▲ 19 points
back
40 comments
doomed to eat Heinz
Some people just want to dispute the fact that Heinz is, empirically, a great product. In my opinion, Heinz might even be a special case of this. What I mean by this is I'm not sure I've ever used Heinz somewhere where I thought "you know, Sir Kensingtons would really be better in this situation".
French's mustard is good, but not as versatile. I'd easily prefer a sandwich with Beaver over French's in most cases, but French's over any dijon for a hot dog. For mayo, Hellmans is closer to the class Heinz is in, but I'm happy with Kewpie in many cases over Hellmans, and a home-made aioli/mayo can bring something extra to certain dishes. That being said, I'd rather take Kewpie over Kraft Mayo and always over miracle whip.
Peanut butter is a little trickier. The major brands are all very good - Skippy, Jif. Off brands can be good. I don't mind old fashioned peanut butter, but it can't compare to the creaminess/texture of the big guys. It's also a pain in the ass to stir it and putting it in the fridge as a hack for that is a terrible workaround.
I totally agree, and I'm not sure I know why.
Mustard can be great in many different styles - English, French, even classic-American on the occasional hotdog. Reasonable people can disagree on what should in salsa, or how spicy it should be. Lots of different types of oil can be used in different types of mayonnaise without complaint. There's a world of different hot sauces and I wouldn't presume to call one style objectively better than another.
But ketchup - to me, anything other than Heinz is never welcome, and some of the "fancier" ketchups that are offered in some restaurants barely qualify as ketchup at all - at least, not in the modern sense of the word.
I wonder if it's because the taste profile of Heinz ketchup mostly consists of the balance between sweetness and acidity, and only incidentally conveys tomato, whereas almost all artisanal or aspirational ketchups de-emphasise the sweetness and instead concentrate on the tomato and other vegetable flavors.
If the sugar / acid balance is the essence of Heinz, as I suspect, then building a ketchup around a strong tomato flavor is like building a mustard variant around a turmeric flavor, or a vinegar flavor, and ignoring the mustard-seed that should be at the heart.
But as I said, I don't really know. I do know that any other brand or - heaven forbid - home-made version of ketchup will be a disappointment, and I can't think of any other food I could say the same for.
I'll disagree. I find Heinz to be saccharine sweet to the point of inedibility. That's a little hyperbolic, obviously, it's edible, I just strongly prefer a ketchup that doesn't have the overwhelming flavor of sugar.
I do not enjoy Heinz's product, I prefer a ketchup with a flavor closer to tomatoes -- a sharper, brighter, more earthy flavor.
That's almost the entire argument against putting ketchup on hot dogs. Hot dogs are already pretty sweet, and ketchup just makes them sweet to the point where every other flavor is masked.
I know it's probably overly judgmental, but I can't stand it when people put ketchup on a steak. You might as well eat tofu, which has the benefit of being cheaper, not killing an animal, and not insulting the person who cooked the steak. I know there are some reasonable counter-arguments to this, but I would feel personally insulted if someone put ketchup on a steak I made.
That being said, I could see a less-sweet ketchup actually being pretty good on a sausage of some kind, probably a smoked polish or italian. Don't tell anyone else from Chicago I said that though.
> French's mustard is good, but not as versatile. I'd easily prefer a sandwich with Beaver over French's in most cases, but French's over any dijon for a hot dog.
I'll disagree: French's (and similar yellow mustards) are why for the first part of my life I thought that I hated mustard. Then I had Dijon mustard, which I'll eat on anything. Nasty neon yellow mustard just doesn't taste good on anything to me.
I agree, and I can't recall where, but I think I read some article explaining why Heinz ketchup is a special case. Basically it's a really fine control of texture, moisture, acid and sweetness, and it's hard to do just right. For years I was really sold on the idea that other ketchups must be better (after all, I like Hellman's mayo, but I freshly made is really REALLY good). I tried all of the chunky, and the smooth, the salty and the smoked. I tried oyster catsup, and all of the rest. Some of them are really good, but none of them are as multipurpose (a point you get at with French's for example).
It may just be that tomato ketchup is one of those things where you can make it different, but not "better"; that there is an ideal range and Heinz occupies it. If you want a spicy condiment, or a sour one... you probably don't want tomato ketchup in the first place. While you might want a smooth or a fine grain mustard, or a spicy or a plain one, you're rarely going to want that from a ketchup.
Heinz and Whataburger (a fast food chain popular in and around Texas) ketchup have always been my favorite. There was another brand I eventually came across which was very close - I believe it was Cucina Antica. I'm curious if others would agree.
What's wrong with Hunts?
