How advertising innovations gave the world President Trump

It's been less than a year since we all woke up, rubbed our eyes, and realized that the United States of America had elected a blowhard reality show host as President.

It seemed impossible. But that was just the beginning of one unbelievable thing after another.

The suspicions and accusations of Russian interference in American political discourse felt like sour grapes to some, but now we're seeing proof. Last week, the US House Intelligence Committee published a selection of Facebook and Instagram posts and ads that came from accounts now known to be Russian-controlled.

Most of them speak the language of memes, at least what a "meme" is considered to be in the twentyteens: a captioned image that provokes a strong positive or negative reaction. Many, like the infamous Jesus-boxing-Hillary image above, also had a call-to-action that would help them spread virally.

The memes and other posts are highly-targeted, and many are aimed squarely at the fault lines of American society, both pro- and anti-Trump:

What's the point? Analysts call it Putin's attempt to destabilize the west, so that allied countries are less able to act against Russian interests. In the case of the USA, the goal was obviously to promote the election of a singularly unqualified presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who may or may not already by compromised by Russian intelligence.

At the same time, look at what's happening to the two major parties in the US: The Democrats lost the election partially due to infighting, which was additionally fuelled by pro-Sanders Russian ads, and Republican infighting allowed Trump to emerge triumphant.

As a social (and social media) marketer, I can't help but look at the strategy behind this with a mix of wonder and disgust. Segmentation, and telling people what they want to hear, are old advertising strategy. However, social media has provided a more targeted and intimate advertiser-consumer experience than ever before. Advertisers, or rather advertising platforms (Facebook, Google, etc.) also know more about consumers on an individual level than any direct marketer in the past could imagine. Apply some behavioural psychology to this, and maybe you can disrupt democracy itself.

How did we, the world, allow ourselves to become so easy to manipulate? Blame advertising. The desire of marketers to get inside consumers' heads is relentless, and it's really working. Just a couple of days ago, my partner was looking at soufflé dishes online. While she was still doing that (as we have a shared family account for Gmail) ads for soufflé dishes started appearing on my Facebook feed. This is simple behavioural retargeting, but it works.

In the mysterious inner workings of Facebook, all of my online relationships and posts are analyzed to better serve me content and ads that will be of interest to me. That was the plan, anyway. In reality, our social media networks become expanding bubbles of confirmation bias that can actually transform and/or stratify our worldview.

For a consumer advertiser, the goal is to build brand loyalty. Today, a brand can take advantage of the information Facebook and Google collect to attach their brand to "the big issues" and develop loyalty that is based on lifestyle, community, and even politics.

For the propagandists behind the 2016 US election disruptions, however, the goal was to inflame fierce loyalty within one's political sphere, while sowing FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about their opponents. The result is an influence on voting behaviour and the breakdown of the American political system.

When all is revealed by the House Intelligence Committee, 2016-17 will become a case study in mass persuasion, creating a belief system that turned voters away from mainstream politicians and into the arms of a complete disaster of a President. People didn't need to be convinced Trump was great, only that existing system was broken and Trump could disrupt it for the benefit of his base.

This operation, by the way, is ongoing, as any review of the replies to a Trump tweet will show. The United States is fractured, and the jagged pieces are drifting further away from each other every day.

Spike Jonze sequels "Weapon of Choice" ... for a perfume ad?

Well, it sure is entertaining.

nofilmscool.com shared this video with a commentary about how ads for organic social media are getting more and more cinematic:

This one, for France's Kenzo perfumery, is directed by Spike Jonze. He's one of an increasing number of film directors being recruited to do branded entertainment for consumer companies.

Let's face it: This video is awesome. The woman, played by Margaret Qualley, is bored of stiff formality. She breaks out of reality does an awesome solo (mostly) dance — choreographed by Ryan Heffington — through a vast empty lobby.

Sound familiar?

Yeah, that was Jonze's work for Fatboy Slim's "Weapon of Choice," back in 2001. It's one of the best music videos ever made.

And now, its child is selling perfume.

Thanks to Justin for the tip.

Bank of Montreal #RemembranceDay campaign does an about-face

A couple of days ago, I spotted this ad on Facebook:

Nice, eh? Except not really. It's a big bank, and they made a $1.2-billion profit in the third quarter of 2015. And they're buying social media engagement for $1 a pop?

