Those unions watching out for their workers...

[keith99]

I swear I recall there being a low fat Twinkie when I was a kid. I remember finding them disgusting and being really disappointed when my mom accidentally picked up a box of the low fat ones rather than the regular ones. Getting a box of Twinkies was a rare treat, so getting the wrong type really stunk.

I'd say their best chance would have been introducing a whole new brand of baked goods that were healthier, but didn't carry the junk food stigma of the Hostess brand, while phasing out and/or drastically reducing production of the worst performing old Hostess brands. In other words, keep the stuff like Twinkies, which are still good sellers, and get rid of things like those pink coconut things that I have never seen anyone eat.

This is something that should have been started ages ago when it was clear the market wasn't supporting the products Hostess offered.

Thanks for bringing up the low fat as you remember it. I'd hazzard ou are quite right in what yuo recall. Your post gives me a chance to expound a bit more on my original thought re varying the twinky.

A less heavy filling was my main idea, lower fat and sugar was just a marketing thought. It first needs to be a lighter less lardlike filling.

You also point out a couple of dangers. Often brands that go 'healthy' go far too far. A desert type item needs to stay such, if health gets pushed to the point where it no longer tastes 'good' it often ends up having the bad of both worlds. Not healthy and not desert either.

Your memory also points out another hazzard. Let's say my idea is right, a lesss heavy filling could give a better taste experience and on the side be less unhealthy. That it results in a better product, one that could have saved the company. It is still possible that your previous exprience (multiplied by a few million) could be enough to sink things if the marketing is just the smallest bit off. If people remembered as you do and if the ads made them think low fat and the twinkies they did not like.....

 

[MachZer0]

Wow! "Zero Content" post! Congrats!

You see, Mach, it is quite clear that you have little understanding of how an industry actually functions. Maybe you were a factory worker or whatever.

But you seem amazingly incapable of discussing this topic in meaningful detail!

It's like you think in terms of what kids are taught about how factories work!

Sorry, but being a cheerleader for a topic that you really don't grasp isn't doing the cause or your posts any favors.

Seriously? Perhaps you can tell us then how Hostess could ;function while workers were not working? I'd love to hear it

 

[MachZer0]

This is a really weak argument. It's basically, you guys and all the business analysts couldn't come up with one product that might have helped Hostess therefore no product could have been developed.

The logic behind that is fundamentally flawed.

Excuse me. Your side keeps saying that Hostess should have altered their product line but then cannot come up with any products that would have been viable to save the company, and you call my argument weak?

 

[MachZer0]

Don't just claim it show it.

I did

 

[kermit]

Excuse me. Your side keeps saying that Hostess should have altered their product line but then cannot come up with any products that would have been viable to save the company, and you call my argument weak?

The lack of product changes is not an argument of "my side". Rather it is an argument by business experts in the snack food industry.

Also, "my side's" argument isn't weak at all. Right now Apple is doing very well with their current product offerings (iPhone, iPad, Netbook, etc). If they do not bring out new products their competitors will steal market share and eventually they will be out of business. If that were to happen any analysis would rightfully include a lack of new product offerings as part of the company's failure. Would you argue against that analysis even though none of us could come up with specific examples of what products may have saved the company? In fact this exact scenerio very nearly played out at Apple and it was the iPod that saved the company (along with a huge investment by Bill Gates). Had Apple collasped who could have guess that a personal music player would have saved a computer company?

Hostess' competitors were coming out with new products and were stealing market share. Hostess was not coming out with new products to steal it back.

 

[kermit]

I did

In your mind maybe.

 

[MachZer0]

In your mind maybe.

In the thread as well. Recalling that he compared the passengers of the Titantic to the nonworking workers of Hostess. That's a failed analogy

 

[kermit]

In the thread as well. Recalling that he compared the passengers of the Titantic to the nonworking workers of Hostess. That's a failed analogy

So you claim. I'm not saying you are wrong, but please show why it's a failed analogy.

