In an emailed press statement Rick Wion, McDonald’s social media director, underlined that these unsavoury stories were in the decided minority amongst the 72,788 mentions of McDonald’s on the 18^th, although there were 1600 conversations about it at its peak and they still dominate the top tweets for this hashtag if you search today.

The coverage of this story has been widespread across the media and social media lovers alike, but one thing missing from most articles is this: what could McDonald’s do to respond to the stories heard via this hashtag?

Instead of hurrying to bury #McDstories, why not use the response generated by this hashtag as the impetus for a new social media campaign, asking consumers for their input and assistance in turning McDonald’s into the fast food restaurant that consumers want to see today. Rather than fleeing from the bad press, if McDonald’s were to turn to face their detractors, listen to their comments (the genuine ones) and use a program of consumer engagement to overhaul aspects of the brand, McDonald’s might find #McDstories to be one of their greatest social media successes.

One argument against this is that McDonald’s have been trying to show us for some time that they are healthier and contain real meat and fresh ingredients, but still receive this consumer response when they create a social campaign about it. Do they feel that it is not possible to change our perceptions of the brand anymore? Unlikely, or they would not be producing so many campaigns focused around healthy products and fresh produce. Our argument would be that it may be possible, not only to use the public as a product barometer, but also to use them to crack how to present the ‘new McDonald’s’ to the public in a way that finally pushes past our well-formed brand image and prejudices.

This twitter crisis started because McDonald’s was trying to promote the fresh ingredients used by McDonalds. It would certainly be a tall order, but if McDonald’s took #McDstories as the impetus for a new social campaign to reform the offering and image of the brand (without reusing the hashtag itself), this could be their biggest PR coup of the year.

Mercedes Benz is the latest of a string of major brands to try to connect with a younger audience through social media. Two of Mercedes’ key initiatives are the ‘Escape the Map’ competition launched in November (now closed) and social media activity based around a Mercedes-sponsored Fashion Week.

Why would Mercedes want to appeal to a younger audience? The stereotype of Mercedes Benz is an executive’s car, for those in their 40s-50s who show their career success through their car, although many sportier designs (for example) are available. Whilst many aspire to own a Mercedes as a status symbol, Mercedes evidently don’t feel that this attracts people fast enough or young enough.

‘Escape the Map’ is a game in which players try to save ‘Marie’ from being ‘blurred’ like other Streetview images. The game was introduced through TV ads aired during The X Factor, a Youtube video, as well as outdoor media. The Youtube video, for example, is engaging and intrigues the viewer: the premise of the game is excellent and provides some interesting graphic opportunities. In the Streetview world the streets tremble as ‘users’ of Streetview zoom in and out, and the well-known red map markers litter the sky before falling without warning onto the streets below. This is definitely a game premise with potential, but we do feel that the game is quite slow-paced and, in the initial stages of the game at least, we don’t feel that the time required to move between each user action, compared to the level of thought needed will be particularly exciting for the intended users. Perhaps a game with slightly more complex problems or interface and slightly less focus on graphics might be more enticing and allow for further development of the initial proposition.

Marie needs your help to escape being 'blurred' like others in Streetview

Mercedes’ association with Fashion Week has evidently been a success in creating engagement. Fashion seems a good choice, particularly for attracting young women to the brand, as those who seek such an aspirational label at a young age are likely to own (or aspire to) status brands in other markets. The Facebook page for this initiative has nearly 188,000 likes and 4,500 people talking about it: Mercedes are engaging with consumers here. The page provides content that is clearly of interest to their users, without ‘taking’ anything from the user, while the level of sponsorship required for Mercedes to undertake this level of initiative clearly shows that Mercedes means business here. There may be opportunities for Mercedes to expand on the success of this initiative, by creating further interest-based groups around the brand.

