Wherefore art thou, Chantico?
Big companies make big deals out of new products, especially menu additions at retail food and beverage outlets. But the demise of failed products is rarely noted (except, perhaps, by the competition, which can be so catty sometimes).
Thus it is that I've finally put my finger what that hole in the Starbucks menu board once held: the pretentiously-named "Chantico drinking chocolate," the introduction of which I hailed – sort of – two years ago.
It may well have been absent from the Starbucks lineup for a year, for all I know, but I'm just now noticing it. I tried it once, and found that despite assertions to the contrary it is, indeed, possible to have too much of a good thing, even when that good thing is only an ounce or two of melted chocolate. The drink was obscenely rich in calories and fat grams, but this was also at a time when the American public was in thrall to Krispy Kreme, so it's not like the demand for food pørn was unplumbed. It also had an odd flavor, which I decided without the burden of any insight whatsoever was some kind of additive – diesel, perhaps? – designed to keep the chocolate liquefied.
Apparently, people lined up in droves to not order Chantico, and thus it's been relegated to some future entry in a Trivial Pursuit game. But I do have to wonder if somewhere, some poor product designer has an edited Dilbert strip affixed to his or her cubicle memorializing the one that never quite made it out of the infield.
Dangit. Its release, not "it's". Ugh.
Posted by: Jim at June 19, 2007 03:33 PMDangit. Its release, not "it's". Ugh.
Its OK Jim; I can see your still in shock over it's demise.
I do wonder, however, how this might have worked out had they chosen to market it with the shot from the very beginning. I agree with you; a little espresso improves just about anything.
Posted by: Eric at June 19, 2007 03:38 PMI'm one who needed the doppio espresso chaser.
My wife found it just too rich; as in, drink one and suffer physically for hours later. I wonder how many others had that experience?
Posted by: Kelly at June 19, 2007 06:05 PMBut oh, such exquisite suffering it was!
Posted by: Jim at June 19, 2007 07:38 PMMaybe Chantico is just going to be relegated to a seasonal beverage? Seems to me more of a wintertime drink...
I'm clamoring for the S$ folks to get off their duffs and whup up a sugar-free version of their Frappucino. I love, love, love those frosty, slushy drinks, but the long-lasting sugar dumps just aren't worth the quick gratification.
Just hafta settle for a Grande, 3-Splenda, half-caf, latte with extra foam, instead!
Posted by: Rob O. at June 19, 2007 07:51 PMKelly, it was a bit too rich for my blood, as well. That's why I was thinking that a shot of espresso might have taken the edge off (while putting the buzz on).
Rob, I'd vote for a sugar-free frap. I love 'em, but they're nutritional nightmares so I rarely indulge. Of course, dropping the whipped cream eliminates 130-140 calories right off the bat.
All of this means nothing to Jim, who weighs about 80 pounds and shows no signs of changing that. ;-)
Posted by: Eric at June 19, 2007 09:07 PMO Chantico, Chantico, wherefore art thou Chantico?
I was the other of the two people who loved the Chantico. Made with diesel? A chocolate made with any other fuel would taste as sweet. Or something. I miss the Chantico.
Posted by: Denise at June 23, 2007 10:46 PMAbout the publisher
Random Abbye photos...
"Glove Box Stories" is Back!
Eel on a Wheel
Meteorological Musings
Random Thursday
Is stupidity the Net effect?
More Invaders
Back Yard Birds
Book Review: "The Year of Living Biblically"
Sometimes, you get lucky...
June Sunset
It's Official...
Google's new favicon rocks the design world
Give the Gift of Flame
The Incredible Shrinking Math Skills
The Neighborhood:
West Texas Blogs:
[Midland unless otherwise indicated]
Other Texas Blogs:
The Business:
The Church:
The World:
Chantico went missing from the S$ (see, I've adopted your typology) menu about eight seconds after it was added.
Okay, not eight. But by the winter after it's release it was no longer listed on the menu, though you could still get it. How wierd is that?
Sometime later, it was simply and irrefutably, not.
And how exactly do I know this? Because I mourn its loss. I'm one of the one people out there that liked the stuff. There was just something about the taste of chocolate (and diesel) that warmed the heart. Especially when a shot of espresso was added.
Posted by: Jim at June 19, 2007 03:32 PM