Enough already with "meatatarian" marketing

Via Burger Business

I like meat. I eat quite a bit of it. But there's nothing more tiresome than a junk food brand thinking it's being edgy by trolling vegetarians.

Remember this one?

It's an old idea, and this kind of oppositional marketing is only funny once or twice.

Call me a "meh-tetarian" I guess...

McDonald's comes through with "something bigger" for #PeaceDay

"We love the intention, but think our two brands could do something bigger to make a difference."

That was the rather chilly response by McDonald's to Burger King's cheeky McWhopper proposal for Peace One Day.

But it turns out they actually meant it:

According to Burger Business, McDonald’s was the key impetus behind this global initiative to provide food assistance to refugees and other displaced people by the United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP) food-assistance wing.

McDonald’s funded this 30-second TV spot, by their agency TBWA. Liam Neeson is the VO.

The objective, according to McDonald's, is to "raise awareness of the refugee crisis; and encourage people to donate to the WFP to make a tangible difference.”

Other participants in the program are  McCain Foods, Cargill, DreamWorks Animation, Facebook, MasterCard, OMD, Twitter, United Airlines... and Burger King.

Hunger is a root cause of human conflict, because people will do anything to ensure that they and their families can survive. In turn, conflict causes food insecurity, as crops are destroyed, farmers are displaced, and field-to-fork infrastructure is disrupted.

On a 2014 visit to Turkey, Pope Francis summarized the idea that the "war on terrorism" starts with fighting poverty and hunger in at-risk regions:  "What is required is a concerted commitment on the part of all ... [to] enable resources to be directed, not to weaponry, but to the other noble battles worthy of man: the fight against hunger and sickness."

Why McDonald's couldn't accept Burger King's peace offering #McWhopper

I wrote early yesterday about Burger King's brilliant PR coup for Peace One Day: A challenge to arch(es) rival McDonald's to build a combination of their two classic burgers as a symbol for peace.

The ploy worked, not just because it picked up endless press, but because the response from McDonald's was cold and patronizing.

But while the wording of the response was a PR failure, there are several reasons that McDonald's basically had to turn BK down.


1. When you're #1, you don't acknowledge competition

McDonald's has been faltering lately, but they still own the category of fast food burgers. By making this proposal to the Golden Arches, Burger King was putting the two brands of equal footing. This would be unacceptable to the traditional top dog brand strategy, which is to not acknowledge the competition. There might be some exceptions, but in general McDonald's expresses its #1 status by pretending it has no competitors, just as Coke doesn't talk about Pepsi. It's up to the competitors to take down the kind of the hill.


2. The McWhopper makes one seem better than the other.

Watch this video from the campaign microsite:

Note the subtleties. BK didn't call the Big Mac/Whopper blend the "Big Whopper." That's because the very name Whopper is a reminder that the burger, introduced in 1957 (10 years before the Big Mac) is about "bigger."

Now look at the proposed burger:

The Big Mac upper half is dwarfed by the Whopper bottom half. This is a shot at the Big Mac brand.

Now, look at how the ingredients are described:

By using only one of the "two all beef patties" and 2/3 of the 3-layer bun, they almost yell out Wendy's old line of "Where's The Beef?" The Whopper ingredients, however, focus on fresh toppings and "flame grilled" patty.


3. Even the packaging is skewed

Who gets the most real estate on the box?

4. There's already been a "McWhopper" 

Thirty years ago, McDonald's genuinely tried to imitate the Whopper with the utter failure of the McDLT.

I was only 15 at the time, but I distinctly recall referring to the obvious imitation as a "McWhopper." Maybe it was just me, but even the proposed mashup burger brought back memories of that disaster.


So, to accept this challenge as stated, McDonald's would have to first acknowledge Burger King as an equal rival, then deal with the various slights that BK made against their signature brand.

The stunt, which according to AdFreak was a collaborative effort between Y&R in New Zealand, Code & Theory, Alison Brod Public Relations, The David Agency, Rock Orange, Turner Duckworth and Horizon, was pure brilliance. It was also designed to "fail" in getting McDonald's onboard. However, I'm not sure that the agencies and the BK fold could have anticipated how poorly MCDonald's would fumble the response.