For brands, such as Mercedes, which have traditionally attracted older consumers, social media is a valid way to attract younger consumers. However, it is not enough to simply create a Facebook page or a Twitter account: brands must find a reason to engage, offering consumers value in the social arena related to, but outside of, the brand’s commercial offering. It can be easier to subdivide the ‘younger audience’ into age brackets or interest groups and create targeted activities to encourage engagement, as it is more difficult to achieve good engagement with blanket initiatives.

The aim of today’s blog is to examine a white goods brand that had made a significant investment in social media, beyond owning a Facebook group, in order to engage with their consumers. Perhaps the most adventurous British social media campaign in this industry is Indesit’s ‘Genuine Football Fan’, launched in August 2011. As ‘Genuine Football Fan’ has now had 5 months to mature it seemed a reasonable time to examine this campaign’s strengths and weaknesses.

Genuine Football Fan comprises an interlinked website, Facebook page and Twitter feed, in which all activities are football related – white goods are strictly off the agenda. The introduction to the website reads:

“Join the community where passion and emotion come together. Where real fans can find news, facts and where they can live football from a different point of view. The point of view of a Genuine Football Fan.”

So what does this really mean? There are five versions of the Genuine Football Fan website, one for each of the four European teams sponsored by Indesit (Arsenal, AC Milan, Paris Saint-Germain and FC Shakhtar (Ukraine) and a Europe-wide site. The set-up of each of these sub-sites is identical, only the language and content differs (the European site is in English). The website is primarily divided into five blogs, all football-related, four of which (it appears) are written by Indesit controlled authors and one of which is written by ‘Guest Fans’. These are all fairly well-written, discussing a wide range of teams, players, referees and match-associated activities; perhaps most importantly, they are added to every couple of days. The other offerings of the website are polls, photos and videos. Most importantly there is the opportunity to engage with every blog post, photo etc. Unfortunately, no-one seems to use it. This is not merely a symptom of the British version of the website, but is consistent across the five sites.

http://football.indesit.com/uk/

So what is the purpose of this blog site if not, as Indesit suggest, to have a community exchanging views on last Saturday’s match, along with the resignation of that manager and the theft of a favourite player by another team. Indesit even describe Genuine Football Fan as a conversation platform, and yet provide neither forum nor instant chat facilities. So what are they trying to achieve apart from validating themselves as a football sponsor? Where is the engagement central to all social media campaigns?

The Indesit Football Facebook page may go some way to answering this, as it appears to be highly successful at what it does – engagement. By separating Indesit Football from the Indesit white goods Facebook page, which has only 5,000 followers vs. Indesit Football’s 31,000, Indesit have effectively promised not to mention anything but football. And it’s a promise they keep. The page is updated around twice a day, and while all the posts seem to be initiated by Indesit, every post has at least one comment or like, and many have 10-20 comments. Also, as over 50% of the posts are links to new blogs and pictures on their websites, it would appear that the discussion missing from the website happens here. This is not surprising as it is a lot easier to keep a conversation flowing through a medium like Facebook than blog comments (unless Indesit have programmed the comments to feature on their RSS feeds as well as their official posts). Indesit also encourage engagement by often asking a question related to their blog post instead of simply providing the link, whereas any comment on a blog post is a response to the blog alone. However, this page does have one major failing: the main link to the Genuine Football Fans website takes you straight from a UK Facebook page to the Italian version of the website. This trivial error could be majorly off-putting to potential users and should be addressed immediately.

The Indesit Football Twitter feed does not appear to be as successful in engaging consumers as the Facebook page, having a mere 127 followers. This is presumably because it provides identical information to the Facebook page, but without the conversational element, although the number of competing football news feeds may also be a factor.

What conclusions can be drawn from this? Indesit has obviously found a medium in which they can engage potential customers (one assumes that they analysed the relevance of football to their target audience prior to beginning this campaign) and have done so by giving something of value to their consumers. The Genuine Football Fan campaign is also unusual in football terms because it is not isolated by club divides, or even nations, and thus gives a broader field for engagement, as well as the opportunity for those with less fervent club ties to get involved in the conversation.

