Talk:Interstate Bakeries/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Low Carb Scapegoat

When extended-shelf-life enzymes were developed for bread, the hope was to convert the system of many small inefficent bakeries into an efficient network of a relatively few giant bakeries like their snackcakes operation. Bad luck intervened; the old resurrected Atkin's diet and Krispy Kreme doughnuts affected pricing and sales volume.

Bad luck? I read a Wall Street Journal article (available here) that said a number of factors came into play:

• The bread texture became more gummy; people didn't want to buy it anymore.
• Longer shelf life = drivers visited stores less often. However, this meant that the displays had a chance to get "more disheveled and unappealing" between visits.
• Plant closings (only 6 of 60 at the time the article was written), and spiraling fuel costs, didn't save as much money as hoped.

Comments, anyone?

-HiFiGuy 01:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

— I read this as well; added to article. 24.110.122.254 (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarifications, please

I find this article very confusing. What do the following mean?

• "seat-of-the-pants" as in "Butternut was seat-of-the-pants"
• "economies-of-scale and logistics"

Maybe if you're a native speaker of American English who's well versed in economics, this makes sense, but I have no idea what they mean.

— "seat-of-the-pants" I replaced with unregimented. I don't know if this is true or not, but the implication is that there were no official rules to be followed or that there was no process defined when baking. A better synonym may be "informal" or "run informally" but I think unregimented implies simply a less-strict workplace. I think 'economy of scale' is pretty well defined, however. Looking at the quote and from the context of the article (or of the referenced articled above), 'economy of scale and logistics' refers to the snack cakes which were mass produced in large centralized bakeries (scale) and then shipped to stores where they enjoyed long shelf life, versus the bread which could only sit on the shelf for a few days (transportation and shelf life = logistics) 24.110.122.254 (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IBClogo.gif

Image:IBClogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"In 1969 it changed its name to Interstate Brands."

What was its name before then? What was its name originally? No one ever mentions these facts - or if they do, they're buried in the list of other acquisitions without any notation as to their added significance. 68.238.232.225 (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

— From what I see, the original name was "Interstate" and remained this until it became "Interstate Brands". I expect it was initially something like "Interstate Bakery" or "Interstate Breads" but I don't feel like doing the research. 24.110.122.254 (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

• Agree. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Unsure. Looking at the Hostess Brands article, it looks like "Hostess" is just one brand of several that Hostess Brands uses. If that's the case, this article should remain seperate, but should probably be renamed to something less confusing, such as "Hostess (baked goods brand)" or something similar. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree It's more confusing for them to be separate. Hostess the brand could easily be a subsection of Hostess Brands.
• Strongly oppose and debate should be closed - Hostess Brands is the formal name of a company. It's other high visibility brands include Wonder Bread. When the company was renamed from the nondescript IBC it chose its most visible product for its new name. I am closing this debate now.Americasroof (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• There was a merge proposal in March 2011 from Hostess (brand). The article had little that is not here. So I closed the debate and used a redirect to the parent company.Americasroof (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

List of products?

Looking for a list of all the products they make. Need to make one? Flightsoffancy (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Liquidation errors in article

The article, in the third paragraph reads: "On November 16, 2012, management announced that it has filed a motion in United States Bankruptcy Court in White Plains, New York, seeking permission to close its business and sell its assets. A hearing was set for November 10 at 2 p.m.[clarification needed]". This makes it sound like management did not file the motion for liquidation until sometime after the 10th, but before the 16th. So, it stands to reason that it is impossible that a hearing could be scheduled for November 10th if they did not file the motion until after November 10th. Someone please clarify this.Cr@$h3d@t@^{t@1k t0 m3} 20:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the part about the hearing; it wasn't even in the nearby reference ("Hostess to liquidate if bakers' strike continues through Thursday"), or at least wasn't by the time I saw the current version of the news article — neither "hearing" nor "10" appear in the news article. Often, when something in a Wikipedia article is illogical or otherwise confused, it turns out there is no source for it anyway; if they had properly used and cited a source, the problem wouldn't have happened in the first place. --Closeapple (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Help edit

