Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Toyota or toy Yoda?

This is topic Toyota or toy Yoda? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000398

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 07-28-2001, 09:55 AM:

Star Wars fans will love this story from the St. Petersburg Times.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-28-2001, 12:11 PM:

I'd sue them too if I was her.
Mark

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-28-2001, 12:27 PM:

That would've been funny if about 2 minutes later the manager put a set of car keys in her hands, but that's just wrong!

In case this link goes bad, here is the text from the www.sptimes.com website:

Dream car is a ‘toy Yoda’

A Hooters waitress says a promised
Toyota prize turned out to be a green
subcompact - Yoda.

Jodee Berry won a drawing at the Hooters in Panama City
Beach, where she used to work. She says she was
blindfolded and led to the parking lot. When the blindfold
came off, she was looking at Yoda.

©Associated Press

PANAMA CITY, Fla. -- Oh, what a feeling. Toy Yoda!

A former Hooters waitress has sued the restaurant where
she worked, saying she was promised a new Toyota for
winning a beer sales contest.

Instead she won a new toy Yoda -- the little green Jedi
master from Star Wars.

Jodee Berry, 26, then a waitress at the Hooters in Panama
City Beach, won a contest to see who could sell the most
beer in April.

Manager Jared Blair told waitresses that the contest was a
regional promotion, according to the lawsuit, and that the
top 10 waitresses from each restaurant would be entered in
a drawing. The person whose name was drawn would win a
"new Toyota automobile," the lawsuit says Blair told them.

In early May, Berry said, Blair told her she had won.

"I couldn't believe that out of all the girls who were entered,
I was the winner," Berry said.

She was blindfolded and led to the restaurant parking lot.
When the blindfold was removed, Berry wasn't looking at a
new car, but a Yoda doll.

Berry said she looked beyond the $40 toy, hoping to see the
car driving around the corner. Blair, she said, was inside the
restaurant laughing. But she wasn't.

"A corporation can't lead their employees on like that,"
Berry said. "It's not good business ethics. They can't do that
to people."

Berry quit the restaurant a week later.

She sued Gulf Coast Wings, owners of the restaurant,
alleging breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation.
She is seeking as compensation, the cost of a new Toyota --
the car.

Her lawyer, Stephen West of Pensacola, said he was also
looking at false advertising statutes.

West said one other Hooters waitress verified Berry's story.

Berry said Blair knowingly misled them through the course
of the contest by telling the employees he didn't know what
kind of Toyota it would be -- whether a car, truck or van.
The suit contends that he also told them the winner would be
responsible for the tax on the new automobile.

West said those statements would go a long way toward
defeating any defense argument that Berry misunderstood
Blair.

The restaurant regularly had contests where management
would come through with the promised prize, said Berry,
who worked at Hooters for about a year before quitting.

Stuart Houston, a spokesman for the company, said it had
not been served with the lawsuit yet and he would not
comment. "

Posted by Steven Pickles (Member # 785) on 07-29-2001, 02:05 AM:

A radio station I worked at for two years did a similar stunt but on a much larger scale and for an even smaller Yoda. The morning show decided that on April Fool's Day that they would put out the word that they needed so many random items from stores across the county and the first person to make it to the station with the items and receipts would get a 2000 "Toyota." Low and behold someone made it there with everything--and receipts. The host put the woman on the air and was asking her about the car and about what kind of car she has now and if she has any children. She says that she has two and is always worried about her current car breaking down. Well then they hand her a Yoda keychain with some keys (uncut, mind you) on it. She was upset at first but then eventually laughed about it. Good sport.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-29-2001, 02:29 AM:

HA HA HA! There is simply NOTHING funnier than getting someone's hopes up and then letting them down! We are so evolved! ALL humor should be based on this nut-busting premise! HA HA HA!

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 07-29-2001, 11:01 AM:

Our industry is not one that should throw stones. Do a web search on William Castle, the book "Glam Scam", the book "Fatal Subtraction: How Hollywood Really Does Business," or just ask around for war stories.

