Hardee's meets with PETA and buckles to their demands [Archive]

TheNoNamedOne

09-27-2007, 01:06 AM

What happens when PETA's animal welfare campaigns spring into action against the fast food establishment for improving animal conditions? Action and victory step by step! That's what.

Hardee's, Carl's Jr. and PETA Reach Deal (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9ixUVyi0GQuENhW-9b8OaZWUJvg)
By JIM SALTER – 11 hours ago

ST. LOUIS (AP) — The Hardee's and Carl's Jr. fast-food chains will begin purchasing eggs and pork from suppliers who do not keep animals in cages or crates, spokesmen for Hardee's and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said Wednesday. ...

The agreement aims to improve the welfare of animals that provide food for the 1,905 Hardee's restaurants and 1,101 Carl's Jr. restaurants, said Jeff Mochal, a spokesman for Hardee's.

"We take the animal welfare concerns very seriously," Mochal said. "When you meet with PETA they make a pretty good case. We want to stay consistent with where the industry is at now and where it's heading."

You know what all this means in the long run, don't you? PETA emboldened by more victories and moving the next target into their sites. Even more companies willing to meet and speak with PETA. Oh, and a few extra cents/yen tagged onto the price at the register.

Have a nice day. And don't forget, smiles from PETA are free.

DougP

09-27-2007, 03:20 AM

"When you meet with PETA they make a pretty good case. We want to stay consistent with where the industry is at now and where it's heading."

ha ha ( man we need one of those LMAO smilies )

Either they have no idea where industry is heading or they just want to stay consistent with it up until they are forced to shut down completely. Kinda like some of the Judenrat working for the Nazis. They acted as though they were part of the solution when in fact they were really viewed as part of the problem by the institution they were helping. I love little twists of irony like this.

P_chan

09-27-2007, 07:03 AM

what a pointless thing to make them do.

Muku

09-27-2007, 07:57 AM

ha ha ( man we need one of those LMAO smilies )

Either they have no idea where industry is heading or they just want to stay consistent with it up until they are forced to shut down completely. Kinda like some of the Judenrat working for the Nazis. They acted as though they were part of the solution when in fact they were really viewed as part of the problem by the institution they were helping. I love little twists of irony like this.

It's probably easier for them unfortunately to bend to their "request" rather than face the wrath of the terrorist arm of the AR movement. Who knows what went on behind the closed doors that prompted them to make this decision?

Oh, and a few extra cents/yen tagged onto the price at the register.

Now when their profits fall because people dont want to pay the extra costs involved, and maybe the company files for bankruptcy protection everyone jwill know that is was PETA that was to blame. Let's not mention all the kids that lose their first jobs because the restaraunts have to close as well. Sounds like a real smart economic decision there.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Friends and enemies alike feared the Gestapo.

TheNoNamedOne

09-27-2007, 12:57 PM

Muku

09-27-2007, 01:51 PM

_Immediately begin purchasing 15 percent of its pork from suppliers that do not use metal "gestation crates" to confine sows, and increase that to 25 percent by 2009.

_Purchase 2 percent of its eggs from suppliers whose hens are not kept in wire cages by July 2008.

Upon further review, this actually just looks like a token :rolleyes: gesture to appease PETA.

PETA said it has used media campaigns and behind-the-scene negotiations since 2000 in an effort to get fast-food and grocery chains
Like I wrote in my previous reply who knows what kind of negotiations went on "behind the scenes" or what tactics or threats were made by PETA to gain these concessions by this corportation.

Sounds to me like it's a public relations move by the company rather than one based on common business sense.

Fast food business's make their profits on volume sales, and any increase in overhead costs increases the final products cost. In the long run, this move could hurt them more than help, particularly in a cut throat industry like fast food where profit margins on individual units sold are very slim.

Unless of course the PETA people that pushed this through are going to make up the loss incured by increasing their purchases of Hardee's products:rolleyes:

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

09-27-2007, 05:44 PM

I agree Muku. It's PR. Hardee's has a rep (http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/012805.cfm) as a one of the 10-worst corporations (of 2004), a sexually suggestive ad in 2005, the Hugh Hefner ad campaign, and the flat buns (http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=5363) ad. They may well be looking for some positive press these days.:)

TheNoNamedOne

09-27-2007, 06:00 PM

I don't deny for a moment that PR has something to do with it. Of course it does! A PETA campaign can hurt the PR of companies. All sides are well aware of that, and Hardee's sure would not want to batter their image anymore than it already is.

Meeting PETA at the negotiation table and finally agreeing to some of their demands is most definitely good for the PR of Hardee's, good for PETA activists to embolden them more, and good by the animals that are affected by this step for making better conditions for their welfare.

But what does that say about the American public when agreeing to some demands from PETA means good PR for Hardee's, or any other company for that matter?

Muku

09-27-2007, 06:22 PM

But what does that say about the American public when agreeing to some demands from PETA means good PR for Hardee's, or any other company for that matter?
That all depends on the view of the person that is looking at it.

