Why have ads lost their charm, boneless wings = chicken nuggets?, and more…

Hey people!

If you eat meat, here’s a question for you. What exactly are boneless chicken wings?

Most of us would say “chicken wings…just without the bones.”

That’s exactly what Aimen HalimA Chicago-based customer assumed when he ordered a plate of boneless wings from Buffalo Wild Wings in 2023. But later he realized something didn’t sit well with him. The dish is not made from boneless wing meat. It is made from chicken breast.

And that’s when he felt deceived. In his mind, “boneless wings” should mean actual wing meat, just cleaned and easier to eat. Another thing was that I believed I paid too much. After all, breast meat is typically cheaper than wing meat. So if he had known what he was really getting, he says he would have either paid less or skipped the order altogether.

Feeling short-changed, Halim took Buffalo Wild Wings to court in the US, arguing that the menu description was misleading.

Now at first glance you might think he had a decent case.

But the court did not see it that way.

The judge looked at the bigger picture. Buffalo Wild Wings also sells something called “cauliflower wings,” which are a plant-based alternative to traditional chicken wings. And that detail mattered, because if a reasonable customer understands that cauliflower wings are not literally made from chicken wings, then the term “wings” is clearly not being used in a strictly anatomical sense. It describes a style of dish, not the exact cut of meat.

The court therefore concluded that no reasonable consumer would accept that boneless wings must be derived from wing meat.

And in a very fine final line in the court order, the judge said Halim’s claim had “no meat on its bones.” 😂

This is it. Case dismissed.

So yeah, it just goes to show how consumer lawsuits often depend on context. You may feel wrong and others may agree with you. But courts don’t just look at feelings. They look at context and how an “average reasonable consumer” would interpret things in that particular setting. And sometimes one small detail like cauliflower wings on the same menu can change the whole outcome.

It also reminded us of a story we wrote earlier about how McDonald’s ended up losing its Big Mac brand in the EU in a battle against a smaller Irish fast food chain called Supermac’s. Thanks to some very clever arguments and legal findings. And while this isn’t about misleading advertising, it was still a fascinating brand battle that shows how the fine print can flip the script. If this sounds like something you would be interested in, you can read it here.

Here’s a soundtrack to get you in the mood…

Bas Tum Nahi by Doorbeen

You can thank our reader Sharang Sharma for this lovely rack. And if you’d like your recommendation too, send them our way, especially hidden gems from underrated Indian artists that many of us haven’t discovered yet. We can’t wait to hear them!

What caught our eye this week

Why aren’t today’s ads as memorable as the 90s?

This week we came across an interesting one discussion on CNBC TV18 about why 90s ads are still stuck in our heads while today’s ads aren’t. And if you really think about it, it’s true, right?

I’m a millennial myself, and I can still remember so many 90s and early 2000s jingles without even trying. I can sing “Washing powder Nirma” without missing a beat or “Vicco Turmeric, nahi cosmetic” and even Pepsi’s “Oye Bubbly, Oye Oye Bubbly, be my lover Bubbly”. There are also many other memorable commercials. The Cadbury commercial where the girl runs out of the crowd and dances on the cricket field when her favorite player or maybe her partner wins the match. The Fevikwik commercial where a fisherman casually puts a few drops on an ordinary stick, dips it in the river and immediately catches fish, while another fisherman who waits there patiently for hours catches nothing.

These are really just a handful of mentions. And the list is endless.

Now try to name one commercial from today that you can randomly hum while doing your daily refrains. Difficult, right?

So what changed?

Well, there are probably three things going on.

First, we can look at it through the analogy of Veblen goods. These are goods that defy basic economies, that is, their demand rises as the price rises because the higher price indicates scarcity and status. For example, naturally mined diamonds or a Rolex. Advertising slots were almost like Veblen goods back then. In the 90s, there was essentially one dominant form of visual entertainment: television. Fewer TV channels meant very limited advertising inventory. Prime time slots, when families would gather to watch a popular series or cricket match, were rare and expensive.

Brands had to pay a premium for those places. And when you pay that much, you don’t make something average. You make something that connects.

Second, viewers actually gave those ads undivided attention. There was no second screen, no scrolling, no skipping after five seconds. You watched what came on TV. And you watched it repeatedly. That repetition almost built muscle memory recall because the jingle played over and over until it became part of your subconscious.

But today there are multiple ways to consume content. There are OTT platforms, YouTube and social media. Everyone is watching their own preferred content on their own screen. So, there’s an oversupply of content, and of course an oversupply of ads to go along with it. We live in what is often called the “attention economy”, where human focus is the scarcest resource, almost like currency.

Advertisers now need to immediately grab attention in a sea of ​​content. That’s why ads today can go viral and grab attention for a moment, but they don’t necessarily stay memorable. Viral and memorable are not the same thing.

And finally, there is something even more interesting. Advertisers today have more data than ever. They know locations, age groups and viewer demographics. But in spite of all that, truly understand their target audience you got louder Because there is an audience for everything now. And especially when it comes to young people, their preferences are fragmented and constantly shifting.

In the 90s, for example, you could clearly sell aspiration. A Bajaj scooter, mid-range Maruti car or a house signified progress, stability and status. Families were aspiring about climbing the social ladder. And advertising simply told a story about what you could become tomorrow.

But today, many young people are rejecting ownership in favor of experiences. Some care deeply about sustainability. Others question consumption itself. The idea of ​​aspiration is no longer so uniform.

And really great ads usually sell aspirational stories, which is what builds emotional recall. But when aspiration itself becomes fragmented and harder to define, building that kind of storytelling becomes much more difficult.

So yeah, maybe that’s why it’s hard to find ads today that feel timeless. Nostalgic ads still feel powerful because they were created in a world where scarcity, shared attention and distinct aspirations came together.

And perhaps that combination is what makes them memorable. what do you think

Infographics

Sneakers have become a fashion statement and have come a long way since their heyday, when Michael Jordan first sported the Air Jordan in 1983!

Here are some of the top-selling sneaker brands by annual revenue, with Nike, Adidas and Anta leading the way.

Readers recommend

This week our friend Atul Sharma is back with another book recommendation: Escape from camp 14 by Blaine Harden.

It tells the true story of Shin Dong-hyuk, who was born and raised in a brutal North Korean prison camp. The book follows his life under extreme repression and his dramatic escape, and offers a rare glimpse into the harsh realities of North Korea’s labor camps.

Thanks again for the recommendation, Atul!

That’s it from us this week. See you next Sunday!

Until then, send us your book, music, business movie, documentary or podcast recommendations. We will feature them in the newsletter! Also, don’t forget to tell us what you thought of today’s edition. Just click reply on this email (or if you’re reading it on the web, send us a message at morning@finshots.in).

Don’t forget to share this issue WhatsApp, LinkedIn and x.