BURGER KING’S NEW HOT DOG: A REVIEW

Steve Cuozzo, writer for the New York Post, has reviewed Burger King’s new hot dog. He calls it “a Whopper of a marketing disaster.” Cuozzo writes: “Burger King’s feeble ’furters are all about mouth feel for eaters who confuse a tongue bath with taste. The ‘classic’ is a barely half-inch-thick, dry, Oscar Mayer-made affair tasting faintly of the beef of which it (supposedly) 100 percent consists. The ‘flame-grilled,’ moisture-deprived dog’s insipid quality is masked by messy squiggles of mustard, ketchup, liquefied green chili and chopped onions. Scored lengthwise to capture the condiments’ congealed ooze, it poses little threat to street-stand hot dogs. But while Burger King’s pseudo-classic is at least tolerable, the chili/cheese dog is an inedible mutt. The watery chili’s a blur of flavorless beans. ‘Cheddar’ is a shredded, orange-colored abomination that could be easily mistaken for wood chips.”
* What I’m hearing is, he would prefer the Whopper with cheese.
* Looks like the Burger King’s wiener is a flop.
* Yeah, when I think “hot dog” it doesn’t include “tongue bath.”
* Burger King … Hot Dog Jester.
* Dude, it’s a hot dog. If you don’t like it, go get a turkey leg.
* Okay, the hot dog sucks but so does this guy’s writing.
* This is what happens when a would-be novelist is forced to write food reviews.
* He thought he’d be the next Norman Mailer but he’s reviewing hot dogs for the New York Post instead.
* Did you really expect him to love it?