Kcal 169 Fat 10.0g Carbs 17.4g
Today I bring you an EXCLUSIVE review of the latest addition to one of Mars' bestselling ranges - the Galaxy Bubbles. Known as Galaxy to us in here in the UK and Dove to most other countries (including the US and most of Europe) the arrival of this Bubbles bar was announced in the press a few weeks ago (See Here) and was brought to my attention by ChocolateMission reader Phil. Positioned as a direct competitor to Cadbury's Wispa and Nestle's Aero bars, to be honest I was a little surprised it took Mars so long to get a 'bubbly milk chocolate bar' to market given the popularity of the two aforementioned products.
I found this bar in my local newsagents priced 55p which is give or take 5p ia about the same amount you would pay for a Wispa or Aero. An interesting thing to note when comparing the three bars are the sizes, the Wispa 39.0g, Aero 46.0g and this Bubbly significantly smaller at 31.0g. The differences don't end there, and if you take a look at the packaging it is quite obvious to see that the target consumers are distinctly different. The Galaxy Bubbly has been positioned more at female audience - hence the effeminate pink touches on the wrapper and print campaign currently running in magazines more inclined for a female audience. Personally this didn't put me off the product in any manner but like I have commented on previous reviews, I always find it puzzling when manufacturers feel the need to half their potential consumer base.
Taking the bar out of my handbag (Joke!!!) the first thing I noticed having removed the bar from it's foil wrapper was the lack of presence the bar had in terms of it's aroma. As I have mentioned on other Galaxy chocolate reviews before the smell was similarly weak and didn't offer up anything more inviting than some faint cocoa scents. Breaking off my first piece I next noticed how flat and thin the bar was in comparison to it's Wispa and Aero comparators - I guess that is where the weight was lost! Placing the first piece in my mouth I was met by some familiar and tasty flavours. As per your standard Galaxy milk chocolate bar the taste was heavily cream rooted and established a strong set of sweet milky flavours that made for a rich and indulgent experience. Normally what I like so much about Galaxy milk chocolate is the way that this creamy taste is allowed to be enjoyed during a long lasting, smooth thick melt - which just wasn't the case here. The aerated texture was good for what it was and brought a tingly sensation when melting on the tongue, however given the bars thinness the melt was over in a matter of seconds of the chocolate entering the mouth. For this very reason the bar wasn't half as satisfying as a standard Galaxy chocolate and I was left somewhat disappointed at that.
Overall I think Mars have missed a trick here and they are the architects of their own downfall when it comes to a face-off with the Cadbury Wispa. Personally speaking I really quite Galaxy milk chocolate; whilst it may not be as flavoursome as something like Hotel Chocolat's 40% recipe for the price you pay I think you get a pretty decent creamy milk chocolate in return. Given that fact I see no reason whatsoever why Mars couldn't make a bar to outstrip the Nestle Aero and at least give the Cadbury Wispa a run for its money ... enter some monumental cock ups by the team at Mars! Who at Mars thought it right to make a product significantly smaller in size to it's nearest competitors, thus hampering the bar's ability both satisfy and generate the same chocolate flavour hit!? Hmmm not clever huh!? ... Bring on cock up number 2 ... Mars' audacity to price the thing the same as these larger and in many other ways superior, competitor bars. This may sound like I am going for the jugular a bit here (believe me I am not I could harp on about the positioning and packaging until the cows come home!!) but all this frustration is born out of the fact that they had a damn decent product at the heart of matters here with real potential. At the end of the day I can't fault the chocolate but the execution of this product was just damn poor - what a shame!
6.2 out of 10
6.2 out of 10