Ice cream man explains why nostalgic treat will 'never be 99p again'
Most Brits will have indulged in a treat from the side of an ice cream van at some point in their life. A popular choice is a classic 99 - a soft serve ice cream with sauce and a Flake. But, most people are wrongly slamming businesses for ignoring the name and charging upwards of £3 in places.
The price of a 99 ice cream in 2025 is likely to be around £3.77 in the North East and close to £4.10 in London, according to Park Holidays. However, prices can vary significantly by location and even vendor, with some areas like seaside towns potentially charging more
TikTok sensation and ice cream van owner Jordan Edwards, from St Helens in Merseyside, felt the need to clear up the issue on Instagram. Speaking to his 800,000 followers, the former football coach turned ice cream man said: "I really didn't want to make a video about this, but I think it's needed.
"I put a video out the other day with the price of a 99 and, obviously, loads and loads of comments came on there about the price of a 99 these days - asking why it isn't 99p. Yes, at one stage, an ice cream was 99p - I can't argue that. But, it was also cheaper than that at one stage as well."
He added: "A lot of people, when they look at prices, of something from a business are only looking at it from a consumer point of view. But, when people comment and say things about prices, you need to sometimes look at it from a business point of view as well and why we charge the prices that we charge."
Jordan explained how there are many "hidden costs" when running a business, especially one like his. From staff wages to stock and running costs, as well as machine maintenance, there are lots of overheads when making sure the business stays profitable.
He said: "We stock premium toppings in our van, we don't hold back on the quality that we provide. When we do these things, obviously, we have to have a price where we are going to make a profit. If we didn't have a profit, I wouldn't be in business."
Why does the 99 ice cream get its name if it's not the price?
With a little bit of research, the name behind this nostalgic sweet treat has never been linked to the price that businesses charge their customers. In fact, Cadbury itself has confirmed that one member of the Italian Royal Family.
On a Facebook post, a spokesperson said: "Cadbury Flake was favoured by Italian ice cream makers in Durham, England as a special finish to their ice creams. As Italian Kings once had a special guard of 99 men, anything deemed special was known as '99', hence the '99' ice cream."
Aside from these royal theories, there are other rumours about how the iconic ice cream obtained its name. In 1922, a man called Stefano Arcari opened up an ice cream shop in Scotland at 99 Portobello High Street.
He would apparently break a Flake in half and then place it in the ice cream to serve to his customers, taking inspiration from the shop's address for the ice cream's name. However, Stephen's granddaughter Tanya Arcari told the BBC that this family legend comes with "no proof".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Now Curly Wurlys become latest victim of shrinkflation - as multipacks cut the amount of bars, but keep the price the SAME
Cury Wurly bars have become the latest victims of shrinkflation as multipacks have shrunk from five to four - but the price has remained the same. The newly-shrunk packs of the Cadbury 's bar are being sold for £1.40, even though the bigger size cost the same only a few months ago. The change has been blasted by sweet-toothed shoppers online, causing some to vow to never buy the chocolate again due to the sneaky corporate tactic. Packs of Fudge and Freddo have previously gone down from five to four bars, and Dairy Milk Little Bars are reduced from six to four. Mondelēz International (previously called Kraft Foods), which has owned Cadbury since 2010, blamed the change on increases in cocoa and dairy prices, as well as rising transport and energy costs. One angry customer wrote on Twitter /X: 'I'll try to enjoy this four pack as it will be my last.' Another added: 'I defo won't be buying any. I saw it was a four-pack and was like hell no.' Consumer champion Martyn James described the Curly Wurly - which first launched in 1970 - as the 'chocolate treat of my youth'. He added: 'Chocolate is more than just an occasional sweet treat. It's evocative of our childhood and means a huge amount to us. 