I should think not.
Yet, time and time again I am proven wrong, which causes me to wonder if perhaps my branding expectations are unreasonable. From Plopp to Japp (not to mention the notorious Violet Crumble), sweets manufacturers confound me with their arbitrary appellations. It is as if they open a dictionary to a random page, point to an equally random word, and exclaim "Eureka!"
For instance, if you were asked to name a chocolate bar containing hazelnut, nougat, and caramel, what do you think you would do?
If you are from anywhere other than Mars (the corporation, not the planet; an actual martian would probably do a fair job of the task), you would likely consider the treat's composition and qualities and propose an appropriate name.
Sadly, you were not consulted in the manner (I'm assuming you were not a prominent employee of Mars in 1962; my apologies if you were), and the name "Topic" was decided on (which is no more my favorite name than "candy names" is my favorite topic).
And so I present to you the Mars Topic bar:
 |
| "Subject" was simply too pedestrian a choice. Obviously. |
Now, Topic is manufactured in France and sold throughout Europe, so I thought a look at the Oxford Dictionary definition of "topic" might provide some insight into the name. I was not disappointed. See, "topic" is (if you were too lazy to check the link) based upon the Greek "ta topika," meaning "matters concerning commonplaces."
In other words, Mars wants you to know that this bar is nothing special. Hmm. Maybe the candy is aptly named after all; that's what we're here to find out (I am, anyway; I've no idea what brought you here)!
The packaging certainly lives up to that description. I find the vibrant red base a confusing selection, and the intersecting orange circles seemingly serve no real purpose (one might describe them as "off topic"). The font is questionable, as well. In fact, aside from the hazelnut graphic, there is a total disconnect between the visuals and brief product description on the side.
It is a generic design for a generic name (my wife claims the color scheme and font led her to misread it as "tropic," which, as far as I'm concerned, makes just as much sense). Truly, it is hard to imagine what unique set of circumstances could have led to such a series of poor decisions (and I won't even mention the former mascot, Toby; there just aren't words).
Basically, we're not off to a great start.
 |
| I'm no Gastroenterologist, but I don't think that's how a colon works. |
The "best before" date, too, leaves me scratching my head (it's either that, or I have lice): the date comes before the "best before:" text, which is highly unconventional. There is also some secret code beneath containing the letters "HAG." I doubt it means anything, but I figured I'd point that out, just in case.
Anyhow, as the suggested date was fine (I actually performed the consumption portion of the review about a week before the given day), I decided to move on and see what other surprises Mars had in store for me...
It didn't take long.
A quick glance at the nutrition information panel revealed that, if nothing else, the Topic design team was consistent in their carelessness:
 |
| What, you'd like to read the rest of it, too? Join the club. |
Not only does the information wrap around both the top and bottom, but the portion with the most useful data (i.e., the part with the stats for one bar) is mangled within the wrapper's edge. Sure, it's there, but it is a real pain to read, and it shows the lackadaisical manner in which Mars slapped the packaging together. Or maybe the design was just delegated to a rookie team who lacked the spatial intelligence to anticipate such failures. Regardless, I am not impressed.
Gram for gram, the Topic bar has slightly less fat (and Calories) but significantly more sodium (and a fair bit more sugar) than other chocolate hazelnut candies I've tried. It will be interesting to see how that plays out in the taste.
Let's see how the package designers did with the ingredients list:
 |
| It's like a recurring nightmare. |
Surprise, surprise, surprise! The ingredients section has all of the same issues encountered with the nutrition information, though it's a little easier to read in this case. The ingredients are all as commonplace as might be expected by this point (and suitable for vegetarians, if you couldn't decipher the bottom line).
But I've got to hand it to Mars: at least they accept responsibility for their design transgressions. It takes guts to stand behind work like this, and even more so to warn competitors of the copyright, implying that someone would actually want to rip off the endless blunders of the Topic bar packaging.
Granted, I might be being overly harsh here. Each minor infraction is not terrible in its own right. But they add up to a result unbecoming of a multibillion dollar candy company. I firmly believe they could do (and deserve) better.
Hopefully the bar itself was shown more love and care.
 |
| I've seen worse. Oh, the things I have seen... |
As I removed it from the wrapper, I had mixed feelings. The smell had a cheapness to it, like an unsuccessfully executed knockoff perfume (here I intended to make up a ridiculously stupid name for such a perfume as an example, but discovered that everything I could come up with already existed; such is the state of the perfume world).
But the appearance was alluring in a commonplace (there's that word again) sort of way; it reminded me very much of countless other mass produced candies I've had and enjoyed. The pattern on the bottom of the bar was also familiar, but at least interesting (and possibly a wee bit hypnotic).
My specific specimen (try saying that three times fast) had clearly suffered minor injuries during its voyage to me; namely, it had received a nasty bump on the noggin, and what I assume was caramel was leaking out (keep in mind that head wounds tend to look worse than they are). Such imperfections are merely cosmetic, thankfully, but I still felt a little bad for my Topic.
So I took a bite.
I found the consistency was smooth and altogether agreeable, and the layers of flavors blended together in cordial solidarity; the hazelnut flavoring, while definitely present, was thankfully not overpowering.
In short, it was pretty good.
Unfortunately, it was also (living up to its namesake) nothing special (well, to me; if you love hazelnut, you might disagree, but I doubt it). To be honest, I might have enjoyed it more without the hazelnut flavor, but that would rob it of its identity. It's simply an all around middle-of-the-road product. That doesn't mean it has no place in the candy universe; it just doesn't hold a place of honor. But that's okay. Someone needs to do the grunt work, and the Topic bar is up to the challenge.
Therefore, I rate the Mars Topic bar an acceptable 2. I'd eat another if the opportunity arose, but I'm not itching for it. If hazelnut's your jam, go ahead and give it a try. If not, don't.
And that's about all I've got say on the subject.
Topic closed.
Neither commonplace nor hazelnutty (just regular nutty),
The Sweets Fiend
 |
| Luscious layers of meh. |