Just because something seems self-evident to you doesn't mean that you shouldn't present a logical analysis. In fact, I've started posts on things I felt were self-evident and when I started a logical analysis I discovered that that not only was it not self-evident but what I originally thought was false.

 

[Assyrian]

I did

No you made up you own analogy about the crew of the Titanic going on strike. You didn't deal with the issue that being the last person on the job like the Captain of the Titanic was, doesn't mean you're not responsible for the ship sinking.

 

[MachZer0]

No you made up you own analogy about the crew of the Titanic going on strike. You didn't deal with the issue that being the last person on the job like the Captain of the Titanic was, doesn't mean you're not responsible for the ship sinking.

Sorry, but it was you discussing the passengers as being held responsible for the sinking. That made it a false analogy

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry, but it was you discussing the passengers as being held responsible for the sinking. That made it a false analogy

There were passengers and crew in the lifeboats. The issue was management who were responsible for the sinking were still on the bridge after the lifeboats had abandoned ship. Which shows that you can't simply say that if management are still at work they are not responsible for bankrupting the company.

 

[[serious]]

There were passengers and crew in the lifeboats. The issue was management who were responsible for the sinking were still on the bridge after the lifeboats had abandoned ship. Which shows that you can't simply say that if management are still at work they are not responsible for bankrupting the company.

Well, he can SAY that...

He can also say that he never actually said it. Icall it Mach's Zeroth law. Any thing mach said that is demonstrably wrong, mach didn't REALLY say.

 

[MachZer0]

There were passengers and crew in the lifeboats. The issue was management who were responsible for the sinking were still on the bridge after the lifeboats had abandoned ship. Which shows that you can't simply say that if management are still at work they are not responsible for bankrupting the company.

You alluded to blaming the passengers which would be akin to blaming Hostess's customers. That isn't in play in this discussion. Thus the false analogy

 

[Assyrian]

You alluded to blaming the passengers which would be akin to blaming Hostess's customers. That isn't in play in this discussion. Thus the false analogy

I was talking about exonerating the captain because he was still on the bridge when the ship went down. Never mentioned blaming passengers.

 

[MachZer0]

I was talking about exonerating the captain because he was still on the bridge when the ship went down. Never mentioned blaming passengers.

Ahem

Sounds like the captain on the Titanic, he stayed on the bridge, so the ship sinking can't have been his fault. Blame the people in the lifeboats.

 

[Assyrian]

Ahem

It wasn't just passengers in the life boat. Now how about dealing with the fact that management can be on the bridge as the ship goes down, yet still be to blame.

 

[[serious]]

Ahem

Only passengers are in lifeboats? that quote ties in perfectly with the idea of blaming, say the cleaning staff.

EDIT: Ninja'd. I suppose you could blame the cleaning staff if they refused to stuff their bodies into the hole to try and plug it. Hey, they would even still be on the boat!

 

[MachZer0]

Only passengers are in lifeboats? that quote ties in perfectly with the idea of blaming, say the cleaning staff.

EDIT: Ninja'd. I suppose you could blame the cleaning staff if they refused to stuff their bodies into the hole to try and plug it. Hey, they would even still be on the boat!

So you're onboard with blaming the passengers for the sinking of the Titanic? Go figure

 

[MachZer0]

It wasn't just passengers in the life boat. Now how about dealing with the fact that management can be on the bridge as the ship goes down, yet still be to blame.

So first you blamed the passengers for the sinking of the ship, now you're blaming the captain? The false analogy is certainly being exposed here

 

[Assyrian]

So first you blamed the passengers for the sinking of the ship, now you're blaming the captain? The false analogy is certainly being exposed here

I never blamed the passengers, the lifeboats had both crew and passengers on board and you have studiously avoided my point that the captain being on the bridge as the Titanic sank showed that management could still be working when they are the ones to sink the company.