Their announcement below:
"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 award the grand prize of $5000 in athletic equipment to a traditional school with the unfortunate knowledge that many schools are removing physical education from their curriculum. Knowing this, we would be able to impact as many children as possible with this prize.
To address the inadvertent limitation of our current contest and provide an opportunity for even more kids to have the benefit from prizing that encourages physical activity, we are creating an additional contest in which home schooled students will be encouraged to participate. When the kids win, everyone wins!
Source
"Inadvertent"???? A whole sentence crept into their promo without them being aware of it?? They sure know how to insult the intelligence of their customers!
My previous comment on this matter was on May 27
21 comments:
Hello Good Gentles All!
"We sincerely apologize to anyone who feels excluded by our current essay contest."
The home schooled students did not FEEL excluded; THEY WERE EXCLUDED.
Typical non-apology similar to "I am sorry if anyone misunderstood what I said." In other words, we are not sorry for what we did or said but merely sorry that you saw through our attempts to pull a fast one.
Frankly, I am more offended by such non-apologies than I usually am by the original offending action. If one is sorry then one should properly apologize. This sort of thing is simply adding insult to injury.
"Our intention ... (blah, blah, blah)"
It took their spin people this long to come up with this lame of an excuse?
The non-apology continues.
"To address the inadvertent limitation of our current contest ..."
They inadvertently, deliberately excluded all home schooled children nationwide.
"and provide an opportunity for even more kids ... that encourages physical activity, ... in which home schooled students will be encouraged to participate."
I will be curious to see exactly how they restrict the next contest.
"When the kids win, everyone wins!"
Now that we are done saying a whole lot of nothing and not really apologizing for anything, let's end on a high note.
BTW, who doubts that the home schooled kids will win? (This assumes they will be given an equal opportunity and graded fairly.)
Pax,
InFides
When I first saw this post when it broke I did not see the big deal and still don't. The prize was to be given to a school that the child attends. The kid who won was not getting $5K the school was. How was Subway going to give one hone schooled kid $5K in gym equipment? This is the same thing as cutting the box tops so that your school can reap the benefit. This practice has been around since I was a kid. In the changing role of schools and kids being home schooled does not fit the old model. I applauded Subway for recognizing this change and make room for a home schooler to get something. It still does not change the fact that Subway was trying to do a good thing by donating $5K in gym equipment where it would benefit many children. Maybe Subway needs to change it from giving the equipment to schools but to local community parks. I think everyone is making a big deal out of nothing.
You missed the point Dave. Subway, along with the leftist teachers unions, is against the entire Home Schooling concept and "deliberately" excluded them! Only after being busted did they do a "quick" turn around.
No you don't get it. The program is designed to give a bunch of kids free stuff. If they give the gift to a home schooler they give it to one child. Grow up, get out of the basement. This isn't a huge conspiracy. And I will prove it too you. Ask Campbell soups if they will give the free items schools get for save labels if they are home schooled. The answer would be no!!!!
Join me in repeating Star Trek .. 'the needs of the few' or something like that... point is the program is designed to help schools, not individuals.
I'm all for home schoolers and I think it is needed but the witch hunt has to stop. We are starting to look just like the left wing nuts. Subway saw a wrong and changed it so why the beef??? If they did nothing then I am on board for the chastising but they did the right thing.
Subway did not exclude home schoolers, geeze. Lighten up!
First they explain why it was deliberate, then they insist it was inadvertent, all in the same press release. Sigh.
I believe the explanation re their initial intent; the subsequent clumsy attempt at spin sounds like a corporate p.r. person educated beyond their abilities.
You missed the point Dave. Subway, along with the leftist teachers unions, is against the entire Home Schooling concept and "deliberately" excluded them!
What proof do you have that Subway is against "the entire home schooling concept?"
It is clear what happened her. Subway saw a need in schools and tried to address that need with a contest. Of course the contest brings hits to their site, advertising, etc.
The problem, as Dave notes, is that they wanted to have the top prize of $5000 to impact many kids, and not just one kid.
That was their DELIBERATE reasoning behind the contest.
Somewhere someone said "uh..... what about kids that addend home school or are individually tutored?" The corporate offices probably responded with "we want to help as many kids as possible, so limit the contest to those types of schools."
Their deliberate thought was to impact many kids. In constructing the rules to make sure that many kids were impacted, they inadvertantly excluded a group of individual kids.
Dave is dead spot on with this one - this is much ado about nothing.
How can a 'subway' tell lies? people lie. an inanimate object can not lie. a restaurant, a sandwich can not speak except...."eat me"
a sandwich can not speak except...."eat me"
I don't know about that. I was in a sandwich shop the other day and one foot long roll said to a Kaiser roll, "hey... nice buns."
The Kaiser roll immediately filed sexual harassment charges.
subway is not, nor should be in any education business. that's like the pope or annie owens teaching sex ed. too extreme.
We have to give Subway a break, after all most of their top management went to public schools and they most likely didn’t realize that words have meanings.
As for giving the equipment to an individual kid home schooled, how about if a home school kid wins, they can donate it to whatever organization that they want to. So it could end up in a local Church’s playground or a private school nearby, or even a local community playground like the one near me. That one’s equipment was so old that they tore it all out. Now all that is there is a box, 40 feet by 40 feet and 6 inches deep, filled up small bark. There are lots of ways that a prize to an individual can become a group prize!
Mobius
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Gitarcarver!
"The problem, as Dave notes, is that they wanted to have the top prize of $5000 to impact many kids, and not just one kid.
That was their DELIBERATE reasoning behind the contest."
I think the issue is that they could have addressed this concern without excluding an entire cohort of children.
That is the basis of our concern and the fact that Subway wanted to help many children does not mitigate that concern when such an obvious solution as requiring the equipment be donated to the home schooled child's school of choice was an option.
"Somewhere someone said "uh..... what about kids that addend home school or are individually tutored?" The corporate offices probably responded with "we want to help as many kids as possible, so limit the contest to those types of schools."
In other words, lock them out rather than accomodate them with a quite simple rule adjustment.
Pax,
InFides
"As for giving the equipment to an individual kid home schooled, how about if a home school kid wins, they can donate it to whatever organization that they want to. So it could end up in a local Church’s playground or a private school nearby, or even a local community playground like the one near me."
Yes, they could have done that. But which option is simpler, excluding homeschoolers or dealing with homeschoolers designating who should receive the prize? The first option seems simpler, which is probably why they went with it. It's the KISS principle in action.
The fact that they did not have to be browbeaten before they admitted that their choice was not a good idea suggests that the Subway management has some integrity. The fact that they've already started work on a contest which can include homeschoolers tells me that they do not actively oppose homeschooling.
Therefore, I suggest that we will gain far more traction by accepting their actions as simple shortsightedness and forgiving them, than by continuing to beat them up, treating them as an enemy, and actually turning them into an active enemy.
Home schooled children have parents/guardians that CHOSE to exclude them from the mainstream. Subway should not have felt the need to include them. Dave, I agree with you.
-Ferndale Fanny
That is the basis of our concern and the fact that Subway wanted to help many children does not mitigate that concern when such an obvious solution as requiring the equipment be donated to the home schooled child's school of choice was an option.
How is it an option?
Let's say that Subway declares some homeschooled kid the winner of this contest and the "school" the kid puts down is actually the fake name he and his siblings call their homeschool. Now what?
Subway has declared him the winner. He gets his prizes.
Period.
There is no way out if it.
In other words, lock them out rather than accomodate them with a quite simple rule adjustment.
Not at all. There is no "rule" that could be enforced here. If the kid wins, and lies about the "school" of choice, there is nothing that Subway can do about it.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Gitarcarver!
"Let's say that Subway declares some homeschooled kid the winner of this contest and the "school" the kid puts down is actually the fake name he and his siblings call their homeschool. Now what?"
It sounds like the child deliberately broke the rules of the contest and could therefore be legitimately disqualified.
When a winner breaks the rules there is no obligation to allow him to remain the winner.
"Not at all. There is no "rule" that could be enforced here. If the kid wins, and lies about the "school" of choice, there is nothing that Subway can do about it"
Hmm. "Qualifying schools will be those institutions recognized and certified by the state board of education."
Seems quite easy to construct a rule to handle this. Some refinements might be necessary but I am in no way convinced that this problem is intractible.
Hello Ferndale Fanny!
"Home schooled children have parents/guardians that CHOSE to exclude them from the mainstream."
True. The parents deliberately chose to privately educate their children at considerable expense and effort in order to provide what they believe is the most appropriate education possible.
Subway chose to deliberately exclude and thus offend and thus allienate millions of children, their parents, their friends and well wishers.
I am not arguing that Subway has no right to construct whatever contest it wishes according to whatever criteria it feels is appropriate.
We all make choices and we live with them. Subways choice was, at least from a PR standpoint, ham-handed and unnecessary. They further compounded their mistake by offering an apology that was not really an apology at all.
Had Subway made any effort to consider what the upshot of their exclusionary behavior would be I am sure they would not have done so.
I accept the nobility of their behavior and I impute no nefarious motives to their actions.
As a French politician once said of a collegue who was caught in a criminal act, "It is worse than a crime. It is a blunder."
Pax,
InFides
It sounds like the child deliberately broke the rules of the contest and could therefore be legitimately disqualified.
When a winner breaks the rules there is no obligation to allow him to remain the winner.
Sorry, but they have declared the kid the winner. You can try and disqualify the kid, but that would be a nightmare in public relations. Secondly, once you declare the kid the winner, you've made a contract with them. The kid can break the contract because he is a minor, but Subway cannot. They have to honor it.
Seems quite easy to construct a rule to handle this. Some refinements might be necessary but I am in no way convinced that this problem is intractible.
You are now reaching into the realm of having two contests. Two sets of rules for two different types of kids. That is another nightmare.
Also, there is nothing that Subway can do now in that they can't change the rules of the game once the game has started.
So they did what they could. They apologized and said that in the future they will construct their contests to "leave no child behind." Why that isn't good enough for people is beyond me. Why is it that we expect people to accept our apologies when we make intentional or unintentional errors, but when others apologize, we automatically attribute bad motives to them?
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Gitarcarver!
"Sorry, but they have declared the kid the winner."
Irrelevent. Ask Marion Jones to explain it to you.
"You can try and disqualify the kid, but that would be a nightmare in public relations."
Hmm. "In fairness we cannot allow a child to break the rules. It saddens us but we feel that we must be fair to all participants. We must therefore disqualify X because he did not play by the rules."
This matter can be handled. First by attempting to get the family to comply with the rules before even going public. In any case, who would blame Subway for enforcing the rules by which all participants agreed to play?
"Secondly, once you declare the kid the winner, you've made a contract with them. The kid can break the contract because he is a minor, but Subway cannot. They have to honor it. "
Wrong on the facts. Read the entry form and you will see that parental information and consent is required. The contract binds the child through his parents.
"Contest is open only to legal US residents, over the age of 18 with children in either elementary, private or parochial schools that serve grades PreK-6. Home schools not eligible."
The parents are entering the contest, not the children. The contract is enforceable in law.
"You are now reaching into the realm of having two contests. Two sets of rules for two different types of kids. That is another nightmare."
No, one set of rules for all. I am not making two contests.
"Also, there is nothing that Subway can do now in that they can't change the rules of the game once the game has started."
Agreed. I am not suggesting they should.
"They apologized ..."
Hmm. I deliberately break your arm and you know it. Would you consider the following an acceptable apology?
"I am sorry you feel your arm was broken."
"We sincerely apologize to anyone who feels excluded by our current essay contest."
They are apologizing for how you feel and not for what they did or their behavior.
"...and said that in the future they will construct their contests to "leave no child behind."
Agreed. Commendable. They are attempting to repair the damage done by their inablility to think ahead.
I accept their apology despite its being not really an apology at all. I assume that it was well intentioned and I am prepared stand on that assumption until Subway proves it to be false.
Pax,
InFides
Irrelevent. Ask Marion Jones to explain it to you.
Marion Jones is not a minor.
This matter can be handled. First by attempting to get the family to comply with the rules before even going public. In any case, who would blame Subway for enforcing the rules by which all participants agreed to play?
The same people that said that Subway was against homeschooling.
No, one set of rules for all. I am not making two contests.
Actually you are. You are making a set of rules for the awarding of prizes. That is two separate rules and therefore two separate contests.
Hmm. I deliberately break your arm and you know it. Would you consider the following an acceptable apology?
Irrelevant. You are assuming that Subway deliberately excluded homeschoolers from the promotion instead of them not being able to participate as an unintended consequences.
Wrong on the facts. Read the entry form and you will see that parental information and consent is required. The contract binds the child through his parents.
You know, you're right. So the thought that Subway was excluding a bunch of kids isn't correct, is it?
After all, it is the PARENTS that are the contest participants.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Gitarcarver!