In the Hollywood version of the story, the waitress would have been on a half-dozen casting couches, invested her tips and inheritance from her mother in a flop film, been made to "star" in a few nude pornos, and then been given the doll.

BTW, To see how strange Hollywood is and how people relate to that strangeness, take a visit here and click on a few links.

Posted by Geoffrey Weiss (Member # 882) on 07-29-2001, 11:30 AM:

I'm with Joe! Just because it happens all the time doesn't make it right. Hooters already exploits women. A friend who applied for a job there said that the manager told her there was one uniform size--small--and that it was "suggested" she not wear a bra to increase the number and amount of tips she received from male customers.

If corporations--or individuals for that matter--insist on treating people like merchandise and fucking them at every opportunity, then I say sock it to them! I hope she gets a top-of-the-line Landcruiser and enough in punitive damages to retire!

End of screed.

Sorry, but this kind of thing really sticks in my craw.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-30-2001, 09:20 PM:

Oh, here we go with the "exploiting women" thing again. You know, for being soooo exploited, they sure do line up for applications, don't they. If they're so darned exploited, those two guys from Waverly, Iowa would not have had the employee base to turn their idea into such a successful chain. That's like saying they're exploiting those poor people on the island in "Survivor", making them eat bugs and rats. I personally love this story. People are so sue-happy these days. What ever happened to a good joke? It doesn't sound as if she invested anything personally into the hopes of getting this car. She probably didn't even get very embarassed, based on the nightly work uniform she's was used to wearing. She just saw the opportunity for dolar signs. Anyone who thinks this is a sick joke needs to lighten up and have a good laugh. And yes, if it happened to me, I WOULD laugh about it. That's what makes a joke funny for others, and sometimes you take one for the team so to speak all in the name of humor.

In summary: Bravo Hooters! I love your wings (6 mile island if I'm feeling brave), and I love your waitresses!

------------------
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" - Homer Simpson

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 07-31-2001, 05:46 PM:

I agree that it seems a little odd that an employee would win a car for a promotion like that but what the fuck are you going to do with a forty dollar toy Yoda? Of course you're going to see dollar signs (or even gift certificates, or the equivalent), when contests are held. Otherwise, why work harder? Where's the incentive in working for a toy that's useless to you unless you're a Star Wars geek? I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. There's no team attitude in pulling shit like that and I don't think ANYBODY would laugh about it unless they really like being picked on.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-31-2001, 06:41 PM:

I say therer is a big difference between the radio station's scam and the Hooters scam.

The radio station didn't say that there would be a car for the winner, only a "Toy-Yoda" Even if they said, "2000 Toy-Yoda", they still didn't say, "car".

On the other hand, Hooters DID say, "car" or "automobile". They took the girl out to the parking lot, which is a place you would expect to find a car. They even bolstered the claim by saying that this was a regional promotion, in which many people would participate. Most people understand the concept that you can't get something for nothing, but when you throw in the "regional" thing you are tricking people into dropping their guard. Everybody knows that sales contests are really a gimmick to make money for the company. One could reasonably expect that the money to pay for the car would come out of the profits from the contest. To top it all off, the manager said that the winner would be responsible for paying the taxes. Again, there's another thing that a reasonable person might expect to happen when you win a contest. It's a standard disclaimer that's plastered all over the end credits of every game show on TV... "Winner is responsible for any and all taxes on prizes won." Again, they even said, "...taxes on the automobile."

Maybe the girl could have checked out the story first. Often these kind of promotions are published in the company's newsletter. My company actually DOES have a contest where the winner gets a car. It's plastered all over the fron pages of our company's newsletters. However, Hooters used multiple tricks to make people let down their guard.

Okay, so I buy in to the Hooters "dumb blonde" stereotypes. Why else do you think guys go there? For the food? Even somebody who ISN'T your stereotypical Hooters waitress (and, yes, there are many) might be easily tricked into thinking that there was a real Toyota CAR involved.

Another thing! The radio station can get away with it... even IF they said (or implied) there was a car. The reason is simple... APRIL FOOL!!!

