How a stale A$17.50 cookie sparked a social media storm

 

Australian consumers paid an eyewatering A$17.50 ($12;£9) for the snacks at a scam pop-up that had no affiliation with Crumbl

Set against a backdrop of cliffside mansions, bronzed bodies, and vast ocean views - Bondi is the go-to suburb for international brands looking to launch down under.

So, when news broke on TikTok that a Crumbl Cookie pop-up was coming to Sydney's iconic beachside hub, few raised questions, bbc.com.

With a host of famous fans, the US-based bakery chain - which only sells domestically and in Canada - has secured a cult-like following.

But when Australian foodies sunk their teeth into the treats, outrage spread like wildfire after it became clear they were eating days-old goods, sold by a few enterprising locals - with no connection to Crumbl - who had brought the cookies back in suitcases from Hawaii.

Adding insult to injury was the eye-watering price tag, with consumers paying A$17.50 ($12;£9) for the stale snacks, which had aged inside the belly of a commercial airline.

Labelled the great "cookie controversy" and "Crumblgate" by commentators, the doughy drama has sparked debate online - prompting calls for legal action to be taken against the sellers, as well as jabs against those willing to pay such an exorbitant amount simply to be pictured indulging in the latest trendy treat.

It even inspired a last-minute Washington Post Food review of the cookies, which ruled them "underwhelming" and "under baked".

The saga unfolded after scores of people spent the day snaking around a commercial block in North Bondi on Sunday to secure their brightly coloured signature Crumbl box.

All of it was seemingly captured on TikTok - often in real-time - as consumer after consumer filmed themselves biting into the hardened treats, responding with a series of grimaces rather than delight.

"This is actually very bad... the texture is just weird," one vlogger said.

"I spent A$150 on 10 cookies," another woman blurted out mid-video, before offering a scathing review.

Another group recorded themselves simply sniffing the battered treats, before offering a ranking of 3/10.

The founder of the US company, quickly took to social media to clarify that the Australian pop-up, was not affiliated with his firm.

All of which prompted a confusing story, followed by an apology by the Sydney organisers.

In a statement, a spokesperson - who declined to give his full name - said that hundreds of the cookies had been purchased while on a trip to Hawaii and then brought back to Australia in luggage.

He claimed that everything the pop-up had done - including using professionally shot photographs of the sweets and mimicking the Crumbl branding - was "legal".

And that they'd tried to adhere to the Crumbl storage requirements, which advises that the products can still be consumed after three days, if kept in an airtight container.

“We kept them to these requirements. Some were warmed to enhance their texture, which is what Crumbl does as well.

"We apologise that they don’t live up to expectations. However, they are just cookies at the end of the day,” the statement added.

The strangeness of a group of people "going on an international flight to go and procure biscuits" is not lost on Australian marketing expert Andrew Hughes, however he says the bait and switch tactics are far from new.

One recent example he pointed to was when scores of people bought tickets to a so-called Bridgerton-themed ball in Detroit, Michigan.

But instead of being met with the glitz, glamour and expensive food event organisers had promised, they were left with soggy noodles, a single violin, and a pole dancer.

To understand how these viral scams lure people in, it’s important to examine the powerful emotions elicited by the "fear of missing out" - or FOMO for short – Hughes says.

"In an age where information travel so quickly… people don’t want to be behind the curve. They act out of impulse instead of logic,” he explains.

It's unclear whether the Crumbl spin off violated Australian consumer law, or whether those affected have grounds to act.

But beyond a few cease-and-desist letters, Hughes thinks it's unlikely the US-brand will take further action.

"They'll deny it. They'll say it's bad. But at the end of the day, it's good publicity because it raises their brand awareness in Australia.

"All of a sudden, people who hadn't heard of them are now talking about them."