Talk:Denny's

Survey

One of Denny's franchisees announced that they would add a 5% surcharge to all checks to help pay for the additional costs resulting from Obamacare. (See this as an example) It was covered by a variety of sources. There are currently three trains of thought regarding how, or if, this information should be added to the article:

Option 1: Include a long description of the issue. An example of a proposed addition to the article:

In November 2012, John Metz of RREMC Restaurants LLC of West Palm Beach, Fla., a franchisee that operates Denny’s and Dairy Queen, said that in response to the Obama Administration's Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), he was considering adding a 5% surcharge to checks, and suggested that guests decide whether to reduce the waiter tips by that amount.

John Miller, Denny’s chief executive, said that this was the decision of a franchisee, not the corporation. “Unfortunately, the comments of this franchisee, who represents less than 1 percent of our system and who owns restaurants in other concepts, has been portrayed as reflective of the entire Denny’s brand,” Miller said.

Metz issued a retraction, saying that his position was not representative of the Denny’s brand or of other franchisees, which they are not.”

“Our stores do not have a 5-percent surcharge,” Metz said in a statement. “RREMC Restaurants is committed to exploring viable and effective ways to deal with the changing economic climate, including the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We have always been and will continue to be 100-percent dedicated to our employees and customers and will work tirelessly to find solutions that are in their best interests. It is our intention is to fully comply with the law."^[1]

Option 2: Include a short description of the issue in the Controversy section. An example of a proposed addition to the article:

In November 2012, John Metz of RREMC Restaurants LLC of West Palm Beach, Fla., a franchisee that operates Denny’s and Dairy Queen, said that in response to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, he was considering adding a 5% surcharge to checks. John Miller, Denny’s chief executive, said that this was the decision of a franchisee, not the corporation.^[2]

Option 3: Do not mention the issue at all in the article.

• Option 2 I believe that since the information is covered in a number of reliable sources, the issue should be described in the article. However, I think it is a very small issue within the scope of Denny's as a whole. The decison which sparked the coverage was by a franchisee of 30 locations, which is less than 2% of the company's locations. Also, the company itself denounced the decison as not being representative of the company. I will re-quote WP:UNDUE: "...discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." I think this perfectly describes this situation, where a flurry of reporting was made in a short period of time, but is very low in the overall significance to the topic of the article, namely the Denny's corporation. The other proposed edit in option 1 is approximately 13% of the article, which is much too great for this issue. I suggest 1-3 sentences max to explain the situation, but avoid going into great detail. Angryapathy (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Option 3. Five years from now, will this still seem important to mention? If it were a corporate policy, maybe, but the ill-advised comments of a franchise-owner (which he later retracted)? Might as well add the info to the Florida article, since he lives and does business there. As for the story being covered by a number of news orgs, this is because it was newsworthy; but as outlined in WP:NOT#NEWS, newsworthy does not equal encyclopedia-worthy. Richigi (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Option 2 only with conditions: This is an action by the franchisee not by the corporation so we should take care not to make an undue connection to Denny's when it could be any franchise and just happens to be Denny's. The notable connection to Denny's is their denunciation of the action, not the action itself. Emphasis should be on the corporate response not the surcharge or the franchisee's arguments for adding it.

  In November 2012, John Miller, Denny’s chief executive, distanced the corporation from the position of a Denny's franchisee in Florida who was considering adding a 5% surcharge to checks to cover costs of complying with the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Miller said this "perspective is not shared by the company."

Jojalozzo 02:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If that's too much weight, I'm fine going with option 3. Jojalozzo 02:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Option 3 - Again, it is not about Denny's but a licensee of the company. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Option 3 - Close call for an option 2, but I agree with the arguments above. We don't normally cover individual franchises, chapters, etc. On the other hand, what the article does need is a good trim for promotionalism: "for the first time ever" "in all 50 US states" and "largest international development deal yet" and the Controversy could be summarized slightly. User:CorporateM 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Angryapathy. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 04:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Option 2, rewritten. Say Denny's and Dairy Queen restaurants, add the *number* of restaurants, and before the CEO's disclaimer say that there was considerable outcry (surely a source can be found for this). Then say the CEO distanced the corporation from those remarks x days later. That's my take. Elinruby (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC) PS - the fact that this is Florida and the man suggested reducing tips may be worth briefly noting as well.

• Option 3 Entertaining as it might be to start adding to Denny's, McDonald's, Burger King and other articles "A franchisee once got a bit of publicity by saying he might do something daft, but the company didn't like it and he probably wouldn't have done it anyway." NebY (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion