I just want to say my problem with Subway's apology is the following line "Our intention was to provide an opportunity for traditional schools, many of which we know have trouble affording athletic equipment, to win equipment."
That line honks me off because public schools have a spending problem and not a funding problem. Maybe if there were not so many educrats in schools, schools could afford to buy athletic equipment.
I think Subway has taken enough heat for their gaffe and any public school people who feel sorry for them should patronize Subway more.
I think it is time to close the whole "subwaygate" story with some very well written thoughts from the following BLOG.
All in the Fam...: Note to Subway: It's Too Late
John Hingley said...
Well, it looks like Subway finally did issue an apology (sort of):
http://www.subway.com/Applications/CustService/frmCustomerService.aspx
My name is John Hingley and I am the CEO at Andiamo Systems, a social media measurement company. We advise on basic 'rules of engagement' when it comes to Reputation Management, many that Subway violated. Some of these rules include:
1) Issue a timely response or you will appear guilty and/or insensitive to the issue.
Subway took too much time with their somewhat weak statement.
2) Have the response come from a responsible person with authority.
Their statement was not signed off by anyone!
3) If you were wrong, admit it. And explain how you are addressing a resolution.
Clearly Subway skirted any type of genuine apology.
These are just a few, but some of the most important rues to abide by if a company truly cares about their reputation and brand value.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
HSLDA on WNTK
Subway Apologizes
Subway Apologizes
HSLDA is pleased to pass along the following apology from Subway restaurants.
To HSLDA:
We at SUBWAY restaurants place a high value on education, regardless of the setting, and have initiated a number of programs and promotions aimed at educating our youth in the areas of health and fitness.
We sincerely apologize to anyone who feels excluded by our current essay contest. Our intention was to provide an opportunity for traditional schools, many of which we know have trouble affording athletic equipment, to win equipment. Our intent was certainly not to exclude homeschooled children from the opportunity to win prizes and benefit from better access to fitness equipment.
To address the inadvertent limitation of our current contest and provide an opportunity for even more kids to improve their fitness, we will soon create an additional contest in which homeschooled students will be encouraged to participate. When the kids win, everyone wins!
HSLDA is pleased to pass along the following apology from Subway restaurants.
To HSLDA:
We at SUBWAY restaurants place a high value on education, regardless of the setting, and have initiated a number of programs and promotions aimed at educating our youth in the areas of health and fitness.
We sincerely apologize to anyone who feels excluded by our current essay contest. Our intention was to provide an opportunity for traditional schools, many of which we know have trouble affording athletic equipment, to win equipment. Our intent was certainly not to exclude homeschooled children from the opportunity to win prizes and benefit from better access to fitness equipment.
To address the inadvertent limitation of our current contest and provide an opportunity for even more kids to improve their fitness, we will soon create an additional contest in which homeschooled students will be encouraged to participate. When the kids win, everyone wins!
Homeschoolers are a powerful group!
According to the Home School Legal Defense Association 10 states allow homeschoolers to educate their children in total freedom with no regulation from their state government. Fifteen states have the requirement of parental notification only. The remaining 25 states have moderate to high regulation.
Homeschoolers are a large group and when motivated can be very successful when initiating change but all too often homeschoolers sadly go for appeasement or sticking their heads in the sand.
In New Hampshire with SB 337 we are taking a step backwards. Some feel appeasement is best. Many homeschoolers, homeschool because they want to provide the best education possible for their children. Granite Staters should fight for what is best for our children and that is total freedom from regulation from our state so that we may focus more energy on actually educating our children. If large states and blue states such as Texas, Illinois, Michigan and New Jersey can have total freedom to educate their children why can't we here in New Hampshire work for the same?
The following outstanding piece appears on the American Thinker website.
May 27, 2008
Subway Bans Homeschooled Kids from Essay Contest
By Ned Barnett
Subway -- the multi-national fast-food sub-shop giant -- has shot themselves in the foot. Again. The goal of their latest promotion was to win the loyalty of parents of grade school-aged kids -- to increase market share, revenue and profits. It was supposed to be a simple exercise in business marketing and promotion.
The outcome, however, was far different. By banning homeschooled kids -- children who are educated at home, as an alternative to public schooling -- Subway has ignited a firestorm of opposition from a vocal segment of the marketplace. Homeschoolers, offended by the ban, spontaneously -- and almost literally overnight -- organized a national Subway boycott that already has Subway's corporate spokesman hunkering down. All this happened over a holiday weekend, a time when people usually have better things to do. Imagine the impact today when millions of homeschooling parents are back in front of their computers, and discover what Subway has done to them.