A good read, as with anything by Gladwell, but I have a few quibbles (as with anything by Gladwell):
> There are five known fundamental tastes in the human palate: salty, sweet, sour, bitter, and umami.
I always hate when folks call savoury 'umami' instead. We already have a perfectly good word in English for the taste; we don't need to add a new one!
> And so he turned to ketchup, because, alone among the condiments on the table, ketchup could deliver sweet and sour and salty and bitter and umami, all at once.
I'm pretty sure A1 & HP deliver much the same effect. Even Worcestershire sauce does.
Finally, and most importantly: there's a much simpler reason for the failure of World's Best Ketchup to take over the market: no-one is likely to trust a product named 'World's Best' to actually be the best. Grey Poupon seems to come from France, with its name & packaging: one is tempted to believe that it's an ancient brand, one which might well be excellent — or even the world's best. But World's Best Ketchup is clearly new, and there's no particular reason for me to believe it's actually all that good. It could have just been invented by some team of accountants in a conference room at the Holiday Inn.
Never mind that Grey Poupon isn't actually French. Never mind that Jim Wigon really seems to love his ketchup. The vast majority of folks don't know those facts.
I suspect the reason it's called "umami", and not "savory", is that Japanese researchers were the ones to actually isolate and characterize the taste buds involved, so they went with the Japanese word. Same reason physicists who create new elements and biologists who discover new species get the naming rights.
You're dead-on about the name, "World's Best", though. Proclaiming your awesomeness is actually a counter-signal. Like all the "Famous" and "Original" hot dog and pizza places in NYC.
And I suspect if Heinz and World's Best switched marketing budgets that somehow this article would suddenly be about how World's Best hits all the right flavor notes and Heinz is "lower amplitude."
Well if you're actually using blind taste tests, then none of that matters. The point is that branding yourself as "World's Best" can negatively affect your product due to psychology.
Two ketchup brands on a hot dog or sitting in a souffle container for dipping fries doesn't fall victim to this. I don't know which brand is which, so I cannot pre-judge the ketchup. If you place the bottles in my face, "World's Best" preemtively makes me say, "'World's Best'? I doubt it." I've set negative expectations for the ketchup before I have even had a taste.
There was a spot on NPR (I think the TED Radio Hour) that talked about taste being linked to more than just the senses. Mood, lighting, atmosphere, and a whole host of other things can affect taste. They went on to say that a $75 steak from a steak house tends to be better rated in taste than a $20 steak from a normal restaurant for the reason listed above. The steaks can come from the same cut, stored in the same location, prepared by the same person using the same cookware, utensils and seasonings. The upscale steakhouse would have a better ambiance, and the psychological preparation for eating a $75 steak plays with your taste.
> how World's Best hits all the right flavor notes and Heinz is "lower amplitude."
How would the marketing budget affect blind taste tests?
> “The difference between high and low amplitude is the difference between my son and a great pianist playing ‘Ode to Joy’ on the piano,” Chambers says. ... Pepperidge Farm shortbread cookies are considered to have high amplitude. So are Hellman’s mayonnaise and Sara Lee poundcake. [So are Coke and Pepsi.]
Ugh. Give me low-amplitude foods, then...
Also, sounds like Coke and Sara Lee poundcake might be more comparable to "Happy Birthday" or "I Wanna Hold Your Hand:" bland and popular. "Ode to Joy" performed by a great pianist is a specialized taste usually only experienced by people who care about what they listen to.
> Ugh. Give me low-amplitude foods, then...
The whole point of the article was to explain why this does not work. Low amplitude foods spike in one category eg "Worlds Best" had the highest "tomato" score but failed in other areas. The reason people are not buying it in droves is because heinz has all 5 components in harmony.
The music analogy was perfect also. Take your personal favorite bands and songs and imagine their works being played by musicians in training. The results would not be as impressive.
The music analogy fails, for me, because the foods they mention aren't meaningful or interesting, they're bland to the point of complete neutral inoffensiveness. It's like taking "Blitzkreig Bop" and turning it into perfectly balanced Muzak and calling that "high-amplitude."
I think you are taking the terms used too literally.
I certainly wouldn't call coke or pepsi bland or inoffensive. They are certainly familiar since we have all had them hundreds of times. The article does a good job of explaining why the store brand sodas don't capture the same market share.
And, yes, mayo and poundcake are "bland" and "unexciting". But I've had some pretty terrible homemade mayo and poundcakes.
That... actually sounds like an amazing idea.
I'm pretty sure that "bland to the point of complete neutral inoffensiveness" is a pop music category.
>Ugh. Give me low-amplitude foods, then...
