Talk:Cadbury

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Current State[edit]

Cadbury was purchased by Kraft Foods in 2010. It is 2011 and nothing has been updated here. Furthermore, I see no evidence that the legal name of the company has "PLC" in the title. The page on Kraft's website refers to the company as "Cadbury Dairy Milk". Any help getting this all cleared up? 65.175.222.116 (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current Companies House records (see company number 06497379) show it as "Cadbury Limited" formerly known as "Cadbury plc" before June 4th 2010. -- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 10:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A PLC is usually the top holding Company of a group. A Ltd Company is likely to be a subsidiary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.139.26 (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Headquarters[edit]

The introductory paragraph contradicts itself as to where the company's headquarters are, with the following two statements: "Cadbury plc...with its headquarters in, Uxbridge,London, United Kingdom" and "It is headquartered in Mayfair, City of Westminster.." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.137.49 (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's corporate site gives the location of it's Head Office as Uxbridge, but I'm not sure if that's where it's corporate headquarters are. 87.194.30.99 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The registered office is a legal entity, which does not necessarily even attach to a physical presence for the company itself. It is an address for service, and could simply be a legal or accounting practice acting as proxy. -- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 10:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Corporate HQ was for many years at 1 Connaught Place. However, the building was constructed in the 1800s in accordance with the norm for those days, without foundations as it was on rather boggy land drained by the Tyburn, resting on a raft of oak timbers resused from "Tyburn Tree", the gallows and spectator stands of the public execution "venue". The oak rotted away and by 1980 it was clear the building was becoming unstabilised as the walls tried to drop into the void created. HQ then moved to Leconfield House on Curzon Street, recently vacated by MI5, and then back to Connaught Place, then Berkeley Square, and Uxbridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.139.26 (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Schweppe[edit]

The name of the founder of the Schweppes company is Jacob Schweppe, not Jacob Schweppes. I changed this in the article. Carnuzo


Cadbury-Schweppes acquired Yoo-Hoo in 2002, I've added this to the list of beverages. -Fatal

Lists of products[edit]

I can see these getting very long-winded and difficult to navigate without some sort of categorisation. I think in the case of chocolate/candy, they should be divided into the different brands - namely Cadbury and Bassetts (AFAIK the Trebor brand is no longer used). Maybe sub-categories for different products made/sold in certain countries should also be made - I can think of at least 10 Cadbury products made and sold (usually) only in Ireland, for example (Moro, Dairy Milk Golden Crisp, Caramello, Tiffin, Top Deck, etc.). --Zilog Jones 21:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To give you a pointer, Cadbury was never a major corporate inetgrator: acquisitions tended to be rather autonomous, for example the tensions in management between "Cadbury" and "Schweppes" people. This was partly because little attention was paid to the corporate structure, until the incomprehgensible morass resulting caused a rethink in the mid 1980s, with an informal streaming into Confectionery, Soft Drinks, and Other - which was to be disposed of. However, there was little market interest in the latter until the Company Treasurer, Martin Brailsford, and a middle-ranking Director, Paul Judge, put an MBO together. This was partly inspired by Naresh Nagrecha's creation of Rubicon, a Schweppes spin-off caused by Cadbury's lack of concern for the detail of failed projects. Paul had attracted the eye of one of the Cadbury daughters, and the resulting engagement placed him in the position of heir apparent inside the family, in a generation which was no loinger interested in making chocolate. However, his inamorata was not the only female interested in him, and the result was that he outraged the family, which was still very Quaker - the engagement was off and Paul bound elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.139.26 (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Why is the title hyphenated? The company name does not seem to be. Rd232 22:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fixed dml 00:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting note[edit]

Cadbury chocolate sold in Australia tastes very different to that sold in the UK and Ireland. Does the chocolate sold in the USA under the cadbury label resemble either or these? Why is it so different?

Additionally, there are bars sold in Australia and New Zealand that aren't sold anywhere else. Cherry Ripe for instance. There are others that go under the same name as bars sold in the UK and Ireland but are actually completely different bars. For instance, Moro in Australia is basically a mars bar (tho I don't think it's sold any more). A chomp sold in Australia is like a Drifter bar (except it's one long one) and you can't get drifters in Australia. We have something called a Chokito in Australia and it is virtually identical to a Moro in the UK.

