18 Candy Commercials That Lied to You
Many candy commercials made bold claims that were misleading or exaggerated compared to reality.
- Sophia Zapanta
- 5 min read
Candy advertising often relied on playful or dramatic messages to attract children and parents. In doing so, commercials regularly overstated health benefits, lasting power, or product qualities. These eighteen examples show how candy companies sometimes stretched the truth in their ads.
1. Tootsie Pops
Gilabrand at English Wikipedia on Wikimedia Commons
The classic commercial claimed no one could ever find out how many licks it took to reach the center. In reality, multiple experiments showed it was possible, usually in the hundreds. The ad made it sound like an unsolvable mystery. It was clever marketing but not accurate.
2. Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups
MBisanz on Wikimedia Commons
Commercials often suggested Reese’s had a “perfect balance” of chocolate and peanut butter. In reality, the ratio changes slightly in different product lines, and the balance is subjective. Some cups have much more chocolate than filling. The claim of perfection was a marketing stretch.
3. M&M’s
Evan-Amos on Wikimedia Commons
The slogan “melts in your mouth, not in your hand” was one of the most famous candy taglines. In truth, M&M’s often left colored stains and melted chocolate when held too long. The candy shell helped, but it did not stop melting completely. The promise was only partly true.
4. Hubba Bubba Gum
Martial BACQUET on Wikimedia Commons
Hubba Bubba ads claimed it would never stick to your face or hands during chewing. While softer than some gums, it could still get messy if chewed long enough. The “no stick” slogan was an exaggeration. Kids quickly learned it was not always accurate.
5. Skittles
Evan-Amos on Wikimedia Commons
“Taste the rainbow” suggested that each Skittle flavor was bold and distinct. Blind taste tests showed many people struggled to tell them apart without color. The flavors were not as unique as the ads implied. The rainbow idea was more image than fact.
6. Twix
Evan Amos on Wikimedia Commons
Twix commercials often centered on the idea of “Left Twix” and “Right Twix” being completely different. In reality, both bars are identical in recipe and taste. The ad campaign created a fake rivalry for fun. It was a successful gimmick but misleading.
7. 5 Gum
Richmond96 on Wikimedia Commons
5 Gum ads claimed the candy gave “a new kind of sensory experience.” In practice, it was simply a flavored chewing gum with the same short flavor life as others. The packaging and commercials exaggerated its uniqueness. It stood out in marketing more than in flavor.
8. Baby Ruth
Evan-Amos on Wikimedia Commons
Baby Ruth was marketed as “hearty” and “full of protein.” While it contains peanuts, the bar is still mostly sugar and corn syrup. Ads often made it sound more like a nutritional snack. In reality, it was a standard candy bar.
9. Mentos
Dewet on Wikimedia Commons
Mentos commercials promoted them as “the freshmaker,” suggesting long-lasting freshness. The candy gave only a brief burst of flavor before fading. It was more sweet than refreshing. The ads oversold its lasting power.
10. Butterfinger
Evan-Amos on Wikimedia Commons
Ads featuring Bart Simpson claimed, “Nobody better lay a finger on my Butterfinger,” framing it as a one-of-a-kind treat. The commercials made it sound unique, but similar crunchy peanut butter candy existed. The identity came more from advertising than product distinction.
11. Snickers
Famartin on Wikimedia Commons
Snickers promoted itself as a meal replacement, calling it “really satisfies.” While it contains peanuts, nougat, and caramel, it is still high in sugar. It is not nutritionally equal to a meal. The slogan was catchy but misleading.
12. Kit Kat
Evan-Amos on Wikimedia Commons
Commercials presented Kit Kat bars as “the perfect break snack.” While tasty, the idea that it was essential for relaxation was marketing-driven. The ads made it seem more significant than it was. The bar itself offered no special benefit beyond being candy.
13. Lifesavers
Scott Ehardt on Wikimedia Commons
Lifesavers were sold as “the candy with a hole,” suggesting practicality and uniqueness. The commercials implied the hole made them safer, but it did not prevent choking hazards. The design was more about branding than safety. The ad message gave a false impression.
14. Ring Pop
Wolfvonder on Wikimedia Commons
Ring Pops were advertised as fun, wearable candy you could enjoy anytime. In practice, they were messy, sticky, and often uncomfortable to wear for long. The “jewelry” angle oversold the convenience. Kids quickly realized the downside of sticky fingers.
15. Airheads
Harrison Keely on Wikimedia Commons
Commercials for Airheads called them “out of control fruity” with extreme flavor. In truth, the flavor faded quickly after chewing. The taste was not as intense as advertised. The exaggeration was more about image than reality.
16. Altoids
schyler on Wikimedia Commons
Altoids were promoted as “curiously strong mints.” While strong, the ads exaggerated them as nearly overpowering. Some flavors were milder than the brand suggested. The claim leaned more on branding than fact.
17. Smarties (U.S. version)
Evan-Amos on Wikimedia Commons
Smarties were marketed as a smart choice or clever candy. The name implied something educational or healthy. In reality, they were just sugar tablets. The branding misled parents and kids into thinking they had a special quality.
18. Pop Rocks
Evan-Amos on Wikimedia Commons
Pop Rocks ads suggested an explosive experience, even fueling urban legends about them being dangerous. The candy popped, but not nearly as dramatically as the commercials made it seem. The myths around them were encouraged by how they were marketed. The hype was far bigger than the effect.