Jared from Subway

No one said Subway is going under. "In trouble," yes, for this and other reasons. "Going under," no.

 

Because people might find it distasteful to be associated to a company/brand/product that has links to a child pornographer?

Because every time they walk in the shop or order their turkey and swiss, their mind conjures images of small children being violated?

Basic marketing brand association concepts-- applied in the most negative, reverse intention fashion.

 

I just put it out there as an opinion.
From a business standpoint I think they put too many eggs in the Jared basket for too long.

When the stuff came out several years ago about the porn ring in college, that might've been a good time to re-brand ??? Just a thought...

By the way, Jimmy John's was also mentioned in addition to Chipoltle, as a reason Subway was struggling before any of this happened.

Subway was planning a new ad campaign with Jared bringing his kids to Subway. "Healthy food choices"... "Jared the family man" etc etc. At least they hadn't launched that yet.

 

Wait, so the prison rape jokes are verboten, but the child molestation jokes are on point? Between this and the "I believe she believes she was raped" stuff, you're not covering yourself in glory here, Dick.

 

Meh. Subway diversified it's pitchman portfolio quite a bit with all the pro athletes who have been hawking it for a few years now. Jared won't be a blip on its business.

 

I think Lugnuts's point was that there is inherent risk in a public company hitching its wagon to an actual person and not a symbol/character/mascot whose story it can control. Not that Subway should have seen this coming.

 

Right... You got it Ty.

 

This is beyond ridiculous at this point. I get a little irritated when the right screams "political correctness!" at ever turn, but that's what this has become: people clutching their pearls in a rush to be on what they believe is the "right side" of something.

I believe her. I believe she believes she was raped. She may or may not have been. We haven't heard from the possible defendant yet. He hasn't even been charged. Did he think she had consented? I don't know. I know that consent can be a gray area, so much so that "affirmative consent" laws are being passed to clear it up.

In light of that, how far are you willing to go with it? Do you just, well, believe her? No need to hear from the other side? No need for the evidence to roll in? That's that for you?

 

Also that he viewed pornography in college.

 

But doesn't that apply to any company that ever hires a spokesperson, Lugs?

I wonder if Lily from AT&T worked with Suzy Favor as a call girl. I hope AT&T asked her about that.

 

What do we really know about Flo?