I can't find a source on this but nobody who's visited both countries would disagree. 62.254.168.102 12:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still interested (after 3 months I'm not sure you are) I would think that it is probably due to the EU's strict regulations on what can be defined as chocolate (or more specifically Milk chocolate (I think its in a Directive but not sure what one)). With regards different branding... no explanation. I don't mean that as in "I don't know"; I mean that as in "Companies just do that", personally I don't get why (look at Lynx and Axe). And as for the mixing around of brand names, I just find that crazy! - RHeodt 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go...it makes for a thrilling read.
Cocoa and chocolate
Directive 2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption --Panzer71 (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was a senior staffer in the Cadbury Treasury in the 1980s. The Company was always "management light" and did not have time to waste in integrating its product range, appreciating that each market was culturally different and so the product range was best tailored to the market. In the case of Schweppes, the product portfolio was more tightly controlled, but with a large width of options available to the franchise managers (Schweppes International being almost entirely franchised to local brewers and bottlerss). One of the reasons for this was the huge amount of time taken in the Cola Wars, which resulted in a very aggressive corporate combat structure - in one year (1986, iirc), the Company produced something like five fully audited sets of accounts, leaving most of the corporate structure engaged in doing little else: the rise of the PC-based spreadsheet was a lifesaver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.139.26 (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other products[edit]

Do they really make condoms ? That seems unrelated to the rest of their products.

-- Beardo 06:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge. I have removed it temporarily until someone shows me a site (preferably a Cadbury Schweppes' site) stating this or can at least name the BRAND. - RHeodt 23:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Hershey's really manufacture all the Cadbury chocolates sold in the United States

No, Hershey's does not manufacture all the Cadbury's chocolate sold in the US. Cadbury Creme Eggs are made by Cadbury in Britain and distributed by Hershey's. The packaging for Cadbury Mini Eggs says that they're distributed by Hershey's, but I can't find any indication of where (or by whom) they're made. All (at least, that I'm aware of) other products are clearly marked as being manufactured by Hershey's under licence from Cadbury. 69.61.148.242 (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio notice removed[edit]

  • I have removed the copyvio notice. The Cadbury Schweppes article was first developed on 2 June 2002, since creation, the article has been edited nearly three hundred times. The immediate past version of the article and the page quoted do not look anything like each other. If there are sections of material copied, then they need to be removed, or attributed with quotation. --A Y Arktos\talk 00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reverted the apparently offending edit--A Y Arktos\talk 00:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple packaging[edit]

The article says:

[In Canada] "the chocolate bar line was rebranded in late 2005 to the UK-standard purple wrapper theme."

What?? We've had purple-wrapper Cadbury bars in Canada for a long time, so this statement is either wrong, or not clear enough. WillNL 22:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup-section tag added to introduction[edit]

I've added the cleanup-section tag to the introductory paragraph because it is a hopelessly bad introduction which does not adequately introduce the company. Only the first sentence is really and introductory sentence, the rest of the introduction strangely focuses on what the company doesn't make rather than what it does along with quite trivial facts. The important details of the company on the other hand seem to be absent.

Bias Edit[edit]

I deleted the first paragraph under the headline "Overview" because it was ridiculous, wasn't an overview, totally unencyclopedic, biased, and read like an advertisement. It said the following:

A cadbury chocolate is created with great care. How do they put in the caramel you ask? First the top of the chocolate is created. the curved top is substituted as a bowl for the caramel. The caramel is then filled in to the chocolate as the chocolate is frozen. Therefore the caramel taken form of the chocolate withought melting. The bottom is them placed and compressed onto the caramilk chocolate giving us all that wonderous taste we love.

Seriously. Give me a break.

Kronos o 22:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

translating the code for expiration date[edit]

The Seltzer and Tonic Water bottles have codes that I cannot crack:

Seltzer 05 127 7 (consistent top line) second lines: 1017NY050779(or 3) 0907NY050709(or 3) 1024NY050779(or 3)

Tonic Water 05 124 7 (consistent top line) second lines: 1009NY050473 0936NY050473 0927NY050473 0826NY050473

Both of these bottles were purchased in the last 4 - 5 weeks.

"####NY", I presume, is the NY bottling plant ID.

"050479" and "051247" and "091247" and "050779", to me, do not seem to be shuffled into a recent date.

Though, "NY######" could be the NY bottling plant ID, and somehow the first four digits could be the expiration date.

Thank you in advance for any clues!

