Compound vs Real Chocolate

Much of the commercial chocolate that we consume isn't actually chocolate. In many cases, it's compound chocolate -- a product that generally contains cocoa, but does not contain cocoa butter. If you don't see cocoa butter listed as an ingredient, then it's not "real" chocolate. Of course, there are also confectionary coatings that don't have any component of chocolate in them -- candy melts fall into this category.  

There are some good reasons for swapping out the cocoa butter for an alternative fat (like palm kernel oil). For one thing, cocoa butter is polymorphic, which means that it can take on different structures and thus display different characteristics. Chocolate's ideal structure is beta-5, which is its most stable form. It is achieved through the tempering process and results in the smooth, glossy surface and snappy solid form that we seek in well-made chocolate. When chocolate is not in perfect temper and takes on one of the other structures, the texture, appearance, and mouthfeel are affected. It may be soft or crumbly, or have a dull, grey, or mottled appearance. Compound chocolate, however, doesn't require tempering. It also has a higher melting point than real chocolate, which means it is less likely to melt with handling and can remain stable in warmer conditions. Coating "chocolate" can also be purchased readily in a variety of colours, whereas real chocolate usually has to be coloured by the user (who may add oil-based food colouring or laminate chocolate to a coloured cocoa butter layer). And, finally, compound chocolate is cheaper because it doesn't include cocoa butter. 

Consequently, compound chocolate (or confectionary coating or candy coating or candy melts) is a good option for beginners, for food crafting with children, for large batch/mass production of treats, etc. 

So why am I thinking about this right now as a professional chocolatier when normally I would emphasize the need for only the best couverture chocolate? 

I have an idea for a Christmas present to give to friends this year. It's more about the form (a cute piece molded and assembled from chocolate) and less about the formula (it won't be a layered bonbon or a carefully crafted truffle or other elaborate flavour experiment). Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the item is still meant to be eaten. It would be easier to use compound chocolate to avoid the tempering process, improve ease of storage, and create colourful, displayable, Instagram-worthy treats. But the chocolate won't taste as good as Callebaut. 

The question is, Does that matter?

I know a few people who don't mind candy melts, either as a colourful bark or as coating for cookies. They like the sweeter profile. They likely realize it isn't "real" chocolate, but they appreciate it in various applications despite that. (Personally, I don't mind candy melts, but I definitely notice the difference...) But we've also all had the experience of buying (or receiving) cheap chocolate from a dollar, discount, or grocery store, with its waxy texture or dull flavour -- and it can be very disappointing when the expectation and the reality don't match. 

Does food crafting make the use of "fake" chocolate more acceptable? Or should we be striving to emulate the chocolate genius of Amaury Guichon? Vote and comment below! 

Thanks for voting!