Forbes exposes the great pizza lie.

[techs]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...care_n_2123207.html?utm_hp_ref=money&ir=Money

http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebme...lionaire-papa-john-schnatters-obamacare-math/

Caleb Melby of Forbes has graciously done the math on Obamacare’s cost to Papa John’s and according to his analysis, to cover the cost of Obamacare, the pizza chain would have to raise prices by 3.4 to 4.6 cents per pie -- way less than the 11 to 14 cents Schnatter claims he needs.

He estimates that Obamacare will end up costing his company $5-8 million annually.

In September, the company announced that it would be giving away 2 million free pizzas. That was, of course, a promotion designed to increase brand awareness and to invite consumers to try the brand — with the ultimate goal of selling more pizzas. Those giveaways can’t really be cataloged alongside sales that would have been made otherwise. But just in case you’re curious, that would be the equivalent of $24 million to $32 million in pizza revenue.

Cliffs:

Obamacare will cost substantially less than Papa Johns CEO has claimed.

Its about 4 cents on average per pie. Yes FOUR FREAKING CENTS.

That's a yearly cost to Papa Johns of 5-8 million dollars. Their free pizza giveaway costs 24 to 32 millon dollars.

Forbes is not left wing magazine. It as right wing capitalist as they come.

 

[Ausm]

Yeah Poor Papa john is on his way to food stamps...sniff sniff

 

[michal1980]

Yeah Poor Papa john is on his way to food stamps...sniff sniff

jealous?

envious?

Guy made something millions enjoy. and once again you on the left hate success.

 

[Exterous]

Interesting that he decided to look at total revenue and total expenses. Why is he trying to calculate total cost per pizza by basing his calculations on a number that includes drink, bread etc sales, royalty and franchise fees here and overseas? By doing so his math is clearly going to be off on a per pizza calculation

Also - I think there is a problem comparing a straight revenue loss with a marketing expense (something designed to increase revenue). It should be further noted that the calculations on how much it will cost Papa John's is based on hypothetical revenue lost were someone to actually order and pay for those 2 million free pizzas but decide not to because of the deal. It does not reflect the actual cost to Papa John's of the pizza. They cheaped out adn did easy, lazy math. (The coupon is good for a pizza $12-16 in value so they just took $12 and $16 and multiplied them by 2 million)

Forbes may not be left wing but that does not mean the analysis gives the complete accurate picture

 

[Thump553]

jealous?

envious?

Guy made something millions enjoy. and once again you on the left hate success.

You may call it hating success, I call it hating heavy-handed propoganda based on lies.

 

[techs]

Interesting that he decided to look at total revenue and total expenses. Why is he trying to calculate total cost per pizza by basing his calculations on a number that includes drink, bread etc sales, royalty and franchise fees here and overseas? By doing so his math is clearly going to be off on a per pizza calculation

Also - I think there is a problem comparing a straight revenue loss with a marketing expense (something designed to increase revenue). It should be further noted that the calculations on how much it will cost Papa John's is based on hypothetical revenue lost were someone to actually order and pay for those 2 million free pizzas but decide not to because of the deal. It does not reflect the actual cost to Papa John's of the pizza. They cheaped out adn did easy, lazy math. (The coupon is good for a pizza $12-16 in value so they just took $12 and $16 and multiplied them by 2 million)

Forbes may not be left wing but that does not mean the analysis gives the complete accurate picture

Yes, calculating in things like soda, bread and other items would have lowered the increase on the cost of just pizza I think they chose it stand alone to give some idea of the increased cost in the simplest way possible.

So, yeah, the cost is actually LESS per pizza than in the article.

As to the marketing costs of the free pizza the article does go into how its not a one to one loss and that it is designed to bring in new busieness. The article says its only quoted to give some idea the relationship costs of the health care portion to a single marketing promotion.

 

[Exterous]

So, yeah, the cost is actually LESS per pizza than in the article.

