We've all done it, sitting around eating a Twinkie and thinking, "you know what this thing needs?"
"More sugar."
And thus we have the latest scientific advancement in snack cake technology: A smaller, sugar-coated version of a product first introduced over 90 years ago.
What won't they think of next? Why, when it comes to repackaging derivatives of things invented by people more creative than you, the possibilities are limited only by your own marketing budget.
Speaking of which, this was their press release announcing Bouncers.
"No more boring Lunches."
Hostess makes products that have appeared in more public school lunches than salmonella, and they just declared those lunches "boring."
Interesting approach to brand management.
"Consumers increasingly are looking for snackable, poppable, shareable treats that offer a sweet reward without the mess,..."
I'm sure conversations like this are happening nearly every never all over America.
"Hey, while you're at the store, could you grab me something poppable?"
"Sure. What if they're out of poppable? Will snackable do?"
"Yeah, but only if it's shareable."
Having been reliably informed that I crave something poppable, I felt obligated to do my own research and so picked up a box at my local grocery store.
That is just how dedicated I am to ensuring you stay informed of the important news of the day and also they were on sale.
You know you're in trouble when the manufacturer feels the need to highlight one of the 40 ingredients as "real."
The other 39?
Hey, sugar is real.
Look, it's a Twinkie. You know that going in.
Bouncers come three-to a pack.
My first thought was, I should probably have had some blood work done before I eat these.
My second thought was, why do they call them "Bouncers"?
For that, I ran a little experiment to see if these "Bouncers" bounce.
Dead cats bounce more than this.
Small rodents bounce more than this when tossed from third-story windows which I totally don't know firsthand as I never threw a small rodent out a third-story window in a panicked attempt to get him out of my apartment as that would be cruel and wrong.
But seriously, they do have a little bounce.
Okay, so Bouncers don't bounce, but they aren't selling athletic equipment here, they're selling a chemical cocktail avatar of a snack cake, and one that's "snackable, poppable and shareable."
Just not bounceable.
The glaze was thick, like what happens when a doughnut gets stuck on the conveyor belt.
I dove in.
These were sweet. Really sweet. I had my son try them. He could only get through two before giving up.
"They aren't horrible, I said."
"Yeah, but they aren't good," he replied.
I always like to check the nutritional information panels as these will reveal all the things the marketing department chose not to talk about.
Here's a regular Twinkie.
Hey! Not so bad. Bouncers actually have less sugar, 23 grams vs. 29!
Yes, but that's because they're physically smaller. If you adjust for calories, Bouncers would have over 36 grams of sugar.
There was something else about these Bouncers aside from being really sweet.
They were kind of dry. Surprisingly so. I thought it was me, but if you look at the ingredients closely, and again adjust for calories, they have about 60% of the fat as regular Twinkies, or 5.5 grams vs. 9 grams and only half the saturated fat, that's the really creamy fat.
Fat is essential to mouth feel and moistness in a packaged snack cake and they removed it to keep the calorie count down.
They literally made a worse Twinkie before dousing it in sugar in the hopes that we wouldn't notice.
The Twinkies are only one of three versions of Bouncers. The other two are Ding-Dongs and Cinnamon Donettes because something called a "Donette" I guess isn't poppable enough already.
I have three packs remaining at least one of which will likely find a place of honor on a high shelf in my pantry, stuffed way, way in the back.
Right next to the Boost Doughnut.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