I complained on Twitter, as did many other Canadians, but someone much more famous than most of us really got their attention:

@BMO u should add **up to a MAX of $50,000... of the $4.333 billion PROFIT u made in 2014. Charity or advertising? philanthropy or profit?

— Sarah Silverman (@SaraSilverman) November 7, 2015

@SaraSilverman 1/2 Hi Sara, we're encouraging our community to #TakePause from their social media activities and reflect -

— BMO (@BMO) November 7, 2015

It should be noted that this Sarah Silverman is a parody account. But it — and presumably the complaints of many other Canadians — seems to have convinced BMO to revise their message earlier today:

Can you spot the difference? The full donation amount is mentioned, and it is not contingent on the number of engagements or shares. The link still goes to their Thunderclap site. Here's how the promotion is worded now:

Remembrance Day is about taking pause to remember those selfless men and women who’ve put their lives on the line for our freedom. 

On November 11 at 11am, join us in a moment of social silence to honour these brave men and women. That means no status updates. No re-tweeting. No nothing. 

On behalf of all those who participate, BMO will be giving $50,000 to The Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command Poppy Trust Fund. 

Participants have until November 11 at 10:59 a.m. local time to sign up. 

BMO proudly supports Canada’s veterans through the annual Royal Canadian Legion Poppy Campaign and our long-standing commitment to the Canadian Defence Community.

Their hearts may seem to be in the right place, but keep in mind that this is branded engagement piggybacking on a solemn national day of remembrance for Canada's war dead. No longer holding people's emotions for a $1-per-engagement ransom is a start, but don't fool yourselves: this is private sector marketing trying to earn social media reach on the cheap. Its shareholders wouldn't have it any other way, no matter how they — or the employees of the bank – feel about our soldiers and veterans. (I'm sure they are as good-hearted as the rest of us; but like any corporation the bank's job is to increase share value at all costs.)

Regardless, their YouTube video for the campaign is excellent:



Take a quiet minute tomorrow to remember. Not because it makes you look good on Facebook or Twitter. Not because a brand told you to. And not even to get them to make a token donation to a good cause.

Do it because it's right.

This is the ad that's appearing now:

That's better.

The FDA treats Kim Kardashian's Instagram selfie as an ad campaign

Here's the text of the post, in full:

OMG. Have you heard about this? As you guys know my #morningsickness hasbeen pretty bad. I tried changing things about my lifestyle, like my diet, butnothing helped, so I talked to my doctor. He prescribed me #Diclegis, and I felt alot better and most importantly, it’s been studied and there was no increased riskto the baby. I’m so excited and happy with my results that I’m partnering withDuchesnay USA to raise awareness about treating morning sickness. If you havemorning sickness, be safe and sure to ask your doctor about the pill with thepregnant woman on it and find out more www.diclegis.com;www.DiclegisImportantSafetyInfo.com. 

It's been no secret that many celebrities' social media endorsements are for sale. Five years ago, I blogged about the brazenness with which their followings are bought and sold as commercial media.

Product placements are rampant on narcissistic selfie feeds with millions of dedicated followers, but somehow the United States government decided that this selfie crossed the line into pharmaceutical advertising.

After Ms. Kardashian posted this blatant endorsement to her 42.6 million followers in July, the US Food and Drug Administration sent a letter to the manufacturer of the anti-morning-sickness medication, demanding immediate elimination of the post:

The Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed the Kim Kardashian Social Media Post (social media post) (2015-0069-01) 1 for DICLEGIS (doxylamine succinate and pyridoxine hydrochloride) delayed-release tablets, for oral use (DICLEGIS) submitted by Duchesnay, Inc. (Duchesnay) under cover of Form FDA 2253. The social media post was also submitted as a complaint to the OPDP Bad Ad Program. The social media post is false or misleading in that it presents efficacy claims for DICLEGIS, but fails to communicate any risk information associated with its use and it omits material facts. Thus, the social media post misbrands DICLEGIS within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and makes its distribution violative. 21 U.S.C. 352(a), (n); 321(n); 331(a). See 21 CFR 202.1(e)(5). These violations areconcerning from a public health perspective because they suggest that DICLEGIS is safer than has been demonstrated.  