If Hardee's starts losing money because of this, it turns into a PR nightmare, agree with PETA and watch your business die.

good for PETA activists to embolden them more, and good by the animals that are affected by this step for making better conditions for their welfare.

It's white collar terrorism, and President Bush should hunt it out, as he has declared a war on terror.

Well this is just one more brand of it.

TheNoNamedOne

09-27-2007, 06:32 PM

It's white collar terrorism, and President Bush should hunt it out, as he has declared a war on terror.

Well this is just one more brand of it.

Oh funny!

Yeah, the Office of Homeland Security needs to be getting FBI agents incognito to attend PETA vegetarian rallies to protect us from Hardee's business plan going under. LMAO!

I could see these FBIs grimacing as they go to PETA functions eating tofu to blend in to hunt out the real terrorists -- PETA vegetarians with signs that picket businesses. Not like we don't have enough Al Quaida terrorists to worry about and spend billions on.

How much more effective would our terrorist ops be if we took money from the budget that could be applied to hunting down sleeper Al Quaida cells and apply them to PETA vegetarians weilding their brocali and picket signs.

Oh, you are funny, Muku, or you actually would be if the FBI were not doing just that. THEY ARE!

lol.

Muku

09-27-2007, 07:08 PM

I agree Muku. It's PR. Hardee's has a rep (http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/012805.cfm) as a one of the 10-worst corporations (of 2004), a They may well be looking for some positive press these days.:)
Interesting links, when I get more time I will read them through, thank you for providing them.

While we may agree on the PR campaign I think that we have different views on AR. Which is fine too.

I disagree with Hardee's bending to PETA only as a PR stunt. If they truly believed in what PETA was selling they should go all the way. Not a less than half assed approach as a token gesture to appease PETA.

I dont agree with strong arm tactics used by anyone or any group in forcing any business to change the way they "do business" when it has nothing to do with human life.

On that point I am fairly certain we dont agree either, but that's ok as well.:D

Muku

09-27-2007, 07:18 PM

Oh funny!

Yeah, the Office of Homeland Security needs to be getting FBI agents incognito to attend PETA vegetarian rallies to protect us from Hardee's business plan going under. LMAO!

I could see these FBIs grimacing as they go to PETA functions eating tofu to blend in to hunt out the real terrorists -- PETA vegetarians with signs that picket businesses. Not like we don't have enough Al Quaida terrorists to worry about and spend billions on.

How much more effective would our terrorist ops be if we took money from the budget that could be applied to hunting down sleeper Al Quaida cells and apply them to PETA vegetarians weilding their brocali and picket signs.

Oh, you are funny, Muku, or you actually would be if the FBI were not doing just that. THEY ARE!

lol.

Say what you want to say here, but the point is that groups like PETA use similar tactics that terrorists use. They use questionable tactics to influence peoples opinions. When the costs start running too high to keep it up, and the bottom line is in jeopardy I will bet that the agreement with PETA gets flushed down the toilet.

From an overall short term business standpoint it is cheaper for businesses like Hardee's to acquiesce to PETA's demands because fighting it in the court of public opinion costs too much money.

It is the same as businesses settling civil lawsuits out of court because the cost of litigation would cost more, even when the business have a great chance of winning the lawsuit. Litigation and advertising costs money.

DougP

09-27-2007, 07:19 PM

I miss those 6 dollar burgers at Hardee's :(

P_chan

09-27-2007, 07:21 PM

Here is what I don't get. Why should hardee's give in to these nut jobs? A majority of the extreme AR PETA members are vegans anyways. So why would they be eating at hardee's?

Sure hardee's shouldn't say 'go **** yourself' (as funny as it would be) and they should be mindful to people's beliefs. But I don't think that it would do that much to their business since most PETA members probably aren't their customers anyways. But then again they would probably start hanging around outside hardee's physically assaulting patrons with pies or something else juvenile like that.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

09-27-2007, 07:27 PM

Here is what I don't get. Why should hardee's give in to these nut jobs? A majority of the extreme AR PETA members are vegans anyways. So why would they be eating at hardee's?

I guess they feel it's a reasonable sacrifice to make to try and bring some positive press their way. I'm sure it went thru a cost/benefit analysis. The Hardee's / Carl's Jr. folks probably figure if they look like they use organic ingredients they'll pull in new customers, and it won't bother the regulars, as long as the price doesn't go up much. I can't imagine a business making a decision that would make them less competitive. They see some advantage to this action.

Muku

09-27-2007, 11:09 PM

I guess they feel it's a reasonable sacrifice to make to try and bring some positive press their way. I'm sure it went thru a cost/benefit analysis. The Hardee's / Carl's Jr. folks probably figure if they look like they use organic ingredients they'll pull in new customers, and it won't bother the regulars, as long as the price doesn't go up much. I can't imagine a business making a decision that would make them less competitive. They see some advantage to this action.
Or quite possibly they see the problems that fighting it would cause them to loose money through litigation.

as long as the price doesn't go up much
How much is too much?

