On Nov 24, 7:32*am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article
,
*jon_banquer wrote:
On Nov 23, 4:37*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Ignoramus1661 wrote:
On 2012-11-23, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says....
A good article by someone who's had his annual salary drop from
$43k/year
to $34k/year and Hostess wants him to go down to $25k/year:
So instead he gets 0 a year. *Can you say "Pyrrhic Victory"?
The people who worked for Hostess, like drivers or bakers, should have
no problem finding another job. There is a huge demand for drivers
and, I assume, steady demand for bakers.
* *Really? *When they stated that the entire industry has excess
production capacity? *Why would they need that more workers?
* *The other companies wouldn't need as may drives anyway. *One union
forced Hostess to use separate drives & vehicles for different
products. *Baked goods & snacks went from the bakery to the same stores
with two sets of trucks & drivers. *That's one of the things that shut
the company down.
Wrong again, Terrell. What killed Hostess was lack of innovation. See
the links I posted stating as much. A large and ever growing number of
people don't want to eat chemical based junk food like Twinkie's.
Imagine if Hostess management had a ****ing clue and they had offered
a healthy more expensive Twinkie. For sure I would have tried it. Tell
us why Hostess refused to innovate, Terrell. Tell us how lack of
innovation is the union's fault.
You truly are a ****ing moron.
What's innovation got to do with it?
Hostess was selling 300 million twinkies a year and making billions of
dollars a year overall, and had been for years. *That's plenty to
support a company ... if they are able to keep costs under control.
Nor do twinkie buyers *want* innovation. *The product cannot change from
what people recall from childhood. *Remember New Coke?
Joe Gwinn
Lack of innovation has everything to do with Hostess going bankrupt:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles...illed-twinkies
"... But the real reason Hostess is going belly up is a problem that’s
been brewing for more than 20 years: The company completely failed to
innovate.
In the 1960s and ’70s, Hostess was a staple in the lunchbox of many
school kids. Many of us in the baby boomer generation grew up with
sandwiches made from Wonder Bread and Hostess Twinkies or Ding Dongs
for dessert. But over the past 20 years, most consumers moved away
from these products due to changing views on healthy eating.
As times change, brands and companies must evolve with them.
Innovative marketers must continue to find ways to make their brands
relevant through innovation. Hostess failed miserably at this—even
though it was becoming painfully obvious that consumers were walking
away.
There are plenty of examples of marketers who overcame stagnant or
declining business trends by developing solid innovation programs.
Clorox (CLX), for instance, turned its stodgy bleach business into a
$1 billion cleaning-products line by introducing new items that are
more relevant to today’s consumer, such as Disinfecting Wipes, the
ToiletWand, and the eco-friendly Green Works line.
Campbell Soup (CPB) has kept its business relevant by coming out with
a steady stream of innovation beyond basic canned soup. It now offers
microwaveable versions, portable packaging, healthier options, and
other meal solutions.
Procter & Gamble (PG) turned Oil of Olay, once considered a geriatric
brand, into a fast-growing, billion-dollar personal-care line by
introducing innovative products with greater appeal, such as the Olay
Regenerist anti-aging cleansers and moisturizers.
All of these transformations came as a result of relatively modest
investments in innovation. If Hostess had put a little more effort
into innovation at any point during the past 20 years, it would not be
where it is today."