Where are Indesit missing out? The key to this campaign is not just voice, but conversation – the members appear far keener to discuss than to write their own blog posts and therefore Indesit should be looking to expand this campaign by giving their members as many opportunities as possible to talk in real time. This is why Facebook has received a greater response than the website – the immediacy of the Facebook medium helps conversation to flow. The most important thing for Indesit to do, is to create an instant conversation platform on the website, so that anyone, regardless of their social media preferences, can engage in the conversation – this also gives Indesit the opportunity to set up the platform in a unique way to them, which may benefit their topic and participants. Indesit could then begin to think about online events for their members: guest/member commentary to accompany matches; celebrity online appearances (e.g. an hour with Thierry Henry); as well as viral competitions, such as create your own football video; and providing greater scope, even rewards, for contributing to the blog pages. Finally, Indesit should consider how to use their Twitter account: at present it appears to add no value to the campaign, only the need for management time. This does not mean that Twitter could not have a role in Genuine Football Fan’s social media, simply that it is currently redundant.

What message does this have for other White Goods brands? Put simply, if you have an ‘extra-curricular’ reason to engage with consumers that is not outside the brand, you have the potential to engage with tens-of-thousands of consumers instead of thousands through social media. Providing something of value to your consumers creates goodwill and consequently increases brand awareness and builds brand loyalty; the ideal tool to make you front-of-mind when they need a new dishwasher.

Another unusual element was that these mince pies must be served warm. Whilst it is fairly traditional to serve mince pies warmed, it could be rather disappointing if these are bought for an office party with no access to an oven – there is no indication on the packaging that these can be eaten cold. We were fortunate as one of our Pie Sponsors, Sam, lives nearby and she was able to warm them at home and bring them in for us. As this was the only pie we tasted warm we were mindful that this might create a positive bias for this pie, but one look at the scores suggests that it did very little to save it from finishing in 8th place.

The packaging of Heston’s pies is also highly unusual as it is black with only a few pine sprigs and a group of blurred brown objects, which may be pine nuts. Aside from that a quote from Heston is highlighted, stating that the purpose of the pine sugar is to give a “Christmas tree aroma.” However, in the opinion of all the judges the only effect that the pine sugar had was to smell of toilet cleaner; it had no discernable taste if sprinkled sparingly, and a detergent-like taste if too generous (Marcus was unfortunate enough to experience this). We would recommend substituting with a light dusting of icing sugar instead.

Both pastry and mincemeat divided the judges – some felt them to be fabulous, others far from it. As it says on the box, these are made with puff pastry, another marked difference from the other entries. Regardless of quality this would always have divided the judges, between those who favour homemade (or homemade style) pies and those who prefer the shop-bought style with thick, sweetened shortcrust pastry. The majority of the judges felt that the quality of the pastry was good, but Mandy (for example) felt that the pastry was too dry. The mincemeat is also unusual as it contains lemon curd (amongst other unusual ingredients), which gave a hint of lemon to the mincemeat that was not popular with all judges.

The total absence of alcohol did not go down well with judges such as Ralph, who subsequently commented “Like dotted lines, just middle of the road for me.” One thing the judges were all agreed on: there was not enough mincemeat included – only a thin layer between two thick sheets of puff pastry, which most judges reflected in low marks for texture. Mandy suggested that this made it more like an Eccles cake than a mince pie.

The place where this pie scored most poorly was value for money – most judges felt that £3.29 a box (55p per pie) was not justifiable.

The judges were divided until the last – some gave it top marks, but most were in the 20s, leaving this over-priced pie in 8th place with 291 points.

Finally, the words of today’s Pie Sponsor, Karen:
“Pine sugar adds no flavour and smells of toilet cleaner”

. . . . . . . . . .

