Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
I think certified humane does mean something. Temple Grandin has my respect. I don't think Earl's is suggesting Alberta producers aren't as good as the certified humane producers but rather suggesting this is just a way to make sure these standards are met. Earl's can't go around to a hundred different farms and monitor their practices. Certified humane can and does.
Stuff like this should be welcomed by AB producers. If the job can be done in a better way then by all means change. Do it better. Here's the book on how to do it better. If it is all just non sense then I'm wrong. But it's just generally a bad idea in business to get your nose out of joint when someone one ups you.
|
Ultimately - and yes, this is only speculation on my part - I believe the driving goal from Earls' perspective was to simplify their process down to a single supplier. Probably one that could also meet any American expansion goals they have. And I am sure they thought the whole "certified humane" trademark would make for great PR.
While I can agree that Earls wasn't intending to suggest that Alberta/Canadian producers aren't as good as the American supplier they chose, that is a message they sent anyway. And it completely undermined any goodwill they thought the trademark would generate. That is entirely on them. If their online presence is any indication - a handful of defensive posts followed by four days of total radio silence - Earls is struggling to figure out how to PR their way out of this mess.
We are seeing in the online reaction that people either don't believe an American trademark makes the supplier better, or that people don't care. In either case, Earls deserves the heat it is getting.