Why do Flakes still exist when the Twirl is obviously superior?

Growing up, I loved Cadbury Flakes. No doubt this is at least partially responsible for my ample size.

There’s something immensely satisfying about the texture and flavour of thinly-folded milk chocolate.

But then I discovered the Cadbury Twirl, which is essentially two (or three in some cases) Flakes that have been individually covered in milk chocolate and put in the same packet.

One of the worst things about the Flake is that it would crumble and leave an inconvenient mess that was liable to stain clothing and other materials because of how thin and easily melted the chocolate was.

The Twirl solves that problem by binding the Flake within a thin casing of chocolate. This keeps all the crumbling in the mouth, where it belongs.

The Flake is, however, iconic. This is probably due to it being around longer: it was first produced in the 1920s, while the Twirl appeared in the 1970s (and the twin bar format in the 1980s).

I will admit that the chocolate that encases the Twirl does tend to prevent it melting in your mouth as readily as a Flake.

At the same time, the two-bar Twirl does give you slightly more chocolate for the same price: the Flake is 30 grams, and the Twirl is 39 grams, and both retail for the same price of around $1 to $2 (from Coles or Woolworths supermarkets).

The combination of less mess and more chocolate has made me shun the Flake and become a Twirl convert.