Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WTF! Nescafadvert

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WTF! Nescafadvert

    "Hidden Truths"

    I can feel an ACCC complaint coming - Are Nescafe saying that their instant coffee is rich in antioxidants? Have they some proof?

    And then on their web page they state: "Only the best beans are selected and make it into a NESCAFÉ coffee."


    Riiiiiiiight because bulk shipped Vietnamese Robusta has ALWAYS been considered one of the best coffee beans. . .
    http://<br /> <br /> http://www.nest...fe/Default.htm

    and the real travesty: http://hiddentruths.com.au/flash.html

  • #2
    Re: WTF! Nescafadvert

    Hey Grendel,

    Maybe they are talking about the best beans from a VERY Bad bunch.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: WTF! Nescafadvert

      It seems pretty thin stuff to me - lots of lab work and no epidemiological studies.

      I got so angry I had to go blog about it!

      http://cafe-grendel.blogspot.com/200...hs-indeed.html

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: WTF! Nescafadvert

        No, Grendel! Advertising firms are always absolutely thorough about backing up their claims with hard, proven evidence, and scientifically accurate studies!! ;D

        Its probably like fruit and vegetables, the antioxidant levels in coffee would be much higher when the beans are fresh. If they freeze dry the coffee soon after its roasted, thered be a good chance that those "flavenoids" would be preserved. But, instant coffee is dodgy stuff. Theres a good chance that they do something to the beans in the processing that negate most of the health benefits that you get from fresh coffee.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: WTF! Nescafadvert

          If you look carefully, they very clearly DO NOT say that nescafe itself is rich in antioxidants, the phrase "Coffee, a natural source of antioxidants" is used twice without ever specifically referring to their product.

          They also dont say who decided that the beans in their product are the "best". If you dug deeply enough, you would probably find a memo from one of their accountants, that they are the best beans because they are the most cost effective, ie the cheapest.

          Even when they talk about bringing "cafe quality coffee into your home" through their product, you can bet that theyve found a cafe hidden somewhere in the back streets that serves instant.

          Truth in advertising is alive and kicking. :P

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: WTF! Nescafadvert

            I agree with Viviane ... As much as a dislike Nestle - I dont see a legal problem with the add.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: WTF! Nescafadvert

              Originally posted by grendel link=1208180388/0#0 date=1208180388
              I can feel an ACCC complaint coming - Are Nescafe saying that their instant coffee is rich in antioxidants? Have they some proof?

              And then on their web page they state: "Only the best beans are selected and make it into a NESCAFÉ coffee."
              I agree with you 100%, but the sad truth is that thats just how coffee marketing works. Every man and his dog seems to go on about how they use the "best" beans. Actually, its pretty crazy ... it almost seems that the better the roastery, the less likely they are to speak in absolutes.

              Part of the problem is that we dont have any decent coffee review webpages. The USA has sweet marias, coffee review and coffee cuppers. We need to remember that most of their coffees are rated for non-espresso use. From reading these reviews for a while, I get the impression that average scores are:

              Sweet Marias: 85 to 93
              Coffee Cuppers: 88 to 92
              Coffee Review: 89 to 96

              Then theres the difficulty of working out what these reviews mean. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that so many of the coffees that Kenneth Davids reviews on coffee review actually merit the scores that they get ... there is absolutely no way that a stale import should score above 85. In fact, in the wake of that attrocity of an article, I did a cupping of stale and fresh coffee with Instaurator (from Michels Patisserie; check out his upcoming book "Espresso Quest") to work out what reasonable ratings were. From memory and to paraphrase, ratings were basically as follows:

              50-60: More or less the minimum cutoff for something to be even barely drinkable, hence most cupping sheets take a score out of 50, then add 50. If you get a real dog of a coffee, you enter negative scores! Frankly, you probably wouldnt want to drink anything scoring below 60.

              60-70: A blending coffee that might have some taints. Eg. robusta with a slight rubberiness to it.

              70-80: A good, solid coffee with no real flavour taints. The profile isnt fully rounded out, but something like this will blend well.

              80-90: A well balanced coffee that stands alone with no need to be blended.

              90-100: A perfectly balanced coffee that also has some really special flavour hint.

              Coffee Cuppers review some extraordinary coffee and barely hand out a 92. Tom Owen also goes to great lengths to cup through lots of lots to get to his stuff, which makes it credible that hed rate stuff 85 and up. You can then also take a look at cup of excellence scores; from memory, and to make a ludicrously broad generalisation, if you take a look at the top 20, they are usually rated 82 or 84 and up, with the top few breaking into the 90s.

              ... of course, all of this makes it very difficult to get objective numerical reviews. I think that there is a huge impetus to give numbers that are in line with the numbers that are around online. The problem is that these numbers are awarded to exceptional coffee. This presents a fair bit of a barrier ... I mean, who wants to be told that their favourite SO rates 76 at best? Although, in fact, thats a perfectly respectable rating for a blend component and probably a pretty good rating for anything that were likely to see in Australia.

              Anyhoo, thats all a bit of a digression, but it underscores this point - how in the hell can you stop people from saying that their stuff is the "best" or whatever when there arent really readily available and moderately uncontroversial ratings for what is actually around?

              Cheers,

              Luca

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: WTF! Nescafadvert

                You make a good point Luca we dont have any really good cupping sites trying to find how to roast some of my recent purchases from latest beanbay, on sweetmarias was immpossible.Re Aceh Arabica gr1 wet hulled and australian mtc boomerang peaberry naturals no review exist.

                Maybe someone from C/S can do some cupping lessons in a group so people can bounce their tastings off each other or learn from one another.I know id like to learn a bit more about cupping.

                Comment

                Working...
                X