Three more reasons illustrating the problem of "first"
Eat the Big Fish is getting a second edition, looking at some of the changes in his thinking of the last ten years since it was written, and one areas he is looking to explore is "opportunity".
"Do you know who invented the Cheeseburger?" asks Morgan. It was JWT in the 1930s, on behalf of Kraft slices who wanted to encourage the American population to increase their consumption of cheese slices.
JWT suggested that they attach them as an ingredient to the most popular meal in America - the hamburger. They created something out of nothing."
I love this story - the idea that an agency helped create a new usage occasion, a new reason to buy a product, and forever changed American culture - just by taking two existing things and putting them together.
Another reason I love this story is that it's almost certainly not true.
As far as Wikipedia knows, the Cheeseburger was invented in 1924 by a 16 year old fry cook called Lionel Sternberger [what are the odds?] at a sandwich shop in Pasadena, California.
I very much doubt that this was the first time anyone added cheese to a burger, but it's the first recorded, [and as we know nothing is real until it has been recorded] and it certainly predates the 1930s.
Assuming the Kraft/JWT story is at all true - I can find no evidence online, but that's not conclusive either way - what's way more likely is that some inspiring young Mad Man saw, heard or indeed ate a cheeseburger, stole the idea, and then, perhaps, the agency and the brand helped it spread.
Stories are often more compelling than facts.
No idea comes from nowhere.
You may have heard me say that the problem with claiming "firsts" is (like most things) a problem of definition. I'll surely talk about this more later, but here Faris gives three excellent concepts to consider:
Nothing is real until it has been recorded
No idea comes from nowhere
Stories are often more compelling than facts