Posted by Paul Turner (Member # 832) on 08-01-2001, 12:29 AM:

Recontextualize the story. What if this happened to a nurse at a children’s hospital? Your wife? Sister? Mother? Does that change how you feel about what happened to the “victim”? “Hooters” exploits women by objectifying them. The place ain’t called “In Depth Philosophical Discussions.” It’s called “Hooters,” or if ya wanna cut the shit, the place is called “Tits.” It exploits the idea that women are nothing more than what hangs in front of them. It’s a comfortable place for men who lack the depth to see women as more than their parts. And yes, these women choose to work there and it’s no mystery why. Men make more money than women. Take a man and woman of the same age, education, and abilities and you will see the woman will make form 25-33% less than the man (and they get to pay the same to live). So, if you have bills or kids or tuition to pay for, showing off the rack for a bunch of losers who can’t get close to attractive women any other way suddenly becomes an option.
I raised three daughters and everyday had to deal with teachers, other parents, and a general American attitude that women are nothing more than breeding stock. How many fathers out there can relate to how it feels to have a middle-aged man checking out your teenage daughter (dressed for winter) while standing in line in Safeway with HER FATHER? It’s places like “Hooters” that contribute to that mind-set.
It doesn’t mater if she was a serial killer or Mother Teresa, she was lied to, then laughed at. I guess she should just get back into the restaurant and shake her tits and forget about the whole thing, like a good little wench. Would you tell your mom to do that?
Before you label me as some asshole liberal, let me say that I am an asshole liberal – who is 6’ 4”, wears a crew cut, happens to ride a Harley, will fight tooth and nail for the second amendment, and thinks tofu looks like something pulled out of the sink drain – and will do everything he can to see his daughters gets the same chances you do.
It all comes down to your perception. Is this person a victim, or a Hooter’s waitress with no sense of humor? Replace the person suing Hooter’s with a loved-one and see how you feel.

Posted by Paul Turner (Member # 832) on 08-01-2001, 03:52 PM:

Note to self: Do not post when I've just gotten the news the ice machine is DEAD and I need a new one AND having just gotten off the phone with my daughter after her day of job interviews. Sorry for the rant.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 08-01-2001, 03:58 PM:

Why be sorry for the rant? I thought it was pretty well-worded and concise. I ought to be a good judge of rants, I've had lots of practice.

Posted by Geoffrey Weiss (Member # 882) on 08-01-2001, 06:28 PM:

I appreciate not being the only gun-toting, bleeding heart liberal on the forum. Though I do love a yummy bit of tofu every once in a while. Perhaps you just haven't had it prepared well.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-01-2001, 07:02 PM:

Tofu is conservative food? I've never tried it and don't plan to. I am not political at all... I ally myself with NO parties! None of them represent all of my positions anyway.

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 08-01-2001, 07:26 PM:

That's it....give her Joe's nose. Brad's face (The latest one). Randy Stankey's sense of humor, all the profits fom Ian's Theatre complex for the next 25 years. and call it even. Maybe even Steven ? (What do you think ?)I'm listening..................

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-01-2001, 07:44 PM:

Hey! Bob, now that was uncalled for. I can't believe you would insult me like that. I am obviously much more funny than Randy Stankey! How dare you!

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 08-01-2001, 08:01 PM:

Joe,

I do because I am, aren't you because you are?

Bob

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-02-2001, 03:24 AM:

Yeah!

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 08-02-2001, 09:39 AM:

When you spend as much time by yourself, behind the wheel as I have been lately you don't have an outlet for the strange thoughts that come across your mind. They sorta' build up on you after a while!

That and a steady diet of Bugs Bunny and Woody Woodpecker cartoons when I was growing up.

Well, thanks for the vote of confidence, Bob... I think...

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 08-02-2001, 11:03 AM:

Your welcome, Randy but have you noticed how much Joe looks like Andrew? He just keeps morphing...........

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 08-02-2001, 08:59 PM:

I think Joe is really just a formless blob of protoplasm that doesn't have a shape of its own. He just takes on the shape of the last person he comes into contact with.
There is one (rather large) exception, though... the NOSE. Haven't figured that part out, yet.