Exactly. Doritos and Mountain Dew thrive on this concept of "amplitude", and they're palette annihilating crap for which "moderation" is so far removed from typical consumption that it hardly even enters into the model. Amplitude is at its core, a trick on the senses, and once you're out of your teens/twenties it's not a very nice one.
I would also point out the difference between traditional sources of "amplitude" (mayo is a good example mentioned in the article, fish sauces would be another) are almost always condiments, sauces, or soup bases. There is a difference between the expectation that you use some mayo on your sandwich, and the expectation that you should drink soda.
I say for maximum amplitude you should do both: Put Hellman’s mayonnaise in your Pepsi. Then dip your Sara Lee poundcake in it. And cover that in Heinz ketchup. Maximum amplitude EXTREME BAJA BLAST #YOLO.
Oh... you joke, but I have a good friend who has some interesting issues (totally worth adapting to them, he's a great guy) especially around foods and tastes and smells. He figured out that you can buy flavoring from those big labs out in New Jersey, and they make everything.
He has a different mouthwash for each day of the week, and one of them is Bermuda grass. To his credit, it really tastes specifically like fresh Bermuda grass. So... your idea might not be unattainable, and IIRC soda is one of the forms those companies often experiment in.
YOLO indeed.
> "Mountain Dew [is] palette annihilating crap"
You take that back!
Palms out
Look... it's nice. I like it too sometimes. In fact, when I can't get it I just ferment the urine of young rams, it's practically the same thing!
Kidding aside though, it's not as though a soda is going to ruin you, but a diet of mainly Dew and Doritos and other "high octane" foods will make normal food taste unbelievably bland for a while.
Doritos and Mountain Dew are low amplitude.
Incorrect, read the article:
'When something is high in amplitude, all its constituent elements converge into a single gestalt.'
Incorrect, read the whole paragraph:
> When something is high in amplitude, all its constituent elements converge into a single gestalt. You can’t isolate the elements of an iconic, high-amplitude flavor like Coca-Cola or Pepsi. But you can with one of those private-label colas that you get in the supermarket. “The thing about Coke and Pepsi is that they are absolutely gorgeous,” Judy Heylmun, a vice-president of Sensory Spectrum, Inc., in Chatham, New Jersey, says. “They have beautiful notes—all flavors are in balance. It’s very hard to do that well. Usually, when you taste a store cola it’s”— and here she made a series of pik! pik! pik! sounds—“all the notes are kind of spiky, and usually the citrus is the first thing to spike out.
Mountain Dew is citrus. Doritos is nacho cheese. There is no higher order flavors here. They are strong flavors. But they lack the "balance" of creations.
I should have been clear, I was thinking of Cool Ranch Doritos (this was covered in an NPR piece years ago and that was one of the examples). As for Mountain Dew... "citrus". It is the classic case of amplitude.
Take away the acid and it would be sickeningly sweet. Dial down the sugar and it would be absurdly tart or bitter. It's only together, in mass quantities that it achieves a kind of blitz effect.
Cool Ranch could be high amplitude since if offers Fat and Salt in addition to Sweet and Spice.
Mountain Dew has a strong flavor but is still low amplitude since the "blitz" or main flavor is easily identifiable. You would make billions if you could figure out how to add salt and fat to a mountain dew.
Interesting timing. This article was referred to by a founder of Sir Kensington's ketchup (subsequently condiment) company in an interview on NPR founders series "From Scratch" [1] on Mar 27, 17. He mentioned that this helped confirm their belief that there could be a future in their product/start-up. It was an interesting interview. As is so often the case, they didn't have a clue what they were doing when they started-up, or even that they were "starting up". Recommended.
[1] http://www.npr.org/2017/03/27/521698574/brendan-kennedy-co-f...
how about A1 sauce and barbecue sauce.. aren't those variants of ketchup
>barbecue sauce.. aren't those variants of ketchup
Dont go around the carolinas saying something like that! You are likely thinking of Memphis style barbecue sauce, which is often katchup based, where the carolinas use a vinegar based sauce.[1]
I'm not sure if i would call 2 cups of vinegar and some seasoning[2] ketchup
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbecue_sauce#Variations
[2]http://allrecipes.com/recipe/58486/eastern-north-carolina-bb...
Yeah. Barbecue sauce in particular gets used in the same situations as ketchup, and is usually also tomato based. I feel like ketchup is almost just synonymous with Heinz. When I want ketchup I basically am looking for the taste of Heinz, and if I want variety then I get something thats not called ketchup.
I'd argue that a new ketchup did come along eventually ... Sriracha
Funny - ketchup in the 1800's could be made from fish, nuts, mushrooms, pretty much anything savory. Tomato somehow became the only sauce we now call 'ketchup' out of dozens of candidates.
The 'world's best ketchup' IMHO is mushroom-based.