Arby's talking trash about Subway I can understand. They're both fast food. But why is Hooters — a sit-down, full-service bar and restaurant — comparing itself to Chipotle?
The new campaign, by Skiver Advertising, doesn't have much more to it than the gross-out burrito scene. The rest is just typical chain restaurant product shots (and by "product" I mean both food and branded waitstaff) with happy mixed groups of target audience having conspicuous fun.
As Eater summarizes:
The burrito place is gray, dirty, and full of disgusting, gloppy food; Hooters, on the other hand, features servers that are literally beaming sunshine from behind their Farrah Fawcett-waves, and there are lots of boobs. And also salads, you know, for the ladies.
Why even bother? It's like The Olive Garden saying that it's more like a restaurant than McDonald's. So what? Totally different categories. Plus, in the realm of ethical restaurants, Chipotle rules while Hooters drools.
The other ad, which seems of lower production quality, compares hooters to a sports bar full of overenthusiastic (and, I can't help but note, overweight) fans.
I thought Hooters was a sports bar. I guess the implication is Hooters is for thinner people. #stepintoawesome indeed...
"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:
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.
Nothing too exciting, but the it's a sneak peak into how McD's new "Farm-to-fork" approach to supply chain accountability will play out.
Here's a report about a McDonald's presentation given to an Iowa farming group:
The food retailer known for its wide variety of menu choices and a willingness to explore new marketing frontiers said connecting patrons with the people who provide their food is important.
Debbie Roberts, vice president and general manager of McDonald’s Midwest Region, told a gathering of Nebraska farmers that linking the farm to fork matters as people become more “comfortable” with their food.
She said McDonald’s will present an ad campaign in 2012 that will feature farmers and growers that supply the products.
“We will bring to the consumer, the folks who are actually producing the product,” Roberts says. “They will have the opportunity to meet those folks, see them on TV…put the face with the product.”
She points out that consumers have become increasingly savvy, and they want to know more about the source of their food.
“For us to be relevant as a brand, we constantly talk with consumers, and we listen,” Roberts adds. “That’s been the success of McDonald’s; to make sure we have a brand that responds to consumers.”
Note: Today is Blog Action Day. Since it's also World Food Day, bloggers worldwide are posting about food security and related issues.
If you haven't yet been made depressed by this long PSA (or short film, take your pick) released by Chipotle, you can curse me later. But you should see it:
That's a mournful cover of classic Ed Bruce country song, made famous by Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson, sung now by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs
The film was released by The Chipotle Cultivate Foundation, to raise awareness of their key issue as outlined in their mission statement:
"The Cultivate Foundation will carry forward the tradition of giving set out by Chipotle Mexican Grill, which has contributed more than $2 million in the past several years to help fund initiatives that support sustainable agriculture, family farming, and culinary education."
It is also raising funds for Farm Aid, begun by Nelson, John Mellencamp and Neil Young in 1985.
A great thought. But can it work? Will average people, especially Americans, be willing to give up their preference for massive servings of cheap food for a more expensive but conscionable way?
I last covered this foundation in August, when they released another great video against factory farming (an issue close to my heart). Then, as now, it almost seems too good to be true.
I really, really want it to work, however. I want to see food — even fast food — come from healthy, humane and (where possible) local sources. I want to see farming return to the hands of small and family-based entrepreneurs who are motivated to come up with innovative systems for producing better meat without cruelty and pollution.
The problem is, these seem to be elitist issues at the moment. Industrial food production has made meat easily accessible, on a daily basis, by all but the poorest of North Americans. And the demand for cheap hamburgers will continue to be a major pressure against purposely increasing the cost of a staple food.
The real solution, in my opinion, is not increased regulation by public health authorities, but rather removing the economic interference that makes fast food so cheap.
In the United States, corn is heavily subsidized by the federal government. The Eating Well blog claims that from 1995 to 2006 federal corn subsidies totaled $56.2 billion, saving the American beef industry on average $501 million a year.
While government subsidies would on surface seem to be providing a lifeline to the very farmers the video shows as in need, they create a system that favours large industrial farming operations and the commoditization of food.
I have seen this first hand. My wife's uncle has a small beef farm in New Brunswick. He puts all of his free time (since he needs another day job to make ends meet) into hand-raising his herd. But in the end, he gets paid no more per pound than any mechanized operation churning out cows for slaughter on the cheap.
Thankfully, the huge resurgence of local farmer's markets has provided an economic shortcut that links good farmers with enlightened consumers. If you're going to eat meat (like I do) it's reassuring to be able to talk to the person who raised the animals and arranged for their slaughter. In such a marketplace, pastured and antibiotic/hormone free meat warrants a premium price.
But back to the commodity meat market. What would happen if the economic protections that let BIG MEAT (and corn, and grain, and soy) produce so cheaply were reduced? What if a Big Mac cost $10? Would people adjust to better eating habits they could afford, or would they simply put too much of their budget into food?
The saddest part is that real food can already be cheaper than fast food, at least according to this New York Times infographic:
The real barrier is educating people how to prepare food, making sure they can store it safely, and getting them to care.
So, what is my point on this Blog Action Day? Well, I guess I'd just encourage you to think about the world you want to live in, then make the personal choices that will help make it happen. As a consumer, you can decide to pay more for better meat, eat less (or none) of it, and start to question your supermarket, your butcher, and your restaurants about the sustainability of their suppliers. Then support those that make an effort. As a voter, you can question your elected representatives about what they're doing to ensure a healthy and fair market for independent farmers.
As I wrote on Change Marketing, some social scientists believe that it only takes a core group of 10% of the population to be activists inspire progressive social change. You can be one of them.
I applaud them on the effort, although I remain skeptical that a large fast food chain can be as local and low-tech as that. They have, however donated more than $2 million over the past two years to philanthropic organizations including Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, The Nature Conservancy, FamilyFarmed.org, The Lunch Box and the Niman Ranch Scholarship Fund.