America currently has something on the order of three million children being homeschooled; those children represent an adult purchasing population -- including parents and grandparents -- of well over five million often affluent people. Homeschooling parents are frequently supported by their local churches, and many other potential Subway customers -- who are not themselves homeschoolers -- still admire the self-reliant spirit reflected by these parents. These Americans might willingly join in a boycott against firms that show disrespect for homeschoolers.
Subway, by this careless -- or intentional -- ban on homeschooled children, could have easily offended 10 million American adults. Oops.
But why is this snub at homeschoolers even an issue? Homeschoolers face constant harassment from "officials" at the state and local school board level, as well as from teachers unions, and they are therefore more than a bit sensitive to perceived commercial discrimination. By banning homeschooled children from their essay contest, Subway has -- accidentally or intentionally -- placed themselves firmly in the "enemy's camp."
School boards generally oppose homeschooling, and the National Educational Association and other teachers unions relentlessly lobby against homeschooling, for two reasons.
First, homeschooling parents -- by teaching three million kids nationwide -- replace the equivalent of 100,000 union teachers.
Second, Federal and State public school financing is based on per-enrolled student -- and both the teachers unions and the school boards see homeschooling parents as literally taking federal funds out of their coffers or paychecks.
True, these schools don't have to provide services for homeschooled children, but with a strong entitlement mentality, the school boards and teachers unions adopt the position that they are "owed" this money. They fight in every way they can to hang onto every last dollar, and if this means opposing homeschooling or school vouchers, so be it.
But how did Subway get into this mess? Subway's "Every Sandwich Tells a Story" essay contest, conducted in cooperation with the quickly repentant Scholastic News Service -- which sells strongly into the homeschool market and which immediately and publicly apologized when this issue came to their attention -- specifically bans homeschooled kids from the contest. The remarkably poorly-spelled rules read:
NO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. Contest is open only to legal residents of the Untied (sic) States who are currently over the age of 18 and have children who attend elementary, private or parochial schools that serve grades PreK-6. No home schools will be accepted.
You'd think Subway would learn. In late 2004, 50 of their German franchisees created a table-top in-store ad that showed an obese Statue of Liberty. This promotion was tied into the German release of the film "Super Size Me," and it boldly mocked Americans' proclivity for eating fattening fast foods. Subway's decision-makers apparently thought that nobody outside their German franchised Subway stores would notice this anti-American in-store ad -- but within days, Congressman Tom DeLay was denouncing Subway from the well of the House, waving the table-top ad before the cameras for all to see. Outraged Americans -- who objected to an American company publicly mocking America in Europe, just to make a quick Euro -- quickly abandoned Subway in droves.
With this PR blunder, Subway quite possibly helped kindle the skyrocketing growth of Quiznos, a competing sub-sandwich shop that caught on almost immediately after Subway's "gaffe."
Faced with 24/7 media coverage and a virtual Internet firestorm of protest that was melting their market share, Subway's response was glacial. The story simmered for close to two weeks before Subway's spokespersons began to try to turn down the heat -- but by then, the damage had been done.
History may be repeating itself. Subway's partner, Scholastic, quickly backed away from the contest, publishing this apology on a number of homeschool websites and discussion boards:
"Our intention was never to make independent schooled children feel discriminated against or excluded from this specific promotion ... and will make sure eligibility is open to everyone in future promotions."
Except to say, "Unfortunately, I do not have enough information at this point to respond," when asked to comment on this homeschooling brouhaha, Subway's spokesman, Kevin Kane did respond to this gathering crisis. If history does repeat itself, Subway will stonewall for another couple of weeks before trying to ease the pain of this self-inflicted wound. And, as with their 2004 "Fat American" in-store promotion, which backfired so painfully, their response may yet again be too little, too late.
Ned Barnett is a political strategist and the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, Nevada. A PR crisis management expert, Barnett has been a university professor and has written nine published books on public relations and marketing communications, and writes a regular column on crisis PR for the International Association of Business Communicators.
Homeschoolers are a large group and when motivated can be very successful when initiating change but all too often homeschoolers sadly go for appeasement or sticking their heads in the sand.
In New Hampshire with SB 337 we are taking a step backwards. Some feel appeasement is best. Many homeschoolers, homeschool because they want to provide the best education possible for their children. Granite Staters should fight for what is best for our children and that is total freedom from regulation from our state so that we may focus more energy on actually educating our children. If large states and blue states such as Texas, Illinois, Michigan and New Jersey can have total freedom to educate their children why can't we here in New Hampshire work for the same?
The following outstanding piece appears on the American Thinker website.