JWL, NYC, NY

German descent[edit]

... of German descent? He was German! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.215.243 (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Germans are generally of German descent. Kronos o (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schweppes sold to Coca-Cola ?[edit]

The Schweppes page indicates that worldwide the brand belonds to Coca-Cola. When did they acquire it ? -- Beardo (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coke won't buy Schweppes[edit]

From our company newsletter:

We announced that we had entered into a conditional agreement with Asahi in December, subject to a right of negotiation granted to Coca-Cola in 1999, under which it had until March this year to negotiate with us regarding a potential acquisition of the Schweppes Australia business. Coca-Cola has confirmed to us that it does not intend to pursue its right of negotiation and consequently, we have have today entered into a definitive sale and purchase agreement with Asahi for the same cash consideration as previously announced.

News Fo Sho 20 March, "Cadbury Announces Definitive Agreement to sell Schweppes Australia for £550M" --Slashme (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Availability in Europe[edit]

It states that Cadbury is the world's largest confectionary manufacturer and I'm glad it is but there seems to be very few Cadbury products available in France, Germany or Austria when compared to products from Mars or Nestle. How can I have a Crunchie on a Friday when I can't get one for love nor money?? LewisR (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France has a very different confectionery distribution structure from the UK, although the change of newstands from the traditional tabac to a more international format has opened market options not available in the 1980s, and the expat community was never a large enough market to make this kind of change viable. Horses for courses...Cadbury bought Poulain in the 1980s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.139.26 (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the real reason is protectionism by Continental chocolate manufacturers. For decades Cadbury's attempted to export to Europe, but were blocked on the grounds that their chocolate was not "chocolate", at one point it was suggested that Dairy Milk could be exported to France if labelled "cooking chocolate", eventually (in 2000) the EU agreed that British chocolate could be sold throughout Europe. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/678141.stm In spite of this decision (which was reported on Italian television news as a grave danger to public health!) you will not find British chocolate (other than that owned by Nestle) for sale in most of the EU (although Continental chocolate is readily available in the UK). DH987 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Hydrogenation[edit]

Cadbury continues to use hydrogenated oils in many of its signature products. Although trans fats are present, the nutrition labels round down the values to zero.

Just sounds like a customer service rant and is not given in any context. Any objection to removal? RaseaC (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced, so it would be better to reword it if you don't like it (per WP:PRESERVE)--UltraMagnus (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may be missing something here but I'm not sure Cadbury are doing anything wrong by rounding down, and therefore the sentence is completely irrelevant. We might aswell go ahead and say their products contain cocoa too. Also, now I've had a look through the whole article, the Executive Compensation and Accounting sections seem pretty unremarkable and as if they're written by a disgruntled employee, I think they too should be removed. RaseaC (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cadbury and Islam[edit]

Note that not all Cadbury products are Halal (see page: [1]), and it seems that Cadbury have not made any offical statement on Sharia Law (Why in the hell would they?). Reform or remove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.49.121 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

After a quick skimming of the article I can't find any info about that advert controversy. Where can I find more about it? Kayau Voting IS evil 13:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Oil Losses in New Zealand[edit]

I've deleted the sentence "From inside reports the change to Palm Oil cost Cadbury, New Zealand 12 million in sales." I spoke to the Cadbury NZ on its customer services and Corporate affairs and the information is false according to their public financial report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzymaker (talk • contribs) 05:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC) --Ozzymaker (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Although there really should have been a heads-up on the DAB page talk, consensus is clear, consistent with policy and unlikely to change IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Cadbury plc → Cadbury — "Cadbury" is the main name used when referring to the company, "plc" is just an extension like "Pty, Ltd or Inc". AnimatedZebra (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page Cadbury is a disambig page with 26 meanings. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we use "Cadbury (company)" which then directs to "Cadbury"? AnimatedZebra (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not if Cadbury is a disambiguation page, unless the candy company is overwhelmingly the first thing people think of when they hear "Cadbury" (in which case Cadbury can be moved to Cadbury (disambiguation)). Why prefer Cadbury (company) over Cadbury plc, which presumably is its legal name? —Tamfang (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The company is by far the primary topic for the name Cadbury with over 44,000 pageviews last month (and hundreds of links), compared to 1,800 views for the Cadbury family and 100 for Cadbury, Devon (the only other article that could truly take the title Cadbury). The dab page currently at Cadbury had 11,000 hits, which is far too many, and has many incoming links that appear to be meant for the company. Most of the stuff on the dab page doesn't even belong there, but what's left should be moved to Cadbury (disambiguation). Station1 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said (Company) cause I thought it was one of those titles you use like (song) or (film). Anyhoo, I guess we could make the "Cadbury (disambiguation)" page, unless there are any objections? Cadbury is a well-known brand here in Australia and with the "Cadbury" page (not Cadbury plc), most of the links are related to the Cadbury plc article, appart from the ones under "Other" and "Places" (which are all referring to the same place just about). AnimatedZebra (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; "Cadbury" is clearly most commonly the candy company. Powers T 00:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cadbury (company) and Cadbury plc are both disambiguated forms, so there is no difference between them, but "Cadbury" should remain a disambiguation page. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I feel that the plc ending is confusing especially to people from countries where plc is not used but who have heard of Cadbury. I'm split between moving to Cadbury (company) or to Cadbury alone. --Erp (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do the "Cadbury Adams", Cadbury Ireland and Cadbury UK pages need to have their own article pages? The latter two atleast could simply have their info merged under the "Operations" title in the main Cadbury page but I understand if I'm getting way ahead of myself here. AnimatedZebra (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very clear primary meaning.--Kotniski (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as shown by Station1. Jenks24 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Biggest or second biggest[edit]

The first paragraph starts by saying it is the second biggest and ends by saying it is the biggest. Which one please? Also, the 'Recent developments' section covers not so recent developments from 3 years ago and is followed by another section with even more recent developments.  Stepho  (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct use of Cadbury name[edit]

There are many instances in which the name wrongly features an apostrophe as for example - "In 1905, Cadbury's launched its Dairy Milk bar..." when it should only be applicable in such cases as is grammatically appropriate (unless I am mistaken): "Cadbury's male employees..." or "Cadbury's Dairy Milk".

Could someone please help to clear this matter, as it appears then to be more akin to Hershey's in a grammatical sense. HolyB144 (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Holly, I have now hopefully fixed these issues you were describing above, including some Hershey ones aswell. If you see something I missed, please feel free to respond to this post OR if you like, you can be bold and edit the article yourself. =D AnimatedZebra (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge from Cadbury UK[edit]

The article Cadbury UK has little content that isn't already here, and lacks references. There might be 1 or 2 lines about the factory closure that could be added here, everything else is a fork from this article. I suggest it be merged. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cadbury UK article seems to be gone and now directs to the main article. I wonder if we can also merge the Cadbury Ireland, Cadbury Adams and Cadbury India articles also, for the same reasons above. AnimatedZebra (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged Cadbury India, Cadbury Ireland and Cadbury Adams, we will see if anyone else cares to comment. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a Cadbury New Zealand article. Wanna tag that also? AnimatedZebra (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Doesn't even seem to be a correct article, there's no indication on the Cadbury NZ Web site that this division is now autonomous. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of subsidiaries[edit]

The anon vandal does have at least one point; the list of subsidiaries is dull and conveys no information. Would it be OK to summarize this list saying "Kraft lists NNN subidiary companies with the Cadbury name in XXX countries." since a lot of these entries probably have little notability on their own. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it was leaked either from within the Company or one of its auditors, as it bears a remarkable similarity to a routine internal supporting document to the Consolidated Accounts I used to maintain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.139.26 (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salmonella Incident[edit]

The sentence "Analysts have said the fine is not material to the group, with mitigating factors limiting the fine being that the company quickly admitted its guilt and said it had been mistaken that the infection did not pose a threat to health.[69]" needs to be deleted or significantly changed.

This change needs to be made because: - the reference source link is dead, so the sentence is unsubstantiated - the company did not quickly admit its guilt (in fact it allegedly failed to report the incident for 6 months) - the statement that the salmonella infection was thought not to pose a risk to health cannot reasonably be written-off as a "mistake", it was either incompetence or negligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.176.153 (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor[edit]

There seems to be a lack of information regarding the acquisitions of Trebor and Bassett. Cadbury Trebor Bassett redirects here, so you'd expect to find the relevant info here. In fact, there's not much information here about their activities in the 20th century outside of the Schweppes merger and the two world wars. Digifiend (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a lot to be said. Trebor got bored of sweets and sold to Cadbury, who weren't much more enthused and sold to Kraft. Comparing notes with Matthew Crampton, the author of The Trebor Story, which is the major history of that Company written by a member of the family who ran it for most of its life, we concluded that family traditions had weakened in the 1960s and that was terminal by the 1980s, the Cadburys became far more interested in the media. See more on [here]
Cadbury's criteria were return on investment (they did have a hurdle rate which I'm not going to discuss) and a sector they were not much represented in, which was the key motivation for their acquisition of Trebor (sugar as opposed to chocolate confectionery), Canada Dry (ginger ales, Schweppes having ginger beer), and Adams from Pfizer (gum).
I second your request that the integration of Trebor here be reversed, however. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is partly to reflect how the world was, indeed in its early days WP had a policy that no living person be documented, to respect the general thinking that history can only be safely assessed fifty years after the event, as the consequences take that long to become clear. It it cannot be reconstructed, the I would suggest Matthew's page be used as a major source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.139.26 (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed regarding Cadbury Crème Eggs[edit]