Well, it depends on how you look at it. I imagine that Papa John's did the math to figure out what the total cost would be if just absorbed by pizza sales. I take issue with him saying the math is wrong when it could very well be right and his comparison is a poor one because he uses total revenue to calculate cost per pizza

As for the cost being less - we don't know that. There may be many static agreements (EX: negotaited and contractually agreed on Franchise fees) in place that do not allow PJ to increase their revenue from that source, increasing the need for higher cost per pizza calculations. The real answer, when taking in to account the avenues that Papa John's can use to increase revenue, likely lies in the middle

 

[nageov3t]

I, for one, am surprised that business owners are unwilling to accept lower profits when they could reduce expenses instead.

 

[waggy]

I, for one, am surprised that business owners are unwilling to accept lower profits when they could reduce expenses instead.

amazing i know. just shocking.


I was watching fox (yeah yeah) and they had a women talking about this. she kept bringing up that they have manning in a commercial. she would compare the cost of that and say it they should stop so many commercials and they wouldn't have to add the "surcharge".

WTF what a idiot. if you don't have ads you won't have as much coming in. ugh

I understand why papa johns is doing it. i do think how they are doing it is wrong and stupid.

 

[Ausm]

You may call it hating success, I call it hating heavy-handed propoganda based on lies.

^^

 

[PokerGuy]

What kind of idiot compares the cost of money spent on marketing/promotions (ie, money spent on something that's supposed to ultimately lead to higher profits beyond the cost spent on the marketing/promotion) to the cost of something that provides absolutely no benefit to company?

I don't know who Caleb Melby is, but he's obviously an idiot if he thinks he knows better than the guys who actually run the company and have access to all the internal cost information what things actually cost.

As usual, idiot liberals want to boycott or otherwise punish companies for taking the very logical rational steps that everyone should expect them to take. Raise their costs, and they will have to pass it on to consumers. They'll take steps needed to reduce their burden (like cutting hours, laying off people) in the face of additional expense.

 

[PokerGuy]

amazing i know. just shocking.


I was watching fox (yeah yeah) and they had a women talking about this. she kept bringing up that they have manning in a commercial. she would compare the cost of that and say it they should stop so many commercials and they wouldn't have to add the "surcharge".

WTF what a idiot. if you don't have ads you won't have as much coming in. ugh

I understand why papa johns is doing it. i do think how they are doing it is wrong and stupid.

People who are stupid don't understand the difference between spending on something designed to make more money (tactical or strategic spending) versus additional expenses that do not bring any additional profit.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I don't know who Caleb Melby is, but he's obviously an idiot if he thinks he knows better than the guys who actually run the company and have access to all the internal cost information what things actually cost.

He's a journalist and not an accountant, yet he knows everything about running a restaurant chain. I'm sure that was part of his journalist degree program at Northwestern.

 

[PokerGuy]

He's a journalist and not an accountant, yet he knows everything about running a restaurant chain. I'm sure that was part of his journalist degree program at Northwestern.

Of course he knows better than those who actually run businesses, he's a liberal, they think they know everything better.

 

[soulcougher73]

I, for one, am surprised that business owners are unwilling to accept lower profits when they could reduce expenses instead.

I, for one, am surpised that business owners hate their employees health and well being who make them money so much that they cant take a small hit to their overall profits without throwing a shit fit.

I love making insane profits off the back of hard working serfs.

 

[PokerGuy]

I, for one, am surpised that business owners hate their employees health and well being who make them money so much that they cant take a small hit to their overall profits without throwing a sh*t fit.

Of course you're making the (incorrect) assumption that obummercare actually will do anything to benefit the employees and their health. Since it won't, it's perfectly rational for a business owner to be unhappy about losing income and having to lay off people for no good reason.

 

[waggy]

I, for one, am surpised that business owners hate their employees health and well being who make them money so much that they cant take a small hit to their overall profits without throwing a shit fit.

I love making insane profits off the back of hard working serfs.

that's why people get into business. to make profits.

why should I as a business owner take reduced pay? i am the one takeing the risk. i am the one who is financially at risk.

i don't get the thinking that business owners shouldn't make a profit on the business.

this has nothing to do with hateing the worker. it's all about money..

 

[shira]

Of course he knows better than those who actually run businesses, he's a liberal, they think they know everything better.

Well, you right-wingers obviously know much more about climatology in general and man-made climate change in particular than thousands of climatologists, so why would you doubt the ability of liberals to accurately estimate the added cost per pizza of health insurance premiums of known cost for a known number of employees for a known number of pizzas?

 

[Exterous]

Well, you right-wingers obviously know much more about climatology in general and man-made climate change in particular than thousands of climatologists, so why would you doubt the ability of liberals to accurately estimate the added cost per pizza of health insurance premiums of known cost for a known number of employees for a known number of pizzas?

Did you even bother to read the article? The number of pizzas is not known by the author nor was it used in the calculations

 

[emperus]

that's why people get into business. to make profits.

why should I as a business owner take reduced pay? i am the one takeing the risk. i am the one who is financially at risk.

i don't get the thinking that business owners shouldn't make a profit on the business.

this has nothing to do with hateing the worker. it's all about money..

Nice straw man argument. Except no-one is arguing businesses shouldn't make a profit. People are arguing that instead of making excessive profits, you should pay your employees a living wage and provide health care. This used to be part of the social contract between employers and employees. Now, it's become a race to the bottom, in terms of how much compensation an employer can cut and a race to the top in terms of how much compensation the employer can reap. i.e. Mitt Romney and making millions while decimating jobs and destroying companies.

How is this good for anyone in the long term. Profit over People right?

 

[waggy]

Nice straw man argument. Except no-one is arguing businesses shouldn't make a profit. People are arguing that instead of making excessive profits, you should pay your employees a living wage and provide health care. This used to be part of the social contract between employers and employees. Now, it's become a race to the bottom, in terms of how much compensation an employer can cut and a race to the top in terms of how much compensation the employer can reap. i.e. Mitt Romney and making millions while decimating jobs and destroying companies.

How is this good for anyone in the long term. Profit over People right?

they want more pay get a real job? to be honest working in a pizza parlor is for teens/college kids. who hopefully are learning a real trade.

these are unskilled positions. right over min wage is right pay for them. Anyone who is working one as job to support a family has failed life.

A business owner is in it to make profit. EVERY one set's out to make insane profits.

it's the reason we put up with the stress, risk, and hours.

 

[PokerGuy]

Well, you right-wingers obviously know much more about climatology in general and man-made climate change in particular than thousands of climatologists, so why would you doubt the ability of liberals to accurately estimate the added cost per pizza of health insurance premiums of known cost for a known number of employees for a known number of pizzas?

Complete fail as usual. Nobody outside the business has more accurate numbers about their expense structure, their sales, their benefit costs, their employment structure and so forth than those actually running the business. Further, if you'd actually read the article you'd see that the author doesn't really know the actual number of pizza's sold and didn't use it to calculate anything. He basically made some assumptions, looked at some of the high level disclosed financials and came up with a guestimate, and then thinks it's more accurate than what the guy who actually runs the business estimates. Typical moron.

I have no problems with climate scientists or whatever conclusions, I have a problem with the idiots who have usurped the science to push their big government liberal eco-kook agendas.

 

[PokerGuy]

Nice straw man argument. Except no-one is arguing businesses shouldn't make a profit. People are arguing that instead of making excessive profits

Define "excessive". Who decides what's excessive?

you should pay your employees a living wage and provide health care.

You're asking companies to act irrationally. Why would any company pay more for something than they have to, and risk getting crushed by their competition for doing so? If companies don't pay enough, the workers are free to leave and work for someone else who does. Wages and benefits are generally determined in a labor marketplace. Companies don't just randomly pay more than the market rate any more than you pay more than the asking price when you buy something at the store.

 

[Ausm]

they want more pay get a real job? to be honest working in a pizza parlor is for teens/college kids. who hopefully are learning a real trade.

these are unskilled positions. right over min wage is right pay for them. Anyone who is working one as job to support a family has failed life.

A business owner is in it to make profit. EVERY one set's out to make insane profits.

it's the reason we put up with the stress, risk, and hours.

Would you classify a person who has limited intelligence but works their ass off to provide for their family in this generalized boat?

 

[nageov3t]

the "living wage" concept always seemed fundamentally flawed...

if I own a pizza store and 6 of my employees are high school students while 1 is a father of two, do I have to pay them all a living wage even though the students are dependents of their parents and their basic needs are already taken care of? or do I pay the father more than the students, even though they're all doing the same job?