Packaged Deals

Sometimes you just have to take the bad along with the good. This is evident in variety bags of candy. Recently I purchased a hefty amount of discount candy, following Halloween. It is great to have a good sized box of candy on hand. As I eat away at the candy, I notice that there seems to be less and less of the Snickers and Life Saver Gummies, and more and more of the Milk Duds and Jolly Ranchers. I don’t know if the Duds and Ranchers were represented more proportionately than the other candies were, but I know they are now. The Duds are good, but too chewy. The Ranchers are tasty, but too hard. As I look at the candy box now I wonder if these two types were thrown into the variety bags to get them to sell. I didn’t purchase either of them intentionally; they were just part of a collection of something else that I wanted.
Do candy companies make candy that no one wants? Is it possible that these less desirable types were thrown into bags with more desirable types just to get them out of the warehouse? Could there be a more egocentric approach to candy distribution? The answer to all three questions is no. The point is that this is what I thought of when I was looking at the box of candy with all of the little yellow boxes and thin colorful wrappers. For no other reason than that I simply don’t like them as much, I thought the Milk Duds and Jolly Ranchers were disliked by everyone. Does this have any relevance? Of course not, candy is candy. Discrimination regarding candy is perfectly alright.
If I used my candy frame of mind as my people frame of mind then you can see where problems might arise. And if you can see it, then share it with me, because as I think back over this example I’m trying to figure out what I mean. I don’t mean that if I see a large population of people I think that they are disliked and the manufacturer is simply trying to move his product. I don’t mean that at all, but that’s what I seemed to be implying by my statement of comparison. Originally I was only going to comment on how I thought that less favored candy was paired with more favored candy to get rid of it. But then my interest in society crept in and I started making connections. It just so happens that in this case the connection failed. Now, on with the show.
Packaged deals can either be a win/win for the customer or a win/win for the manufacturer. In either case, when it is win/win for one it is probably a win/lose for the other. For instance, Conan O’Brien is doing a contest of some sort. I saw a commercial for it (see www.teamcoco.com for more information). In this contest he is giving away 20 pine tree shaped car air fresheners. But that’s not all! He is also coupling a new car with the scented dangly tree. It’s a package deal. Win/win for the winner, as they get two good products. Win/lose for the sponsor as they give out a cheap thing and an expensive thing. In sales, only slightly different than giveaways, a package deal usually tries to couple a great thing to a not-so-great thing in order to make the not-so-great thing sell, or couple two not-so-great things together to make them seem less not-so-great.
If movies featuring The Rock aren’t selling, perhaps you couple them with movies featuring John Cena. Zing! I don’t actually have much experience to make such an accusation, but I know they are both TV wrestlers, so probably good targets. I actually like John Cena, from what I’ve seen of his non-wrestling work. I haven’t seen his wrestling work outside of the incessant commercials. Cena was on an episode of Psych and he was entertaining. Also, I’ve seen The Rock in some movie or another, and he’s an actor, as good as can be for also being a TV wrestler. I’m having trouble recalling his name. I could just look it up, but I choose not to. Again, I’m getting way off track, the point of this (poor) example is that when you have one mediocre movie, it might not sell well, but if you couple it with another mediocre movie and call it a deal then you’ll have a better chance of moving both. Win/win for the seller and win/lose for the consumer. You might think it would be lose/lose for the consumer, but they are getting two movies, usually for the price of one, so that’s really not so bad, even if the movies feature TV wrestlers in the lead roles.
Now that I’ve alienated the TV wrestling fans, here are some other packaged deals I thought of that couple bad stuff with good stuff: winter and cold, great power and great responsibility, and eating donuts and failing health. I’d like to suggest a new combination. How about coupling eating donuts with great power? It only makes sense since great responsibility and failing health are already couple together. Think about it. Fin.