Why Your McD's Burger Doesn't Look Like the One in the Ad(adage.com)
adage.com
Why Your McD's Burger Doesn't Look Like the One in the Ad
http://adage.com/article/adages/video-burger-ad/235508/
194 コメント
You might be curious to know that the Burger King in Half Way Tree (a major crossroads in Kingston for those who don't know) had something like the largest grossing grand opening of any BK in the world when they opened on New Year's Eve in 1988. Funny place Jamaica - Pepsi, Blackberry and Burger King instead of Coke, iPhone and McDonalds.
Wow, didn't know that! Last time I was there, I brought a flask of J Wray with me. You should have seen the looks on everybody's face when I uncorked it and started pouring it into the orange juice...I offered some whoever wanted, but no one took me up on the offer....fun times :)
Oh, and you're perfectly right: "Pepsi, Blackberry and Burger King instead of Coke, iPhone and McDonalds."
Oh, and you're perfectly right: "Pepsi, Blackberry and Burger King instead of Coke, iPhone and McDonalds."
I think the cleverest marketing bit from a cynic's perspective was the part where the hostess, the McDonald's Canada's Director of Marketing, confidently walks into the bright clean store, orders and obtains the burger from the pleasant staff, and pulls it out of its box in genuine anticipation and appears fully prepared to eat it when the camera cuts out.
That's the psychological button-pushing aspect of this video that's hard to duplicate in normal advertisements. In addition to the value of the realism in scenario itself, showing a Director of Marketing appear genuinely enthusiastic about the quality of the product is also a big win.
The rest of it is interesting, not really all that surprising, and undoubtedly simplified as much to fit into the desired time constraints as much as to present the issue in as positive a light as possible.
That's the psychological button-pushing aspect of this video that's hard to duplicate in normal advertisements. In addition to the value of the realism in scenario itself, showing a Director of Marketing appear genuinely enthusiastic about the quality of the product is also a big win.
The rest of it is interesting, not really all that surprising, and undoubtedly simplified as much to fit into the desired time constraints as much as to present the issue in as positive a light as possible.
Who cares if this is a PR stunt? It answers the question quite truthfully, they aren't hiding the fact they have a food stylist who cooks the ingredients in a different way, tactfully places the meat, condiments and salads for a good picture. It's a known fact that in every industry involving photography; clothes, food, beverages, cars, electronic products is altered via Photoshop. Perfect lighting and a great photographer are about 90% of the work and the last 10% is usually minor alterations as seen in the video.
Another reason that explains why the burgers look amazing in the advertising is because the food stylist has access to where ingredients are placed and what ingredients he uses. In McDonald's stores they just use whatever ingredients they have on hand and if you've ever worked at McDonald's or know someone else who has or does, then you'd probably know a lot of their salads are frozen/refrigerated compared to a food stylist who would have access to the freshest ingredients that haven't been frozen.
You could quite clearly see the food stylist laying out several pieces of cheese on a plate, several pickles and carefully placing where the sauces went. The meat looks bigger because it was lightly seared in a pan and most likely not ingestible. Everyone knows meat shrinks when you cook it and you can see the stylist cooking the patty in a pan, and then holding it on a George Foreman looking grill, making sure it browned evenly.
The bottom line is: nothing ever looks the same as it does in an advertisement and the fact that people still complain and bring this up amazes me. We live in a society where nothing we see in magazines, TV, the Internet or newspapers is real most of the time.
Another reason that explains why the burgers look amazing in the advertising is because the food stylist has access to where ingredients are placed and what ingredients he uses. In McDonald's stores they just use whatever ingredients they have on hand and if you've ever worked at McDonald's or know someone else who has or does, then you'd probably know a lot of their salads are frozen/refrigerated compared to a food stylist who would have access to the freshest ingredients that haven't been frozen.
You could quite clearly see the food stylist laying out several pieces of cheese on a plate, several pickles and carefully placing where the sauces went. The meat looks bigger because it was lightly seared in a pan and most likely not ingestible. Everyone knows meat shrinks when you cook it and you can see the stylist cooking the patty in a pan, and then holding it on a George Foreman looking grill, making sure it browned evenly.
The bottom line is: nothing ever looks the same as it does in an advertisement and the fact that people still complain and bring this up amazes me. We live in a society where nothing we see in magazines, TV, the Internet or newspapers is real most of the time.
Ever been to Japan? The burgers and fries at McDonalds there are not lukewarm or squished like you get here in America, rather they're hot, toasted, and all puffed up.
They're also more expensive.
They're also more expensive.
Damn, now I'm really in the mood for some Mos Burger. Fast food that looks exactly like their pictures. http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalleboo/5997808382/lightbox/
This also applies to Freshness Burger and Kua'Aina. I don't understand how the Japanese can pull it off but Americans and Finns can't.
In China too. There, McDonald's is a luxury. (A meal would cost several hours of wages.)
On a hot summer day I ordered an ice cream cone at a random McDonald's in Vienna, and when it didn't look as enticing as the picture, I expressed a child like disappointment. They immediately took it back and made me another one that looked like the picture. That made it taste even better.
On the other hand, also in Vienna, in winter I ordered a bagel and asked if they could toast it for me. The lady responded in a strong Russian accent "Das ist ein kalt produkt!" No amount of persuasion or rationalizing could get her to put the f'ing bagel in the f'ing toaster right behind her. ;-)
On the other hand, also in Vienna, in winter I ordered a bagel and asked if they could toast it for me. The lady responded in a strong Russian accent "Das ist ein kalt produkt!" No amount of persuasion or rationalizing could get her to put the f'ing bagel in the f'ing toaster right behind her. ;-)
Anecdotal but related: over the last few years I've noticed a trend where I've been appreciating Chipotle more and more, and liking McDonald's less and less. At Chipotle's I can count on getting healthy fresh natural-tasting food fast, clean tables, and lots of good looking women among fellow customers. At McDonald's I increasingly experienced unhealthy stale, artificial/chemical-tasting food (sometimes fast, sometimes slow), with dirty tables, dirty drink stand areas, dirty bathrooms, sometimes no mirrors, flies common, and lots of fat or ugly women, and slobs of all genders/ages in general. And the price of a meal is roughly the same, order of magnitude-wise. And because of the indoor playground, more frequent cases of kid's screaming or being obnoxious -- though it sometimes happens at Chipotle too, just not as much. Oh and the music would be better at Chipotle too.
So it really became a no-brainer for me which to choose whenever I needed a fast meal and didn't want to make something. Chipotle isn't perfect (I've identified about 4 things they could do better, in my book) but they've come closer to perfect, in the fast food space, than any other business I've seen. I'm glad McDonald's is (hopefully) losing in the marketplace and on Wall Street, and Chipotle the opposite. It (should be) all about the customer and the end-user experience, and this should be reflected in revenue and stock price trends, in a fair system.
I've never expected their burgers to match their ads, but I do expect them to taste good, and not provide a disgusting dining room experience. Life's too short for otherwise.
So it really became a no-brainer for me which to choose whenever I needed a fast meal and didn't want to make something. Chipotle isn't perfect (I've identified about 4 things they could do better, in my book) but they've come closer to perfect, in the fast food space, than any other business I've seen. I'm glad McDonald's is (hopefully) losing in the marketplace and on Wall Street, and Chipotle the opposite. It (should be) all about the customer and the end-user experience, and this should be reflected in revenue and stock price trends, in a fair system.
I've never expected their burgers to match their ads, but I do expect them to taste good, and not provide a disgusting dining room experience. Life's too short for otherwise.
McDonalds was a major investor in Chipotle from 1998 until 2006. If I recall correctly, Steve Ells (the founder of Chipotle) has said that this was one of the major reasons for the success of Chipotle.
Personally I think the fact that Chipotle produce the food in front of you also contributes to the sense that it’s fresher than other fast food alternatives.
Personally I think the fact that Chipotle produce the food in front of you also contributes to the sense that it’s fresher than other fast food alternatives.
Direct link without blogspam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSd0keSj2W8
Extremely demanding schedule of lately has forced me to sacrifice on the quality of my daily food intake, where I snack occasionally on fast food items so here are my thoughts:
Biggest issue with fast food is sort of linked to the "uglification for the sake of taste", but let's get one thing straight: fast food quality and taste is damn bad. So that excuse is out the window. I've tried everything on McD's menu including their newer 'bistro' or whatever sandwiches and all of them left me wondering WTF is wrong with this food.
The biggest offender of this is, and I truly mean it - Tim Hortons. Ever since about two years ago or so, their food became garbage. They too have the pretty moving adverts in-store on their LCDs, but I'll be damned if I buy another item from that chain.
Lesson learned: make and pack my own food as much as possible.
Biggest issue with fast food is sort of linked to the "uglification for the sake of taste", but let's get one thing straight: fast food quality and taste is damn bad. So that excuse is out the window. I've tried everything on McD's menu including their newer 'bistro' or whatever sandwiches and all of them left me wondering WTF is wrong with this food.
The biggest offender of this is, and I truly mean it - Tim Hortons. Ever since about two years ago or so, their food became garbage. They too have the pretty moving adverts in-store on their LCDs, but I'll be damned if I buy another item from that chain.
Lesson learned: make and pack my own food as much as possible.
I don't even understand why people in USA go to McDonalds etc. I mean, if you want good burgers, USA is the paradise for them. E.g. while visiting Berkeley, one random burger joint called Bongo Burger was better than any burger I've eaten in Europe.
I don't know how is it in smaller cities, but I would guess an American should know what's a good burger and what's complete rubbish.
I don't know how is it in smaller cities, but I would guess an American should know what's a good burger and what's complete rubbish.
To add insult to injury, there's a McDonald's within a few blocks of Bongo Burger (at Center St.) that's enormous and always packed. I'm not sure if we see this behavior because Americans are addicted to empty calories, or just don't want to venture outside their (dis)comfort zone to try something new, or what. It's sad.
The point of eating at McDonald's is not to get the world's best burger. It's to get a McD burger which always tastes the same no matter where you are. They don't really even taste like regular burgers, they taste like McDonald's burgers. People aren't dumb, they know approximately what the burger at Bongo (or wherever) will taste like. But you have to figure out what they put on the burger, what to drink, etc. At McD you get the same thing every time, no fuss. It's much less cognitive load to eat at McDonalds, plus it's almost certainly cheaper. Everybody has their reasons.
Two words that keep fast food on everyone's mind:
DOLLAR MENU
DOLLAR MENU
If I walk into a McDonald's, I know that $5 will get me a cheeseburger, some fries, and a drink. I know what it'll taste like, and I know the food will be ready in about 2 minutes. I'm sure Bongo Burger is amazing, and now that I've heard of it I'll have to try it next time I'm in Berkeley. But for all I know, a Bongo Burger might cost $10 and have a half-hour wait before they get my order cooked; that's not always what I'm looking for, and that's perfectly fine.
Actually a menu with bacon burger, drink and fries was something between $6-$7 and ready in 5-10 minutes.
I also experienced some great burgers in New York, ones with truffles and Kobe meat. They were already pretty expensive, but also tasted amazing.
I also experienced some great burgers in New York, ones with truffles and Kobe meat. They were already pretty expensive, but also tasted amazing.
And there you go.
I work with several people who go to McDonald's three days a week. They refuse to try anything different even when they definitely have the time (fixed lunch hour) and money ($1 extra?) and encouragement (happy coworkers) to shop around.
When you're far from home, short on time/money, and looking for something familiar, then sure, I get it. But sometimes, people are just lazy. Everybody certainly has their reasons. Those reasons aren't always good.
I work with several people who go to McDonald's three days a week. They refuse to try anything different even when they definitely have the time (fixed lunch hour) and money ($1 extra?) and encouragement (happy coworkers) to shop around.
When you're far from home, short on time/money, and looking for something familiar, then sure, I get it. But sometimes, people are just lazy. Everybody certainly has their reasons. Those reasons aren't always good.
It's just weird to prefer something guaranteed bad over something possibly good. That's risk aversion for you....
Tim Hortons used to bake and make their products in store. Now they outsource their work to Maidstone which they sold off. They just "finish" their products in store. It leads to a more consistent product and controllable costs. I don't think it's better quality (it's lifeless), but more consistent.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ide...
In the old days, I would simply just order what came out last from the oven. Because hot anything out of the oven is awesome. When it was a croissant, it is a jackpot.
Personally, I think people don't realize the extent of how "factory" like a lot of corporate chains are. Like how Montana's doesn't actually "cook" your vegetables, they just microwave a frozen pack and dump it on a plate. And this is a sit-down restaurant with waitresses and cooks.
My solution? I eat-in and plan out.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ide...
In the old days, I would simply just order what came out last from the oven. Because hot anything out of the oven is awesome. When it was a croissant, it is a jackpot.
Personally, I think people don't realize the extent of how "factory" like a lot of corporate chains are. Like how Montana's doesn't actually "cook" your vegetables, they just microwave a frozen pack and dump it on a plate. And this is a sit-down restaurant with waitresses and cooks.
My solution? I eat-in and plan out.
"Food stylists" have a fascinating but somewhat tedious job. I have watched one insert a cocktail stick into thousands of flakes of individual oatmeal in order to "plump them up" for a video shoot.
Food in commercials is treated like an actor. It is styled, staged, and post-produced to show it at its best. Food stylists are just as talented as traditional cosmetic artists, but few people seem to know they exist. It was good to see McDonald's revealing a little of their work here.
Food in commercials is treated like an actor. It is styled, staged, and post-produced to show it at its best. Food stylists are just as talented as traditional cosmetic artists, but few people seem to know they exist. It was good to see McDonald's revealing a little of their work here.
Oh I like the "sloppy" feel of this video - showing other members of the film crew in the background, microphone in the car and careless camera movements. While those are normally errors that are easy to avoid, in this case it communicates a live, not staged feel, and by extension - honesty.
Pretty well engineered, though the excessive color grading diminishes the effect a bit.
This is a segment from an Australian show (The Gruen Transfer) going over the same question without the transparent Maccas bias. The entire clip from the beginning is worth a watch and talks about the value of relentless advertising.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WUhrIOqdCs#t=3m45s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WUhrIOqdCs#t=3m45s
Domino's put out a similar video a couple years ago: http://shine.yahoo.com/shine-food/dominos-gives-us-a-glimpse... (sorry, would have linked directly to the video but it doesn't seem to be allowed)
Someone copied it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m63gE5eySkU
Search for "Domino's Pulling the Cheese".
Search for "Domino's Pulling the Cheese".
I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but they didn't fully cook the burger. They just browned the sides for the photos, which gives it a much fuller look. Sure they may use the same ingredients, but the burger in the photo shoot will surely make you sick.
I'm unable to open the video, but from the comments it seems like "McDonald's are cheating in their video (Adobe Premiere and non-software stuff) about how they are cheating in their print ads (Adobe Photoshop and non-software stuff)"
Cheat-ception!
Cheat-ception!
I like that the video was filmed on Dundas west + Roncesvalles in toronto. McDonald's is one of the few fast food joints around there surrounded by an amazing selection of much nicer eats.
It makes me sort of wonder why they don't just own the appearance of the squished, lopsided version customers end up purchasing. I mean, it still looks pretty tasty.
[deleted]
Most people think that the burgers that we see in the ads are just made with different ingredients, that's why they're bigger and more good looking.
She made that really clear, they use the same ingredients in both burgers. The only difference is appearance not taste.
She made that really clear, they use the same ingredients in both burgers. The only difference is appearance not taste.
This is standard advertising practice across many industries and not unique to McDonald's. Examples include food (both restaurants and specific products like breakfast cereal), cosmetics, health products, even real estate. McDonald's really does push it very far though, in terms of disparity between the imagery and the actual product.
I suppose it falls under the "fake it till you make it" category of business practices.
I suppose it falls under the "fake it till you make it" category of business practices.
[deleted]
Hottie shows manufactured burger.
Has HN jumped the shark? #cantbelievethisisatthetop
Content like this has reached the top from time to time for at least as long as I've been frequenting this site (about three years).
It's amusing to note that these comments generally come from people with new accounts. It's so prevalent, in fact, that the guidelines specifically state "If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)".
It's amusing to note that these comments generally come from people with new accounts. It's so prevalent, in fact, that the guidelines specifically state "If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)".
Well I didn't make any comparisons like that. Instead I implied an assumption about Hacker News that it's about news that interests hackers (in the lose sense of tech focused people). McD doesn't fit into that assumption. So ... something's gotta change (i.e. the assumption).
If they cheat this much, it's basically lying. I mean, I don't care. Lie to me. It's better than the truth, frankly. I haven't eaten at McDonald's in years and this is just one of 100 reasons why.
However when she says 'we use the exact same ingredients they use in the store' that's a blatant lie. For one thing all McDonald's stores use slightly different ingredients (whatever can be bought at best market prices) and they definitely could never produce a cosmetically perfect burger using stock ingredients.
In addition, she doesn't tell you about all the non-food items that are used to make this look so good - hairspray for gloss, polymerized rubber for filling, etc.
I will add, gratuitously, the money McD's is paying looks good on her.
However when she says 'we use the exact same ingredients they use in the store' that's a blatant lie. For one thing all McDonald's stores use slightly different ingredients (whatever can be bought at best market prices) and they definitely could never produce a cosmetically perfect burger using stock ingredients.
In addition, she doesn't tell you about all the non-food items that are used to make this look so good - hairspray for gloss, polymerized rubber for filling, etc.
I will add, gratuitously, the money McD's is paying looks good on her.
It used to be annoying that the food looks so different, but after that video ... I feel better ... and hungry. Some good communication there from the McMarketing Department
to be honest in the UK at least they look pretty similar although usually assembled slightly wonky.
Still taste as good as they look in the ads though.
Despite all the bad press, McDonalds is great (well I like them anyway).
Still taste as good as they look in the ads though.
Despite all the bad press, McDonalds is great (well I like them anyway).
This is clever (if cynical) marketing from McDonalds Canada: take one of the oldest knocks against large-scale fast food (that's it's marketed dishonestly) and turn it into a product benefit: "it's ugly because we took the original product, which is beautiful, and then uglified it to make it taste better". One thing that makes this piece cynical is that the integrity of fast food promo graphics is not a new or pressing issue; McDonalds has had many excellent opportunities to address that critique in the past.
Also, note carefully the details in this piece: it covers "food styling" done by "WATT" for "McDonalds Canada" and claims that that particular shoot used only the actual ingredients McDonalds uses in its retail chain.
From what little I know of the "food styling" business (not much, but I've met people who work in it), it would be an extraordinary claim that McDonalds adheres to that "only real store-scale ingredients used in promotional graphics" credo worldwide. But maybe they do?
Also, note carefully the details in this piece: it covers "food styling" done by "WATT" for "McDonalds Canada" and claims that that particular shoot used only the actual ingredients McDonalds uses in its retail chain.
From what little I know of the "food styling" business (not much, but I've met people who work in it), it would be an extraordinary claim that McDonalds adheres to that "only real store-scale ingredients used in promotional graphics" credo worldwide. But maybe they do?
I understand there are specific laws about what they can and cannot show in a food ad in Ontario and/or Canada. They can do their own preparation, but I believe the ingredients must be identical to the ones in the actual product. So it must be an actual beef patty, and the ketchup and mustard can be squirted on carefully, but they have to be real ketchup and mustard.
I saw a food photographer explain that for soup they used to put marbles in the can to push up the meat/vegetables and they aren't allowed to do that any more. But they can (and do) pick through cans to find the biggest and best pieces since it's stuff that was actually in the can. It's an interesting exercise in dancing just on this side of the line.
A well-known food celebrity in Jamaica told me once that most ice-cream ads actually use mashed potatoes. I didn't know enough to ask her if that was a local or international practice.
If the food is incidental (just in a TV show or something) it's going to be faked stuff, sprayed with lacquer, for the lights.
If the food is the product being advertised, it must be real.
There's probably a really interesting product placement grey line where the advertiser can argue that placement of a beautiful, fake burger in a scene should not be regulated under the "must be real" guidelines.
If the food is the product being advertised, it must be real.
There's probably a really interesting product placement grey line where the advertiser can argue that placement of a beautiful, fake burger in a scene should not be regulated under the "must be real" guidelines.
They also use plastic ice cubes so you have time to setup a shot and there is a whole market in plastic food, see this ad studio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKC6j7pW6T0
But there is a difference between just food in a photo-shoot where you can use anything and a shot of the actual product in an ad which must obey certain rules in most countries
But there is a difference between just food in a photo-shoot where you can use anything and a shot of the actual product in an ad which must obey certain rules in most countries
Same in europe - the advertising standards agencies are very strict that it must be the exact product.
There is a famous case of an ad for Martini where, because of the rules, it had to be the real product that the actors were drinking!
Which lead to a catch-22 after a few takes - the more mistakes they made, the more they had to drink and the more mistakes they made.....
There is a famous case of an ad for Martini where, because of the rules, it had to be the real product that the actors were drinking!
Which lead to a catch-22 after a few takes - the more mistakes they made, the more they had to drink and the more mistakes they made.....
Found them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PirMZGL-0mQ
Leonard Rossiter is a famous British actor but had a reputation for being difficult to work with and a real perfectionist.
Joan Collins said in an interview that he kept messing up the take after each drink and she wasn't sure if he was doing it deliberately - but they ended up very drunk at the end.
Leonard Rossiter is a famous British actor but had a reputation for being difficult to work with and a real perfectionist.
Joan Collins said in an interview that he kept messing up the take after each drink and she wasn't sure if he was doing it deliberately - but they ended up very drunk at the end.
Even if they use ingredients from a single store it'll look 1000 times better in the picture.
The photog gets to choose the best bun out of hundreds, the best tomatoes, greenest lettuce. In the end photograph, the bun will look perfect and fluffy, the tomato sparkles, and the meat seems fresher than a live cow. Plus they may or may not, but there are "tricks" to simulate things like fake steam coming out of food, spraying glicerin or corn syrup to make it look moist(looks like water droplets), or simply cold food photographs better. On top of all that, good lighting does wonders as well.
The photog gets to choose the best bun out of hundreds, the best tomatoes, greenest lettuce. In the end photograph, the bun will look perfect and fluffy, the tomato sparkles, and the meat seems fresher than a live cow. Plus they may or may not, but there are "tricks" to simulate things like fake steam coming out of food, spraying glicerin or corn syrup to make it look moist(looks like water droplets), or simply cold food photographs better. On top of all that, good lighting does wonders as well.
In the US, they have to by law... if the photo is advertising an actual product. For instance, they could garnish the photo with a basket of fresh tomatoes, a head of lettuce, a friendly cow, etc. and that would be okay... as long as the actual product being sold is made using the as-sold ingredients.
This law came about in, hm, the 60s? after the first wave of outrage over things like ice cream in advertisements being made out of textured lard, or whatever.
This law came about in, hm, the 60s? after the first wave of outrage over things like ice cream in advertisements being made out of textured lard, or whatever.
Is that actually the law? If you're referring to the FTC Act, I don't see the bright-line about using actual ingredients; the law says you can't make "deceptive" statements in advertising, and the FTC clarifies "deceptive" in a policy statement as (paraphrased) "a false statement about a material fact of the product that would mislead consumers into taking an action they wouldn't if the statement were known to be false".
So, showing a 3/4 pound hamburger in an ad for 99 cent cheeseburgers would be material, but using colored caulk instead of mustard probably wouldn't be.
So, showing a 3/4 pound hamburger in an ad for 99 cent cheeseburgers would be material, but using colored caulk instead of mustard probably wouldn't be.
From here (http://insite.artinstitutes.edu/food-stylists-blend-technica...):
"The food stylist’s magic tricks face regulation from the Federal Trade Commission and its truth in advertising laws. That Crisco-powdered sugar mix can substitute for ice cream if it’s representing a generic dessert on a menu, Allaben says, but not if it’s hawking a brand name like Ben & Jerry’s."
And here (http://www.cskern.com/blog/entryid/11):
"The truth is most of what you see in food photographs is real. FTC laws state that whatever you’re selling with a photo must be real in the image. To use a familiar example, if you’re selling corn flakes the flakes must be real. But then it gets interesting. You can use white glue instead of milk in your bowl of flakes because you’re not selling the milk, only the corn flakes."
So, the product being sold must be real as-it-is-sold (albeit much more carefully styled, generally). The incidentals can be embellished. A McD's quarter-pounder is a single product, and so presumably must be made with its actual ingredients in ads.
"The food stylist’s magic tricks face regulation from the Federal Trade Commission and its truth in advertising laws. That Crisco-powdered sugar mix can substitute for ice cream if it’s representing a generic dessert on a menu, Allaben says, but not if it’s hawking a brand name like Ben & Jerry’s."
And here (http://www.cskern.com/blog/entryid/11):
"The truth is most of what you see in food photographs is real. FTC laws state that whatever you’re selling with a photo must be real in the image. To use a familiar example, if you’re selling corn flakes the flakes must be real. But then it gets interesting. You can use white glue instead of milk in your bowl of flakes because you’re not selling the milk, only the corn flakes."
So, the product being sold must be real as-it-is-sold (albeit much more carefully styled, generally). The incidentals can be embellished. A McD's quarter-pounder is a single product, and so presumably must be made with its actual ingredients in ads.
Not to be argumentative, let's stipulate that those two blog posts are true in spirit, but can anyone find the actual law or FTC policy statement that says "generic ice cream can be styled out of Crisco but Ben & Jerry's has to be real"?
Also: McDonalds Canada specifically said, in this video, that they were not embellishing the incidentals; it was exactly the same buns, exactly the same pickles, just arranged differently.
Also: McDonalds Canada specifically said, in this video, that they were not embellishing the incidentals; it was exactly the same buns, exactly the same pickles, just arranged differently.
I'm not a lawyer, or even an armchair lawyer, so I don't know where to look to find the applicable laws. However, there are plenty of cites from industry people saying the same thing. I assume they have to be familiar with the law that regulates what they do.
And the bun, pickles etc would have to be real by law, is what I'm saying. They're part of a single McD's product being sold by the photo.
And the bun, pickles etc would have to be real by law, is what I'm saying. They're part of a single McD's product being sold by the photo.
The subtext I'm communicating is, "if I was in the food marketing industry, I sure would want to communicate to the world that I was legally obligated to adhere to some strict code of conduct". It's a credibility booster.
So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place that says McDonalds must-absolutely-must use real pickles or exactly the real McNugget coating, no spraypaint allowed, in its food shoots.
I think we've already shot to shit the verity of these photos when we observe that they're browning the burgers on a panini press and then saying "this food is ugly because if it looked like the ad, it would taste like shit". Well, you can say the same thing about overcooked protein as you can about a can of shellac, can't you?
So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place that says McDonalds must-absolutely-must use real pickles or exactly the real McNugget coating, no spraypaint allowed, in its food shoots.
I think we've already shot to shit the verity of these photos when we observe that they're browning the burgers on a panini press and then saying "this food is ugly because if it looked like the ad, it would taste like shit". Well, you can say the same thing about overcooked protein as you can about a can of shellac, can't you?
"So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place"
I tried that, of course, and didn't find a proper law reference in the amount of time I dedicated to the task. I'll have leave it up to you to satisfy your curiosity from here. Please do post if/when you find it!
I tried that, of course, and didn't find a proper law reference in the amount of time I dedicated to the task. I'll have leave it up to you to satisfy your curiosity from here. Please do post if/when you find it!
It get's back to case law. But false advertising is a
'means of advertisement other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect; and in determining whether an advertisement is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual.
The net result of this basically means if your selling a burger, you must show a picture of a burger using the materials you use to make a burger. But, you don't need to use the same methods.
'means of advertisement other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect; and in determining whether an advertisement is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual.
The net result of this basically means if your selling a burger, you must show a picture of a burger using the materials you use to make a burger. But, you don't need to use the same methods.
In re Campbell Soup Co., 77 F.T.C. 664 (1970).
It took all of 2 minutes to find the case. You have to know where to look.
The case is not available digitally for free or as part of subscriptions to legal research databases to Lexis, Westlaw, etc. It is available digitally if you are willing to pay for individual access to the case; price varies depending on the LRD used.
Note that the FTC has not ever actually issued formal regulations on this topic. This is largely for administrative reasons: if the FTC published formal rules, it would be bound to those rules; with informal rules, it is better able to address ads which are deceptive but otherwise satisfy the letter of the law. (This flexibility is a good thing, otherwise the rules on food advertising alone could fill a small room.)
It took all of 2 minutes to find the case. You have to know where to look.
The case is not available digitally for free or as part of subscriptions to legal research databases to Lexis, Westlaw, etc. It is available digitally if you are willing to pay for individual access to the case; price varies depending on the LRD used.
Note that the FTC has not ever actually issued formal regulations on this topic. This is largely for administrative reasons: if the FTC published formal rules, it would be bound to those rules; with informal rules, it is better able to address ads which are deceptive but otherwise satisfy the letter of the law. (This flexibility is a good thing, otherwise the rules on food advertising alone could fill a small room.)
That probably supports tptacek's contention (apologies if not your contention) that actual, specific rules do not really exist?
Correct. The "rules" are just guideposts. Campbell is essentially the FTC saying what a company should do in order to avoid an enforcement action (for food ads). You don't need to follow the rules set forth in Campbell, but then you run the risk that if your ad is even the slightest bit deceptive the FTC will come calling with a fine.
See In re Campbell Soup Co., 77 F.T.C. 664 (1970), which sets forth the basic rules.
There are print copies available, but the case generally precedes the digitized archives available with subscriptions to legal research archives (i.e., Lexis/Westlaw). You are free to pay for access to the appropriate database if you actually need to read the case digitally.
There are print copies available, but the case generally precedes the digitized archives available with subscriptions to legal research archives (i.e., Lexis/Westlaw). You are free to pay for access to the appropriate database if you actually need to read the case digitally.
Neat! How'd you find it? Do you have any idea what it says? I'd love to know what the basic rules are.
I typed in "food styling" and FTC into Google, and it was in every result on the first page. (I was not using personalized search but I do have cookies enabled, so your results may vary.) If you do not want to pay for the digital copy (I think it is $10 on Lexis for the case, not including search charges), you can go to your local bar association law library. Larger law libraries may have a copy of appropriate FTC rulings. Alternatively, a law school library will have a paperpound copy (but may charge non-students and non-alumni for entry).
In a nutshell, in Campbell, the company used marbles to stand-in for peas and other various vegetable ingredients. Someone complained that the ads were deceptive. The FTC pursued an enforcement action against the company. In its ruling, the FTC noted that a food product (and any ingredients) advertised must actually be the food product sold. Otherwise, the ad is deceptive.
The application to burger commercials: The advertised product must be an actual sample of the sold product. All of the ingredients in the sold product must be in the advertised product.
The ruling is not explicitly limited to the food products being advertised and sold, however it does not address any other ingredients except for those advertised and sold. Consequently, if a foodstuff is not part of the final sold product, the advertisement can use a stand-in. Consequently, the milk in cereal commercials can be glue (or paint), while the cereal in milk commercials can be plastic.
In a nutshell, in Campbell, the company used marbles to stand-in for peas and other various vegetable ingredients. Someone complained that the ads were deceptive. The FTC pursued an enforcement action against the company. In its ruling, the FTC noted that a food product (and any ingredients) advertised must actually be the food product sold. Otherwise, the ad is deceptive.
The application to burger commercials: The advertised product must be an actual sample of the sold product. All of the ingredients in the sold product must be in the advertised product.
The ruling is not explicitly limited to the food products being advertised and sold, however it does not address any other ingredients except for those advertised and sold. Consequently, if a foodstuff is not part of the final sold product, the advertisement can use a stand-in. Consequently, the milk in cereal commercials can be glue (or paint), while the cereal in milk commercials can be plastic.
I was always under the impression that most food photography was not just using different ingredients, but that they were actually using inedible materials (paint, glue, clay, etc.) on/for the food in the pictures.
I'm trying to reconcile this (which I've heard before) with what other people are saying about advertising laws, and I've got two hypotheses.
1. Not all food photography is advertising. For example, food magazines: They're not actually selling what's on the cover. They're well within their rights that the covershoot consists entirely of wax models of tomatoes rather than real tomatoes[1]. The same would apply to the Food or Recipes sections in generic lifestyle magazines.
2. The things that are "not the food itself" is interpreted very broadly. As others have noted, you can use white glue for milk if you're hawking cereal. If you're selling tomatoes, you can probably still dip them in wax varnish to make them shine, and add "water" drops made of epoxy to sexy them up[2].
[1] That is to say, "real" wax models, not Roma tomatoes.
[2] I mean "sexy" literally. It's called "food porn" for a reason. The photographic techniques and cinematographic styles are apparently very similar.
1. Not all food photography is advertising. For example, food magazines: They're not actually selling what's on the cover. They're well within their rights that the covershoot consists entirely of wax models of tomatoes rather than real tomatoes[1]. The same would apply to the Food or Recipes sections in generic lifestyle magazines.
2. The things that are "not the food itself" is interpreted very broadly. As others have noted, you can use white glue for milk if you're hawking cereal. If you're selling tomatoes, you can probably still dip them in wax varnish to make them shine, and add "water" drops made of epoxy to sexy them up[2].
[1] That is to say, "real" wax models, not Roma tomatoes.
[2] I mean "sexy" literally. It's called "food porn" for a reason. The photographic techniques and cinematographic styles are apparently very similar.
Likewise, and from talking to food stylists, not just from reading about it. Again: totally possible McD doesn't do that anywhere.
It's not like this is the first time McDonald's has openly addressed this either. I remember seeing a bit on this process with cooperation from the company when I was a kid (say 20 years ago). The technique hasn't changed at all (it's basically the same clip really, less photoshop more hand touchup in the old school one being the prime differences)
Direct Youtube link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSd0keSj2W8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSd0keSj2W8
I've never had a huge issue with the difference in appearance. One was assembled by a stylist, the other by a teenager putting together 200 of them in a shift. As long as what I asked for is in there, and what I didn't ask for isn't, and it's generally piled vertically, I'm good. Nice bit of PR on McD's part though... this is very seldom directly addressed by the food industry.
Now to find lunch...
Now to find lunch...
I happen to know that in the USA, they can (and presumably, do) use plastic replicas for their photography.
(My wife saw the ones Dairy Queen used while she worked there. She says they look amazingly real, even up close)
(My wife saw the ones Dairy Queen used while she worked there. She says they look amazingly real, even up close)
And I happen to know that they can't. It's illegal. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4138305
Tons of restaurants have actual fake plastic food on display. The advertising rules apply to TV and billboards, not store images.
It's a great marketing video for McDonalds, but sidesteps the actual question almost entirely.
They respond to "why do your burgers look different in commercials?" by answering "here's the process of making a commercial burger."
That doesn't address the fact that a stylist cooked it on a panini grill for an hour looking the perfect brown, leading to a thicker-width burger which indeed makes their advertisements a lie.
It doesn't matter if they use the same ingredients or need to show their pickles and ketchup. They've created an entirely different product for the advertisement and will continue to sell a lesser product in place of it. The only honest answer to the original question is the obvious one: because their normal burgers look like crap.
They respond to "why do your burgers look different in commercials?" by answering "here's the process of making a commercial burger."
That doesn't address the fact that a stylist cooked it on a panini grill for an hour looking the perfect brown, leading to a thicker-width burger which indeed makes their advertisements a lie.
It doesn't matter if they use the same ingredients or need to show their pickles and ketchup. They've created an entirely different product for the advertisement and will continue to sell a lesser product in place of it. The only honest answer to the original question is the obvious one: because their normal burgers look like crap.
> The only honest answer to the original question is the obvious one: because their normal burgers look like crap.
...how is "the burger on the ad is designed to show what's in the burger, the one you eat is designed to be eaten" not an honest answer?
...how is "the burger on the ad is designed to show what's in the burger, the one you eat is designed to be eaten" not an honest answer?
> That doesn't address the fact that a stylist cooked it on a panini grill for an hour looking the perfect brown, leading to a thicker-width burger which indeed makes their advertisements a lie.
The patties are usually undercooked as well for the photo shoots, so the meat doesn't shrink as much.
The patties are usually undercooked as well for the photo shoots, so the meat doesn't shrink as much.
Interesting to know, but that doesn't make it any less of a lie to show the larger patty.
I would have to disagree. I don't think they ever make claims about the amount of space the burger takes up. They claim it's a 1/4 lb burger. How thick it is seems irrelevant as long as they started out with a 1/4 lb of meat.
> The only honest answer to the original question is the obvious one: because their normal burgers look like crap.
I don't know about you, but I buy a hamburger for its taste and satisfaction, not to stare at it.
I don't know about you, but I buy a hamburger for its taste and satisfaction, not to stare at it.
But it attacks an implicit accusation in that question: if the food in the commercial looks so different than it does in real life, you must be using different ingredients.
Let's face it, the fact that this ad is getting a lot of talk will be a success, because very few people will watch through the whole video and many, many fewer people will actually keep the logical assertions straight in their head...but the 5-second sound byte is: "McDonald takes on critics who accuse them of food doctoring"...even if 95% of the video is boilerplate this-is-how-you-photograph-products.
I'll admit it, somewhere in my subconscious, McDonalds got an upvote, and I'll probably act on that in a future situation when I am hungry.
Let's face it, the fact that this ad is getting a lot of talk will be a success, because very few people will watch through the whole video and many, many fewer people will actually keep the logical assertions straight in their head...but the 5-second sound byte is: "McDonald takes on critics who accuse them of food doctoring"...even if 95% of the video is boilerplate this-is-how-you-photograph-products.
I'll admit it, somewhere in my subconscious, McDonalds got an upvote, and I'll probably act on that in a future situation when I am hungry.
Just remember that their burgers make you sick and aren't satisfying and you will be happier an hour later if you are a couple of granola bars and beef jerky instead.
tl;dw
They lie.
They lie.
I'll disagree slightly with tptacek... this is a genius piece of marketing by McDonalds. It does everything that we routinely see listed on this very site as Best Practices™:
- Respond to customer feedback in a friendly and highly transparent manner.
- Don't sugarcoat things that "everyone knows but no one admits"; they could have avoided showing the graphic artist photoshopping the burger, but everyone knows that they use photoshop, so why bother? Show everything and customers will trust you more.
- Use social stuff like Twitter to encourage customer feedback. It will create a positive loop that encourages others to follow and interact with their main corporate account.
- Respond before something is actually important. This one isn't showcased so strongly - this isn't a pressing issue by any measure - but they still took the time to respond to it and make a brief, informative, and actually engaging video about it, without some external "we screwed up, sorry" event. Interacting with customers like this before problems arise is simply awesome.
Well done, McDonalds.
- Respond to customer feedback in a friendly and highly transparent manner.
- Don't sugarcoat things that "everyone knows but no one admits"; they could have avoided showing the graphic artist photoshopping the burger, but everyone knows that they use photoshop, so why bother? Show everything and customers will trust you more.
- Use social stuff like Twitter to encourage customer feedback. It will create a positive loop that encourages others to follow and interact with their main corporate account.
- Respond before something is actually important. This one isn't showcased so strongly - this isn't a pressing issue by any measure - but they still took the time to respond to it and make a brief, informative, and actually engaging video about it, without some external "we screwed up, sorry" event. Interacting with customers like this before problems arise is simply awesome.
Well done, McDonalds.
"everyone knows that they use photoshop, so why bother?"
I think this is a great comment, but I disagree a bit with the reasoning in this tiny bit of your comment.
I think that it is important that they show exactly how much they "cheat" with photoshop because they only "cheat a little". If you're critical of McDonalds, you will assume that they photoshop and that they photoshop a lot. To combat such a misconception it is important to show how little you need to photoshop by showing "all of it".
But other than that, I agree with you. Well done, McDonalds. I don't like your food, but I appreciate your honesty.
I think this is a great comment, but I disagree a bit with the reasoning in this tiny bit of your comment.
I think that it is important that they show exactly how much they "cheat" with photoshop because they only "cheat a little". If you're critical of McDonalds, you will assume that they photoshop and that they photoshop a lot. To combat such a misconception it is important to show how little you need to photoshop by showing "all of it".
But other than that, I agree with you. Well done, McDonalds. I don't like your food, but I appreciate your honesty.
Very good point, the degree to which they cheat is important, and they took advantage of the video to emphasize that. Smart of them.
You go from "Cheat" to understanding that they're "Cleaning up the photo"
Viewers probably find themselves saying "That makes sense. I can see why they'd want to clean up the photo and missing seeds"
Viewers probably find themselves saying "That makes sense. I can see why they'd want to clean up the photo and missing seeds"
It's a no-cost honesty play all around. Everyone knows the food in ads doesn't look like the food in the store. No one really cares. The few who do care weren't going to eat there anyway, so their opinions are wholly irrelevant.
The get the benefits of being honest with none of the cost. It's a total win.
The get the benefits of being honest with none of the cost. It's a total win.
Exactly. People don't go to McDonald's because the food looks right. They go because no matter where you are in the world the experience is same (or at least roughly the same) - quick food that tastes good. Until humanity isn't faced with being rushed to eat, I don't see McDonald's going anywhere soon.
I used to be from the school of thought that this marketing was "bad" or misleading the consumer. I think quite the contrary now. I've found that most buying behavior is ridiculously irrational and that marketing is effectively just exposing that human weakness.
BMW ad that shows a smart middle aged man with a beautiful women? That actually can be true. You don't buy a BMW for it's utility (getting from A to B), you buy it for the potential experience (getting from A to B with a hot blonde). Otherwise you go with the Smartcar. BMW marketing is just giving you ideas of what that potential experience can be. It's up to you to use the tool to create the experience.
I used to be from the school of thought that this marketing was "bad" or misleading the consumer. I think quite the contrary now. I've found that most buying behavior is ridiculously irrational and that marketing is effectively just exposing that human weakness.
BMW ad that shows a smart middle aged man with a beautiful women? That actually can be true. You don't buy a BMW for it's utility (getting from A to B), you buy it for the potential experience (getting from A to B with a hot blonde). Otherwise you go with the Smartcar. BMW marketing is just giving you ideas of what that potential experience can be. It's up to you to use the tool to create the experience.
My personal qualm with McDonald's lies in its nutritional and health values. Surprisingly, they have adapted their products to suit popular opinion (salads, low-fat items, etc...). I think McDonald's won't go anywhere even if humanity IS faced with a food crisis, since it's easy to make and cheap.
I totally agree about advertising exposing a human's weakness.
Regarding BMW, I know someone who purchased a BMW just to go to auto club meets and meet new people. So far, he says the car has landed him opportunities he would have missed by not driving the car and surprisingly, it has impressed some ladies. I'm not one to comment on the quality of his new 'contacts' but it is what it is.
I totally agree about advertising exposing a human's weakness.
Regarding BMW, I know someone who purchased a BMW just to go to auto club meets and meet new people. So far, he says the car has landed him opportunities he would have missed by not driving the car and surprisingly, it has impressed some ladies. I'm not one to comment on the quality of his new 'contacts' but it is what it is.
Regarding BMW, I know someone who purchased a BMW just to go to auto club meets and meet new people.
I have to admit, that is a new one. Did he purchase an M5 or other super expensive/powerful BMW to go to auto club meets? Or other model? In some areas of the USA, a 3/5/7 series BMW is a run of the mill luxury car.
I have to admit, that is a new one. Did he purchase an M5 or other super expensive/powerful BMW to go to auto club meets? Or other model? In some areas of the USA, a 3/5/7 series BMW is a run of the mill luxury car.
5 and 7 series are legit. 3 series are for people who get their first six figure job, and college kids of well-off parents.
In San Francisco, every 10th car is a 3 series. I wish I was joking.
In San Francisco, every 10th car is a 3 series. I wish I was joking.
Despite the fact that many 3 series drivers never take their vehicles beyond the capabilities of a Buick, it is definitely one of the all-around best automobiles on the market today.
It is a 330ci ... this is Canada after all, most people aren't educated in regards to automobiles.
Like he said, most people think it's a much more expensive car than it is.
Like he said, most people think it's a much more expensive car than it is.
While they don't care I think it will make some people think. It might give even a few the idea for their future career; this was a very good short about presentation and it did show some of the tricks of the trade.
Plus for me its fun to see it.
Plus for me its fun to see it.
Two things:
1) She uses a BlackBerry PlayBook in the video. :-D
2) This video is part of a much larger social marketing effort by McDonald's Canada.
http://yourquestions.mcdonalds.ca/
Personally, I think it's brilliant, and masterfully executed. Sounds like someone there "gets" social media.
1) She uses a BlackBerry PlayBook in the video. :-D
2) This video is part of a much larger social marketing effort by McDonald's Canada.
http://yourquestions.mcdonalds.ca/
Personally, I think it's brilliant, and masterfully executed. Sounds like someone there "gets" social media.
You claim they responded transparently and without sugar coating anything. So what was the answer to the original question?
Why does the ad burger patty appear thicker and larger?
Edit: So many answers talking about how they might make a quarter pound patty look larger. Anyone can do that. I was addressing the fact that the video in no way covers why they look larger in advertisements. Sidestepping the important question (selling false images, a product made differently) is what makes this merely a good marketing piece, and not any sort of honest explanation from McDonalds.
Why does the ad burger patty appear thicker and larger?
Edit: So many answers talking about how they might make a quarter pound patty look larger. Anyone can do that. I was addressing the fact that the video in no way covers why they look larger in advertisements. Sidestepping the important question (selling false images, a product made differently) is what makes this merely a good marketing piece, and not any sort of honest explanation from McDonalds.
From the video:
1) they stack up all pickles/onions/etc in the front for ads.
2) the real burger goes in a box and the steam makes the bun shrink a little
Also, they didn't say it but they showed it:
The burger is cooked differently for the ad. I got the impression they were just grilling it to make it look good but with minimal cooking (I wonder if it's even safe to eat the ad one). If you've ever cooked a burger, you'll know they shrink when you cook them.
1) they stack up all pickles/onions/etc in the front for ads.
2) the real burger goes in a box and the steam makes the bun shrink a little
Also, they didn't say it but they showed it:
The burger is cooked differently for the ad. I got the impression they were just grilling it to make it look good but with minimal cooking (I wonder if it's even safe to eat the ad one). If you've ever cooked a burger, you'll know they shrink when you cook them.
Yeah, there was a kids' documentary made about fast-food photography a few years back. Basically they will just use a skillet to surface cook (brown) the outside of the patty to avoid the shrinkage that occurs when you grill a burger (lots of water and fat drip out and evaporate). This sort of answers the parent's question too. It's definitely not safe to eat.
IIRC, in the Burger King ads they heat thin metal strips and use them to sear lines into the patty, giving the "flame-grilled" illusion without having to cook and shrink the patty.
IIRC, in the Burger King ads they heat thin metal strips and use them to sear lines into the patty, giving the "flame-grilled" illusion without having to cook and shrink the patty.
Actually, here's the children's documentary I mentioned. They also use a couple other sneaky tricks to make the product appear larger without image manipulation software.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUjz_eiIX8k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUjz_eiIX8k
Further, the burger press used in store, is usually pushed on a bit by the employees to cook the burger faster, but also flattening it a bit, and getting rid of some more juices that make up volume.
Urgh. So many answers that the real bun is shrinking due to the steam - that would make the real patty look thicker than the ad patty, when compared to the bun (the only real comparison possible), so that's clearly not the answer.
I would point to the scene where they're rolling the patty on the skillet to flatten the edges. That, combined with possibly less squishing by the press and less cooking overall would give you thicker edges in particular, making the patty look bigger in the ad. We only see the edge and overall width, after all, not the whole patty.
I would point to the scene where they're rolling the patty on the skillet to flatten the edges. That, combined with possibly less squishing by the press and less cooking overall would give you thicker edges in particular, making the patty look bigger in the ad. We only see the edge and overall width, after all, not the whole patty.
The bun doesn't shrink evenly. It strinks more under and above the ingredients - essentially sagging and hiding them.
I aggree that if it shrunk uniformly, then it would make the contents look proportionally bigger.
I aggree that if it shrunk uniformly, then it would make the contents look proportionally bigger.
When they show the image that is half prepared burger and half store bought burger (3:20), you can see that they're almost exactly the same height. We perceive the store bought one to be smaller because it has cheese covering up most of the patty and melted on (whereas the prepared one has the cheese resting on top), it's darker/less vibrant, and the bun is hugging the patty tightly, which makes the patty seem smaller when compared to the space provided by all of the toppings in the specially prepared burger.
I think we can infer that they didn't show all of the tricks they use. While it's true that all the ingredients have to be as sold in the store, there are plenty of tricks... they showed some, but possibly not all.
In the Metafilter thread, someone mentioned that on a styling shoot they'd been on, it appeared to be common practice the butterfly the back of the burger and manipulate it such that the patty appears thicker. I assume by front-loading the bulk of the patty toward the camera.
That may or may not have been done, but it's an example of a trick that abides by the "must be the same stuff as is sold" rule but would still result in a larger-looking patty. I think we can assume that not every little trick made it into the few-minute edit of the few-hour styling process, and likely the tricks selected for the final edit were the least deceptive.
In the Metafilter thread, someone mentioned that on a styling shoot they'd been on, it appeared to be common practice the butterfly the back of the burger and manipulate it such that the patty appears thicker. I assume by front-loading the bulk of the patty toward the camera.
That may or may not have been done, but it's an example of a trick that abides by the "must be the same stuff as is sold" rule but would still result in a larger-looking patty. I think we can assume that not every little trick made it into the few-minute edit of the few-hour styling process, and likely the tricks selected for the final edit were the least deceptive.
Another small factor at play is selection bias. They have lots of buns and lots of patties to choose from, and they choose the ones that look the best.
They dont cook the burger for the pictures, just the edges and outside of it.
She says the retail burger looks smaller because the bun collapsed from the moisture in the enclosed box. She also describes how they arrange the burger to "lean" in the photo, so that might add to the effect. Also the obvious reason would be the one burger was slapped together in 45sec vs. 4-5 hours of meticulous grooming: Selecting the loftiest bun, searing the edges to square up the perimeter of the patty before grilling, delicately balancing the layers on top of each other, etc...
The perspective created by the arrangement of the buns is probably a big part of it.
I'm not actually sure the meat does look smaller if you lined up the photos to take the optical illusion out of it.
I'm not actually sure the meat does look smaller if you lined up the photos to take the optical illusion out of it.
They do exactly that when they're showing the Photoshop workflow. The actual patty looks like it might be a hair thinner, but most of the difference is your perspective being thrown off by the collapsed bun and melted cheese from what I can see.
You're picking at the difference between the proximate cause and the ultimate cause of the ad looking the way it does.
