I’ll certainly concede this point if others concede the impact or implications of a single Twitter post 
Doesn’t matter if overall sales are up. How’s 43% YoY for actual data?
They have cut their effective customer base in half, if not more by showing their faces as far from the ethics minded company they have always claimed to be.
Don’t expect ethics from any business.
1 Like
That’s the motto of my business.
The only way is ethics.
I generally don’t, but that is their base and their niche. They tout themselves as a “plant-based, eco-friendly” company, which caters more to left-minded people, who are exactly the type to be appalled at their behavior. Those visiting bars and flouting the lockdowns right now are more right-wing, and the type you’d generally expect to scoff at the idea of eating “vegan powder”.
And I stand by my belief that those statements are always empty coming from any business. So I’d ignore them. If someone wants to believe it, then that’s their right.
I don’t. But I do expect a company with “Don’t be a dick” painted on the wall of their office not to pull such a shallow, self serving, cheap, dickish publicity stunt in the middle of a global health crisis for a bit of shit off brand coverage in a rag like the Daily Mail. And then boast about it.
1 Like
Google once had a motto “Don’t be evil”.
Irrelevant. This a forum about Huel, not Google. 
That’s fair. I was making an allegory that Huel’s “Don’t be a dick” is as meaningful as Google’s “Don’t be evil”.
You truly are a one man pun-demic. Chapeau!
Some friends of mine actually trademarked pundemic in August for paper goods, playthings and educational and entertainment services. Good shout on their part.
they did - but then they became an evil empire and explicitly instructed employees to use the quote again and removed any reference to it from their portals
My take on this is that if the landlords of the pubs involved are complying with the Covid regulations in place AND also complying with their own licensing stipulations and local authority health and safety regulations for the preparation and serving of hot food, then they are perfectly entitled to do so – regardless of what anyone thinks.
If they do not in any way meet any of these, then that’s a big issue. Given the track record of the British publics behaviour regarding social distancing in pubs during the pandemic – that seems quite likely and I think Huel would have been better served from an image POV not touching this with a barge pole or at least clarifying publicly that they do not condone any potentially unsafe – or illegal – practises in these kind of premises.
This would have still afforded them some PR potential whilst avoiding any kind of backlash.
Ironically – according to licensing stipulations, they could have simply served some ‘gourmet’ potato chips on a plate along with any store bought ambient dips in bowls and that would have satisfied both the minimum requirements for what is categorised as a substantial meal in law as well as negating the need for additional hygiene requirements for preparing and serving hot food.
Hi all, firstly a massive apology from us at Huel. We had no intention of exploiting the rules, none whatsoever, but yes we can see how that looks to some people. Never for a moment would we want to put more people at risk of this pandemic, or alienate some of our most loyal Hueligans, we’re so sorry for that.
I want to give you a bit more backstory and context for this.
We launch a lot of PR ideas to the media, some land some don’t. Our intention here was to be part of a wider conversation that was already ongoing about which meals pubs could serve and that show Huel is substantial. We appreciate that this is divisive, with some people loving the idea but some not. We got interest from a lot of media for this idea (Independent, The i, Joe.co.uk, MSN, Metro, the Daily Mail and others) and the story ran on Monday. It was our idea which we then amplified further on our social media channels.
We supported one pub after contacting a small number of pubs. The tweet we sent asking people to nominate other pubs was met with very little response, there was one nomination. We have not contacted more pubs to get them involved. There is currently only 1 pub offering Huel as a meal and we won’t be pursuing it
But, we know this doesn’t address your questions of our principles and values and we know you do not agree with us that this activity should have happened or was allowed. We wouldn’t have done this if we didn’t think it was within the restrictions. We’ve read the viewpoints of you all here and those on our social pages - negative and positive - carefully. Our hearts were in the right place, but as I’ve said it’s so important for you to tell us otherwise, we massively appreciate your feedback and always take it on board - many here can attest to that. In the future we will remind ourselves of this thread because actually we hadn’t considered many of your perspectives and that’ll make us more cautious when pursuing different PR and marketing opportunities. Just so you know we’ve removed the tweet encouraging others to nominate pubs, so nothing more will be done going forwards.
5 Likes
And this is exactly where the government realised they screwed up and why they issued an additional clarifying statement on 29th November. They hadn’t done their research properly and weren’t aware there was an existing legal precedent defining a “substantial meal”. Of course by this point all the media discussions about scotch eggs, sandwiches, etc were in full flow so there was practically no coverage on the clarification statement.
The clarification statement reiterates that all pubs that open must be operating as a restaurant, meaning that they serve a full breakfast, lunch or evening meal menu which must be a table meal and would qualify as a main meal. Alcohol can only be served as an accompaniment to that meal and any customers must drink up and leave once they have finished eating that meal. Which is why all the discussions about substantial meals are irrelevant. The government moved the goalposts after they realised how crap their original guidelines are.
So now we have the ridiculous situation of 4 housemates sat at a pub in Soho sharing a basket of chicken wings and claiming it counts. And I am still of the opinion that offering 3 flavours of H&S doesn’t make any pub a restaurant.
Reading the news this morning it seems this whole discussion is irrelevant as many of the tier 2 wet led pubs that reopened with various solutions to the food requirements are now closing again. The combination of reduced tables because of social distancing, restrictions on who can visit (households or support bubbles) and the food requirements which mean drink sales are limited means many are seeing takings drop by 75-85%. By the time they’ve paid staff, heating and lighting costs the losses mean it’s not viable to open.
How contrived.
“We wouldn’t have done it if we hadn’t thought we could get away with it, never mind the ethics”
You did what you thought would make you the most money and have already revealed that to be your ethos. Money, money, greed, greed. You are only apologizing because you are worried about the sales and nothing more. This won’t convince me. I’ve already cancelled my subscription and I’m not coming back. You guys aren’t the only option on the market anymore.
Above is yet another resource for Huel alternatives for those still unconvinced by this pandering apology, you can filter out soy even, as well as sort by price.
Get over your self. It’s getting boring now, you’ve said you’re not buying Huel anymore, so why keep on stressing when someone replies to the thread?
4 Likes
Huel has never been the only option on the market, nor have they been the first to the market. They got where they are now thanks to the quality of the product, with focus on nutrition first and taste second (to the displeasure of many, but this is the niche Huel picked) and competitive pricing.
If you wish to move away from Huel based on some ethics, which are fake in every business, that’s your choice. Most of us repeat customers pick based on nutrition though.
4 Likes