Breaking News

Woman found in cemetery died of gunshot wound

Archived Story

Twinkies are a part of our forgotten past

Published 12:01am Friday, November 23, 2012

When was the last time you ate a Hostess Twinkie?

I pose that question to my various friends, coworkers and acquaintances who have insisted this week on talking about the impending demise of yellow sponge cake filled with a cream-like substance.

As soon as it was announced that Hostess would put an end to the Twinkies, Ding Dongs, Ho Hos and Wonder Bread, the war of words began on Facebook pages.

I don’t know if it is a blessing or a curse, but I have many friends on the social network and in the real world that sit on opposite sides of the political universe. I have just as many friends who watch Fox News and follow Bill O’Reillly as those who watch MSNBC and Rachel Maddow.

I had hoped for a cease fire after the election had ended, but those hopes ended as soon as executives from Hostess filed a motion with U.S. Bankruptcy Court at 6 a.m. On Nov. 16 to close its business and sell its assets — Twinkies and all.

Before I had heard about the closure, friends from both factions were shooting Facebook posts across the bow of my Internet browser. A full assault ensued and lasted for days.

Friends on the right spewed venom about unions and how their demands brought down a company that would have otherwise thrived in the the world of free capitalism.

Friends on the left volleyed hate-filled posts about greedy owners accepting big bonuses and hefty salaries as they let their business falter under a huge pile of debt.

Living with a 3-year-old, I have learned that when it comes to assigning blame, the one dishing it out rarely tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

In the world of big business, the truth is inevitably more complicated and more nuanced, even in the land of Sno Balls and Zingers. After all, the company had been facing bankruptcy since 2004.

Not wanting to discuss any of this, I armed myself with this one question: “When exactly was the last time you had Twinkie?”

I can’t remember the last time I bit into one of the those sugary snacks. It probably was when I gathered with friends at the roller skating rink as a teen. We loved to scarf down raspberry flavored Zingers and drink Barq’s root beer between laps.

Those teenage memories have long faded into the world of childhood nostalgia. It has been a long time since I have considered sharing a pack of Twinkies with friends.

In fact, my last memory of those snack cakes was when a group of co-workers in the 1990s joked about how long a certain pack of Twinkies had lingered in our company vending machine. People snatched up potato chips, crackers and candy bars, while the same bag of Twinkies seemed to linger in the bottom corner of that machine. Months later we joked that they were still fresh, if we ever became desperate and had to eat them to survive.

Turns out my Hostess experience is like most. A recent poll of 5,000 people found that more than half of the people survey had not eaten a Twinkie in almost 5 years. Less than 10 percent had eaten then in less than a month.

In the business world, a product must be in demand to become a success. The public has been eating fewer and fewer Hostess snack cakes in the last 20 years, due to greater competition from energy bars, granola bars and other healthy snacks. Since 1980, Hostess has been sold three times and entered bankruptcy twice.

Sounds like more people are waxing nostalgic about those creme-filled confections than are eating them.

 

Ben Hillyer is the design editor of The Natchez Democrat. He can be reached at 601-445-3540 or by e-mail at ben.hillyer@natchezdemocrat.com.

 

  • Anonymous

    And yet, the company still managed to employ 15,000+ workers? No wonder they went belly up, (or belly out). Also interesting that bankruptcy courts are open at 6 AM to receive the filing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-Stutzman/100000914851900 Joe Stutzman

    brand names will probably be bought. sad thing-many workers will probably get jobs back, for less $$

  • Anonymous

    The negotiations with the unions left them with one alternative. Take a pay-cut, when the execs are tripling their salaries and giving out huge bonuses to themselves. Bonuses for a company that can’t afford to pay it’s workers? Doesn’t sound like they wanted to negotiate.

  • Anonymous

    I think the Execs were just getting their pay back period. The worked for a year for $1 to try and save the company.
    So you still have Union workers who probably made double what they should have, wouldn’t take an 8% pay cut and get it back over a period of 4 years with 4% the first year. They would rather loose their jobs. Chances are they will never find one making nearly what they would have even with the 8% pay cut.
    How does that even start to make sense? I just don’t see it.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t you think workers who work 40 hour weeks should get enough to live on? Or would you rather they buy food stamps (paid by taxpayers) and get on welfare because they live below the poverty level?

  • Anonymous

    Yes they should make enough to live on and they would have even at an 8% cut. I guess the Execs working for $1 for a year makes no difference. They got their money back the next year just like the employees would have. Did you bother to look up how much they made? I doubt it, and you probably couldn’t find it if you did. They would have gotten 4% of that back at the end of a year, then 2% back the next year and 1% per year for the next 2 years.

    People with your mindset think that Executives sit in an office all day and do nothing but look out of the window and wait until 5:00. The don’t. The typical employee leaves after 8 hours per day and they could care less about the place when they leave. Some of the executives work over 80 hours per week and the weight of the business stays with them 24/7.

    If they didn’t want the job, they should have found another one. Instead of being selfish they should have thought about the people who wanted and needed that job instead of having everyone left without a job.

    A grand concept that you probably wouldn’t understand, because it puts others before yourself.

  • Anonymous

    You were wrong. They had accepted those salary increases from July 2011 to April 2012. Then the WSJ wrote about it and then 5 days later , “The chief executive of Hostess Brands, Inc. said he is
    slashing executive compensation in the aftermath of creditor allegations that
    the company may have pushed management’s salaries higher in the months leading
    up to its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in an effort to skirt bankruptcy rules.

    So, no, they were not working for $1 and then decided to recompensate themselves. They got caught with their hand in the hostess twinkie jar.

  • Khakirat

    These folks that fight the unions are the same folks that wouldn’t work for a minimun hourly wages but would ask you too!!

Editor's Picks