By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Hershey Company has announced a significant shift, committing to return to using “classic milk and dark chocolate recipes” across its Reese’s and Hershey’s product lines by 2027. This decision follows public criticism from Brad Reese, grandson of the candy’s inventor, who voiced concerns over the company’s alteration of original formulas in spinoff products. While Hershey’s CEO attributes the change to a desire for portfolio alignment and consistency, Brad Reese remains cautious, vowing to verify the authenticity of the new recipes based on taste. The company plans to revert to real milk chocolate for various Reese’s items, including minis and shapes, and classic Hershey’s bars, while also working to eliminate artificial colors from all products.
Read the original article here
It’s rather astonishing to hear that Hershey’s is planning to, well, actually put chocolate back into most of its products. The very idea of bragging that your innovation is “putting chocolate back in the chocolate” is, frankly, quite eye-opening and speaks volumes about where the company’s priorities might have been. It sounds like a case of consumers having to endure what felt like chocolate-colored wax for an extended period, only to be met with this announcement that might be too little, too late for some. The loss of trust is palpable, and the mention of a “portfolio” in relation to candy suggests a shift in focus that many found off-putting, especially when the core product is meant to be a simple indulgence.
This situation seems to highlight a disconnect between corporate strategy and the fundamental enjoyment of candy. One can’t help but feel that the push to manage a “portfolio” might have overshadowed the simple joy of making good candy. It’s interesting to consider how a founder’s family, specifically Reese’s grandson in this instance, had to step in to address what many perceived as a decline in product quality. Without this intervention, it’s plausible the company might have continued down a path of perceived cost-cutting at the expense of taste, a classic tactic in the pursuit of profit.
The notion that Hershey’s might have been “doubling down on selling trash” is a strong sentiment, but it reflects the deep disappointment many felt. The accusations of shipping jobs overseas and substituting ingredients in chocolate bars, all while prices increased, paint a picture of a company prioritizing profit maximization above all else, leading to widespread dissatisfaction. This strategy, often described as late-stage capitalism, appears to have resonated with many who felt they were paying premium prices for a significantly reduced quality product.
It’s understandable why some would question the ingredients, especially if they remember a time when Reese’s and Hershey’s bars tasted fundamentally different and better. The idea that the “regular peanut butter cups” might still be made with “the good stuff” seems to be a point of contention, with differing opinions on what constitutes “good” anymore. Many are concerned that this announcement might not truly signify a return to the beloved flavors of the past.
The shift away from real chocolate to compound coatings, affecting less than 3% of Reese’s products and a small portion of Hershey’s, still had a significant impact. For loyal fans who once devoured these treats, a noticeable change in taste and texture was enough to turn them away permanently. The memory of a Reese’s tasting “off,” leading to it being discarded, and never being purchased again, is a testament to how drastically the product experience could deteriorate. The sentiment that they “ruined Reese’s” and that it became “tasteless trash” is a harsh but clear expression of consumer disillusionment.
The hope that Hershey’s bars might finally taste like actual chocolate again, and that the founder’s legacy might be honored, is a strong emotional undercurrent. The comparison to “chocolate candle wax” and the claim of stopping purchases entirely due to the perceived decline in quality highlight a widespread sentiment. It’s almost as if the company was making candy that barely resembled its namesake, leading consumers to question the very essence of the product.
The phrasing of the company’s plans, like “we’re going to make some small investments to really align the portfolio to what the brand stands for,” is being met with skepticism. This corporate jargon feels out of place when discussing something as straightforward and beloved as candy. The contrast between managing a “brand portfolio” and simply making delicious candy is stark, and it’s clear many wish Hershey’s would revert to the latter.
The immediate reaction to the news, like “Holy shit, they’re going to put chocolate in their chocolate?” captures the almost absurd nature of the situation. It’s as if the very definition of the product was questioned. For those who experienced Hershey’s products while stationed overseas, the realization that the taste might have been subpar even then, and has potentially worsened since, is disheartening. While the intention to return to original recipes is noted, the lingering doubt about whether it will truly be an improvement remains.
