

How Papa John's could have saved $250MM - ashrust
http://blog.sendhub.com/post/35712734203/how-papa-johns-could-have-saved-250mm

======
patdennis
I think it's important to point out that the potential liability from a class
action lawsuit such as this is not the same thing as actually owing $250
million.

And it's not like they're going to pound out a resolution to this in a timely
manner.

Still, it's a lot of trouble and legal fees for no good reason.

~~~
ashrust
Agreed, we just want to make sure people know text marketing can be done
correctly, so it's good for business and consumers.

------
stephengillie
That blog post left a bad taste in my mouth. It's a post without substance --
pointing out one company's dirty laundry, then making the claim that they'll
never do the same.

How do we know they won't? Why even raise the question or put the doubt in our
heads?

~~~
ashrust
Their dirty laundry? It's a story we found on CNN. We're trying to let people
know - both consumers and businesses - they are right ways of doing text
marketing, and gave some bets practices on how to avoid the getting into
trouble.

Maybe Papa John's won't change but a quarter billion sounds like a strong
motivator to them and others.

~~~
stephengillie
It's funny that you're linking to the HuffPo version of the AP story you found
on CNN ;)

And there you go again. You must really dislike Papa John's or their CEO. Is
it a political reason or a civil one?

~~~
ashrust
I don't eat pizza (paleo diet) but I miss it. We have no problem with Papa
John's as a whole but this practice is bad for the growing text marketing
business we're a member of and working hard to keep clean and useful for
everyone.

No politics, just business.

------
dude3
Gross negligence by lawyers. I will get 1 cent from this lawsuit while lawyers
will get 75 million. Folks this is why America is losing its competitiveness.
Why not send the money wasted on lawyers to communities through simple
arbitration and refund the costs of the texts to the customers. It's not like
anyone was severely harmed. Not to mention this frivolous lawsuit costs
society millions through court costs etc etc. We reformed healthcare, now its
time for frivolous lawsuit reform (wait that will never happen).

~~~
otakucode
Go ahead, you do that.

And tomorrow, I am going to start a company which will inundate you with
illegal text messages because your declared stance makes violating those laws
very profitable.

What most people refer to as "frivolous lawsuits" are absolutely necessary. If
I am a business owner, and I find out that my product hurts or kills people,
but that my legal liability for that is less than the cost of fixing the
product, especially in America today, I am legally bound to continue hurting
and killing customers. It's that simple. Cost-benefit. If it costs $2 million
to stop hurting people, and $1 million to settle the lawsuits, the business
continues hurting people as a cost of doing business.

The solution to this problem is called punitive damages. When a company does
something which society actually wants to stop them from doing in the future,
they HAVE TO levy a fine against the business large enough to make it cost-
ineffective to continue their behavior. Public opposition to "frivolous
lawsuits" and whiny opposition to people 'winning the lottery' with large
punitive damage settlements hurt us all. Goldman Sachs, for example, has been
caught breaking the law half a dozen times or so, ripping off the public to
the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. In response, the FTC has
investigated them over and over, and every time the response is to fine them a
piddly $5 or $10 million because public outcry over fining them $5 billion or
whatever is actually necessary would be too great. So Goldman Sachs accepts
that as a cost of doing business and continues raping the economy.

This is not theory. Automobile companies were caught doing this in the 70s.
The cost of producing reliable cars was so much more than simply settling a
few lawsuits each year at a million bucks a pop. How do you stop them? Ask
nicely? No, if its profitable for them to do things which cause peoples
deaths, then they could be sued for negligence if they knowingly changed their
business practices and harmed the investments of their shareholders.

~~~
dave5104
I'm not super convinced that it's so easy to calculate how much money the
business will be losing, though, to "fix" the problem vs. settle it in court.

Sure, it might not matter for Goldman Sachs, but wouldn't a very consumer-
centric company like Papa John's risk losing business in the long run if they
have a crappy reputation? I'd be more concerned about public perception of my
company. Or am I too naive?

------
pkdevil
I am suddenly seeing a lot of negative stories on Papa John's - on reddit and
now on HN - over the last few days. Did I miss something in the news?

First, I saw a boycott thread on reddit and now this news about the lawsuit.
As far as I can tell, all these actions seem to have kicked off after the
election results due to the anti-Obama stance of "Papa John". Can someone help
me with a link that is the source of this current backlash?

~~~
ashrust
You mean apart from the ads with Peyton?

~~~
pkdevil
Nope. I have not seen any of those ads. I will go and check it out.

------
itsmequinn
Could have used that $250 million to pay for big bad Obamacare that papa
claims will force him to cut employee hours.

~~~
peterw846
Yes, agreed. Or also just a lot more pepperoni to spice up those garbarge
pizzas.

------
chadrs
$250MM - profits from pizza deals sold to mobile users

------
jessriedel
Why two M's in $250MM?

~~~
seanstickle
M => a thousand, as in Roman numerals.

MM => a thousand thousands, i.e. a million.

Commonly used in accounting and finance.