P chan has a point, PETA's people are not going to fill the gap in the loss of sales that Hardee's is going to have due to the increase in prices. The customer is the one that gets the shaft in the long run.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

09-28-2007, 01:40 AM

OHow much is too much?

Only the customers can decide. They can and should vote with their feet and wallets.

TheNoNamedOne

09-28-2007, 02:20 PM

Or quite possibly they see the problems that fighting it would cause them to loose money through litigation.

Huh? What litigation? There is no court case here, nor is there one seen looming on the horizon.

Campaign to target them giving them bad PR? Sure, but that is not court -- unless you are referring to the court of public opinion. But still, that is a stretch from what litigation entails.

TheNoNamedOne

05-12-2008, 02:00 PM

If Hardee's starts losing money because of this, it turns into a PR nightmare, agree with PETA and watch your business die.

Seven months has past. Hmmm....I haven't heard of any PR nightmare yet for PETA due to Hardee's buckling to PETA's demands. Have you, Mu? LMAO!

I guess Hardee's bottom line has been handling it.

Trail

05-12-2008, 03:05 PM

Well, a Cup-O-Burger sounds pretty nasty if Hardee's were to follow PETAs direction. Vat grown protein.... :barf:

Isaak Brodsky

05-12-2008, 06:31 PM

...

Meeting PETA at the negotiation table and finally agreeing to some of their demands is most definitely good ...

Demands in negotitations sounds oxymoronic? Seems to me PETA bullies more than negotiates.

TheNoNamedOne

05-12-2008, 06:46 PM

Demands in negotitations sounds oxymoronic? Seems to me PETA bullies more than negotiates.

Not sure how they can really bully, since they are in the much weaker position in numbers and power. You mean like weaker in numbers and power that civil rights activists relied upon in different stages in their struggle when they won change? Or does activism, negotiation, and direct action automatically mean "bully"?

Muku

05-12-2008, 07:22 PM

Demands in negotitations sounds oxymoronic? Seems to me PETA bullies more than negotiates.

PETA buys a small amount of stock in a company that it has targeted for their actions, plan on attending a stock holders meeting and push their issues and the companies to save any long drawn out publicity fights with a shareholder no matter how minor.

No business wants to lose profits and PETA's activities are tantamount to blackmail....deal with us or look out for the Playboy Bunnies dancing around infront of your corporate offices in chickensuits.:rolleyes:

TheNoNamedOne

05-12-2008, 07:25 PM

That's chess. That is David marching out onto the field of battle to face Goliath.

Btw, what happened to Goliath?

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

05-12-2008, 07:39 PM

Sounds like some of our former military members still can't wrap their heads around the strategies and tactics that smaller, weaker forces use to defeat the giants that force their ways upon the masses. PETA is winning the battle of the minds...

Muku

05-12-2008, 08:04 PM

Seven months has past. Hmmm....I haven't heard of any PR nightmare yet for PETA due to Hardee's buckling to PETA's demands. Have you, Mu? LMAO!

I guess Hardee's bottom line has been handling it.

The agreements are not fully in place and the effects on the business is not known as of yet. Bottom line will not be seen until at least the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2009. You are ahead of yourself here, and I think you know that as well.

Guess you are going to have to wait that long to drag this thread up from the dead again.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Asshat

05-12-2008, 10:06 PM

Demands in negotitations sounds oxymoronic? Seems to me PETA bullies more than negotiates.

I'm far more impressed with the ladies living in base housing here who work so hard to take care of pets. Too bad they are not a tax-coded organization so I could donate to them, instead of the Big Buisness agencies!

TheNoNamedOne

05-13-2008, 01:09 AM

The agreements are not fully in place and the effects on the business is not known as of yet. Bottom line will not be seen until at least the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2009. You are ahead of yourself here, and I think you know that as well.

I dunno, Mu, the reports last year said Hardee's would begin purchasing pork from suppliers not in cages or crates. Didn't specifically say when that would start, but I would bet it has already begun. But you know what, I would still rather see them take a hit on the bottom line even with their agreement with PETA -- for whatever reason it may be e.g. pork prices, dairy, etc....

LOL! Looks like they are. Here:

Hardee's parent sees Q4, fiscal '08 profit plummet (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=ACBJ&Date=20080327&ID=8397353&Symbol=CKR)
March 27, 2008

CKE Restaurants Inc., parent of St. Louis' Hardee's Food Systems Inc., saw its profit dive in both the fourth quarter and the company's fiscal 2008 on higher costs.

You are right, though, I do think pork prices have not been the main, if any of the factor(s) contributing to their financial losses -- YET (Or weren't you the one who said they would and would result in lost jobs etc...?). But, I bet that will add to it soon.

Guess you are going to have to wait that long to drag this thread up from the dead again.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I am patient, Mu. And I also know that when I do post here again, as in many of my threads, you can't resist replying -- despite the numerous times you have said you are ignoring me, or have warned others to do so.

Cya around, Mu.