... 

OPDP requests that Duchesnay immediately cease misbranding DICLEGIS and/or cease introducing the misbranded drug into interstate commerce. Please submit a written response to this letter on or before August 21, 2015, stating whether you intend to comply with this request, listing all promotional materials (with the 2253 submission date) for DICLEGIS that contain presentations such as those described above, and explaining your plan for discontinuing use of such materials, or, in the alternative, for ceasing distribution of DICLEGIS. Because the violations described above are serious and repeated, we request, further, that your submission include a comprehensive plan of action to disseminate truthful, non-misleading, and complete corrective messages about the issues discussed in this letter to the audience(s) that received the violative promotional materials. In order to clearly identify the violative promotional piece(s) and/or activity and focus on the corrective message(s), OPDP recommends that corrective piece(s) include a description of the violative promotional piece(s) and/or activity, include a summary of the violative message(s), provide information to correct each of the violative message(s), and be free of promotional claims and presentations. To the extent possible, corrective messaging should be distributed using the same media, and generally for the same duration of time and with the same frequency that the violative promotional material was disseminated.

This is serious stuff. By treating the Instagram post as a paid ad, the FDA is bringing the full weight of its authority not on citizen Kim Kardashian, but on the company that they assume paid her to shill for them. As I'm sure you know, pharmaceutical advertising is heavily regulated. One of the most onerous parts of that regulation, for advertisers, is the endless list of risks, contraindications, and possible side effects. The FDA points out specifically that the drug has not been studied in women with hyperemesis gravidarum. Omissions like this can can prove tragic.

Since this time, the Instagram post has been removed. Furthermore, the manufacturer admitted to media that it was a paid endorsement (duh!) but that Ms. Kardashian really does take the drug and it was prescribed by her doctor. The Independent quotes Thomas Abrams, the director of the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion at the FDA, saying that the manufacturer is complying with the warning.

An FDA Q&A page states that the emergence of social media has "complicated the job" of promotional regulation, stating "we generally do not have authority over statements made by independent organizations or persons—what we call third parties—unless they are acting on behalf of a company." They also mention that this isn't the first time they have intervened.

This should be an important wake-up call for certain advertisers using celebrities as "native advertising" channels. As the line between advertising and earned media blurs, the regulators have learned to simply follow the money.

Bic South Africa fails hard for women's day

Via Twitter

August 9 was National Women's Day in South Africa, and Bic SA's social media team tried to share an empowering captioned image. The only problem was, it wasn't really empowering at all.

Reaction was swift and sharp, including this hack:

Twitter

The problem is obvious. "Think like a man" is hardly celebrating women's equality.

I'll hand it to Bic, however. They did take it down and issue a proper apology.

From Facebook:

Hi everyone. Let’s start out by saying we’re incredibly sorry for offending everybody - that was never our intention, but we completely understand where we’ve gone wrong. This post should never have gone out. The feedback you have given us will help us ensure that something like this will never happen again, and we appreciate that.

It still shouldn't have happened in the first place, but at least it opens a helpful conversation. Especially for an international brand with a bad history of gender stereotyping.

Who owns "Adland"?

If there's one thing that advertising people actually value, it's a brand. Especially if it's one of our own.

So it's no surprise that Åsk Wäppling, the Swedish owner of the advertising blog adland.tv, doesn't want other people using the term "Adland."

Adland is absolutely ancient in internet terms, having been established in 1996 when most ad people were still trying to figure out if the web was good for anything except free shock porn. A young Ms. Wäppling, under the pseudonym "Dabitch," instead saw the opportunity to create an online global ad archive and professional forum, which in this decade Brand Republic, Business Insider, and Fast Company have listed as one of the most influential in the industry. She even trademarked the name, several years ago. And he's been a mentor as I've fumbled my way into the ad blogosphere.

So you'd think it would be pretty clear that "Adland" = adland.tv. Especially among ad industry bloggers.

Apparently not. As you can see from the Google screencap above, venerable industry magazine Ad Age uses the term "adland," in a generic sense, to refer to the industry in several posts. I have no idea if they used it this way in print, years back, but online it definitely infringes on Dabitch's intellectual property. And she's let them know, many times.

