Quote:
Originally Posted by pylon
BS.
The only reason they reversed their decision was because they said "Holy crap, this is going to cost us A LOT of business." If your convictions are so strong and humanitarian, stick by it. But once they saw the bottom line was going to be slaughtered they backed off, and went back to buying the evil Democratic Republic of Northern Alberta beef.
I would have actually had more respect if this clown owner said "I'm standing behind my convictions, and doing what I feel is right." Now, he just makes his whole humane beef thing look like a marketing ploy, not a decision made for altruistic reasons. And all it took was the threat of losing a few dollars to abandoned his morals.
This reversal, make me hate them worse. Losers. Plus their food has always been remarkably overpriced for such mediocre fare anyway.
Earls sucks. LOL
|
The guy you're talking about doesn't make those decisions, he's just the President of the company. Other than that though I agree.
My first thought when I read all of this was that it was stupid. I hated the reason being based around "humane" and it felt like a move based on marketing rather than a move based on quality. Then I decided hell, I'll try it because all that should matter is how it tastes. Low and behold, it was an improvement after all. So now I'm thinking 'hmm. So why the hell wouldn't they just say "we are changing meat suppliers because we found a quality superior to what we had before"' and the answer is the reason the whole thing irked me from the start, the marketing spin being the focus over the food itself. Not something I'll ever agree with.