No modern candy is more controversial than Good & Plenty. While not a popular candy, it is far from being a niche designer candy – Good & Plenty is easily recognizable and often well-stocked on the shelves of grocery stores. But that’s what’s weird about Good and Plenty – because in all my candy conversations I have not found a single soul (besides myself) who is pro-Good and Plenty. So why is that?
Good and Plenty is a licorice candy that are coated in a chalky candy shell with a distinctive purple and white color scheme. The licorice is not too hard nor is it too soft it is a comfortably chewy consistency. Can candy be described as al dente? They traditionally come in a 1.8 oz. rectangular box with illustrations of the candies and the candy name. The design of the packaging is distinctively 1950s (I will touch more on this later) but graphic design-wise it is rather soothing. I would describe Good and Plenty as being typified as a “movie theater candy”, in the same class as candies such as snow caps and milk duds.
Each box of Good and Plenty has approximately 25 pieces and is 180 calories. Further notable nutritional elements include 125 mg of Sodium, 46g of Carbohydrates, and 33g of Sugar (for comparison sake a serving size of skittles is 250 calories, 56g of carbs, and 46g sugar, making G&P a relatively healthier candy option). The primary defining ingredient is, of course, Licorice extract. The candies themselves are pill-like, and are actually quite tasty, assuming you like licorice that is, which I understand is a hard assumption.
Historically speaking Good and Plenty does have some intrigue. The sweet treat was developed in Philadelphia by the Quacker City Chocolate & Confectionary Company in 1893 (making the candy over 130 years at the time of writing). The candy itself is the oldest continually produced American candy, which is an interesting enough fact that should definitely incorporated into the Good and Plenty marketing schema. But that’s kind of a topic that I want to bring up…there really isn’t much Good and Plenty marketing except for TV commercials in the 1950s featuring a little boy roleplaying a railroad engineer named “Choo-Choo Charlie” (this is the most 1950s statement around). Good and Plenty, simply put, seems like it is a candy that has been stagnant since the 1950s with absolutely no intention to evolve.
I claimed that G&P is a controversial candy. And that is because licorice in general is rather controversial and it seems as if there is a conscious that no one likes Good and Plenty. Despite the licorice, I also think that two other factors limit G&P from being a well-loved candy.
First off, the design of the candy and the box is not flashy. It is distinctively Art Deco and doesn’t have that 90s-pop flair that other candies well-loved by millennials have (again, I am thinking of Skittles as the archetype here). There are rainbows, and blasts, and flashy cartoon-esque elements, that make these types of candies popular. G&P has none of this. It’s just licorice and is almost as minimalist as it gets.
The Second reason that I think that G&P is not popular is because there is a lack of variety in the candy. The defining element of popular candies is variation within the candies. Skittles, Sour Patch Kids, nerds, and starbursts, are all defined by having Fruity variations and multiple flavors within a single package. This makes the eating of it a bit of an experience, different experiences within a single package. Even M&Ms, which are chocolates, create the illusion of this through the colors and consequently the marketing of giving each color a distinct personality (the discourse surrounding the Green M&M in particular is hilarious – e.g. Let The Green M&M be a Nasty Little Slut). If a candy cannot develop variety, then the candy must then be marketed as “FUN”. Swedish fish and watermelon sour patch kids are prime examples of this, where despite the flavor being consistent, there is a fun element to the shapes. Good and Plenty has none of this – they have existed as an unchanging monolith since 1893.
The fatal flaw of Good and Plenty as a candy it is simply not fun. It is your great aunt’s house, it is nursing homes, it is what is on the table if you time travel back to 1953. It is Licorice. Is not fun. White and purple are not fun colors. The graphic design dimension of Good and Plenty is nice looking, but far from fun. And that’s the big question – if a candy is not fun, then what is it? Who is it for?
My hypothesis is that Good and Plenty is adult candy. Perhaps even elderly candy? The aesthetics are mature. The candy itself looks more like a pill than a sweet, the design of the box is classy and sophisticated (none of that flashy energy that you find on other candy boxes), and licorice itself requires a complex pallet to enjoy (I recognize this is self-congratulatory, don’t worry). Even the name “Good and Plenty” sounds more biblical than the jubilant likes of Skittle and Starburst. Further, the Candy isn’t really marketed – it seems like the main purveyors of G&P are the people who grew up watching the Choo Choo Charlie commercials in the 1950s. There is no intention to change, maybe there isn’t even the potential to change.
So, what is the final verdict on Good and Plenty? Where do they exist in our modern confection mythology? On a symbolic level I think that Good and Plenty is a candy of a lost time, a nostalgic treat from the past, a living fossil similar to the horseshoe crab. It is a candy where both the licorice tones and the taste of nostalgia complement one another in each piece, and because of that, I am happy that they are still being produced. Who knows how much longer they will be around for.
Comments