Now other people are letting them know. When Ad Age posted "Adland seeks to hire veterans," Dabitch says she started getting resumes. After finding out they didn't mean THAT Adland, one vet let Ad Age know what he thought about the avoidable confusion:

Courtesy Dabitch

(adland.tv ended up helping the guy get some job leads anyway.)

Dabitch has written directly to Ad Age's legal heads, but after receiving what she characterizes as "nya, we won't" replies, she has taken to the court of social media.

She told me, "Now I tweet at them every time they use the word in a headline and I hope the responses take off."

Here's a recent example:

Here's our best tattoo @adage #adland pic.twitter.com/uQyUzuCDnl

— Adland (@adland) May 6, 2015

Cheeky. But will it get Ad Age's attention now? (More importantly, will it get the attention of its readers and advertisers?) We'll see. Because there are a lot of important ad pros watching that little red TV.

@ProteinWorld vs. "sympathisers for fatties"

The Drum

Oh, dear. A fitness supplement brand in the UK has taken it upon itself to become the patron saint of body shaming.

The Drum reports that, faced with online criticism over its "are you beach body ready?" ad campaign, Protein World decided not only to be unapologetic, but downright nasty:

Twitter

That particular exchange was started by blogger Laurence Hebbard, who wrote about their confrontational social media engagement on Social Media London. Here are some of the curated exchanges:

Someone even made a fake Dove response ad:

As of this writing, the protein shake maker is completely unapologetic. They seem quite happy to bask in the negative publicity (as well as the many Tweets of support from fans).

Is this an example of the tired cliché "there's no such thing as bad publicity"? That remains to be seen. While this kind of obnoxious brand behaviour is bound to ingratiate it to a certain segment of the fitness market, they're also trying to sell weight loss products. Is it really such a great idea to shame people who might actually be interested in such things?

Adopting "being an asshole" as a brand strategy is a risky move, but not an unprecedented one. Now it's just a matter of seeing how many assholes are willing to self-identify by buying the stuff.

Canadian Subway restaurant welcomes "screaming kids" after competition doesn't

Via CBC

As a parent, I love this.

It all started when a seafood restaurant in New Sydney, Nova Scotia, decided to let the town know that they are NOT child-friendly:

The local and social media outcry was immediate and effective, and the restaurant issued an apology. 

I'm sure not everyone will agree with me, but I feel very strongly that children have a right to be in public spaces. Their parents have a responsibility to keep them from unnecessarily disrupting other people's peace-of-mind, but the really young ones — especially babies — often cry. Deal with it. You were one once, too. 

It amazes me what a truly family-unfriendly society we are, when I visit countries where children are cherished by the society as a whole. It seems like a much healthier environment for them to grow up in.

Anyway, kudos to local Subway franchisee Kirk MacRae, who told CBC: "We've had a few [screaming kids] and hope to have a lot more, and don't have any issue with it whatsoever."

Let's hope this goes viral in the good way.

German smoothie company tries unrepentant sexism as a marketing strategy

Image via Adland

Adland recently made me aware of a marketing controversy in Germany. Apparently, this smoothie's packaging makes fun of its unappetizing design with the following:

"Limited No 6 - Black Edition. Have you ever helped an ugly female friend -- who's a really nice person on the inside -- get a date? That's how we are feeling with our smoothie here which might be the tastiest we have ever made but who doesn't get the love it deserves because of its looks. We saw no other solution but to turn off the lights so you can fully embrace its inner values."

A sexist joke is always good for some outrage earned media, and that's exactly what has happened, as well as the inevitable "have a sense of humour" defence.

Personally, I can't even work up outrage over this one. It is a cynical marketing move designed to rack up social mentions.

Brave? No, just tiresome.

Rogue Pizza Hut does one of the dumbest cross-promotions ever

Animal welfare advocates have their hands full on holidays, trying to convince people not to give puppies as Christmas gifts, or live chicks for Easter. The thinking behind this is that adopting a pet should be the result of a thoughtful commitment to being a responsible owner, not an impulse. Otherwise, animals can suffer from neglect.

So it's rather disappointing that this Australian Pizza Hut location made small live animals a premium for their loyalty program. i100 reports that the promotion was posted and discussed on the Facebook page of an animal rights group Oscar's Law, resulting in a formal complaint.

Oscar's Law says that they have since been sent this message from Corporate:

It has come to our attention that one of our stores have recently been running a promotion which was not approved by Pizza Hut Australia, nor was condoned in any circumstances. We would like to sincerely apologise to anyone who was offended by this. 

The poster has since been taken down and all those involved have been made aware of the severity and inappropriateness of the promotion. We would like to thank Oscar's Law and all those who have brought this to our attention this evening. 

On behalf of Pizza Hut Australia we once again apologise for this thoughtless promotion ever occurring and would like to reassure you all that this matter is being seriously dealt with.

Score another one for social media activism!

Twitter protip: Research before hashtagging! #whyistayed

Via Time

It's easy to see how this happened: Whoever manages the DiGiorno frozen pizza Twitter account saw a trending hashtag, #whyistayed, and completely misunderstood it.

From the Tweet above, it looks like they assumed the meme was about staying in a tired relationship. It was actually used by survivors of domestic abuse to share their stories, like "I thought I could change him," and "I didn't know he was abusing me." It runs parallel to another hashtag, #whyileft, and both allow strangers to create a huge, virtual support group.

The DiGiorno Tweet was a huge mistake, making it as far as coverage in Time. The administrator has been performing due penance, apologizing individually, over and over again, to people who called them on it.

The moral of the story? Educate yourself. Not just about what hashtags and memes are really about, but deeper on the underlying social issues that drive them.

And when you do screw up, make it right. Even if you are just a pizza brand.

Thanks to Audra Williams (via Facebook) for the tip.

Is this Cavalli logo an appropriated Sufi symbol?

Via The Fashion Law

See that fake tattoo on Georgia May Jagger's neck?

Okay, now mentally rotate it 90 degrees. What does it look like? To an entire sect of Sufi Muslims, it looks like this:

Via MTO

Followers of The Maktab Tarighat Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi School of Sufi Islam are outraged at seeing their emblem in a sexualized advertising campaign. They've launched a Twitter hashtag campaign, #takeoffjustlogo, as well as a petition.



I have written frequently about the problem of commercial appropriation of cultural symbols. And I think I've established myself as a critic of Islamophobia. But as a branding professional, I think this outrage is completely mistaken.

The logo is clearly a stylized "JC" monogram. There is no extra elaboration. "Just" JC.

I firmly believe that the logo designer was completely unaware of any similarity with the Sufi symbol, and it takes a concerted effort to see it:

Via Allvoices

So what's the big deal? One of the anti-Cavalli campaign organizers, American doctoral student Nasim Bahadorani, said "We have this sign that to us represents blessed peace. It's a refuge … To see it disgraced like this for a company to make money is heartbreaking."

But really? There are only so many ways to create symbols in the world. As much as this one means to The Maktab Tarighat Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi School, and as much as their religious sensibilities are real, this accidental sort-of similarity ranks pretty low in the problems of the world. At least in my opinion.

Cavalli can choose to withdraw the logo if they want to, and they may if they feel the bad PR will influence their key target audiences. But for now, the brand is appealing to the European Union's trademark and design authority, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM).

From Reuters:

"Roberto Cavalli SpA is deeply saddened by the distress expressed by the Sufist School students, but hopes that the sentence emitted by a competent authority such as the OHIM, will convince the Sufist religion of the complete good faith and the groundlessness of their requests," the company said this week in a statement.

Ironically, Roberto Cavalli was the subject of some much more warranted religious outrage back in 2004, when he produced a line of bikinis featuring classical Indian images of Hindu gods. Cavalli apologized and withdrew the swimwear from stores following protests in the UK.

Sexist Schick for Men campaign ends up crowdsourcing feminism

In May, Smart Company reported on a crowdsourced campaign gone awry, for Schick Australia.

It started with a two-part YouTube video, originally produced by Schick Singapore in March



The first ad clicks through to a second video in which the topless model is strategically blocked from every angle, Austin Powers style:



Cheesy and sexist enough, but the Schick for Men Australia Facebook Page also ran a contest for dudes to upload their faces on a model's chest::

The Schick models are then lined up like a menu:

And then you end up in the gallery, emblazoned on the shirt of a now-mostly-headless model:

A feminist group known as Collective Shout hijacked the campaign by creating and posting images in which the t-shirts featured slogans and flames against the campaign:

They're still on the Schick page, and have been preserved as well at Collective Shout.

