Yeah seriously. Drop this garbage in the same file with all those stories about communities who came together to cover someone's insane medical bills or outrageous legal defense.
Are you being sarcastic? Or are you saying that not having local access to a particular brand of doughnuts is the same hardship and moral travesty as having to pay a crippling medical bill?
what? The parent wasn't claiming equivalency of the severity of the issue - instead the brokenness of a society that resorts to this flavor of solution or response.
He's saying these feel good stories only exist because of terrible situations to begin with. The company C&Ded him but after public backlash changed that heart. The hospital gave a patient an $800k medical bill after the insurance company refused to put her baby on the insurance but they magically could after publicity. The ability to get publicity and bad press should not be the arbiter of fair treatment, fair treatment should be the norm not the outlier.
I am just bothered by the idea that the common folk have to explicitly police these corporations to do the right thing. This kind of justice allows people to risk bad policies just because they might, on the off-chance, get away.
I think that's only one aspect of the current arrangement. At one of the extremes is the rise of the cancel culture. A subset of people have learned that if they complain loud enough, even in small numbers, corporations will bow to almost any demand. These corporations seem completely devoid of any kind of rational arbiter for such decisions and are purely reactionary.
Unfortunately it's a very real boogeyman in the US.
"The U.S. has the highest liability costs
as a percentage of GDP of the countries
surveyed, with liability costs at 2.6
times the average level of the Eurozone
economies"
"Today, we reached out to Jayson to express our appreciation for good PR and admiration for not getting bad PR," a spokeswoman for Krispy Kreme tells CNN regarding their recent total 180.
I won't pay twice the price (disregarding that the restaurant price is probably already twice the price of getting it at Costco), but I may just grab a water.
You mean the price of Coke and Pepsi vs Big Shot cola?
I would prefer buying nothing at all vs dunkin donuts. I guess I would pay double for Krispy Kreme because to me we are talking about something I want vs something I never want even for free(Dunkin).
It's Dunkin now. They too hip and trendy for donuts, you pleb. Forget that Dunkin got started by providing working class people garbage coffee with warm donuts. It's all upscale now and they don't need no donuts, or Onion bagels.
Edit: Pepsi and Coke taste worlds different. I don't prefer either but they do have massively different flavor profiles.
There is a vast difference in the style of doughnut between a regular glazed krispy kreme and a glazed dunkin. It is a big enough difference that they almost don't seem like the same product. Not saying one is automatically a lot better, but people have really strong preferences that make sense given the difference in style.
> Clearly i was referring to just buying donuts from a different shop.
Clearly.
Clearly, the response referred humorously to the fact that the brand and specific preparations of the raw materials can matter to consumers, for various reasons.
I grew up in Minnesota, and Krispy Kreme was legendary while they had stores here. Schools and workplaces would commonly bring in hot, freshly-baked donuts to motivate students and employees.
And then Krispy Kreme left the state. After that, it became common for university students to do fundraisers where they drive to the nearest out-of-state Krispy Kreme to fulfill orders. Of course, now the donuts are not hot after the 250-mile drive, but the brand is still very powerful.
I just don't understand why Krispy Kreme doesn't open just ONE store in Minneapolis. Maybe we don't have the demand to fulfill one hundred stores, but only having one store would be clearly profitable.
This is the sort of calculus that's prevented White Castle from expanding westward for so long. They just last week opened their first family-owned location west of the Mississippi, in Scottsdale, and they claimed they were only comfortable doing that because the two franchised locations in Vegas had forced their supply chain hand enough that they would be able to piggy back off of that.
I also recall my parents grabbing these from the local cub foods for us but I guess Cub stopped selling Krispy Kreme at the turn of the decade. Anyway that kid is gonna get easy money if he has a monopoly on the entire state.
Btw just realized I follow you on twitter, always interesting to see your thoughts and tweets.
In any case it seems like he needed the money to pay for college so he ran a side hustle. The only thing that's remarkable here is, when found out, he used social media to turn it into a PR issue which in turn forced Krispy Kreme to deal with it on PR terms rather than legal ones.
Why criminal terms? He did nothing wrong, he decided to serve a market the abandoned and it is not a crime for him charging more than Krispy Kreme does due to his value add (Transportation).
yes but his use of social media, forced Krispy Kreme to react publicly
> By 21 years old I think you're no longer a "kid".
Neurological development continues well into your twenties. I don't know what it means to be a 'kid', but someone in college seems like kid could still be reasonable depending on context.
Sure, but I don’t think this publication was thinking about that. Call me jaded, but I feel like they were more thinking “hey can we call him a kid to get more page impressions?”
