cookie: Look at the effort put into these cookies. Cookie has a tight fit and is made with thick creme.
The million dollar question is if the cookie quality in terms of expensive creme R&D is worth the price of a box.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
So you're saying that you support a product that peaked in the early 20th century and has, for the most part, been on a steady decline for the last 100 years while it's chief competition has seen markedly increased success; particulary recently?
On a Michigan football blog I just can't buy into that logic
/s
You forgot
DISCUSS
Nike vs. Adidas (or UA), Hydrox vs. Oreos; debates that are sentimental in some respects, quality control in others; and granted, not entirely parallel.
But whether you still look at Nike as the relatively new upstart compared to tried and true Adidas (est. 1971 vs. 1926); or compare the two based on branding sentiment alone; or you're looking at product quality; one of these two (most likely) will be selling Michigan to fans and gear to our athletes, and so I thought it was interesting just how much brand cache and cultural identity is worth.
Personally, I don't want a company that only offers money. I want a company that can take and preserve my brand and perfect it over time, sell it, and make it more valuable.
There are always competitors, and there are always victors. Myspace/Friendster vs. Facebook? Hydrox vs. Oreos? Adidas/UA vs. Nike?
Nike, Oreos and Facebook, all day. Go with the victors. Hail to the Victors.
Never heard of Hydrox but Oreos are the worst cookie ever made. Tastes like two pieces of cardboard separated by a paste made of chalk, water, and sugar.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad