In spirit, according to the sample of Rachael Ray dog food I got in the mail. Nutrish! The package looks like bad candy design from the 1970s, and the actual sample bag inside looked even more odd. Felt like the back of a recipe card for some reason. (Dog ate it so I suppose it’s okay from a “dogs will eat anything’ perspective. Of course, dogs also eat their own puke and sniff each other’s butts.) Have to wonder if this move puts her regular brand on par with dog food too much though. Ya think?
3 comments:
The name kinda sums up everything you love or hate about Rachael Ray -- the dog version of the whole EVOO-stoup-sammie thing.
If you like Ray, you probably know she loves dogs. You probably know she donates the profits. You might even think the package will look neat-o stored beside your Rachael Ray pans/knives/gadgets/plates/books/magazines.
But if you don't like Ray, this is just another way she seems to have succeeded in her evil plan to take over the entire frickin' world.
Latter then.
o_O
Rachael recipes though seem on par with "Shit you can throw together in 20 mins using leftover mac & cheese,” so the dog food tie-in seems to do more harm than good. I guess I just haven't seen Tom Colicchio or Ramsay come out with a line of pet food.
Ramsay's though would be f***ing amazing, luv.
I think you've hit on the thing about a lot of FoodTV stars. It's not about the food. I was reading a recent WSJ article about celebrity chefs who perform on concert tour circuits. Seriously: people pay a lot of money to sit in a theater and watch these guys cook and talk. But there's no food being served. You're not learning any specialized technique. You're there simply to be with Guy Fieri or Paula Deen or Alton Brown. (For the celebrity, these are bigger money-making deals than their books.)
I don't know why but people are connecting with these stars for a lot of reasons other than quality of the food. Which may also explain the whole Gourmet/Bon Appetite magazine decision.
Post a Comment