AND THE JUDGES’ RESULTS ARE:

THE PIES Heston Blumenthal’s Puff Pastry Mince Pies from Waitrose £3.29		RICHARD Appearance: 5/10 Texture: 5/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 2/5 Value for money: 5/10		NICK Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 7/10		SARAH Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 10/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 9/10
ROB Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 2/10		RALPH Appearance: 6/10 Texture: 4/10 Taste (mincemeat): 1/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 5/10		GAVIN Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 2/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 5/10		JAMES Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 5/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 2/5 Value for money: 5/10
MANDY Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 5/10 Taste (mincemeat): 2/5 Taste (pastry): 1/5 Value for money: 4/10		JON Appearance: 10/10 Texture: 9/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 9/10		KAREN Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 3/10		SAM Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 6/10

. . . . . . . . . .

CASUAL PIE-STANDER COMMENTS:

James says: “Not the best ‘un from Heston”

Rob says: “Nice… but not a proper mince pie”

Ralph says: “Like dotted lines, just middle of the road for me”

Sam says: “It was alright – not sure that’s what Heston was going for though”

Richard says: “Didn’t Blumental me away!”

Mandy says: “I would have preferred a sausage”

Sarah says: “Pine sugar smells of toilet cleaner – don’t use too much”

Jon says: “Simply the Hest-on”

Marcus says: “Prefer to limit the detergent ‘smelling and tasting’ pine sugar”

. . . . . . . . . .

M&S really emphasise the traditional side of Christmas in their mince pie packaging with a lesson on the history of the mince pie, classic type-faces and a rather busy cover image, suggesting anything but the stream-lined, minimalist look currently in vogue (in advertising). The pies themselves are topped with snowflakes, that even, like paper snowflakes, have cutouts in the centre. These are largely filled with sugar, but do afford a glimpse of dark mincemeat. The judges felt that the cog-like decoration at the edges of the pies (rather squarer than conventional fluting), in combination with the snowflake, gave a slightly nautical feel, which felt a little too harsh for a mince pie. However, all the decoration was well-formed, and consistently, and the pies were evenly baked across the dozen we sampled. Overall the judges average score for appearance was 7.5/10, which was a good score, but far from the highest we have given.

Once the judges bit into the pie they were in heaven, with the exception of those who dislike particularly sweet things, because these pies are very sweet. However, unlike most of the mince pies we have sampled, this sweetness came almost entirely from the mincemeat and not from the pastry, which was crumbly and buttery. Some judges felt that crumbly pastry was not appropriate for a mince pie and marked it down accordingly, but they were in the minority.  Our average score for the pastry was a creditable 3.5/5 (4th highest). For flavour the mincemeat scored second only to ASDA, with an average score of 4.2/5 (ASDA 4.3/5), largely because the taste of brandy was fairly dominant, but unlike many other pies, was definitely a brandy flavour and not some indeterminable alcohol.

The texture average score was on a par with Sainsburys and ASDA, at 7.4/10 (Sainsburys 7.5/10, ASDA 7.4/10). James (judge) gave the texture a staggering 10/10 because he felt the pastry and mincemeat balanced each other nicely. A feeling shared by most of the judges, although not quite as enthusiastically.

These were our most expensive mince pies at £2.69 per box, but with an average score of 7.4/10 for value for money (no pie has yet scored more than 8/10 here), the judges really felt that you wouldn’t be wasting your money here.

Of course, if you want to read a glowing review of the M&S mince pies you’ll undoubtedly find one, but for us the pie scored a total of 331/440. Finally, the words of Pie Sponsor, Jon:

“According to the box artwork it’s good luck to have a mince pie on each of the 12 days of Christmas, and while these weren’t exceptional, I’d be happy snacking on these any time.”

. . . . . . . . . .

AND THE JUDGES’ RESULTS ARE:

Marks & Spencer Luxury Deep Filled Mince Pies £2.69		RICHARD Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 9/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 6/10		NICK Appearance: 6/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 2/5 Value for money: 6/10		SARAH Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 9/10
ROB Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 7/10		RALPH Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 8.5/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 8.5/10		GAVIN Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 9/10		JAMES Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 10/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 9/10
MANDY Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 3/5 Value for money: 7/10		JON Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 8/10		KAREN Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 1/5 Value for money: 7/10		TINA Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 5/10 Taste (mincemeat): 2/5 Taste (pastry): 3/5 Value for money: 5/10

. . . . . . . . . .