"Marion Jones is not a minor."
Not at all the point and you know it. Though I admire your attempted evasion of the actual point rather than answering it. BTW, as an example, if a child is determined to have cheated on the national spelling bee contest I assure you he will be disqualified, minor or not.
"The same people that said that Subway was against homeschooling."
As I said, "I am not arguing that Subway has no right to construct whatever contest it wishes according to whatever criteria it feels is appropriate."
Further, I never said that Subway was against home schooling. I said that they were fools to create such a PR nightmare unneccessarily. I also commented that to exclude such children is profoundly unfortunate and that perhaps they should consider their actions more carefully.
Lastly, in my letter to Subway I suggested that if they are going to continue to treat home schooled children in this exclusionary manner that I would have to abstain from buying their products.
It appears that they are attempting to put things right and I am not prepared to withhold my custom since they clearly want to be fair to all.
I am speaking to a bad PR mistake that they are attempting to correct that should not have been made in the first place.
"Actually you are. You are making a set of rules for the awarding of prizes. That is two separate rules and therefore two separate contests."
As I said some refinement might be necessary. The rules can easliy be set so that students declare the school for which they are competing and then the equipment goes there. This is not a calculus problem. I have written far more complicated contracts than this. There is nothing difficult about this; any first year law student could handle it.
"Irrelevant. You are assuming that Subway deliberately excluded homeschoolers from the promotion instead of them not being able to participate as an unintended consequences."
Please read the actual rules. (Here they are again, though I have already posted them once.)
"Contest is open only to legal US residents, over the age of 18 with children in either elementary, private or parochial schools that serve grades PreK-6. Home schools not eligible."
I repeat, "HOME SCHOOLS NOT ELIGIBLE." (Emphasis added so that you may see it clearly.)
I fail to see how this can be interpreted as anything other than a deliberate exclusion of home schooled children. Please explain how this can be interpreted any other way.
"You know, you're right. So the thought that Subway was excluding a bunch of kids isn't correct, is it?
After all, it is the PARENTS that are the contest participants."
I suspect that you having fun with me since the children are acting through the consent of the parents and to ban one is to ban the other.
Are you just pushing my buttons? If so, I salute you. If not, then your argument is inexplicable.
Pax,
InFides
P.S. As always, an excellent debate.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Gitarcarver!
I feel I should also address a point you argued that I neglected. You indicated that attempting to bring home schooled children into future contests would create PR problems.
Let us consider what PR problems are created by your arguments.
"Let's say that Subway declares some homeschooled kid the winner of this contest and the "school" the kid puts down is actually the fake name he and his siblings call their homeschool. Now what?"
Your solution:
We have decided to exclude home scooled children because they might be liars or cheaters.
Oh dear. This blanket aspersion cast on all home schooled children (without justification) I am sure will be a much greater PR problem than actualy dealing with cheating should it even happen to occur.
"You know, you're right. So the thought that Subway was excluding a bunch of kids isn't correct, is it?
After all, it is the PARENTS that are the contest participants."
Hmm. Your honor I did not steal the money, I stole the bag. The money just happened to be in it.
This sort of legal word play might be offerred in a court of law (btw, the argument would fail) but this matter is being adjudged in the court of public opinion.
Everyone will see through this argument as merely the same sort of legalistic word play as arguing what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
In summary, you seem to be arguing that it is preferrable to have a guaranteed PR problem rather than to deal with a potential PR problem should it happen to occur.
If one bad outcome is a certainty and the other is only a possibility (not even a likely one as most people are honest) then opt for the possibility and deal with it if it should happen to occur.
I have no doubt that if you are adamant in your desire to exclude these children that you are smart enough to rationalize a set of excuses sufficient to do so.
I also have no doubt that if you desired to allow these children to compete honorably and fairly that you could construct a set of rules sufficient to do so.
Subway wants as many children to compete as possible in future contests and has stated so publicly. Even they admitted the error of their ways.
I am convinced Subway will be able to overcome all the objections and rationalizations you might concoct.
Pax,
InFides
It may be easy now to say so, with the benefit of time to think things over, but Subway could have instead put in a clause that says if a home schooled kid wins the contest, the equipment goes to a school with a campus of the winner's choice, or to a local park of his choice. That way, Subway ensures that many children will benefit from the equipment, while avoiding the needless exclusion of home-schooled kids.
Post a Comment