The section Brands erroneously lists "Little Debbie" as one of the Hostess brands, but in edit mode the entry "Little Debbie" does not show up so there is no obvious way to delete it from the list. (Little Debbie is NOT a Hostess brand, but is held by another unrelated company -- see Wikipedia article on Little Debbie). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.204.185 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Keen eye! I think you managed to catch a version of the article between this erroneous edit by 71.87.240.158 and it being caught by ClueBot NG only 5 seconds later. That's why you didn't see it when editing: It was already gone. (How ClueBot NG (talk · contribs) managed to catch it, I don't know; that bot usually repairs vandalism, not plausible-but-erroneous claims like this.) --Closeapple (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Past tense

Why is the lead paragraph written in the past tense (e.g., "Hostess Brands ... was a wholesale baker and distributor"; "It was the owner of the [following] brands"; etc.)? The company is still in existence, correct? It has applied for liquidation, but it has not yet been liquidated. Isn't that correct? If so, the lead paragraph should be written in the present tense, not the past tense. Does anyone know more about the correct status of the business? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Filing for Chapter 11 is not confirming product eradication: Using the products name in past tense is jumping the gun. Hostess has "Filed" and if the courts accept there request to "sell assets" history tells us that many of its more notable products such as Twinkie will remain very active, and the potential buyer could reserve the entire sub division of such products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oklahoma3477 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, when an organization is winding down, a Wikipedia article about it gets a bunch of presumptive past-tense editing like that. I don't know what psychological process makes editors obsess about changing things to from "is" to "was" to the point that they apply the past tense to things that haven't passed yet, or misinterpret organizational demises as instant. Extrapolation like this is, at best, Wikipedia:Synthesis, and usually turns out to be misleading. Examples:

• There was a period yesterday where Hostess was said to have "closed its doors", whatever that means. (See WP:CLICHE.) The outlet stores are still open until they run out of stock; the company still has a year of asset sales and accounting left to do; there are quite a number of "doors" that will still need their hinges oiled for the next 12 months.
• Also, someone added the article to a category about Chapter 7; as of Saturday, November 17, 2012, I see no indication that they are filing for Chapter 7. The reference given by Oklahoma3477 is helpful: "In a chapter 11 case, a liquidating plan is permissible. Such a plan often allows the debtor in possession to liquidate the business under more economically advantageous circumstances than a chapter 7 liquidation. It also permits the creditors to take a more active role in fashioning the liquidation of the assets and the distribution of the proceeds than in a chapter 7 case."
• It's a pretty good bet that the popular brands (Wonder Bread, Twinkies, Ho Hos, etc.) are going to end up on shelves again; those names (and maybe the "Hostess" name itself) are too popular for someone not to pay good money to Hostess to get them. See, for example, "Relax, Twinkies likely to live on" for several possible buyers; McKee Foods (Little Debbie) or Bimbo Bakeries USA (which is already big but spread across lots of different brand names in the U.S.) would have good reasons to secure dominance by acquiring the main Hostess brands. Whether the same business also wants to rent or buy the same factory locations that Hostess had is a different story, of course, but it's possible.