CASUAL PIE-STANDER COMMENTS:

Ralph says: “A smashing pie!”

. . . . . . . . . .

The box was an abstract design in a rich purple with a window to view the mince pies. The design of these pies was highly unusual – a five-pointed star cut into the top showing straight through onto the filling. This was a brave move on Sainsburys’ part, as a cut-out showing the typical gap between pastry and mincemeat would be off-putting to any shopper. However Sainsbury have filled these pies well, although arguably they are a little flatter than average.

When it comes to the mincemeat these pies are more unusual yet: they contain nuts! Almonds to be precise. These were the first mince pies we had come across including chopped nuts in the mincemeat and led to a mixed response – as none of the Frogs is allergic to nuts we hadn’t checked, so it came as a surprise. For some this unusual move led to a really nicely chunky texture to the mincemeat, but for others it was an unwanted addition. The greatest criticism of the mincemeat was that it was difficult to distinguish any of the individual flavours – it was a nice overall flavour, but you couldn’t taste that the nuts were actually almonds, for example, and they tasted the same as the raisins anyway! As it’s unlikely that the average mince pie is considered quite as intently as ours have been, it is unlikely that you’ll find this much of a problem.

The pastry was well-received on the whole (3.7/5), largely because it wasn’t quite as thick as many of those we’ve sampled. However, not all the judges found it as buttery as Pie Sponsor, Mandy: Karen found it “anaemic” and Nick “soggy.” The marks given for texture were varied: many judges disliked either mincemeat or pastry, although few disliked both.

Although these were the most expensive big-brand mince pies we had had at £2.50 per box (currently £3.50 for 2), they still scored fairly highly on value for money as none of the judges felt that they were poor quality, and some felt them to be excellent.

As Pie Sponsor, Mandy, put it:

“Without a doubt the best so far: from the very short, buttery pastry through to the brandy-laced mincemeat. A truly delicious Christmasy treat!”

Overall, an excellent offering from Sainsburys, scoring 342/440 and beating ASDA to move into second place.

. . . . . . . . . .

AND THE JUDGES’ RESULTS ARE:

Sainsbury’s Taste The Difference Brandy Rich Mince Pies £1.76		RICHARD Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 9/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 9/10		NICK Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 3/5 Value for money: 7/10		SARAH Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 3/5 Value for money: 7/10
ROB Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 10/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 9/10		RALPH Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 3/5 Value for money: 8/10		GAVIN Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 7/10		JAMES Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 2/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 7/10
MANDY Appearance: 10/10 Texture: 9/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 10/10		JON Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 8/10		KAREN Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 1/5 Value for money: 6/10		TINA Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 9/10

. . . . . . . . . .

CASUAL PIE-STANDER COMMENTS:

Sam says: “Despite some off-putting comments made about the appearance these are actually OK. The pastry is shortbread-like and buttery, there is plenty of filling and, although the cost per box was a bit higher, they were still reasonable value. A good solid mid-table pie.”

Gavin: “Don’t like the bits in the bottom”

Jon: “While they look like a cat’s bottom, they taste much nicer (I imagine)!”

Nick: “Soggy pastry”

Ralph: “Bit ‘clarty’, but was tasty though”

Karen: “The pastry was anaemic”

Richard: “Finger lickin’ good”

. . . . . . . . . .

The initial reaction to the pies was mixed: this was the first pie we had tasted with a lattice top, which some judges considered an interesting, non-traditional twist. However, this meant that the fluting started to look more like cog-spokes and often pastry had snapped in transit – not a problem experienced with any previous pie. We also felt that their baking methods lacked consistency, given the wide variations in only 12 mince pies – a decidedly uneven bake!