Regardless, it was a huge success in building up Burger King's cool, as well as making Peace One Day a topic of conversation.

Burger King wants to make love, not war, with McDonald's #PeaceDay

This is awesome, and not just as a marketing coup.

Burger King today placed this full-page ad in the New York Times and Chicago Tribune, offering to collaborate with McDonald's on a "McWhopper" for Peace One Day.

Burger Business quotes Fernando Machado, Burger King SVP for Global Brand Management: “We’re being completely transparent with our approach because we want them to take this seriously,” Machado says. “It would be amazing if McDonald’s agrees to do this. Let’s make history and generate a lot of noise around Peace Day. If they say no, we’ll hopefully have, at the very least, raised much-needed financial support and consciousness for the great cause that is Peace One Day. And both are well worth the effort.”

McDonald's, however, did not take the burger bait:

I'm not surprised, but I'm still a little disappointed. It was a fun and clever ploy, however McDonald's countered coldly with a holier-than-thou attitude. In the end, though, I now know about Peace One Day. And yesterday, I did not. The bigger question is, what am I going to do about it?

Sexy hamburger ads: What are they really saying?

This ad, starring Katherine Webb (Miss Alabama USA 2012) is just the latest in a long line of ads from Hardee's/Carl's Jr. that take the comparison of food to sex to silly extremes. In the one above, Ms. Webb follows in the footsteps of Kate Upton as she basically simulates sex with processed meat on a bun.

But what kind of sex, exactly, is it supposed to be? And how is this ad formula actually selling burgers?

No, I'm serious. What human organ is the burger standing in for? "Burger" has long been a slang term for the vulva, indicating that these ads are borrowing interest from lesbian fetish porn created for straight men.

And why is this appealing? Because it's the ultimate objectified female sexual performance for the male gaze.

From talkingphilosophy.com:

The real reason why the idea of lesbianism so fascinates many straight men is one that is easier to understand if one is. Having some philosophical awareness also helps. For the real reason is closely connected with the phenomenology of sexual fantasy, which works via virtual identification. In other words: it is about imagining yourself into the position of one of the sexual partners. In the case of lesbianism, a straight man seeks to imagine himself into the position of one of the partners, desiring the other woman of the pair – and then can immediately switch into the second woman’s subject position, desiring the first. (This back and forth virtual-switching of identification is especially delicious because of course it tacitly involves the illicit thrill of  being a woman, at the level of imagination, as well as desiring one.)  It works especially for the male fantasist when both the women in question are ‘desirable’ (e.g. porn models, or ‘lipstick lesbians’) and/or when the limbs etc. of the participants are so entwined that it is slightly hard to tell who is who. A man may get very over-excited by rapidly – ‘deliriously’ – switching subject-positions in his imagination, and work himself up in a way that doesn’t have a direct parallel in situations of heterosexual desire.

Not sure I totally agree with all of that (the stereotype I hear is the expectation that they're just getting warmed up for a FMF threesome starring the viewer) but it does raise some interesting thoughts about the ads. What, exactly, are we men supposed to fantasize about that will result in wanting to eat that hamburger? Cunnilingus?

While not every man may not be  as big a fan of the act as Michael Douglas, this seems like a logical explanation of what desires are being compared here.

But then you have to take this kind of thing into account:

Via Adpressive

Waitaminute. The burger is a penis now? This infamous Singaporean Burger King ad seems to invite an image for men of being on the receiving end. But how is that supposed to excite a straight man about putting one in his mouth?

To make all the sexualized burger marketing even more confusing, Hardee's/Carl's Jr. is apparently test marketing a "footlong cheeseburger":

Via OC Register

To summarize:

1) This hamburger is part of a hot threesome that you are about to get involved in by pretending to be going down on one of the women when you eat this hamburger, and

2) This hamburger is a really big penis that you want to put in your mouth.

Or maybe it's this:

3) This hamburger ad is an excuse to make you feel powerful by watching women perform sexually for you, and (by the way) you can eat a burger as big as you wish your penis was.

(I'm being facetious in the post. What's really happening isn't product marketing, it's branding with new product info along for the ride. Turning people on has been proven to create positive brand associations and to impair judgement.)

Burger King awkwardly channels Goldfinger murder-by-paint

Burger Business reports that Burger King Switzerland is promoting its new Double Steakhouse Hot & Spicy burger with jalapeňo slices and a Double Steakhouse BBQ Cheese with bacon as “grill luxury at its finest”.

Via Facebook

Called the “Gold Collection", it is advertised with a Manfred Baumann photo of model Anna Hammel (a former Miss Austria) mostly-nude and covered head-to-toe in gold paint.

James Bond fans will undoubtedly recall what happened to the character Jill Masterson (Shirley Eaton) when Goldfinger's henchman Oddjob did the same thing to her:

Spoiler: She dies, and JB hooks up with her sister, who also dies.

That's a weird idea for selling hamburgers.

A bunch of people ate Burger King for Thanksgiving and Tweeted about it

With the way Americans revere the Thanksgiving feast, I guess having to eat fast food instead is holiday failure. But the surprising number of people Tweeting about eating Thanksgiving at burger king (taken from Buzzfeed's "50 People Who Had The Worst Thanksgiving Ever") Is surprising and sad. 

If they were still working with CP+B, I'd almost suspect it was their latest bizarre marketing stunt.

And there's always an outlier:

It looks like Hardee's was also a popular choice.

Arby's rebrands with CP+B, but will they fare any better than The King?

Fast food roast beef sandwich chain Arby's has a new logo, a new tagline and a new enemy: Subway.

The ad isn't bad. The logo update, kind of a mess. And the tagline?

This brand evolution is the work of CP+B, who won away the nearly $100 million Arby’s account in February without a review. It was a gift from Arby's Chief Marketing Officer Russ Klein, who was the one who hired CP+B to rebrand Burger King in 2004. 

Klein left BK in 2009, and CP+B (according to former partner Alex Bogusky) fired the $300 client two years later over creative differences. However, the joint statement issued by agency and client stated, "We are incredibly proud of all that we have accomplished together, but have mutually decided that now is the right time to part ways. We are fans of each other’s work and wish each other much success in the future."

The edgy CP+B work for BK was legendary, going viral and causing other creatives to turn green. But it failed to stop a steady decline in sales.

Burger Business wrote:

CP+B certainly can’t bear all the fault for BK’s inability to grow, but management clearly decided that the agency has had its shot. And has missed. The chain reported a 2.3% decline in worldwide same-store sales for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010. The brand advanced some in Europe, but in the U.S. and Canada sales decline 3.9% for the year. Wendy’s is building; McDonald’s is cruising. BK has been falling behind.

In short, the advertising didn't work. And the vultures were quick to circle the once-untouchable creative shop.

Slate's Seth Stevenson wrote,

Crispin was the sexiest ad agency in the country. It had been named “Agency of the Year” at the Clio Awards for two years running. It was designing enormous campaigns for well-known brands like Volkswagen and Burger King. And yet the more accolades Crispin received (Ad Age judged it the No. 1 agency of the decade at the end of 2009), the more my distaste for the outfit sharpened. Crispin’s raunchy, bro-focused vibe rubbed me all the wrong ways, targeting the lowest common denominator with campaigns that valued provocation above substance and casual cruelty above inclusiveness.

Now, the same marketing chief has brought CP+B over to Arby's to try a new strategy. Instead of differentiating by cool factor, Arby's is firing a very focussed shot across the bow of Subway, the top seller in the "sandwich" category of American fast food chains.

It's a solid message for a one-off campaign, if people end up caring where their meat is sliced. Here in Canada, unsanitary high-speed factory slicing of Maple Leaf cold cuts in 2008 was found to be the cause of a listeria outbreak that killed 22 people. So processing matters.

But what exactly is Arby's beef? Their site lists the ingredients of their roast beef as "Beef, water, salt, sodium phosphate." However, there is an older ingredients list circulating that reads "Trimmed Boneless Beef Chunks (Minimum 70%) Combined With Chopped Beef For a Maximum of 12% Fat. Contains up to 9.0% of a Self-Basting Solution of Water, Salt, Sodium Phosphate."

They are also serving more and more turkey, which is officially described as "Turkey Breast, Turkey Broth, Contains 2% or less of the following: Salt, Brown Sugar, Modified Food Starch,
Dextrose, Sodium Phosphate."



Arby's has had its share of urban legend headaches about the quality of its meat, including a tenacious one that claims the beef arrives at the restaurant in gelatinous form. While the latter is only a hoax, basing their entire brand on "slicing up freshness" really could bite them in the buns if it draws too much attention to the quality and processing of their beef or turkey.

And now they've given Subway a reason to embarrass them.

Russ Klein is willing to bet again on CP+B. But I have to wonder why.

What does "premium" junk food really mean?

Burger King's "premium".

Last week, I saw an interesting post on Burger Business, a fast food industry blog about how the word "premium" has become a popular adjective for burger chains:

According to data compiled for BurgerBusiness.com by Mintel, its use on menus has doubled since 2007 (and this is even before Burger King’s new items), and not just at quick-service restaurants. In an economy where consumers are looking for top value without necessarily paying more for it, “premium” connotes high quality or high price without committing to being either. “Premium” sounds upscale, special, with a sophistication that “deluxe” lacks.

McDonald's "premium" line (from their online menu)

But what exactly does "premium" mean, in the realm of junk food?

The Oxford American English Dictionary defines the adjective as "relating to or denoting a commodity or product of superior quality and therefore a higher price."

Wendy's

The problem, of course, is that "premium" is not part of the USDA's grading standard. It's an entirely relative term. If the fast food chains are being honest, it could imply that the meat is better than what they were giving you before.

But this is marketing. What they really want to imply is "better than the other guy's."

KFC Canada: "The premium chicken breast is marinated in our hot & spicy seasoning
 for full flavor, then double breaded by hand for extra crunch."

It's total bullshit, of course. The word is absolutely meaningless in any real sense of food quality. But as a marketing term, it works. Hard.

From another Burger Business post:

Speaking at last week’s 2012 Protein Innovation Summit hosted by Meatingplace magazine, Technomic Executive Vice President Darren Tristano presented data on consumer attitudes to beef quality (not just burgers). According to Technomic’s 2011 Center of the Plate Beef & Pork Consumer Trend Report, 28% of diners say the amorphous descriptor “premium” would make them more willing to pay up to 5% more for beef at a restaurant or supermarket. Another 11% say that seeing that word would make them willing to pay more than 5% more. 

Technomic’s findings come as many of the growing “better burger” chains strive to set themselves apart by promoting the high quality of the beef they use. Elevation Burger, for example, touts its use of “100% organic, grass-fed, free-range beef.” The Cheeburger Cheeburger chain adopted all-natural, additive-free Angus beef. Farm Burger in the Atlanta area proudly serves grass-fed beef free of antibiotics and hormones. These terms signal quality, certainly, but consumers like “premium” even better.

There's even a chart:

Source: Technomic Center of the Plate Beef & Pork Consumer Trend Report

Note that the three descriptors below "premium" are specific and falsifiable. But people are much more likely to pay "slightly more" (and almost as likely to pay ("significantly more") for an adjective that costs the fast food chains absolutely nothing.

Here's how those same consumers describe their expectations of what "premium" beef implies:

Note that the top two responses have nothing to do with the way the meat was raised or processed, but only the cut and breed. Specifics about hormones and antibiotics don't even make the chart.

If the chains were to move towards hormone- and antibiotic-free meats, they'd greatly increase their costs. If you were them, after attending this "Protein Innovation Summit," which way would you go? (Burger business recommends "premium, 100% Angus sirloin."

Carl's Junior franchisee site

Which leads me to the conclusion that the problems with the industrial meat system will be with us until consumers are better educated.

Burger King crashes McDonald's

The Rome (Georgia) News-Tribune reports:

Rome Police were called to the restaurant at 2215 Shorter Ave. at approximately 1 p.m. by a manager in reference to a suspicious person. 

When they arrived, the manager said that a man dressed as the mascot for Burger King entered the restaurant with bags of hamburgers and began handing them out to several customers. 

He danced while inside the restaurant and stopped to take pictures with children. The report states that one child took a picture with him and ran away as he appeared to be scared. 

When the manager approached the man he said he was collecting for children’s charities. She noted that he had not collected any money during his time inside the restaurant. 

The subject then got into a white Acura. The manager saw him take off his mask and he appeared to be a middle age white male with dark hair. 

The tag on the car came back to a 2001 white Acura belonging to a Calhoun man.

Non-sanctioned prank? Probably. The "Woodcreek Faction American Surreal Comedy Group" took credit. But if it had been brand-orchestrated PR, it certainly worked.

Tip via BoingBoing

Remember when Sarah Michelle Gellar took on McDonald's?

Of course you don't, because you had no idea that 4-year-old who started the great burger wars of the '80s would grow up to be Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

But if you're over 35, I'll bet you remember that Burger King jingle...

(Found on Buzzfeed)

Domino's praised by Big Agriculture for still crating pigs

While McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's have followed Chipotle's lead in phasing out the use of nasty gestation crates in their pork supply chain, apparently Domino's will not follow suit. This despite the fact that both consumers and animal welfare professionals are pressuring them to do so.

While this is a potential PR black eye for the hold-out, Domino's has earned a new fan in The Texas Farm Bureau.

Michael Barnett, via Twitter

From their blog:

"It’s about time one of the major fast food franchises showed some backbone to the animal rights activist group. Other fast-food companies—including Burger King, McDonald’s and Wendy’s—have caved to their demands, fearing HSUS will stir public outcry and reprisal if they don’t."

Interestingly, the writer, Director of Publications Mike Barnett says "I’m not defending nor condemning their use. I truly don’t know enough about pork production to make that judgment." He defers to the American Veterinary Medical Association's recommendation that "to address animal welfare in the long term, advantages of current housing systems should be retained while making improvements in design to overcome problems identified."

In other words, the AVMA believes that current cage systems need to be improved, but that there are some advantages to separating sows from their fellow pigs when breeding them in factory farms.

Mr. Barnett doesn't really care about that, however. He's just happy that Domino's didn't play "follow-the-leader in these fast-food follies."

Follow-the-leader in responding to consumer demand for less cruelty in the animal food supply chain? Whatever you say. The same blog also vilifies market farmers who advertise "hormone-free" meat (“Really? I know I have hormones. My girlfriend has hormones. You have hormones. Don’t you think cows have hormones?” Mr. Barnett writes) and wishes starvation on "food activists", "tree huggers" and "bureaucrats". (I won't take a shot at his defence of "pink slime" in the beef industry, however, as I also took issue with the media hype around the issue — but from a different angle.)

Big Agriculture is attempting to buttress Domino's resolve. The publication Farm & Dairy and Drovers Cattle Network echo the Farm Bureau's call to buycott Domino's:

There is also an "Ag Pizza Party" event on Facebook, with 1,245 people confirming their support of Domino's so far.

I'm not a Domino's consumer anyway (local mom & pop joints FTW) so they probably don't care what I think about their supplier choices. But what I find interesting is the way that the reactionary forces of industry are rallying to fight the online fight to improve animal welfare conditions on farms. 

In the end, pizza fans will decide.

Japanese Triple Whopper ad is weird

Creative sessions in Japanese ad agencies must be truly surreal experiences.

"That burger is ridiculously huge. How the hell are you supposed to get it in your mouth."

"If only you could expand your jaw, like a snake."

"Brilliant! Get the storyboard artist in here!"

Tip via Buzzfeed

F'd Ad Fridays: Awesome (if crude) BK billboard hack

Via The Consumerist

Brazilian Burger King ad keeps it weird

UFC Middleweight and Mixed Martial Arts World Champ Anderson Silva, lipsynching “Lovin’ You” by Minnie Riperton to a quadruple bypass on a plate.



North America may have given up bizarre BK ads, but they live on in the Latin south.

Via Illegal Advertising

F'd Ad Fridays: The Burger King workout

Copyranter beat me to this one, but I'm sharing anyway because it is deeply effed (and I have lunch on my mind).

"Listen to your gut
Taste is king"

I don't know how things work in Germany, but over here we don't generally associate fast food with physical fitness. The Photoshop work is also creepy as hell.