'Manufacturers need to realise that by doing this, they are destroying our faith in these cherished brands. And when we are unhappy, we vote with our feet. So cutting the chocolate will only drive away precious customers.' Curly Wurly bar of chocolate-coated hard caramel has been a Cadbury staple ever since it was launched in the UK in 1970. Mondelēz International said: 'We understand the economic pressures that consumers continue to face and any changes to our product sizes is a last resort for our business. 'However, as a food producer, we are continuing to experience significantly higher input costs across our supply chain, with ingredients such as cocoa and dairy, which are widely used in our products, costing far more than they have done previously. 'Meanwhile, other costs like energy and transport, also remain high. This means that our products continue to be much more expensive to make and while we have absorbed these costs where possible, we still face considerable challenges 'As a result of this difficult environment, we have had to make the decision to slightly reduce the weight of our Cadbury Curly Wurly multipacks so that we can continue to provide consumers with the brands they love, without compromising on the great taste and quality they expect.' Meanwhile, bags of Crunchie Rocks, Bitsa Wispa and Oreo Bites have all shrunk from 110g to 100g. However, they are still being sold at major retailers for the same price - £1.75. It is yet another blow for sweet-toothed Brits as Cadbury have quietly reduced the size of another multipack As well as Cadbury, other notable confectionary brands such as Nestle's KitKat and Terry's Chocolate Orange have suffered from shrinkflation. It comes after Spin Genie UK analysed Britain's four main chocolate selection boxes over Christmas - Heroes, Celebrations, Roses and Quality Street - to reveal how they have decreased in size over the last 15 years. Last year year, they were priced at approximately £6 across major UK supermarkets. Back in 2009, the boxes came with a heftier price tag, costing around £10 each. While today's tubs may seem more affordable, they offer less indulgence per pound than in the past. In 2009, across all tubs combined, the average weight per pound was 101.25g, whereas, in 2024, this is 93.25g. Consumer expert Kate Hardcastle previously told MailOnline shrinkflation is 'the exact opposite of what shoppers value – transparency and authenticity'. She said: 'I understand why producers do it. The cost of everything from ingredients to labour has risen dramatically over the last few years and we don't like paying more. So the obvious solution is to shrink the product and hope shoppers don't notice. 'They call it "re-engineering" or "price management" and it happens most easily in products with a lot of packaging, making it easy to disguise the shrinkage. 'But no one wants to be taken for a fool and that's what it feels like, and it's happening more and more.' Which? magazine's senior editor, Ele Clark, wants the Government to urge retailers to make unit pricing clearer. She said in August: 'Supermarkets and manufacturers must be more upfront with consumers about any changes in the size or ingredients of their products. 'They should also ensure that unit pricing is prominent, legible and consistent so that shoppers can easily compare prices across different brands and pack sizes.' So far British politicians have been unwilling to act and legislate on the rising trend of shrinkflation. In April, during a parliamentary inquiry into fairness in the food supply, leading UK retailers and brands denied the need for any further shrinkflation regulations and instead justified the practice. But this is contrary to what's happening elsewhere. For example, since July, French supermarkets have been obliged to display when food and consumer goods have been shrunk. Information must stay in place for two months. The French finance minister declared shoppers deserve 'transparency' and slammed shrinkflation as a 'rip-off'.