The mention of alternatives like those found on slavefreechocolate.org suggests a deeper concern among consumers for ethical sourcing and genuine quality, going beyond just the immediate taste of their candy. The framing of this return to chocolate as a “favor” to consumers is also being viewed critically, with the understanding that it’s more likely a response to declining sales and negative feedback. The desire for a reduction in ingredients like butyric acid, which apparently makes products taste unpleasant, further underscores the perceived issues with the current formulations.
The frustration extends to specific products, with mentions of Mr. Goodbar tasting like “crap” after checking the label. The physical discomfort, such as acid reflux, experienced after consuming Reese’s also points to a perceived degradation in ingredient quality. The comparison to the old, superior Cadbury Eggs, now replaced by smaller, less flavorful versions made with inferior chocolate and a grainy paste, is another sore point for consumers who miss the original experience.
The confusion and disbelief surrounding the title itself, “Fuck you mean ‘resume using chocolate’?”, highlight how fundamentally baffling it is that a chocolate company would stop using chocolate in its chocolate products. It’s almost as if the company has been caught in a deliberate act of deception, and the announcement of their return to using the primary ingredient is being met with a healthy dose of cynicism. The concern that this might happen again, perhaps more subtly next time, speaks to a deep-seated lack of trust.
The timing of this change, coinciding with reports of significant drops in cocoa prices, raises questions about whether this is a genuine commitment to quality or a financially motivated move. The notion of “maximizing profit” by using less of the core ingredient, only to revert when it becomes economically advantageous, is a hard pill to swallow for many loyal customers.
For those who have long since abandoned Hershey’s products, this news, while potentially positive, doesn’t erase years of disappointment. The decision to walk past their displays during holidays for years, opting for alternatives like Ghirardelli’s, signifies a deeply entrenched negative perception. The imagined meeting where someone suggested using less chocolate is a humorous, albeit pointed, way to express the absurdity of the situation.
The sentiment that “brands are worthless” and that companies can be “f-ed” reflects a broader disillusionment with corporate practices. The suggestion to clearly label products as “engineered chocolate” or “Real chocolate” underscores a desire for transparency. Many also find Hershey’s products to be excessively sweet, with a dominant taste of corn syrup rather than actual chocolate. The ideal of using a higher cocoa percentage with less sugar is a recurring theme, suggesting a preference for a more sophisticated chocolate flavor.
The analogy of asking if it’s like saying you won’t put lead in crayons is a powerful way to illustrate how basic the expectation of real chocolate in chocolate should be. The “small victories” are acknowledged, but the underlying issues are far from forgotten. Videos circulating online of Hershey’s bars being bendable like rubber only reinforce the negative perceptions of their quality and ingredient integrity.
The comparison to Trader Joe’s and their cups that “go hard” further highlights that consumers are aware of and appreciate high-quality alternatives. This entire saga seems to be a case study in the perils of “enshittification,” where a beloved product gradually declines in quality. The distinct lack of the expected Reese’s flavor and texture, with the peanut butter taste being muted and the texture off, is a common complaint, leading to a feeling of never returning.
The observation that the Milton Hershey School, a primary shareholder, might not be as concerned with immediate product quality as long as its funding is secured, adds another layer to the complex corporate structure. It raises questions about where the ultimate motivation for product decisions truly lies. The hope that specific products like the 100 Grand bars remain delicious is a small glimmer of optimism amidst the widespread criticism.
The fundamental question, “WTF were they using if it wasn’t chocolate?!” echoes the confusion and disbelief that have permeated these discussions. The fact that this widespread change went unnoticed by many until recently is also a point of concern, suggesting a lack of transparency. Ultimately, for many, the decision to avoid “processed crap” and the disgust at the company’s willingness to disguise wax as chocolate remain potent sentiments, making a return to their products a difficult prospect.