So, as of November 2012, this is not a past company: It is a current company, that was already in bankruptcy for months, before the factories were shut down in November, and has shifted its strategy to selling its assets rather than producing product, to try to get what money it can for the creditors. The exact court filings are at http://www.kccllc.net/Docket/SearchResults.asp?T=2907 in all their glory (including all the cross-filings of people who object). Whether the actual going-out-of-business or "wind-down" is a "liquidation" or something else, is probably a question answered by following reliable sources of financial experts, rather than the informal popular summaries. --Closeapple (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This is just a case of new or inexperienced users not understanding how Wikipedia articles are written and misinterpreting the sources. I added a "hidden" notice to the lead for future reference. Just need to keep an eye on the article to keep it within guidelines.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. So, we are agreed that the article should (at least for now) stay written in the present tense. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, folks. Hostess Brands was a wholesale baker and distributor; it is the owner of the various brands.
Hostess is out of the baking and distributing business as of the closing of operations on November 16, 2012 (past tense), although the corporation — a piece of paper in the drawer of the Secretary of State —still exists for the moment and still owns the brands (present tense). After liquidation the corporation may or may not exist anymore. If it isn't dissolved, it will just be represented by a law office who will be curators of the brands and formulas while they search for buyers, assuming those aren't already sold during the liquidation auctions of the factories. — Quicksilver^{T @} 18:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The "Secretary of State"?! Is Hostess Brands, Inc. now a foreign nation? Corporate registration is done with a state-level commerce and trademark registrar, most often with the one in Delaware. More importantly, I fail to see the urgency in updating the definition of the entity in the lede to reflect the daily status of the negotiations and liquidation. Hostess Brands is a wholesale baker; the fact that they haven't baked anything in the last week or two doesn't change that fact. This remains so until a court issues a writ to end the liquidation and dissolve the legal entity. Owen× ☎ 19:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Owen — each of the 57 50 states has a "Secretary of State", and they are the official curators of the Articles of Incorporation for companies that are incorporated in their respective jurisdictions. Calling the corporation a "wholesale baker and distributor" even though it has ceased doing so and will never do so again is splitting hairs. If you have a wristwatch and one of the straps breaks, you no longer have a "wristwatch" — it then becomes a "timepiece". Please brush up on the law before waxing snide. — Quicksilver^{T @} 00:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the mere fact that Hostess still has articles of incorporation does NOT make Hydrargyrum's tense inappropriate: It was a wholesale baker and distributor until it ceased operations in November; it is still an owner of brands until it sells them. (Neither directly relates to Hostess' corporate existence.) I'm changing the first sentence back to "was" and leaving the rest alone. --RBBrittain (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hostess

Isnt twinkies a Product not a brand? Evoogd20 (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)evoogd20

Yes, you are correct. I've removed Twinkies from the list a number of times. Other products such as ding-dongs and Ho-hos have popped up occasionally too. Shoeless Ho (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Twinkies™ (capitalized) is a trademark, i.e., a brand.[1] The product would be called a "pastry" (uncapitalized); Hostess calls it a "Golden Sponge Cake with Creamy Filling" on their package wrapper. It took me less than 60 seconds to research this information on the Web, less time than it took to write your comments with incorrect capitalization. — Quicksilver^{T @} 00:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

External image
http://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2012/11/16/Photos/MG/MW-AW308_twinki_20121116082122_MG.jpg

Well iPod Touch is hard to get caplization right, & it's a talk page, not an article. So grammar is not very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evoogd20 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Although Twinkies (and other Hostess products) has been trademarked, it is not a "brand" in the context of the section of the article in question. It's a product of the Hostess brand. Just as Wonder Bread produced a number of different products, but each product produced is not a "brand" in the sense that Wonder Bread is. Shoeless Ho (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sugar

The word "sugar" is now mentioned exactly zero times in this article. As this is one of the major cost drivers for the products, this is very very usual for Wikistan. Hcobb (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

By all means, dig up some reliable sources about this topic, and add a paragraph about the effect of the price of sugar on the company's financial state. It's easy to criticise; fun, too. Owen× ☎ 19:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I did, I got reverted. Hcobb (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The price of sugar was quoted as one opinion of some unnamed "economists". While potentially notable, many other views are mentioned in other sources, but the way you phrased it, it sounded like the price of sugar was the primary drive here, a claim not substantiated by evidence. Owen× ☎ 08:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hostess Reborn?

I think we can remove the "defunct" category in the infobox and stop using the past tense in the article. According to CNBC, Hostess appears to be planning to resume operations, hire and reopen bakeries around the country. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100674792

Hg3300 (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The "new" Hostess.

Hostess is coming back. Twinkies will once again be flying out of stores in July. What do we know about the new company? Do they have a website? The old liquidation site doesn't say anything about it. Can someone update the main page with the new URL?Cousert (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Butternut Bread in Wisconsin and Illinois is produced by Chicago Baking due to an antitrust case in 1995. The court has not decided if Chicago Baking can keep butternut. 71.87.43.34 (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)