Big Fun!

Halloween has come and gone, but the candy leftovers remain.

About 8 kids came around for trick-or-treating, which were fewer than I expected. I talked with some friends who had 50, 100, 150 kids of various ages stopping in to collect their goodies. The big question I heard from people I know was, “what happened to ‘Thank you’?”

I think every generation is confused by the one that follows it, and I’m of the age where I’m noticing that more and more. I’m glad to say that the parents, escorting their children where I live, were visibly training their tykes to be polite and say the appropriate things.

I’ll tell you what grinds my gears though.
When did this ————>
become how big “fun” is?

The package is clearly labeled “FunSize”, but it’s only about 1/2″ square by 1″ long. How much fun could that actually be?

Not only is “fun” fairly small, according to the candy manufacturers, but I clearly remember the “FunSize” being 3/4″ wide by 1/2″ high by 2″ long only a couple of years ago. Is “fun” shrinking?

I’ll tell you what “fun” would be; a four-foot long two-foot wide candy bar.

To be fair, we really don’t need bigger candy here in the USA, and Michigan is one of the “largest” states.

You know who’s got their packaging right? It’s the Chicklets people. They at least are honest and call them “Tiny Size”. That’s much more accurate! Do I expect the Snickers people to start calling their candy “not much fun size”? No, I won’t go that far, but I would like to see a better subjective tag like “pretty small size”. I’d really prefer a more objective description like “1-inch size”. If they can’t be objective, then at least they could be comparative. Perhaps something like: “more fun than a punch in the nose size.”

maybe it’s just me…

One Reply to “Big Fun!”

  1. Maybe they should get philosophical about it and disassociate the concept of fun from any physical attributes of the candy: “Fun-is-as-fun-does Size” (with apologies to Forrest Gump).

Comments are closed.