well, yes, look you see. i too am quite surprised at the rather overt turn towards culinary things in posts of recent times, but as i said in a post a while ago perhaps i am quite close to exhausting all that i could write of. but, here i am again, to be sure.
there is little (quite) so enjoyable for dinner as a KFC. it is not often that i can indulge such, for reasons of time and location. certainly, there is no way that i could have KFC as frequently as, say, The King, Elvis Presley, as (for a start) i am not able to instruct a plane to fetch me some no matter where i am in the world.
but, fairly recently, i was able to stop off for some for dinner. and by dinner i do mean that middle of the day meal. in proper areas of the world, this is called dinner, but i am aware that some people call this "lunch". they are decidedly wrong to do so, although it does help identify them as being from a not particularly proper corner of the world.
if for some reason you are unaware of the delights and joys of the KFC double down burger, well. somewhere across these blog pages you will find celebrations of it, as well as stern criticism of the false fake south african version of it. but, to give a brief insight, several years ago KFC launched the idea of a burger which used two chicken fillets instead of a bread bun as an April Fool joke. such was the interest and demand that they went right ahead and made it for real.
yeah, that's the official story. my guess, or suspicion, is that they floated the idea when they did to see if it would be popular or mocked. doing that sort of marketing research on April Fool's Day is a certified winner, as you can easily back out of it and not look like you made an error in judgement. no reason for them to have been so cautious, really. what's not to like about a KFC burger which just gets down (in a double way, apparently) to the business end?
as far as one aspect of the above concerns go (in respect of not going for a daily double down), the cost of a double down meal (burger, horrible chips and a drink not subject to sugar tax) is £5.99, or if you prefer even things 1p south of £6. for comparison, this is just a bit over what usual KFC meals cost (i think), well above the average McDonald's meal cost and somewhere just south of the outrageous prices Burger King (that i also really like) slam on their menu.
further, or if you will, another thing would be that KFC seem quite determined to ensure they maintain custodianship of the term "double down" by means of expansion. look, please, at the below image, sent as it was all the way from New Zealand.
i am not sure how keen i am on that, to be honest. the whole thing looks like mixing your pudding, or afters, with your main meal. or breakfast, i suppose, as i am reliably informed that in some places, and by that i mean America, waffles loaded with all sorts of sugar stuff is quite the done thing for breakfast. to clarify, though, yes, if it turned up for sale here i would give it a go. what, after all, would i stand to lose by such a go?
my review of the double down, in its returned form? well, as thoroughly enjoyable as i recall, but also a lot quicker to eat. as in it appears the double down burger has become (considerably) smaller this time around. maybe it is a case of "shrinkonomics", or it is possible that the raw materials needed to make a double down burger with have been diverted to something else, such as making munitions for the invisible war against the new plague. yes, the answer to this aspect of the problem probably is to simply buy two double down burgers, making it a double double down meal.
well, anyway, that's that. it would strike me as the clock is ticking to November 15, so best i cease simply writing of the KFC double down and make my way to buy another one. or two.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment