Is McDonald's #internationalwomensday2018 logo-flip a Freudian slip?

MSN reports that, for International Women's Day, McDonald's has flipped the golden arches on one restaurant sign, as well as on social media, to make the M a W.



I've seen comments that it unintentionally ends up looking like breasts. Which brings up the weird psychology behind the original logo.

From Quartz:

Do you get an irresistible urge to visit McDonald’s whenever you see the golden arches? That’s because, subconsciously, the magnificent yellow M reminds you of breasts. At least, that was the theory of the psychologist and marketing design consultant who persuaded the corporation to keep its logo in the 1960s.

The psychologist/consultant was  Louis Cheskin, who applied the Freud-friendly social science of the time to an analysis of the original golden arches, and he believed that the brand's double-dome evoked feelings of maternal love and sustenance.

This may sound a little flakey now, but Cheskin was an innovator in the deep instincts evoked by colour and shape in branding. His advice convinced Ray Kroc to allow the original arches (which used to be an architectural element) to be transformed into what would one day become a global behemoth of a brand.

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?

McDonald's Italy disses pizza, causes gastronomic outrage

Insulting pizza is a big deal in Italy. Especially if you're an American fast food goliath.

Business Insider reports that the the Associazione Verace Pizza Napoletana (AVPN), representing the pizza chefs of Naples, the food's birthplace, are threatening to sue McDonald's for pizza defamation.

And it's all because of this ad:

You don't need to speak Italian to follow the story: Parents of a picky child are at a pizzeria, anxiously awaiting their child's choice from the menu. The waiter asks the boy what he wants, and he says "a Happy Meal." So the family leaves and takes him to McDonald's where he is happy.

The AVPN's VP is quoted in this imperfectly-translated statement:

Di porzio states that it is ignoble comparing two products very different from each other, especially if it is for discrediting those restaurants most loved by Italian families: pizzerias. Also, it is already well known that children love pizzas, especially for the taste. It is obvious that the American colossus is trying to discredit its main competitor, but speculating on children’s health is just too much. Furthermore, it is not the first time that Mc Donald attacks our culinary traditions, but this time we are willing to take some legal countermeasures.

North Americans may find it odd for pizzerias to attack burgers on nutritional standards, but only if they haven't had authentic Italian pizza. Unlike our doughy, salty and cheesy delivery versions, Italian pizze are all about fresh ingredients and restraint. Even though the dough is made from highly-refined flour, the Italian tradition of much stricter portion control makes the pizza less of a calorie bomb:

A standard margherita (with 250g of dough) has around 800Kcal, but children do not usually eat a whole pizza. So, if we reduce the size of a standard pizza and then we add a drink (without gas), we will reach 700Kcal per meal. A Happy meal has 600Kcal, which for a children are just too much. However, it is not about “how many Kcals there are per meal”, but it is a matter of “what kind of quality” they are! What kind of meat do they use to prepare their hamburgers and how many fats they have? What kind of oil do they use to prepare their potatos: colza oil? How much mayonnaise do they put on their hamburgers? And how about the preservatives contained in their bread? The true napolitan pizza, which is a product guaranteed by our international regulations, it is a “handcrafted” product which only uses selected raw materials, like mozzarella di bufala, fiordilatte, tomatos from Campania and extra virgin oil. In this way, pizzas results in a complete and balanced meal from a nutritional point of view. It is time for parents to control what their children eat: junk food might be ok if consumed now and then, but they should teach their children to eat clean everyday. They must. And eating clean means to follow the culinary culture offered by our wonderful Mediterranean Diet: it will supply parents with the right tools to choose among a great number of meals which are not only tasty and healthy but, above all, Italians.

If you're sensing a certain cultural pride here, you're not mistaken. McDonald's has only been in Italy since 1986, and its arrival in Rome's historic core was greeted with outrage. Designer Valentino even threatened legal action against his new neighbours over the smell:

According to Valentino, who this week began legal action aimed at closing the restaurant, which backs on to his Rome headquarters, the McDonald's created a ''significant and constant noise and an unbearable smell of fried food fouling the air.'' He has asked Italian magistrates to order it closed immediately on the ground that it is a nuisance.

McDonald's stayed, and expanded. Now, it can be found among the historic attractions of Venice, Florence, Milan, and —yes—Naples.

I live in Italy for several months-long stints in the 90s, and McDonald's by then had become a shibboleth for whether one was "cultured" or not. Since food is a massive part of Italy's many regional identities, the arrival of American fast food was bound to cause a reaction. In fact, that Roman McDonald's was the barbarian at the gates of Italian culture that caused Carlo Petrini to found the now-international Slow Food Movement.

There is a certain amount of pretentious Anti-Americanism in the AVPN complaint, but I can see why they are so upset. Defaming pizza in Italy (especially in Naples) is a really obtuse move by McDonald's marketers. Especially since the corporation has been trying so hard to adapt to the demand for more local foods elsewhere in Europe.

McDonald's Norway's weird puppet love letter to farmers

A marionette McDonald's employee meets an elderly farmer, and what follows is an oddly romantic music video:



I'm still trying to figure this one out. Here's the description by McDonald's Norge:

The film is made by Qvisten Animation and depicts the long lasting bond between the Norwegian farmers and McDonald’s. The relationship is personified by two marionette actors controlled by the amazing Ricky Syers.  

There’s of course no love story without a proper love song. The beautiful interpretation of ”When You Say Nothing At All” by Ronan Keating, says it all. Especially so considering the puppets’ rather restricted ability to express themselves verbally. They show their feelings through body language and as the film shows they’re working hard to convey Mr. Keatings words as accurately as their bodies allow.

So the message is, "McDonald's loves its farmer suppliers and they love us". But the message is played out so literally that it's uncomfortably sentimental. I mean, we're really supposed to believe that this corporation exists because it loves rural life?

This campaign fits in with the basic strategy of other farm-to-fork initiatives in the United States, Australia and Canada. But the execution, by DDB Oslo, leaves me scratching my head. It just asks for too much suspension of disbelief, leaving me more cynical than ever.

Via Facebook

H/T Burger Business

Is every brand a "challenger brand" now?

So, Taco Bell is offering breakfast in the United States now. Should McDonald's be worried? As the undisputed gods of the fast food breakfast, McD should, by all accounts, ignore all challengers — at least in public.

At least, those were the ironclad Rule of Marketing we were taught: The #1 brand in a category never acknowledges the competition. Coke, for example, pretends Pepsi doesn't exist, so that Pepsi has to spend all its efforts comparing itself to Coke.

Fast food was pretty much the same: McDonald's just IS, while Burger King, Wendy's and the others spend advertising dollars basically reminding you that they aren't on top.

Taco Bell's ad, above, is no exception. (And not a new approach, either.) So did McDonald's just chuckle softly to itself, and go swimming in a room full of Egg McMuffin revenue?

No, they did not:

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. pic.twitter.com/e0dFN1ZCqy
— McDonald's (@McDonalds) March 29, 2014

Is this a foolhardy brand strategy deviation by a rogue social media team, or is McDonald's really going to start validating its competition now? Is it yet another marketing rule we need to rewrite?

McDonald's Canada just goes ahead and shows you how to make Big Mac "special sauce"

I have heard of proprietary ad agency methodologies referred to as "secret sauce."

But when McDonald's starts showing you how to make a Big Mac in your own kitchen (two years ago!) you know the days of secrecy are over:



Why did they do it? McDonald's isn't worried that you could make a cheaper hamburger at home. They know that their customers either don't think they have the time to, can't be bothered, or are on the move. Plus, anyone can get a copycat recipe on the internet. They'd just rather pay someone else to make it, and to provide a trusted result with reliable service. The uniqueness of the product has fallen way down the priority scale.

They also want you to know that their processes and sourcing are transparent and solid.

I guess ad agencies should take note.

McDonald's (Canada) wants you to see how McNuggets are made

We've all seen the image. Pink goop that looks like strawberry ice cream gets extruded from a machine. It's claimed to be everything from ammonia-treated beef to Chicken McNuggets. It's this generation's version of "worms in the burgers."

The picture is real, and it shows highly-processed chicken that has been mechanically-separated from odds and ends of birds. But it's not how McNuggets are made. At least, not now.

The following video is one of the latest efforts by McDonald's Canada to be more transparent about its ingredients. And if you're used to dealing with meat, it's not even that gross:



Personally, I'm more concerned with how the chickens were housed, fed, slaughtered and processed before they hit the grinders — not to mention how well the meat is monitored for contamination and most of all how the workers are treated.

You can read a hilarious PR blog full of doublespeak here. (My favourite line: "From Alive Chicken to Not-Alive Chicken.") However, when I read that "80-90,000 chickens are processed daily" I am not exactly reassured.

But whatever your personal sensitivities are about the meat industry, it's at least fair to say the McNuggets didn't come from "pink slime."

The McRib, on the other hand...

McAwkward

At first, I assumed this image floating around the internet was fake, because the placement of the "M" makes for a hilarious read.

But e-bay says differently.

Happy Long Weekend!

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.

When you do ads that make fun of ads, try not to make fun of mental illness

Via AdFreak

There's nothing advertising creatives love better than to go meta, and make fun of ad cliches for unrelated products, organizations or causes.

That was, presumably, this thinking behind the McDonald's ad (above) which apparently ran on Boston transit properties.

According to AdFreak, Arnold, Boston, created the ad. They were sent this stament from McDonald's

"Arnold apologizes for its mistake to McDonald's and to anyone who was offended by the ad. McDonald's did not approve the ad, and its release was our unintended error. We've addressed the issue and have improved our approval process to ensure this does not happen in the future."

Here are the other two ads, mocking adult education and business ad clichés:

Via Facebook

Via Facebook

I'd really love to know what kind of "unintended error" resulted in these ads being published and posted, without client approval, in a public place. Not to mention the fact that they followed the art direction of crappy ads so closely that they make the McDonald's brand look sloppy and amateurish.

After the JWT India/Ford scandal I am beginning to seriously wonder what absurd amount of "going rogue" with a brand it actually takes for an agency to get fired.

This Japanese McDonald's recruitment video is actually kind of neat

Two young guys go into a McDonald's, and are transformed into dancin', burger flippin', uniformed party machines:



You watched it all, didn't you? There's something kind of mesmerizing about it. The handwashing sequence is oddly drawn out, but I hear hygiene is a really big deal over there.

This isn't exactly honest advertising, when it comes to the realities of fast food work. Especially under Mcdonald's Japan's high-pressure 60-second service guarantee. But this one is obviously more about instilling pride in the job.

Tip via Rocketnews24

The strangest McDonald's ads you will see today

Two teenage girls mug a terrified Jason/Leatherface hybrid for his burgers.




But they're French girls, and those burgers have stinky cheese on them! Who could resist?

There's another ad in the series, but it's a pretty weak extension of the concept:

Campaign by TBWA Paris. Via Ads of The World

McDonald's Australia offers supply-chain transparency app

The changing consumer perception of food is starting to have a real influence on fast food chains. In 2011, McDonald's USA started a "farm to fork" campaign about their ingredient sourcing. Last year, McDonald's Canada launched an "ask us anything" site to try to dispel urban legends about their food. Now, according to Burger Business, McDonald's Australia (Known there as "Macca") has gone even further with the marketing transparency, creating an app that can source the farms and producers who created the ingredients for your actual meal. This video explains:

Burger Business writes:

In its Facebook film explaining the app, McDonald’s admits that there remains “some confusion about just how real our food is,” despite its having spent many years and tried a variety of approaches to explaining its food sourcing and preparation. No amount of food-quality information will suffice for some fast-food haters, vegetarian activists and food elitists, but McDonald’s has provided far more transparency on this issue for a longer time than has any other QSR chain.

I'll give McDonald's points for effort, if not for the actual products. Supporting local farmers and producers is great. Pushing highly-processed packages of sugar, salt and fat on families... somewhat less so. But it's great to see big brands reacting to grassroots change.

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.

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.