Can this article be updated to include mention of the recent controversial changes to Cadbury Crème Eggs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.183.4 (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link error[edit]

The reference link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadbury#cite_note-hershey-61 is incorrect. It points to a product page rather than a history page. Hershey's current history page doesn't mention Cadbury (or any merger/acquisition/licensing for that matter) so it can't be used to verify any claims here. Does anyone have a link to the original content? William.h.nicholls (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spam edit[edit]

There was spam so I decided to revert the page to its previous content. Grigrass (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Cadbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

subsidiary[edit]

I've been reverted on a change to specify that the company is a subsidiary of another company. Cadbury is wholly owned by another company. This isn't really controversial. It's like Jaguar Cars being owned by Tata, or Land Rover being owned by Tata, both examples of companies owned by another company, stated right in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:F0A1:F40E:BA00:5A5F (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cadbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cadbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cadbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cadbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cadbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect word[edit]

Cadbury were PROSECUTED not PERSECUTED over the salmonella contamination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.8.220 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but why not just f ix it yoursefl next time? Meters (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor, Bassett's and Maynard's[edit]

When did the company become known as Cadbury Trebor Bassett or whatever?

Was this a merger or acuisition?

When did it buy(?) Maynards?

It's not clear, to me anyway from reading the article, when all this happened. --86.162.53.109 (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New logo?[edit]

The infobox currently uses this wordmark, with the source being Underconsideration.com. The source is a web page; it appears to belong to a graphic design firm. I can't find any evidence of this 'new' wordmark actually being in use. The Cadbury websites display the 'old' logo,[1][2] as does the Mondelez International website.[3] Until there is any evidence that the new logo is in use, I propose that we maintain the old logo as an illustration of the brand identity, so that we are not misleading readers. I have made this change. --Hazhk (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now. NIKO (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cadbury UK
  2. ^ Cadbury Chocolate NZ
  3. ^ 'Our Brands'

British Company?[edit]

Today, as I was glancing through the headlines, it caught my eye that even the Express and Sun don't refer to Cadbury as a British Company anymore, rather it was referred to as :"The move by parent firm Mondelez International, which bought Cadbury for £11.5billion in 2010, will also secure 40 full-time, seasonal jobs." [1]. I'm not saying that The Sun is a reliable source, far from it, but if they, the Champions of all things English, are saying Cadbury isn't English, rather owned by a multi-national, it is probably time this article followed suit.

For Comparison Budweiser is no longer referred to as an American Company, since it has been bought by a multi-national. This article should follow suit. It's incorrect to refer to Cadbury as a British company anymore. 2A02:C7F:C63A:1B00:949C:DB5D:5AE7:6FC6 (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13953551/cadbury-to-move-all-production-of-dairy-milk-bars-back-to-uk-from-europe/

146.199.14.75 (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC) It's not british any more than royal mail or bp are british. Britain is entirely owned by foreigners.[reply]

Accounting Section Out of Date[edit]

The "Accounting" section of the article talks about 2007 events in the present tense, and speculates about possible flow-on consequences which surely must have come and gone by now. I don't really know how to edit; just flagging this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.245.212 (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of edit summary - the missing NOT[edit]

I want to point out that I miswrote an edit summary which might be misconstrued as libelling the company. I accidentally omitted a NOT from a phrase intended to read that the illegal treasure detecting following the launch of its Easter Egg promotion campaign in 2019 was an unintended consequence and was NOT 'incited by the company'. My aim was to make the account read less potentially libellous by prefixing the in-text word 'encouraged' with 'unintendedly'. Apologies.Cloptonson (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Cadbury & origin of cocoa[edit]

Cadbury probably got its chocolate from British colonies, but so far the article says nothing about the origin of Cadbury's cocoa, what happened there, who was responsible, how Cadbury shaped local politics, if reparations have ever been paid, etc. This might also help understand the section "2022 Channel 4 Dispatches Child Labour Claims". AntennaeGalaxy (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cadbury&oldid=1194317931"