May 27, 2008
Subway Bans Homeschooled Kids from Essay Contest
By Ned Barnett
Subway -- the multi-national fast-food sub-shop giant -- has shot themselves in the foot. Again. The goal of their latest promotion was to win the loyalty of parents of grade school-aged kids -- to increase market share, revenue and profits. It was supposed to be a simple exercise in business marketing and promotion.
The outcome, however, was far different. By banning homeschooled kids -- children who are educated at home, as an alternative to public schooling -- Subway has ignited a firestorm of opposition from a vocal segment of the marketplace. Homeschoolers, offended by the ban, spontaneously -- and almost literally overnight -- organized a national Subway boycott that already has Subway's corporate spokesman hunkering down. All this happened over a holiday weekend, a time when people usually have better things to do. Imagine the impact today when millions of homeschooling parents are back in front of their computers, and discover what Subway has done to them.
America currently has something on the order of three million children being homeschooled; those children represent an adult purchasing population -- including parents and grandparents -- of well over five million often affluent people. Homeschooling parents are frequently supported by their local churches, and many other potential Subway customers -- who are not themselves homeschoolers -- still admire the self-reliant spirit reflected by these parents. These Americans might willingly join in a boycott against firms that show disrespect for homeschoolers.
Subway, by this careless -- or intentional -- ban on homeschooled children, could have easily offended 10 million American adults. Oops.
But why is this snub at homeschoolers even an issue? Homeschoolers face constant harassment from "officials" at the state and local school board level, as well as from teachers unions, and they are therefore more than a bit sensitive to perceived commercial discrimination. By banning homeschooled children from their essay contest, Subway has -- accidentally or intentionally -- placed themselves firmly in the "enemy's camp."
School boards generally oppose homeschooling, and the National Educational Association and other teachers unions relentlessly lobby against homeschooling, for two reasons.
First, homeschooling parents -- by teaching three million kids nationwide -- replace the equivalent of 100,000 union teachers.
Second, Federal and State public school financing is based on per-enrolled student -- and both the teachers unions and the school boards see homeschooling parents as literally taking federal funds out of their coffers or paychecks.
True, these schools don't have to provide services for homeschooled children, but with a strong entitlement mentality, the school boards and teachers unions adopt the position that they are "owed" this money. They fight in every way they can to hang onto every last dollar, and if this means opposing homeschooling or school vouchers, so be it.
But how did Subway get into this mess? Subway's "Every Sandwich Tells a Story" essay contest, conducted in cooperation with the quickly repentant Scholastic News Service -- which sells strongly into the homeschool market and which immediately and publicly apologized when this issue came to their attention -- specifically bans homeschooled kids from the contest. The remarkably poorly-spelled rules read:
NO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. Contest is open only to legal residents of the Untied (sic) States who are currently over the age of 18 and have children who attend elementary, private or parochial schools that serve grades PreK-6. No home schools will be accepted.
You'd think Subway would learn. In late 2004, 50 of their German franchisees created a table-top in-store ad that showed an obese Statue of Liberty. This promotion was tied into the German release of the film "Super Size Me," and it boldly mocked Americans' proclivity for eating fattening fast foods. Subway's decision-makers apparently thought that nobody outside their German franchised Subway stores would notice this anti-American in-store ad -- but within days, Congressman Tom DeLay was denouncing Subway from the well of the House, waving the table-top ad before the cameras for all to see. Outraged Americans -- who objected to an American company publicly mocking America in Europe, just to make a quick Euro -- quickly abandoned Subway in droves.
With this PR blunder, Subway quite possibly helped kindle the skyrocketing growth of Quiznos, a competing sub-sandwich shop that caught on almost immediately after Subway's "gaffe."
Faced with 24/7 media coverage and a virtual Internet firestorm of protest that was melting their market share, Subway's response was glacial. The story simmered for close to two weeks before Subway's spokespersons began to try to turn down the heat -- but by then, the damage had been done.
History may be repeating itself. Subway's partner, Scholastic, quickly backed away from the contest, publishing this apology on a number of homeschool websites and discussion boards:
"Our intention was never to make independent schooled children feel discriminated against or excluded from this specific promotion ... and will make sure eligibility is open to everyone in future promotions."
Except to say, "Unfortunately, I do not have enough information at this point to respond," when asked to comment on this homeschooling brouhaha, Subway's spokesman, Kevin Kane did respond to this gathering crisis. If history does repeat itself, Subway will stonewall for another couple of weeks before trying to ease the pain of this self-inflicted wound. And, as with their 2004 "Fat American" in-store promotion, which backfired so painfully, their response may yet again be too little, too late.