They're better in context, though, especially with the guy on the top left.

Sure, it's a small protest. But it's another example of how organized, online activism can make a mess of the best laid marketing plans.

Is this Tweet by @PizzaPops gross, or what?

Why you should never bring Pizza Pops to the washroom. #PoppingTom pic.twitter.com/8AYLAX9W1H
— Pizza Pops (@PizzaPops) March 28, 2014

Yes, let us position our snack food as a toilet voyeur. WTF?

It's an old Tweet, but it keeps getting RTed.

Here's a screen cap, in case they pull it:

"This is a test of the emergency Twitter broadcasting system. This is only a test."

Those of us who grew up during the cold war, within range of American TV signals, will remember this traumatizing sound:



Here's what one version of the "Emergency Broadcasting System" looks like in the 21st century:

Twitter Alerts: A new way to get accurate, important information when you need it most. Learn more: https://t.co/ygFxyE04AO
— Twitter (@twitter) September 25, 2013

Hell, we all get our emergency news from Twitter already. But this is a great opportunity to ensure you get the most "official" news as it happens.

According to the Twitter blog:

If you sign up to receive an account’s Twitter Alerts, you will receive a notification directly to your phone whenever that account marks a Tweet as an alert. Notifications are delivered via SMS, and if you use Twitter for iPhone or Twitter for Android, you’ll also receive a push notification*. Alerts also appear differently on your home timeline from regular Tweets; they will be indicated with an orange bell.

It looks like you have to subscribe to individual organizations' Twitter Alerts. Here is FEMA https://twitter.com/fema/alertsRight now, Twitter alerts are limited to public safety organizations in the U.S., Japan and Korea, with plans to include more public institutions and NGOs around the world.

Having done emergency preparedness (and actual emergency) campaigns for clients like Public Safety Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, I can see this being pretty essential.

And I'm glad Twitter Alerts don't use that awful noise...

Dear Brands: please stop appropriating terrorism

Never Forget pic.twitter.com/74Br2rBL3A
— AT&T (@ATT) September 11, 2013

Update: They apologized and the embedded Tweet was removed.

Here's a screencap.

It was a terrible thing. It killed a lot of people. It started wars. It forced us to give up a lot of freedoms.

But one thing is for sure: It did not happen so that brands could borrow interest from death.

I'm only picking on AT&T because it just showed up in my feed. Please share any others you see at the contact form below.

JC Penney: Accidental Bully?

It's one of those dumb ads that uses a stereotype about the need to fit in at school. But how times have changed!



This back-to-school ad has ignited an emotional debate on social media. On the one side, we have parents outraged that, by joking about the exclusion of kids with uncool clothes, JC Penney is promoting bullying or classism:

Via Facebook

On the other side are people complaining about how sensitive we have all become:

Via YouTube

What do you think? I'm not personally offended by the ad, but I can also see why (in this economy) it struck a nerve in some parents. As you can see above, the company is responding to complaints with a PR blurb that is pretty noncommittal, however they acknowledge they have discontinued the ad anyway.

Perhaps the real lesson here is for creatives: Come up with some new damn ideas, rather than rehashing clichés you remember from your youth. And for marketers: Oversensitive or not, this is the new reality of democratic communication. Deal with it honestly and with empathy.

#FML = "Fun My Life"?!?

JELL-O is having some fun with Twitter, responding to #FML ("Fuck My Life") Tweets with little shots of sunshine:

While this kind of sugary cheerfulness could get annoying, the little unexpected gifts are really cute.

According to AdFreak, the work is by CP+B (who else) and "between now and June 14, everyone who tweets the #FML hashtag is entered into a pool, from which a certain number will win 'Fun My Life' prize packs 'specially created to get their life back on track.'"

LMF(un)AO....

McDonald's Canada continues its "myth-busting" marketing

This strategy has been in play for some time, with McDonald's Canada pushing social media audiences to its "Our Food. Your Questions." campaign site.

