I'm sensing less outrage over this than when trader joe's made their chocolate chips dairy. Where are the snood-wearing potesters? And for all the good that did, this will do that much less.
That outrage was from CY consumers losing a Pareve product. Those consumers never cared about B&J.
Wasn't just CY consumers. Pareve products are very valuable in every kosher household.
Quote from: Lurker on July 20, 2021, 09:08:56 PMWasn't just CY consumers. Pareve products are very valuable in every kosher household.Indeed. Indeed. Cholent comes to mind.
Indeed. Indeed. Cholent comes to mind. Cholent as a product sounds oxymoronic
Parve cholent is moronic.
This puts them in a tough position as political activism was a part of their contract.
What remains to be argued out with the lawyers is whether that social mission gives them the right to end contracts and to not sell their product or does it only mean that they get to shoot their mouths off.
If their recent flavors and campaigns are anything to go by, they likely have some sort of (creative?) control over the products themselves and not just a spot in front of a loudspeaker.
That is nothing compared to licensing and where to sell.
100%. My point was that the social mission clause is more than just the ability to use the brand's name recognition as a bully pulpit. It's tied in (on some level) with the company's operations.
But still all messaging
Flavors and branding are messaging just as much as markets. Operations are definitely in play. It's just a question of how detailed their agreement is and what it includes.