The packaging design was even more unimaginative than that of Mr Kipling, being a plain red background, a deeper tone than Santa-red, with a close up on the pies. The shine on the mincemeat in the photo suggests oiliness, which was matched by the pies themselves. This was our first experience of pies with “soggy bottoms” (Ralph) and not one that we enjoyed: the whole pie was greasy. However, appearance was the one area in which Morrisons scored more highly than Mr Kipling (4.9/5 vs. 4.5/5): apparently we were more impressed by the lattice effect than ill-formed Christmas trees.

The taste of the pastry was, without doubt, our biggest disappointment to date, scoring a pathetic 1.4/5. This was because the pastry was entirely lacking in flavour, with a lardy texture, more akin to suet pudding than short crust pastry. Similarly, the pastry combined sickly-sweet flavour with an oily texture and a sharp, fake-alcohol flavour that obliterated everything but the sugar. The grease-laden texture led us to score 4.1/10, significantly lower than every other pie.

Although our Pie Sponsor, James, insists that these weren’t as bad as Mr Kipling, Morrisons slides straight into last place with a pathetic 194/440.

Finally, the words of today’s Pie Sponsor, James:

“I couldn’t disagree more (in certain areas). This was the fullest pie, the most affordable pie and personally I felt the filling was really quite good. Moist, textured and quite tasty. The pastry was without a doubt a big letdown and it was a shame that the whole lattice-work selling point literally fell apart. If you buy them you should expect to be disappointed when you open the box but the eating part is a reasonably satisfying experience.

Clearly this one divided people with half the group giving better than average scores which were then massively offset by others who felt they were truly awful. I found myself wondering how the challenge would pan out if all pies were tasted on the same day or if the running order was reversed as maybe we were too lenient on earlier pie travesties. And yes, I’m talking to you Mr Kipling!

In closing, would I recommend them? No.”

. . . . . . . . . .

AND THE JUDGES’ RESULTS ARE:

THE PIES Morrison’s Lattice Mince Pies £1.29		RICHARD Appearance: 4/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3.5/5 Taste (pastry): 2.5/5 Value for money: 8/10		SAM Appearance: 5/10 Texture: 4/10 Taste (mincemeat): 1/5 Taste (pastry): 1/5 Value for money: 4/10		SARAH Appearance: 4/10 Texture: 1/10 Taste (mincemeat): 1/5 Taste (pastry): 0/5 Value for money: 1/10
ROB Appearance: 4/10 Texture: 0/10 Taste (mincemeat): 1/5 Taste (pastry): 0/5 Value for money: 4/10		RALPH Appearance: 3/10 Texture: 4/10 Taste (mincemeat): 2/5 Taste (pastry): 1/5 Value for money: 6/10		GAVIN Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 4/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 2/5 Value for money: 5/10		JAMES Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 2/5 Value for money: 6/10
MANDY Appearance: 3/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 2/5 Value for money: 7/10		JON Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 5/10 Taste (mincemeat): 2/5 Taste (pastry): 1/5 Value for money: 5/10		KAREN Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 3/5 Value for money: 5/10		TINA Appearance: 3/10 Texture: 2/10 Taste (mincemeat): 1/5 Taste (pastry): 1/5 Value for money: 2/10

. . . . . . . . . .

CASUAL PIE-STANDER COMMENTS:

Ralph says: “I’ve got a soggy bottom”

. . . . . . . . . .

So what made us love these little pies so much?

At first glance some frogs commented on their size comparative to their cost of 80p each (that’s £4.80 for 6). However, one bite is enough to show their value. The pastry is entirely unlike that of a shop bought mince pie: with a puff pastry these mince pies are so much lighter than the near-shortbread consistency of a factory produced mince pie, melting in the mouth. The pastry is also unsweetened, unlike other pie pastry, allowing all the sweetness to come from the mincemeat. Lotte’s mince pie pastry received an average score of 4.8/5 – our highest score by miles!

