Just commenting on the last two replies. Really long, sorry.
I think Kevin is right on when he says that gas is Kingsford's biggest competition. If it takes 10 minutes to heat a gas grill and 15 minutes to be ready to cook with the new Kingsford, maybe more people will be likely to choose Kingsford.
The way I was told the story by the R&D guys was that it was the Kingsford product group that had to sell the big-wigs on the new product design and formula, and had to prove with lab test results that it would perform better in order to proceed with the project. The big-wigs knew that Kingsford was the market leader and an iconic American brand, and they didn't want to mess that up in a "New Coke" fiasco.
With all due respect, and acknowledging that we're all entitled to our personal opinions (and having plenty of concerns myself about the state and power of corporate America, which I won't get into here!), I think it's cynical to think that Kingsford set out to screw or manipulate consumers by foisting an inferior product on them and putting less of it in the bag.
I think that for the vast majority of Kingsford users, the "marketing hype" for the new product will be true.
People who grill at high temp will notice that the new product lights faster so it's ready to cook on sooner, and if they're watching the clock maybe they'll notice that it lasts a few minutes longer than before. Since the product is used by volume, not by weight, they'll get the same number of uses per bag as before. And as far as I can tell, the price per bag is about the same. Today I bought the big twin-pack at Costco for $10.99. Last year I think I paid $10.59. I'm now paying more for everything as a result of higher fuel prices, so how much, if any, of that $0.40 can I atrribute to Kingsford's new product? Maybe part of it, because they told me that the new product actually costs more to manufacture than the old product due to the use of more expensive ingredients (presumably more charwood) in the mix.
If you accept the premise that the new product will do what it says it will do for high temp grillers, and they get the same uses per bag, despite the lower bag weight, and it costs about the same per bag, then there's no deception or manipulation, right?
Consider this: What if Kingsford produced a new briquette that consisted only of charwood and starch binder. It lights faster and lasts just a little longer than the old product, but the old 24 pound bag now weighs just 12 pounds, the number of uses per bag remains the same, and the price per bag remains the same. Would anyone say that that was deceptive or manipulative? I think a lot of Kingsford users would call that real progress! My point is that reducing product weight means nothing at all if the product actually does what it says it will do, offers the same number of uses, and the price remains basically the same.
(Pausing to catch my breath...
)
Having said all that, it's possible that new Kingsford will live up to only part of the "marketing hype" for those of us that cook "low and slow". I don't think there's any debate about the "lights faster" part, although we can quibble about "how much faster" depending on the method you use to light it. It's the "burns even longer" part that the jury is still out on.
The best advice of all is at the end of Brad's post. Just keep posting actual results from your own cooking sessions. There's still so much conflicting information that it's hard to really know if there's a problem or if people are now just paying closer attention to things. One person says "less ash", another says "more ash than ever". One person says "really fussy control", another has no complaint.
Frankly, I think we're noticing a lot of variation that has always been there, even with the old Kingsford, depending on your cooker, the way you fire it, the type and amount of meat you cook, your local weather conditions, how often you open your cooker to fuss with the meat or ashes, and a million other factors. We've always had a few people coming on this BB complaining about not being able to get the WSM over 200*F or keep it under 300*F when using old Kingsford, while the vast majority of us had no problems at all. I've personally had experiences where a full ring of the old Kingsford was enough for a pork butt cook, and a few times where I've had to add another 40 hot coals after 12 hours because I was running out of heat. So I think there's always been a lot of variation, and to some extent we're all just more sensitive to it because we're now paying more attention due to the product change.
Only time will tell as those that are interested in the subject get more experience with the product. I hope those that are not interested will just ignore these discussions and find lots of other interesting stuff to read about on the BB.
Sorry for the unusually long post. I'm going to bed now.
Regards,
Chris
I think Kevin is right on when he says that gas is Kingsford's biggest competition. If it takes 10 minutes to heat a gas grill and 15 minutes to be ready to cook with the new Kingsford, maybe more people will be likely to choose Kingsford.
The way I was told the story by the R&D guys was that it was the Kingsford product group that had to sell the big-wigs on the new product design and formula, and had to prove with lab test results that it would perform better in order to proceed with the project. The big-wigs knew that Kingsford was the market leader and an iconic American brand, and they didn't want to mess that up in a "New Coke" fiasco.
With all due respect, and acknowledging that we're all entitled to our personal opinions (and having plenty of concerns myself about the state and power of corporate America, which I won't get into here!), I think it's cynical to think that Kingsford set out to screw or manipulate consumers by foisting an inferior product on them and putting less of it in the bag.
I think that for the vast majority of Kingsford users, the "marketing hype" for the new product will be true.
People who grill at high temp will notice that the new product lights faster so it's ready to cook on sooner, and if they're watching the clock maybe they'll notice that it lasts a few minutes longer than before. Since the product is used by volume, not by weight, they'll get the same number of uses per bag as before. And as far as I can tell, the price per bag is about the same. Today I bought the big twin-pack at Costco for $10.99. Last year I think I paid $10.59. I'm now paying more for everything as a result of higher fuel prices, so how much, if any, of that $0.40 can I atrribute to Kingsford's new product? Maybe part of it, because they told me that the new product actually costs more to manufacture than the old product due to the use of more expensive ingredients (presumably more charwood) in the mix.
If you accept the premise that the new product will do what it says it will do for high temp grillers, and they get the same uses per bag, despite the lower bag weight, and it costs about the same per bag, then there's no deception or manipulation, right?
Consider this: What if Kingsford produced a new briquette that consisted only of charwood and starch binder. It lights faster and lasts just a little longer than the old product, but the old 24 pound bag now weighs just 12 pounds, the number of uses per bag remains the same, and the price per bag remains the same. Would anyone say that that was deceptive or manipulative? I think a lot of Kingsford users would call that real progress! My point is that reducing product weight means nothing at all if the product actually does what it says it will do, offers the same number of uses, and the price remains basically the same.
(Pausing to catch my breath...
Having said all that, it's possible that new Kingsford will live up to only part of the "marketing hype" for those of us that cook "low and slow". I don't think there's any debate about the "lights faster" part, although we can quibble about "how much faster" depending on the method you use to light it. It's the "burns even longer" part that the jury is still out on.
The best advice of all is at the end of Brad's post. Just keep posting actual results from your own cooking sessions. There's still so much conflicting information that it's hard to really know if there's a problem or if people are now just paying closer attention to things. One person says "less ash", another says "more ash than ever". One person says "really fussy control", another has no complaint.
Frankly, I think we're noticing a lot of variation that has always been there, even with the old Kingsford, depending on your cooker, the way you fire it, the type and amount of meat you cook, your local weather conditions, how often you open your cooker to fuss with the meat or ashes, and a million other factors. We've always had a few people coming on this BB complaining about not being able to get the WSM over 200*F or keep it under 300*F when using old Kingsford, while the vast majority of us had no problems at all. I've personally had experiences where a full ring of the old Kingsford was enough for a pork butt cook, and a few times where I've had to add another 40 hot coals after 12 hours because I was running out of heat. So I think there's always been a lot of variation, and to some extent we're all just more sensitive to it because we're now paying more attention due to the product change.
Only time will tell as those that are interested in the subject get more experience with the product. I hope those that are not interested will just ignore these discussions and find lots of other interesting stuff to read about on the BB.
Sorry for the unusually long post. I'm going to bed now.
Regards,
Chris