6 ms·

McDonald's is in a fortunate/unfortunate position in that they can afford to have an ad campaign based upon honesty, because the unvarnished truth is still a lo

McDonald's is in a fortunate/unfortunate position in that they can afford to have an ad campaign based upon honesty, because the unvarnished truth is still a lot better than the stuff that an awful lot of people already believe about them. I've heard many of these urban myths repeated in the wild by otherwise intelligent people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonalds_urban_legends http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonalds_urban_legends My favourite fact about most of these is that they allege that McDonald's is using a disgusting ingredient which would almost certainly wind up more expensive than the real thing. Hamburger-grade beef sells for, what, four dollars a pound? Probably a lot less if you have McDonalds' buying power. What do you think worm meat costs?

tptacek 14y ago
You know, I don't believe most of the urban legends about McDonalds, and there are things they do that I can even respect (for instance, their contribution to french fry science [really], or their [very, very, very, very] gradual adoption of humane farming guidelines.) But make no mistake that McDonalds is a business that is, if not as harmful as Philip Morris, gradable on the same scale. For the most part it's a company whose core business model is "leverage unfathomably vast marketing resources to coerce large numbers of people into making the least healthful dietary choice available to them at any given moment". Let nobody suggest that I am a foe of the french fry or the well-constructed burger, but there's a difference between an occasional indulgence --- or even between the ambient availability of that indulgence and any group of people's poor decision making [oh, hi, me!] --- and the business model that depends utterly on persuading the most persuadable people to harm themselves, for no other reason that they were persuadable. And so it's in that light that I think cynicism towards new "honest" attempts at persuading people is fair game. Also their burgers are pretty gross.
- elithrar 14y ago
  > Also their burgers are pretty gross. Some people must think they taste "good enough", given their popularity. Convenience and price obviously play big roles here, but they are also likely choosing McDonalds over other options on at least some basis of taste. > But make no mistake that McDonalds is a business that is, if not as harmful as Philip Morris, gradable on the same scale. For the most part it's a company whose core business model is "leverage unfathomably vast marketing resources to coerce large numbers of people into making the least healthful dietary choice available to them at any given moment". In Australia, they actually [no doubt due to social pressures] a large range of "healthy options" that are actually half-decent. I'm not sure whether they offer this stuff in the US, but compared to the numerous fried chicken, roast chicken and Burger King restaurants here, they are leagues ahead. Note that I'm not defending their past behaviour-which I think we can agree was abysmal-but they have at least tried to reform and for a business of their size and brand, is no easy feat.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Their burgers are (deliberately, carefully engineered to be) hyperpalatable. There are plenty of hyperpalatable foods that also happen to be gross.
  - goodcanadian 14y ago
    In Australia (and Canada for that matter), McDonald's food is far better than it is the the US.
    - maguay 14y ago
      I think it's better in most of the world than the US. It's almost considered classy in Thailand, and to me, it seems to taste better, too.
      - philbarr 14y ago
        Obviously you've not tried them in the UK. We've been to Vegas in the US and thought the burgers there were amazing. Like, "oh my god, this actually looks a bit like real beef!"
    - megablast 14y ago
      Rubbish. As an Aussie who has tried both, I have not noticed the difference. I deliberately tried the ones in the US to see if they were better, as people had said. They were the same tasteless garbage.
    - geoka9 14y ago
      I can't eat at McDonald's in Canada, but I really like to go there when I'm in Eastern Europe. It tastes so much better there. UPDATE: And I didn't like it in the US either.
      - jules 14y ago
        I only have experience with McDonald's in Western Europe, and here the food is not good. The pattys seem like the meat was thoroughly grinded to a smooth paste. The bread doesn't have any flavour, and because it's in a closed package with the rest it becomes soaked and soft from the steam. The worst part is the cheese (if you can call it that -- it doesn't look or taste like cheese at all). The fries are okayish. On the rare occasion that I'm with a group of people who want to eat something at McDonalds, I usually take a salad with the sauce in a separate package, because even the salad sauce doesn't taste good. This was surprising to me. You can make a much better burger than McDonalds in 10 minutes with standard equipment. Just take some minced meat, form it into a flat cylinder, rub some olive oil salt and pepper, cook it in a frying pan, after you turned it around add (real) cheese on top and cook the other side, slice a bread in two and roast it a little in the same pan, and stack up the burger with some lettuce, tomato and some mustard and/or ketchup. Why can't a company whose primary purpose is to make burgers not make a burger half as good? It's not like the ingredients here are more expensive. Or do people really prefer McD's burgers? Don't get me started on restaurants that use canned peppers and mushrooms that make the whole pizza wet and acidic. Also: http://popsop.com/wp-content/uploads/kraft_cheese_snack_before_after_e.jpg http://popsop.com/wp-content/uploads/kraft_cheese_snack_befo... WTF? "Natural cheese made with 2% milk no added growth hormones"
- potatolicious 14y ago
  Can't we say the same things about just about any business? > "but there's a difference between an occasional indulgence" Indeed... > "and the business model that depends utterly on persuading the most persuadable people to harm themselves, for no other reason that they were persuadable" You've lost me. You compare McDonald's to Philip Morris - even though one produces a highly addictive substance and the other produces (crappy) hamburgers. Last I checked, burgers are non-addictive. In what way is McDonald's core business model dependent on something more than "occasional indulgence"? If we are to play the game that a business can only succeed if people are mindlessly, constantly, repetitively consuming its products, then we should be beating down the doors of, say, Redbox. After all, their business model works best if everyone sat on their asses all day doing nothing but watch movies. I do not see the argument at all that McDonald's business hinges on the abusively high consumption of their foods. They are in no way worse than any number of peddlers of less-than-healthy foods. Where is the outrage for Ben & Jerry's? Frito Lay? Campbell's?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Nobody lives on Ben & Jerry's. Frito Lay is possibly even more morally fraught than McDonalds, since a large part of their business involves marketing themselves into kids lunches. I'm not sure where Campbells comes into this. It's not great soup, but it's soup. Obviously, there are people who think there's nothing wrong with a particularly successful marketing campaign for an unhealthful product. There are plenty of people who think there's nothing immoral about selling cigarettes. I don't think less of those people, but I strongly disagree with them.
    - Hytosys 14y ago
      The real issue is that individuals lack self control and maintain ignorance, which leads to poor health related decisions. I see where you are coming from, but I insist that people should rely only on themselves in these cases. Placing the blame on businesses or government is particularly irresponsible. Note that I am not insinuating you make these poor health decisions, because clearly you are aware.
- walkon 14y ago
  > For the most part it's a company whose core business model is "leverage unfathomably vast marketing resources to coerce large numbers of people into making the least healthful dietary choice available to them at any given moment". They don't coerce anyone to eat their food. What a ridiculous hyperbole.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Depends whether you accept emotional manipulation in the definition of coercion, or use the more strict definition and restrict the concept only to actual or threatened force.
    - adgar 14y ago
      If you are accepting advertising as emotional manipulation, then say your real point: advertising is immoral coercion. Or are you seriously going to argue that McDonalds has ads that are considerably more emotionally manipulative than other typical advertisers?
      - ktizo 14y ago
        My point was as I said. There are two main definitions of coercion, one of which is stricter than the other. I was just replying to the statement that McDonalds does not employ coercion by pointing out that it rather depends on which definition you choose as if you choose the wider definition then most advertising is coercive to one degree or another. I wasn't really talking about the moral angle, just the semantics.
- Devilboy 14y ago
  Also their burgers are pretty gross. Yea well that's just your opinion man.
Evbn 14y ago
McDonalds meat is corn filler and scraped off bones. It's below hamburger grade. You can't get it at the grocery store.