The mincemeat was a little divisive: the use of cloves and cinnamon led some Frogs to ecstasy and some to agony. One thing we can say: no other mince pie had such clear evidence of natural flavouring not achieved with cheap alcohol. The mincemeat also contained chopped figs, which were a delightful addition (for most judges). As a result of the spice controversy the mincemeat did not score as highly, receiving an average score of 3.8/5, coming third after Waitrose and ASDA.

Once again, when it came to texture this pie swept the board, with an average score of 8.5/10. Although the flavour of the pastry wasn’t ideal for all, the bite of the mincemeat combined fantastically with the lightness of the pastry to give a fantastic overall experience.

Many frogs loved the festive glitter and overall handmade feel, but some felt that the appearance was a little childlike. However non of these concerns could mar our overall experience. Thank you Lotte Duncan for these lovely little treats!

Finally, the words of today’s joint Pie Sponsor, Gavin:
“A delicate blend of spices, masterfully combined with a stupendously tasty pastry, the scores speak volumes for these culinary delights! I couldn’t be happier with my choice of locally-sourced mince pies: Tina and I are proud to be their sponsors. Excellent work by Lotte’s Kitchen.”

. . . . . . . . . .

AND THE JUDGES’ RESULTS ARE:

THE PIES Lotte Duncan’s Handmade Mince Pies £4.80		RICHARD Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 9/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 4.5/5 Value for money: 6.5/10		NICK Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 10/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 9/10		SARAH Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 10/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 9/10
ROB Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 2/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 8/10		RALPH Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 1/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 5/10		GAVIN Appearance: 10/10 Texture: 8.5/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 8.5/10		JAMES Appearance: 6/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 6/10
MANDY Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 7.5/10 Taste (mincemeat): 2.5/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 6/10		MARCUS (Standing in for Jon) Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 6/10		KAREN Appearance: 10/10 Texture: 9/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 7/10		BRIAN (Standing in for Tina) Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 3/10

. . . . . . . . . .

CASUAL PIE-STANDER COMMENTS:

Ralph says: “Lovely homemade pastry, let down in my opinion by the overpowering, clove-tasting mincemeat.”

Gavin says: “The pastry is amazing and as a lover of festive spices, Lotte’s pies deliver an authentic Christmas taste .”

. . . . . . . . . .

The area in which the judges were most united was appearance. The feeling was that there was a lack of effort in this area: both box and pies had gone for elegant simplicity and hit boring instead. The box is neither particularly Christmasy or luxurious: a plain, matt silver box, dominated by a window showing the equally plain mince pies within. The only decoration on the box is an illuminated ‘6’, which has been picked out in red and black, showing a tree, birds, and the odd bauble. Waitrose would have done better to use the picture squashed on the side of the box, showing a clean white tablecloth, silver candlesticks, and a plate piled with traditional-looking mince pies.

The pies themselves are at least consistent in presentation: plain tops, liberally dusted with sugar, with crisp, fluted edges. However, the edges of the pies looked rather too solid, with at least 5mm of dense pastry to get through. Although a couple of the judges preferred this traditional approach to the more usual Christmas shapes, most were disappointed, meaning that Waitrose received our second lowest appearance score to date, a mere 6.5/10.

In spite of the controversy, Waitrose does show more consistency than any other brand we have yet tried, receiving 4/5 for both pastry and mincemeat taste. This is our highest pastry score to date, by a considerable margin, and our second highest mincemeat score, only behind the exceptionally boozy Asda mincemeat. The texture was also highly rated, at 7.1/10, behind ASDA’s 7.4. If you only consider the “eating experience” this was our second-best pie, and certainly the most consistent, but it is let down by its poor appearance and value for money. The judges were fairly ambivalent about the value for money, at £2 a box, Waitrose need to offer better presentation to win our approval for their value – we gave it 6.7/10.

Of course, as I said, these scores were obtained from deeply divided judges, but as averages they clearly show that the majority were happy with the pies, if not over the moon about them.

Pie Sponsor Ralph said the pies “made me feel warm and cuddly inside,” in stark contrast to James’ expressive “blech” [sic]. Take a look at the full range of judges’ and casual pie standers’ comments below.

