Saturday May 1stTreats Category


I don’t get m&m’s very often but I was aware of some sort of change in bag design.  I know I’m probably in the minority but I don’t like the talking m&m guys.  They always sound and look stoned or something and I’m sick of them playing the same Christmas commercial every year where they and Santa don’t know each other exists.  But I do like the product itself, they’re such a classic and they travel so well.
The top image is from a 1985 ad.  The bag must be paper but somehow it looks like pleather.  This is as simple as it gets: flat brown background with flat white text and that’s all there is.  I always liked that the “m”s are lowercase typewriter-looking font.  The only other information besides the mention of ”brand” below the “s”,  is that these are plain chocolate candies.
The current package has a two-tone brown polka dot background with circle filled with images of the product.  The title letters are the same font but are now slanted, have an outline, inner shadow and gradient.  The m&m known as “red” has one hand up to the title and the other is pointing at you.  His mouth is open like he’s saying (slurring) something or it looks like he could just be burping.   I noticed they got rid of labeling the bag “Plain” and just use “Milk Chocolate” to identify this particular variety.
I might not even mind the new bag so much if it weren’t for red. I just can’t stand him!  But I think both bags are effective in providing an easily recognizable package.  I’ll still go with the old one just because I usually go with the thought of less is more.

m&m's: Old or new?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


  1. Mel
    May 1, 2010

    The only reason I ever liked the M&M guys is because, at first, Jon Lovitz played the smart-ass one. But I LURVE the old bag. I mean, just because four-color printing exists, doesn’t mean we have to use it ALL the time (as seems to be the case, judging by all of the products you’ve showcased lately).
    I say, bring back the simple bag! Heck, they could even tie it to a “retro” promo or something. :D

  2. Tasty Japan
    May 4, 2010

    New bag by a mile. I prefer the peanut M&M’s though. I was also discussing the meaning of M&M’s with my husband and he reckons it stands for “me and my mates” but is this correct?

  3. Nightdragon
    May 7, 2010

    Normally, I love cartoon characters — especially animal ones — on products, but yeah, the M&M characters are a bit irritating. It’s just weird wanting to anthromorphize candies. The old packaging was very straightforward; you didn’t need M&M’s on legs to let you know you were going to enjoy the candy.

  4. C-coh
    May 25, 2010

    I hate those guys too. Can’t stand them! It’s good to know I’m not alone.

  5. Nostalgio
    June 21, 2010

    I’m just of the mind that if a product is to have mascots of a sort, it should have them from the product inception as part of the launch. The M&M “people” just smack of gimmickry and I wish they’d go away.

  6. SZA
    December 28, 2010

    I am joining you all in my detest of the stupid M&M guys. I think this year was the first Christmas season they didn’t air that godforsaken ‘They do exist’ ad on TV, thank goodness!!

    Original package definitely trumps. Receiving a bag of M&Ms as a little kid was like being handed a gold mine!

Leave a comment