Via Ads of The World

Burger King SPAMs Japanese women

one of the most fascinating industry news sites online, Burger Business, has an interesting bit about BK's new "woman-friendly" marketing strategy in Asia: smaller burgers.

"Petite and Girl-Friendly"

And apparently what women really want is SPAM.

Mmm... Soylenty Goodness!

So, in closing, BK is offering cheap, small portions of suspect meat because that's what the ladies all crave.

I wonder if the dudes in this Singaporean ad have the... ummm... "sliders" she's looking for?



Tip via The Consumerist

Bogusky turns his back on the bogus adworld

AdFreak this morning had an article about the other shoe the entire ad industry was waiting to hear drop: What will Alex Bogusky do next?

The former "Elvis of Advertising" is the creative mind behind some of the most outrageous (and wickedly effective) campaigns for Crispin Porter + Bogusky clients like Virgin Airlines, Burger King and Domino's Pizza.

But, as is detailed in this excruciatingly overwritten Fast Company interview, the man who did so much for fast food found that his conscience had caught up with him. He actually hated the industrialization of food. He was anti-GMO. And he gave up eating meat. He even wrote a portion-control diet book critical of "corporate food" interests. So much for the King.

So Bogusky quit CP+B, and advertising altogether. Then he launched "Fearless Revolution". It's a stripped-down activist organization hell-bent of helping consumers gather their forces to fight back against the consumerism that is consuming their lives.

From the site:

Something is definitely happening in our culture.
We think it's a new consumer revolution.

The fact is we all consume to live. The food we put in our bodies, the clothes we put on our backs, the devices we use to do our jobs, and the energy that goes into everything we touch. Together we consume A LOT. Yet our expectations are too low. We think we have to accept the bad that comes with the good. The pollution that comes with the energy. The unsafe working conditions that come with low prices. The toxic materials that come with convenient packaging.

We can do better. Wanting stuff isn't going to change. So maybe it's time to want more – more from ourselves and more from the people who make our stuff. 

The duties of citizen and consumer are colliding.

To be a concerned citizen requires that we become concerned consumers because the reality is, corporations will impact our future as much as governments will. Voting beyond the ballot box with our purchasing power is rapidly becoming a powerful individual tool in the democratic experience.

That's right, kids. Adweek's Creative Director of the Decade is now the anti-adman.

From this:



To this:



And I think that's a good thing.

These carrot ads are actually good for you

Last week, CP+B unveiled their newest brand reimagining plot, this one for the US carrot industry (actually Boathouse Farms).

As AdFreak points out, CP+B have plenty of experience marketing actual junk food — from Coke, to Dominos Pizza, to Kraft Dinner — and of course to all that bizarre Burger King stuff they're famous for.

But does any kid really buy the idea of eating baby carrots like junk food? My little guy like carrots anyway, but if I tried to bait and switch the occasional treat expectation of chips for veggies in "extreme" packaging, I'd have a problem on my hands. They're not fooling anyone.

I was initially disappointed by what seemed to be a very dumb packaging idea coming from such a famous creative shop. But then, of course, I gradually appreciated the irony encoded in the campaign. After all, my son isn't the one shopping for snacks to put in his lunch — I am. And the carefully-done parody of junk food marketing is appealing enough to get me to think about buying carrots specifically as snacks just a little more often.

And then I saw the TV/online video campaign, which is much more blunt in its irony and (in one case) much more adult in its appeal:







Nice work.

The King is a cheater

Reader Mark sent me an interesting news item from the U.K. It seems that Burger King has had one of its recent ads pulled by the Advertising Standards Authority.

Let's watch, and see if we can spot the problem:



So what was the issue? Implied zoophilia? Encouraging food-based adultery?

According to the BBC:

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said: "We also examined the size of the burgers in the hands of an average-sized man and considered that they did not fill the hands to the same extent as the burger featured in the advert.

"We concluded that the visuals in the advert were likely to mislead viewers as to the size and composition of the product."

This is pretty funny, considering everyone knows they don't use real food in ads. Right?


(Example from nuffy.net - there are more disturbing ones!)

Plus, of course, everyone also knows we men exaggerate the size of everything we can get our hands on.