Nice try Waitrose, but we expect more from you! Total score: 311/440.

. . . . . . . . . .

AND THE JUDGES’ RESULTS ARE:

THE PIES Waitrose: All Butter Mince Pies £2.00		RICHARD Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 10/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 8/10		NICK Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 9/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 8/10		SARAH Appearance: 6/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 7/10
ROB Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 5/5 Value for money: 8/10		RALPH Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 9/10		GAVIN Appearance: 4/10 Texture: 5/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 2/5 Value for money: 4/10		JAMES Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 5/10 Taste (mincemeat): 2/5 Taste (pastry): 1/5 Value for money: 4/10
MANDY Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 10/10		Natalie (Standing in for Jon) Appearance: 5/10 Texture: 4/10 Taste (mincemeat): 6/5 Taste (pastry): 7/5 Value for money: 5/10		KAREN Appearance: 5/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 6/10		TINA Appearance: 4/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 5/10

. . . . . . . . . .

CASUAL PIE-STANDER COMMENTS:

Sam says: “What made me like this pie so much? Was it the pastry that was thick and buttery enough you could almost call it shortbread? Or perhaps the filling so boozy you could smell it? Or was it the stylish, simple appearance? No, although all of these things are true, it was in fact the civil war it has started in the studio. The spirit of Christmas is alive and well!”

. . . . . . . . . .

Although the four-star motif on the pie lids is a little immature, these pies are overall beautifully presented, with clearly defined points to the stars and deep fluting marks. This was where the pie scored highest (with a massive 7.7/10), but it was still unable to beat Tesco’s score of 8.1. Surprisingly, for Asda, these were the most expensive pies we’ve had so far at £2.00 a box, but the overall quality of the pie meant that this didn’t drag the value for money down too far in the judges’ eyes (6.4/10).

The area in which the judges were most in agreement was the taste of the mincemeat. This was the first pie we had sampled in which the promised brandy, and in this case both port and brandy, could really be tasted. These mince pies are boozy and in our minds that’s a good thing, our average taste score was 4.3/5, a significant improvement on Co-op’s 3.5! Although Sarah did remain sceptical, saying that the strength of the alcohol was being used to cover up the poor taste of the pastry and showed no relation to either port or brandy except in its strength. Could that be a little influenced by Asda’s brand image?

The pastry definitely wasn’t up to the standard of the mincemeat, but remained ahead of all three other pies with a score of 3.3/5 (vs. 3.2 Co-op). Several judges suggested that combining the Co-op pastry and Asda pie would give a sterling pie – we might even give it a try later in December!

Pie Sponsor Rob described the pies as “yummy,” a view shared by the majority of the Frogs. Well Done Asda! You surprised us!

A total score of 320/440 and a new leader!

. . . . . . . . . .

AND THE JUDGES’ RESULTS ARE:

THE PIES Asda Extra Special: All-Butter Mince Pies £2.00		RICHARD Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 3/5 Value for money: 6/10		NICK Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 3/5 Value for money: 7/10		SARAH Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 1/5 Value for money: 3/10
ROB Appearance: 7.5/10 Texture: 8.5/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 6/10		RALPH Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 3/5 Value for money: 5/10		GAVIN Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 6/10		JAMES Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 8/10
MANDY Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 3/5 Value for money: 8/10		JON (Actually 30 points. Jon can’t add!) Appearance: 6/10 Texture: 7/10 Taste (mincemeat): 5/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 8/10		KAREN Appearance: 8/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 4/5 Value for money: 7/10		TINA Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 8/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 3/5 Value for money: 7/10

. . . . . . . . . .

CASUAL PIE-STANDER COMMENTS:

Sam says: “From the quartet of little pastry stars on the top to the super boozy filling Asda have done a stirling job with their pie. Although a few pence off the asking price, and a little bit more of that 90% proof mincemeat would be smashing, thanks.”

. . . . . . . . . .