This teaser video about the chicken content of McNuggets addresses a nagging perception about the ingredients. I recall reading the nutritional information on McNuggets back in the '80s, and realizing that it was basically congealed chicken soup (including mechanically separated meat and chicken stock). However, Huffington Post was forced to post a correction to a story about the popular fast food back in 2010, with the correction that McDonald's USA has been using only "white meat" since 2003.

What this newest volley in the McDonald's PR campaign is battling, is this popular meme image of questionable origin:

Purportedly a picture of mechanically-separated chicken slurry fated for your 6-piece McNugget meal, it has also erroneously been labelled as the "pink slime" cow-part filler that goes into commercial ground beef.

If you actually go to the McDonald's Canada site, here is their answer to the McNugget question:

They refer the users to third-party "Mom Bloggers" who have been taken on a junket to a Cargill chicken processing plant to observe and report on the process. (My favourite part of this post is the squeamish subtitle "From Alive Chicken to Not-Alive Chicken".)

Here is their description of the making of McNuggets:

The white breast meat, along with chicken stock and a natural proportion of skin from the breast is placed into a huge blender. I didn’t realize that there is skin in the nugget mixture but this helps to hold the shape. The meat is then mixed and chilled using CO2. McNuggets are formed, not ground. There are 4 shapes that are pressed out with a rolling cookie cutter: boot, bow-tie, ball and bell. The reason they are all standard in shape and size is to ensure consistency in all McDonald’s restaurants. This guarantees both food safety (standard cooking times in restaurants) and portion control. 

Once the fun shapes pop out, they are coated in batter, dusted with flour and then given a final coat of tempura batter. Who knew? From here they are par-fried and placed directly into the freezer. A thin mist of water is sprayed onto them, as tempura is susceptible to dehydration. They are then inspected and packaged to be sent off to the restaurants.

"Blender"? 

Here are the actual McNuggets ingredients, according the the corporate site:

White Meat Chicken McNuggets®: Chicken breast, water, modified corn starch, salt, seasoning [yeast extract, salt, wheat starch, natural flavour (vegetable source), safflower oil, dextrose, citric acid, and rosemary] natural extractives of rosemary. Breaded with: water, wheat flour, yellow corn flour, modified corn starch, spices, salt, baking powder, dextrose, wheat starch, corn starch, modified hydrogenated soybean oil. Cooked in 100% vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with TBHQ, citric acid and dimethylpolysiloxane). CONTAINS WHEAT

Now, let's see how honest McDonald's is being:

"Simple Ingredients"? Hmmm...

While the strategist in me can admire the theory and complexity of this grand social media strategy for McDonald's Canada, I think it really fails on true transparency.

Can dimethylpolysiloxane and TBHQ (tert-Butylhydroquinone) be considered "seasonings"?

Dimethylpolysiloxane is a type of silicone, "the most widely used silicon-based organic polymer, and is particularly known for its unusual rheological (or flow) properties. PDMS is optically clear, and, in general, inert, non-toxic, and non-flammable. It is also called dimethicone and is one of several types of silicone oil (polymerized siloxane). Its applications range from contact lenses and medical devices to elastomers; it is also present in shampoos (as dimethicone makes hair shiny and slippery), food (antifoaming agent), caulking, lubricating oils, and heat-resistant tiles." (Wikipedia)

TBHQ, added here as a cooking oil preservative, is "used industrially as a stabilizer to inhibit autopolymerization of organic peroxides. It is also used as a corrosion inhibitor in biodiesel. In perfumery, it is used as a fixative to lower the evaporation rate and improve stability. It is also added to varnishes, lacquers, resins, and oil field additives." (Wikipedia) It is, however, considered safe for human consumption in limited quantities.

Plus, there's all that hydrogenated oil.

I don't want to come off as a food alarmist. Industrial chemicals are just like any other substances we consume, even natural ones. They can have positive, negative, or negligible effects on our bodies. In short, I didn't come here to say "OMG, McNuggets use the same chemical as breast implants!!!"

Rather, I'm here to say that McDonald's is, ironically, building a lot of very obvious spin into a campaign that is supposed to be about giving honest answers to consumer questions. As unfair as the pink slime, chicken head and tumour rumours are to McDonald's current products, they could have done so by telling their whole story up front, rather than making people dig for the whole truth.