Daily Record
2 hours ago
- Daily Record
Amazon slashes 'brilliant' video doorbell to £28.99 in limited-time deal
The Blink Doorbell camera is currently £28.99 - down from £49.99 for a limited time Video doorbells have become more affordable and highly efficient, serving as a security camera for the home while Brits are not around. For those seeking a bargain without wanting to commit fully, Amazon has an offer that might pique interest. The Blink Doorbell camera is currently priced at £28.99, reduced from £49.99 for a limited period - a deal well worth considering at this price point. The device enables shoppers to answer their door from anywhere using their smartphone, thanks to its 1080p HD day and infrared night video capabilities, along with two-way audio. Blink boasts of long-lasting battery life, customised alerts, and privacy settings. For those concerned about installation, it can be set up within minutes using the two included AA lithium batteries and then connected to Wi-Fi via the app. The newly designed internal battery seal also offers an IP54 weather resistance rating to withstand the unpredictable British weather. Unlike Ring, Blink allows users to store clips and videos on a separate device without a subscription, although a subscription option is available for purchase. Grab the Blink video doorbell for £28.99 £49.99 £28.99 Amazon GET DEAL Product Description For those wanting some alternatives, there's the Ring Battery Video Doorbell for £79.99. It comes with extremely quick set-up within five minutes and high-definition video recording. There's also the Arlo video doorbell that comes in for a slightly more expensive £95.99 - and it comes with 2K cameras and person/package detection. Customers are singing the praises of the Blink doorbell in their reviews. One buyer commented: "Now, I'm all for keeping an eye on the doorstep, especially with the little ones running about. This Blink Video Doorbell does just the trick, and it doesn't need any wires, which is a bonus for those of us who aren't keen on DIY. "Setting it up was fairly straightforward, though it took a few tries to get the hang of it. First, you pop in the batteries and connect the Sync Module 2 to your Wi-Fi. Then, you download the Blink app, create an account, and add the doorbell and module. The app guides you through the rest, which is basically scanning QR codes and following on-screen instructions. "The picture quality is decent, even in the evenings. I can clearly see who's at the door, even if they're lurking in the shadows. The two-way talk feature is handy too – I can tell the postie where to leave a parcel, or have a quick chat with the neighbours without having to open the door." Nevertheless, some customers have raised concerns about battery longevity. One purchaser noted: "Great piece of kit that works really well with the other blink products I have, as well as Alexa. "My issue is battery life. I have had it for two months and four days, and I am about to change the batteries for the second time. I'm not sure if this is just mine, but it is slightly annoying. The listing says long battery life, but it really isn't."
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Inside the Lords battle on foreign media ownership
After a two-year impasse, the future of the Daily Telegraph could be resolved shortly. A £500m deal has been struck for US firm Redbird Capital to take control of the Telegraph Media Group, with state-backed Abu Dhabi investment vehicle IMI among investors. But a fresh challenge has arisen in the House of Lords. Peers are threatening to block minister's efforts to change the law to give foreign companies a greater stake in British media outfits – up from the existing five per cent to 15 cent. This is a necessary legal change to allow the Telegraph sale to go ahead. A 'fatal motion' will be held in the Lords on Tuesday; if passed, it would kill the government's plans. It is a device seldom wielded by peers, having been last used in 2012. But opponents are growing increasingly confident that the 'fatal motion' could succeed. Two separate fronts have opened up in the Lords. The first is led by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Fox, who tabled the motion. Lib Dem whips are understood to be pulling out all the stops to maximise turnout, including facilitating the attendance of their older peers who do not vote regularly. Their argument is simple: the power of the free press should not be sold to overseas companies susceptible to foreign government influence. The hope is that a sufficient number of Tory and Crossbench peers will vote it down. The second front is led by the cross-party Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China (Ipac) and its supporters like Lord Alton. Their focus is more directly on the Telegraph sale. Sir Iain Duncan Smith has written to Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, arguing that a Foreign State Intervention Notice (FSNI) be issued in this case. A legal opinion by Tom Cross KC details alleged links between Redbird Capital's chairman John Thornton and the Chinese state, including his advisory roles on Beijing's sovereign wealth fund. Sir Iain argues that this is compelling evidence for Nandy to 'adhere to your statutory duty and issue a FSIN without delay.' Both groups are seeking to influence their colleagues across the House. Given the government's lack of a majority, the hope is that a sufficient number of Tory and Crossbench peers will vote it down. Tory whips are expected to vote against the fatal motion, though their colleagues will not be whipped to follow suit. Lord Forsyth, the respected chair of the Association of Conservative Peers, is expected to vote for the motion; others will likely follow his lead. One opponent notes that the Conservatives voted for fatal motions that successfully halted government legislation when they were last in opposition before 2010. A separate 'motion of regret' has been put down by Baroness Stowell, the former Leader of the House. Some supporters of the fatal motion fear it could frustrate their efforts, with wavering peers potentially voting for Stowell's amendment rather than Fox's. The government will argue that a statutory instrument can close the loophole whereby multiple states can each own 15 per cent of any publication. But their critics will counter that this is insufficient and will not stop the Telegraph deal from going ahead.