I'm nearly 40.. I have a 2 year old and a 9 month old. I still feel like I'm a kid sometimes. I def. make stupid decisions. But to a 16 year old I'll always be old, and 80's music is now classic rock and oldies....
Is it just me or is Krispy Kreme really trigger happy with its lawyers? I only have two points of data - this and Froggy Fresh.
But still, are there any companies out that that don't care to fire off petty lawsuits when people use their name or resell their product at small scales?
Like, if I made a unicorn called "Hukino" and then 10 years later some YouTuber used that as his rapper name or some college students made "HukinoOS" or someone started reselling my widgets in the arctic... would it kill my company if I just ignored them? Is there a precedent of a company not aggressively protecting its IP getting screwed over?
I'm just trying to imagine a world where companies like Nintendo don't instantly axe projects like Chrono Resurrection/Pokemon Uranium/AM2R/etc. because that's the kind of world I want to live in.
I mean, there are the famous cases of Xerox and Kleenex. They're what led to the current situation. I can't think of any more recent examples, though. Probably because of lawyers trained on those results.
In your case, it would be a problem because you need to defend your copyright in order to keep ownership of it.
But in this case, the guy isn't making a different product with the same name, he's just reselling the bloody product. So this has nothing with trademark protection, just their "quality standard", as if people buying the donuts from his trunk didn't know that they spent 4 hours in his car before getting there...
I'm happy for the kid and surprised KK didn't see the backlash coming but there's also something that makes me a little uneasy about this. Deciding not to sell in a market seems like a totally reasonable decision and it seems just a little too easy to exploit social media blowback for individual profit.
66 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] threadhttps://outline.com/CaUjCw
Not being able to get your preferred doughnut?
Although that kid should try out renting a bigger car.
Liability is used as a boogyman in corporate american to squash all sorts of good and bad ideas.
"The U.S. has the highest liability costs as a percentage of GDP of the countries surveyed, with liability costs at 2.6 times the average level of the Eurozone economies"
https://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/uploads/sites/1/ILR_...
It’s dough and sugar, the name on the box is meaningless.
They do taste pretty good do Krispy Kremes!
I don't really care about this, but Krispy Kreme donuts taste much better than Dunkin Donuts.
I would prefer buying nothing at all vs dunkin donuts. I guess I would pay double for Krispy Kreme because to me we are talking about something I want vs something I never want even for free(Dunkin).
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: Pepsi and Coke taste worlds different. I don't prefer either but they do have massively different flavor profiles.
Agreed. This is why I don't bother with CPUs from Intel or AMD. I just pour sand onto my motherboard.
Clearly.
Clearly, the response referred humorously to the fact that the brand and specific preparations of the raw materials can matter to consumers, for various reasons.
And then Krispy Kreme left the state. After that, it became common for university students to do fundraisers where they drive to the nearest out-of-state Krispy Kreme to fulfill orders. Of course, now the donuts are not hot after the 250-mile drive, but the brand is still very powerful.
I just don't understand why Krispy Kreme doesn't open just ONE store in Minneapolis. Maybe we don't have the demand to fulfill one hundred stores, but only having one store would be clearly profitable.
Btw just realized I follow you on twitter, always interesting to see your thoughts and tweets.
In any case it seems like he needed the money to pay for college so he ran a side hustle. The only thing that's remarkable here is, when found out, he used social media to turn it into a PR issue which in turn forced Krispy Kreme to deal with it on PR terms rather than legal ones.
yes but his use of social media, forced Krispy Kreme to react publicly
2) using the Krispy Kreme name
Neurological development continues well into your twenties. I don't know what it means to be a 'kid', but someone in college seems like kid could still be reasonable depending on context.
But still, are there any companies out that that don't care to fire off petty lawsuits when people use their name or resell their product at small scales?
Like, if I made a unicorn called "Hukino" and then 10 years later some YouTuber used that as his rapper name or some college students made "HukinoOS" or someone started reselling my widgets in the arctic... would it kill my company if I just ignored them? Is there a precedent of a company not aggressively protecting its IP getting screwed over?
I'm just trying to imagine a world where companies like Nintendo don't instantly axe projects like Chrono Resurrection/Pokemon Uranium/AM2R/etc. because that's the kind of world I want to live in.
Read: "Don't say Velcro" campaign
But in this case, the guy isn't making a different product with the same name, he's just reselling the bloody product. So this has nothing with trademark protection, just their "quality standard", as if people buying the donuts from his trunk didn't know that they spent 4 hours in his car before getting there...
<Laughs in First Sale Doctrine>