Sworn testimony is evidence given by a witness who formally commits by oath, affirmation or promise “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Although nearly every owner can likely recite that solemn oath by heart, it seems equally unlikely that very many owners ever considered: What is the difference between the Truth and the Whole Truth?

Truth is typically ascribed to anything that aims to represent reality or facts that otherwise correspond to justified beliefs - it is the opposite of falsity. The Whole Truth is the full, unvarnished and absolute truth about something without any omissions, embellishments, or alterations - it is the opposite of a Half-Truth. A Half-Truth includes elements of Truth, but also uses deceptive elements, such as the use of equivocation fallacies or imprecise words with double meaning, that are intended to evade, blame or misrepresent the Whole Truth. It is important for every owner to understand these distinctions, and to ask a lot of questions to ensure that they are fully and fairly informed of nothing but the Whole Truth.

On Friday the 13th in November 2020, CVP of Sales Strategy Kyle Jordan emailed an interesting Product Supply Update to assure owners that “demand outpacing supply is frustrating for PF”, and to provide owners with “transparency on the challenges PF is facing and the actions PF is taking to improve the consistency of product supply.” VP Jordan’s Product Supply Update is an excellent example of a Half-Truth.

The Product Supply Update outlines various facts and justifications for PF’s protracted production problems. VP Jordan even states that “I can assure you that PF is also working hard to optimize its network to best respond to demand” - but he omits any reference to how much consumer demand actually exceeds PF’s manufacturing capacity. The omission of that material fact is most likely due to PF’s ongoing efforts to evade the burning issue, which centers on PF's continuing refusal to honor its express promise to promote our DSD sales over central warehouse sales for itself. PF's discretion to allocate product proportionally was never intended to force DSD owners to compete against PF for sales.

Although the global pandemic has landed us all in uncharted territories, every version of our consignment contracts contemplated precisely this sort of unprecedented spike in demand. The proportional allocation formula was NOT  intended to require that owners have an advanced degree in Statistical Analysis - it was originally intended to put every owner on an equal footing using only simple arithmetic: the difference between PF’s production capacity and our orders based on actual consumer demand divided by the number of DSD owners. DSD owners like us assess current consumer demand in our retail chains up to 6 days a week, and that demand is accurately reflected in the weekly DSD orders that we submit to PF - not historical sales information which does not even exist for new owners, and is otherwise irrelevant to current consumer demand for the limited supplies of best-selling varieties.