Ned Barnett is a political strategist and the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, Nevada. A PR crisis management expert, Barnett has been a university professor and has written nine published books on public relations and marketing communications, and writes a regular column on crisis PR for the International Association of Business Communicators.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Our appearance on "Fox and Friends"
Our appearance on "Fox and Friends" this morning was the culmination of arrangements set in motion by Fox early Memorial Day morning. Having never done this before, we found it an interesting learning experience.
We'd like to share some details about this experience in case any of you get a similar opportunity.
Having caught the attention of Fox from the numerous links to our blog, we received a call from a program coordinator to appear on their 6:45 segment. They needed to locate a video satellite station near our home. As we feared, the closest station available for this time slot was located near Boston - A 2 hour drive.
To meet the 6:45 taping deadline, Fox sent a car to pick us up at our home at 4am. With entire family in tow, we drove to the station.
Almost nothing happened until we approached the taping time. The technicians explained the basics but little else. I spent our waiting time in a TV room trying to associate names with the faces of show hosts. This turned out to be pointless as a live video feed of the hosts was unavailable during the actual taping.
The producers pressed us to have our three year-old daughter Anastasia appear on the set - an idea I had repeatedly expressed reservations about prior to taping. (My concerns turned out to be justified, as Anastasia was totally uncooperative.) Our 11-month old son Alexander sat in Cathy's lap, seemingly compliant until 10 seconds prior to the show.
The technician explained that we would appear briefly for a "teaser shot" prior to a commercial break and that the main segment would occupy a single shoot. During the shoot, they cut to commercial and returned to us. We suspect this was in hopes of calming Alexander down as the host commented about him "shutting up".
During the show, we had no idea what viewers were seeing. Our camera light was on the whole time, even though we weren't on screen. Later in the shoot we were unaware of being on screen and started looking around.
The children were much noisier on the set than it seemed on TV - noisy to the point of severe distraction. Before arriving, the program coordinator assured me that there would be a supervised off-set area for our children to wait until after the taping. This was not the case so we had little choice but to keep them in arm's reach.
Cathy and I have a slightly different take on the segment where the judge provided legal commentary. I felt that it falsely suggested that we advocated some sort of legal action against Subway, whereas Cathy considered it routine for the show.
To be clear, we never wanted nor believed in the possibility of legal action against Subway's contest rules. Furthermore, in reviewing over 12 pages of blogs on the subject, I have not seen a single poster call for legal action. I think we can all agree such a lawsuit would be frivolous.
Jim Peschke
We'd like to share some details about this experience in case any of you get a similar opportunity.
Having caught the attention of Fox from the numerous links to our blog, we received a call from a program coordinator to appear on their 6:45 segment. They needed to locate a video satellite station near our home. As we feared, the closest station available for this time slot was located near Boston - A 2 hour drive.
To meet the 6:45 taping deadline, Fox sent a car to pick us up at our home at 4am. With entire family in tow, we drove to the station.
Almost nothing happened until we approached the taping time. The technicians explained the basics but little else. I spent our waiting time in a TV room trying to associate names with the faces of show hosts. This turned out to be pointless as a live video feed of the hosts was unavailable during the actual taping.
The producers pressed us to have our three year-old daughter Anastasia appear on the set - an idea I had repeatedly expressed reservations about prior to taping. (My concerns turned out to be justified, as Anastasia was totally uncooperative.) Our 11-month old son Alexander sat in Cathy's lap, seemingly compliant until 10 seconds prior to the show.
The technician explained that we would appear briefly for a "teaser shot" prior to a commercial break and that the main segment would occupy a single shoot. During the shoot, they cut to commercial and returned to us. We suspect this was in hopes of calming Alexander down as the host commented about him "shutting up".
During the show, we had no idea what viewers were seeing. Our camera light was on the whole time, even though we weren't on screen. Later in the shoot we were unaware of being on screen and started looking around.
The children were much noisier on the set than it seemed on TV - noisy to the point of severe distraction. Before arriving, the program coordinator assured me that there would be a supervised off-set area for our children to wait until after the taping. This was not the case so we had little choice but to keep them in arm's reach.
Cathy and I have a slightly different take on the segment where the judge provided legal commentary. I felt that it falsely suggested that we advocated some sort of legal action against Subway, whereas Cathy considered it routine for the show.
To be clear, we never wanted nor believed in the possibility of legal action against Subway's contest rules. Furthermore, in reviewing over 12 pages of blogs on the subject, I have not seen a single poster call for legal action. I think we can all agree such a lawsuit would be frivolous.
Jim Peschke
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)