tptacek 14y ago

You know, I don't believe most of the urban legends about McDonalds, and there are things they do that I can even respect (for instance, their contribution to french fry science [really], or their [very, very, very, very] gradual adoption of humane farming guidelines.) But make no mistake that McDonalds is a business that is, if not as harmful as Philip Morris, gradable on the same scale. For the most part it's a company whose core business model is "leverage unfathomably vast marketing resources to coerce large numbers of people into making the least healthful dietary choice available to them at any given moment". Let nobody suggest that I am a foe of the french fry or the well-constructed burger, but there's a difference between an occasional indulgence --- or even between the ambient availability of that indulgence and any group of people's poor decision making [oh, hi, me!] --- and the business model that depends utterly on persuading the most persuadable people to harm themselves, for no other reason that they were persuadable. And so it's in that light that I think cynicism towards new "honest" attempts at persuading people is fair game. Also their burgers are pretty gross.

elithrar 14y ago
> Also their burgers are pretty gross. Some people must think they taste "good enough", given their popularity. Convenience and price obviously play big roles here, but they are also likely choosing McDonalds over other options on at least some basis of taste. > But make no mistake that McDonalds is a business that is, if not as harmful as Philip Morris, gradable on the same scale. For the most part it's a company whose core business model is "leverage unfathomably vast marketing resources to coerce large numbers of people into making the least healthful dietary choice available to them at any given moment". In Australia, they actually [no doubt due to social pressures] a large range of "healthy options" that are actually half-decent. I'm not sure whether they offer this stuff in the US, but compared to the numerous fried chicken, roast chicken and Burger King restaurants here, they are leagues ahead. Note that I'm not defending their past behaviour-which I think we can agree was abysmal-but they have at least tried to reform and for a business of their size and brand, is no easy feat.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Their burgers are (deliberately, carefully engineered to be) hyperpalatable. There are plenty of hyperpalatable foods that also happen to be gross.
- goodcanadian 14y ago
  In Australia (and Canada for that matter), McDonald's food is far better than it is the the US.
  - maguay 14y ago
    I think it's better in most of the world than the US. It's almost considered classy in Thailand, and to me, it seems to taste better, too.
    - philbarr 14y ago
      Obviously you've not tried them in the UK. We've been to Vegas in the US and thought the burgers there were amazing. Like, "oh my god, this actually looks a bit like real beef!"
  - megablast 14y ago
    Rubbish. As an Aussie who has tried both, I have not noticed the difference. I deliberately tried the ones in the US to see if they were better, as people had said. They were the same tasteless garbage.
  - geoka9 14y ago
    I can't eat at McDonald's in Canada, but I really like to go there when I'm in Eastern Europe. It tastes so much better there. UPDATE: And I didn't like it in the US either.
    - jules 14y ago
      I only have experience with McDonald's in Western Europe, and here the food is not good. The pattys seem like the meat was thoroughly grinded to a smooth paste. The bread doesn't have any flavour, and because it's in a closed package with the rest it becomes soaked and soft from the steam. The worst part is the cheese (if you can call it that -- it doesn't look or taste like cheese at all). The fries are okayish. On the rare occasion that I'm with a group of people who want to eat something at McDonalds, I usually take a salad with the sauce in a separate package, because even the salad sauce doesn't taste good. This was surprising to me. You can make a much better burger than McDonalds in 10 minutes with standard equipment. Just take some minced meat, form it into a flat cylinder, rub some olive oil salt and pepper, cook it in a frying pan, after you turned it around add (real) cheese on top and cook the other side, slice a bread in two and roast it a little in the same pan, and stack up the burger with some lettuce, tomato and some mustard and/or ketchup. Why can't a company whose primary purpose is to make burgers not make a burger half as good? It's not like the ingredients here are more expensive. Or do people really prefer McD's burgers? Don't get me started on restaurants that use canned peppers and mushrooms that make the whole pizza wet and acidic. Also: http://popsop.com/wp-content/uploads/kraft_cheese_snack_before_after_e.jpg http://popsop.com/wp-content/uploads/kraft_cheese_snack_befo... WTF? "Natural cheese made with 2% milk no added growth hormones"
potatolicious 14y ago
Can't we say the same things about just about any business? > "but there's a difference between an occasional indulgence" Indeed... > "and the business model that depends utterly on persuading the most persuadable people to harm themselves, for no other reason that they were persuadable" You've lost me. You compare McDonald's to Philip Morris - even though one produces a highly addictive substance and the other produces (crappy) hamburgers. Last I checked, burgers are non-addictive. In what way is McDonald's core business model dependent on something more than "occasional indulgence"? If we are to play the game that a business can only succeed if people are mindlessly, constantly, repetitively consuming its products, then we should be beating down the doors of, say, Redbox. After all, their business model works best if everyone sat on their asses all day doing nothing but watch movies. I do not see the argument at all that McDonald's business hinges on the abusively high consumption of their foods. They are in no way worse than any number of peddlers of less-than-healthy foods. Where is the outrage for Ben & Jerry's? Frito Lay? Campbell's?
- tptacek 14y ago
  Nobody lives on Ben & Jerry's. Frito Lay is possibly even more morally fraught than McDonalds, since a large part of their business involves marketing themselves into kids lunches. I'm not sure where Campbells comes into this. It's not great soup, but it's soup. Obviously, there are people who think there's nothing wrong with a particularly successful marketing campaign for an unhealthful product. There are plenty of people who think there's nothing immoral about selling cigarettes. I don't think less of those people, but I strongly disagree with them.
  - Hytosys 14y ago
    The real issue is that individuals lack self control and maintain ignorance, which leads to poor health related decisions. I see where you are coming from, but I insist that people should rely only on themselves in these cases. Placing the blame on businesses or government is particularly irresponsible. Note that I am not insinuating you make these poor health decisions, because clearly you are aware.
walkon 14y ago
> For the most part it's a company whose core business model is "leverage unfathomably vast marketing resources to coerce large numbers of people into making the least healthful dietary choice available to them at any given moment". They don't coerce anyone to eat their food. What a ridiculous hyperbole.
- ktizo 14y ago
  Depends whether you accept emotional manipulation in the definition of coercion, or use the more strict definition and restrict the concept only to actual or threatened force.
  - adgar 14y ago
    If you are accepting advertising as emotional manipulation, then say your real point: advertising is immoral coercion. Or are you seriously going to argue that McDonalds has ads that are considerably more emotionally manipulative than other typical advertisers?
    - ktizo 14y ago
      My point was as I said. There are two main definitions of coercion, one of which is stricter than the other. I was just replying to the statement that McDonalds does not employ coercion by pointing out that it rather depends on which definition you choose as if you choose the wider definition then most advertising is coercive to one degree or another. I wasn't really talking about the moral angle, just the semantics.
Devilboy 14y ago
Also their burgers are pretty gross. Yea well that's just your opinion man.

Evbn 14y ago

McDonalds meat is corn filler and scraped off bones. It's below hamburger grade. You can't get it at the grocery store.