You probably remember the commercials. It was 1995. A massive, nationwide marketing blitz turned a simple candy bowl choice into a democratic event. We were told to vote. The stakes? One color was heading to the graveyard, and a new one was taking its throne. Honestly, it felt like a bigger deal than it probably should have been for a snack food. But that's the power of Mars, Inc. They managed to make the tan M&M color replaced by blue feel like a cultural shift.
It wasn’t just a random swap.
Tan was always the odd man out. Since the late 1940s, the mix had been fairly stable, but tan—that muted, brownish-beige shade—never really had a "vibe." It was just there. When the company decided it was time for a refresh, they didn't just pick a new color in a boardroom. They launched the "M&M's Color Election." Over 10 million people voted. Think about that for a second. In an era before high-speed internet or social media, 10 million people took the time to call a 1-800 number or mail in a slip of paper to choose a candy color.
Blue won. It didn't just win; it crushed the competition. It went up against pink and purple, but the public wanted that vibrant, slightly-synthetic-looking cyan.
The Boring Life and Quiet Death of Tan
Most people forget that tan wasn't the original brown. Since the beginning, M&M’s had a dark brown. Tan was added later, specifically in 1949, to replace violet. Yes, there was a purple-ish violet M&M in the 1940s. When tan arrived, it served a purpose for a while, providing a neutral palette that made the reds and yellows pop.
But by the 90s, tan was invisible.
Marketing experts often talk about "shelf appeal." If you look at a pile of M&M’s with tan in them, they look... earthy. A bit dated. Mars knew they needed a "megawatt" color to attract a younger generation that was becoming obsessed with neon and bold branding. The decision to let tan go wasn't based on a drop in sales—people don't buy M&M’s based on the tan-to-red ratio—it was about the brand's energy.
📖 Related: Kiko Japanese Restaurant Plantation: Why This Local Spot Still Wins the Sushi Game
The tan M&M color replaced by blue marked the end of the "classic" era. It was the moment M&M’s stopped being a post-war staple and started being a modern lifestyle brand.
The 1995 Color Election: A Masterclass in Hype
We talk about viral marketing today like it’s a new invention. It isn't. Mars perfected it thirty years ago. They used the "Election" to create a sense of urgency. If you didn't vote, you might lose your favorite color. Or worse, you’d be stuck with a color you hated.
The candidates were:
- Blue: The eventual landslide winner.
- Pink: Which many thought was too "gendered" or seasonal.
- Purple: The original color from the 40s making a comeback attempt.
According to contemporary reports from the time, Blue secured about 54% of the total vote. That’s a mandate. On the night of the announcement, they even lit up the Empire State Building in blue. It was theatrical. It was a bit ridiculous. It worked perfectly.
What’s interesting is how people reacted to the loss of tan. There wasn't a huge mourning period. Unlike when they temporarily removed Red in the 1970s due to the "Red Dye No. 2" scare (even though M&M's never actually used that specific dye), tan vanished without much of a fight. Nobody was starting "Save the Tan" petitions. It just faded into the background, exactly like its hue.
Why Blue Changed the Candy Game
Adding blue wasn't just about aesthetics; it was a psychological move. Before 1995, blue food was rare. Nature doesn't really do blue snacks. Sure, you have blueberries, but they are actually purple. By introducing a bright blue candy, Mars was leaning into the "fun" and "artificial" nature of the product.
👉 See also: Green Emerald Day Massage: Why Your Body Actually Needs This Specific Therapy
It also allowed for better licensing. Think about it. You can't do a "Patriotic Mix" for the Fourth of July without blue. You can't do a "Star Wars" tie-in or a "Frozen" themed bag without a solid blue. Tan was a dead end for merchandising. Blue opened up the floodgates for the "M&M Characters" to take on more distinct personalities.
The Blue Character—the one voiced by Robb Pruitt and later John Goodman and Billy West—became the "cool, jazz-loving" one. Could you do that with a tan character? Maybe. But it would’ve been a lot harder to sell a "Tan" personality that didn't just feel like a boring version of the Brown character (the intellectual one).
Misconceptions About the Switch
Some people still swear that the flavor changed. Let’s be clear: an M&M is an M&M. The shell is sugar and dye. The inside is milk chocolate. There is no flavor difference between a tan one and a blue one. If you think you taste a difference, it's the "Expectation Effect." Your brain sees a cool color and expects a different sensation, but it’s all in your head.
Another weird myth is that tan was removed because of health reasons. Totally false. There was no "Tan Dye No. 5" scandal. It was purely a vibe check. Mars wanted to look like the future, and tan looked like a dusty basement from 1952.
Real-World Impact on Collectors
Believe it or not, there is a small but dedicated market for "Vintage M&M’s." Because the tan M&M color replaced by blue happened so long ago, finding an unopened bag of M&M’s from the early 90s that still contains the tan ones is a bit of a holy grail for "food archaeologists."
Don't eat them, though. Chocolate from 1993 is not going to treat your stomach well. The fats bloom, the sugar crystallizes, and it basically turns into a chalky mess. But as a piece of Americana? It’s a fascinating relic of a time when we collectively decided that "tan" wasn't a fun enough color for our snacks.
✨ Don't miss: The Recipe Marble Pound Cake Secrets Professional Bakers Don't Usually Share
The Long-Term Legacy
Since the blue revolution, M&M’s has experimented with almost every color under the sun. We’ve seen teal, orange (which joined the permanent lineup in 1976), and even various shades of green and purple for limited editions. But none of those changes felt as seismic as the 1995 swap.
It proved that consumers want to feel involved. They want to vote. They want to be part of the brand’s story. This "participatory marketing" is now the standard for everything from Oreos to Lay’s chips flavor contests. Mars showed everyone else the blueprint.
The transition also signaled a change in how we view food coloring. We moved away from trying to look "natural" or "traditional" and embraced the "pop art" aesthetic of modern snacking. The blue M&M is now so iconic that it’s hard to imagine the bag without it. It feels like it’s always been there, even though for half the company’s history, it was nowhere to be found.
How to Use This Knowledge
If you’re a brand owner or a marketing student, the "Blue M&M" case study offers a few concrete takeaways that still apply in 2026:
- Audit Your "Tan": Every product has a feature or a color that is just "there" because it’s always been there. Identify the element that adds no value and consider what a "high-energy" replacement would look like.
- Engagement is Currency: Don't just announce a change. Let your audience think they caused it. The 10 million votes in 1995 were more valuable as a psychological commitment from the customers than they were as actual data.
- Visual Contrast Matters: Look at your product through the lens of a "grab and go" consumer. If your palette is too muted, you’re losing to the "Blue" in your category.
- Embrace the Artificial: In the snack world, leaning into vibrant, non-natural colors can actually increase "craveability" because it signals a fun, reward-based experience rather than a nutritional one.
Next time you reach into a bag and pull out a blue one, remember that it’s only there because 5 million-plus people in the 90s decided tan was too boring to survive. It was a cold-blooded execution of a color, but honestly? The bag looks a lot better for it.