Spokescandies: the 1995 character redevelopment

Read the campaign story

M&M’s redeveloped its animated advertising characters in 1995 with BBDO and animation specialists including Kirk Kelley’s team. A Texas A&M Foundation profile describes the work and its relationship to earlier candy characters. MEL’s interview with creative Susan Credle corroborates the 1995 redevelopment and the decision to give the characters distinct personalities. This was a renewal of an existing device, not the invention of talking M&M’s from nothing.

The characters were differentiated by temperament as well as colour. Their relationships could generate situations and dialogue across many advertisements, rather than requiring a completely new premise each time. Later additions and individual films belong to this broader character family. The case does not treat subsequent changes in design, casting or cultural discussion as separate strategic origins.

Editorial reading: A mascot becomes more useful when it has a predictable way of responding to events. Different personalities create tension, alliances and reversals, giving writers a system for generating stories. The product’s own form remains visible in every character, so the entertainment retains a direct connection to the confectionery. That connection can be stronger than using an unrelated spokesperson.

The same recognisability creates responsibilities. Animated sweets can appeal to children even when scripts contain adult humour, so audience targeting and applicable food-marketing rules need careful attention. Character traits should also be reviewed for stereotypes rather than treated as permanent truths. A long-running system needs room to evolve without assuming that every historical joke remains suitable.

A small non-food business can create two original product-linked characters with contrasting but respectful tendencies. Write several short situations before investing in animation, then test whether people can predict the personalities and identify the brand. Keep a simple guide to what each character would and would not do. Revise traits that rely on humiliation or narrow assumptions about identity.

The sources document creative development and participant recollections, not an isolated sales effect. Later annual sales figures are not used to prove the 1995 work’s impact. The transferable lesson is to build character relationships that support durable storytelling while maintaining product relevance and ethical review. Consistency helps recognition, but thoughtful boundaries and periodic reassessment keep a familiar cast from becoming an unquestioned collection of old stereotypes.

Write behaviour, not just appearance

Personality creates usable situations.

Treat revivals honestly

Redevelopment is not necessarily original invention.

Review audience effects

Adult humour does not remove children’s appeal.

A small test for another brief

Editorial reading of the challenge: how to develop product-shaped characters with distinct behaviours that generate a repeatable story system.

Distinct personality recall and correct brand association.

Stop if characters target children inappropriately or rely on harmful stereotypes.

• Define two original product-linked behaviours.
• Write three contrasting situations.
• Test recognition, attribution and stereotypes.