OK, folks. Today’s topic has a lot of dimensions, so we’re going to spend the next 700 words taking good measure of the situation.
At issue: When you’re standing in line at an eatery being offered a $5 footlong, are you going to be satisfied with 11 inches?
Springdale’s Vincent Gotter apparently wasn’t. He filed a lawsuit earlier this month claiming Subway sandwiches he bought in January from a store in Springdale weren’t as long as promotional materials promised.
Now, before you say “You’ve Gotter be kidding me,” let us assure you there’s some real meat to the story.
Gotter isn’t alone in his tape-measure tabulations.
filed in New Jersey and Chicago making the same claims.
Apparently, this wave of sandwich shenanigans arose a man Australia posted an online photo showing how his Subway fare didn’t measure up to the footlong name.
News spread faster than Apolo Anton Ohno on skates.
Subway knew it was in a pickle. Its leaders had to acknowledge that size, indeed, does matter.
“We have redoubled our efforts to ensure consistency and correct length in every sandwich we serve,” the company said in a statement to the Chicago Tribune, which covered a Chicago man’s lawsuit over a diminutive sandwich. “Our commitment remains steadfast to ensure that every Subway Footlong sandwich is 12 inches at each location worldwide.”
For those in Europe, that would be a $5 30.48-centimeterlong. The jingle there isn’t nearly as catchy.
Subway Australia chipped in a response, too, calling the Subway Footlong a “descriptive name for the sub sold in Subway restaurants and not intended to be a measurement of length.”
Subway getting peppered with lawsuits isn’t so half-baked. After all, the chain itself called in 2011 for Casey’s General Stores to stop using “footlong” as a description for its own 12-inch sandwich and reportedly threatened to sue. Casey’s argued the term was generic. The matter never went to court.
This isn’t a bunch of baloney. In Arkansas alone, more than 30 million footlong Subway sandwiches were sold in the last three years, according to the Arkansas company that runs restaurants. At an average price of more than $5 each, sales totaled at least $151.1 million.
The lawsuit seeks designation as a class action, meaning the attorneys could be assigned to represent thousands of people whose meals Gotter suggests came up short.
The courts have far more important matters than to go through a lengthy process of bun length verification. What’s next? Will the band Nine-inch Nails have to prove those extensions go beyond 8 3 /4-inches? Will E! Entertainment Television actually be expected to entertain?
Our local weather men could go broke in a world like that.
The effects of this could ripple throughout advertising. An area gym promoting its “no judgment zone” might have to get people to sign contracts assuring they will render no critical evaluation of other customers.
These are nuisance lawsuits that remind us of the litigation years ago in Northwest Arkansas in which former Fayetteville alderman Ron Austin sued Braum’s Ice Cream Stores after a cup of hot chocolate spilled while retaining the qualities that allowed the product he purchased to be called “hot” chocolate. A federal judge threw out the case.
Subway, of course, should respond to its customers’ concerns and maintain quality control so, inch by inch, it can regain their trust. Ludicrous litigation will only make the cost of sandwiches, at whatever length, go up.
Darn, that only took 585 words. So sue us.
Opinion, Pages 5 on 02/26/2013