Q: Why does the ad burger patty appear thicker and larger?
A: Because we made it *this* way [show process].
A: Because we wanted to show off all the ingredients in the
best possible light, to encourage you to buy it.
A: Because we made it *this* way.
Q: Why?
A: Because it makes the burger look good and it shows
you what's in it.
Q: Why?
A: Because if the burger looks good and you know what's
in it, you'd be more likely to buy it.
Q: ???
A: Profit!!!
“Here you can definitely see there’s a size difference. The boxes that our sandwiches come in keep the sandwiches warm, which creates a bit of a steam effect, and it does make the bun contract a little bit.”
3:05 – 3:12
3:05 – 3:12
[deleted]
They addressed it directly. When it sits in the box, the steam makes the bun wilt.
Referring to the meat, not the bun.
McDonald's grills press the meat patties in real-world production. It drives out fluids and the finished product appears smaller than one cooked by different methods.
Which doesn't make the ads any less shammy. "Here is a representation of the product produced in a way that is nothing like the actual process to produce said product in an attempt to make the product look better than it actually is". Hmmm...
"We cooked this using a completely different process to make a more appealing image to sell you."
Again a good explanation, but it doesn't make it any less of a lie to show a larger patty.
Again a good explanation, but it doesn't make it any less of a lie to show a larger patty.
It could very well be the same size patty, just nearly uncooked.
Oops—my response was unclear. I should have said "seemingly-larger" patty. My complaint is that they're cooked completely differently, leading to a final image where the patty appears larger than anything you would get from a McDonalds.
It's shown diagonally. Watch the video, the presenter mentions this.
The question they were asked was "why?" not "how?"
The question asked was, originally:
Why does the ad burger patty appear thicker and larger?
Which to mst people would be a question of appearance, not intent.
Why does the ad burger patty appear thicker and larger?
Which to mst people would be a question of appearance, not intent.
Their answer is because the box used to keep the burger warm generates steam which reduces the size of the bun.
I couldn't agree more. This is the first time I saw a company have some guts.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well, yes, check all the boxes. But don't forget to check the "yes, we blatantly lie to you and pay high amounts of money to make it look good" box.
They built an elaborate marketing video on "how our advertising tricks you".
They built an elaborate marketing video on "how our advertising tricks you".
Minus the photoshop, the burgers could technically be made to look that way, but the customer is more keen on speed than presentation. Its marketing, welcome to earth.
McDonald's is in a fortunate/unfortunate position in that they can afford to have an ad campaign based upon honesty, because the unvarnished truth is still a lot better than the stuff that an awful lot of people already believe about them. I've heard many of these urban myths repeated in the wild by otherwise intelligent people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonalds_urban_legends
My favourite fact about most of these is that they allege that McDonald's is using a disgusting ingredient which would almost certainly wind up more expensive than the real thing. Hamburger-grade beef sells for, what, four dollars a pound? Probably a lot less if you have McDonalds' buying power. What do you think worm meat costs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonalds_urban_legends
My favourite fact about most of these is that they allege that McDonald's is using a disgusting ingredient which would almost certainly wind up more expensive than the real thing. Hamburger-grade beef sells for, what, four dollars a pound? Probably a lot less if you have McDonalds' buying power. What do you think worm meat costs?
McDonalds meat is corn filler and scraped off bones. It's below hamburger grade. You can't get it at the grocery store.
You know, I don't believe most of the urban legends about McDonalds, and there are things they do that I can even respect (for instance, their contribution to french fry science [really], or their [very, very, very, very] gradual adoption of humane farming guidelines.)
But make no mistake that McDonalds is a business that is, if not as harmful as Philip Morris, gradable on the same scale. For the most part it's a company whose core business model is "leverage unfathomably vast marketing resources to coerce large numbers of people into making the least healthful dietary choice available to them at any given moment".
Let nobody suggest that I am a foe of the french fry or the well-constructed burger, but there's a difference between an occasional indulgence --- or even between the ambient availability of that indulgence and any group of people's poor decision making [oh, hi, me!] --- and the business model that depends utterly on persuading the most persuadable people to harm themselves, for no other reason that they were persuadable.
And so it's in that light that I think cynicism towards new "honest" attempts at persuading people is fair game.
Also their burgers are pretty gross.
But make no mistake that McDonalds is a business that is, if not as harmful as Philip Morris, gradable on the same scale. For the most part it's a company whose core business model is "leverage unfathomably vast marketing resources to coerce large numbers of people into making the least healthful dietary choice available to them at any given moment".
Let nobody suggest that I am a foe of the french fry or the well-constructed burger, but there's a difference between an occasional indulgence --- or even between the ambient availability of that indulgence and any group of people's poor decision making [oh, hi, me!] --- and the business model that depends utterly on persuading the most persuadable people to harm themselves, for no other reason that they were persuadable.
And so it's in that light that I think cynicism towards new "honest" attempts at persuading people is fair game.
Also their burgers are pretty gross.
Can't we say the same things about just about any business?
> "but there's a difference between an occasional indulgence"
Indeed...
> "and the business model that depends utterly on persuading the most persuadable people to harm themselves, for no other reason that they were persuadable"
You've lost me. You compare McDonald's to Philip Morris - even though one produces a highly addictive substance and the other produces (crappy) hamburgers. Last I checked, burgers are non-addictive.
In what way is McDonald's core business model dependent on something more than "occasional indulgence"? If we are to play the game that a business can only succeed if people are mindlessly, constantly, repetitively consuming its products, then we should be beating down the doors of, say, Redbox. After all, their business model works best if everyone sat on their asses all day doing nothing but watch movies.
I do not see the argument at all that McDonald's business hinges on the abusively high consumption of their foods. They are in no way worse than any number of peddlers of less-than-healthy foods. Where is the outrage for Ben & Jerry's? Frito Lay? Campbell's?
> "but there's a difference between an occasional indulgence"
Indeed...
> "and the business model that depends utterly on persuading the most persuadable people to harm themselves, for no other reason that they were persuadable"
You've lost me. You compare McDonald's to Philip Morris - even though one produces a highly addictive substance and the other produces (crappy) hamburgers. Last I checked, burgers are non-addictive.
In what way is McDonald's core business model dependent on something more than "occasional indulgence"? If we are to play the game that a business can only succeed if people are mindlessly, constantly, repetitively consuming its products, then we should be beating down the doors of, say, Redbox. After all, their business model works best if everyone sat on their asses all day doing nothing but watch movies.
I do not see the argument at all that McDonald's business hinges on the abusively high consumption of their foods. They are in no way worse than any number of peddlers of less-than-healthy foods. Where is the outrage for Ben & Jerry's? Frito Lay? Campbell's?
> Last I checked, burgers are non-addictive.
"A growing body of medical research at leading universities and government laboratories suggests that processed foods and sugary drinks made by the likes of PepsiCo Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc. aren’t simply unhealthy. They can hijack the brain in ways that resemble addictions to cocaine, nicotine and other drugs.
“The data is so overwhelming the field has to accept it,” said Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. “We are finding tremendous overlap between drugs in the brain and food in the brain.”"
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-11/fatty-foods-addi...
Not saying the science is done, but there's a strong possibility that burgers are addictive.
"A growing body of medical research at leading universities and government laboratories suggests that processed foods and sugary drinks made by the likes of PepsiCo Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc. aren’t simply unhealthy. They can hijack the brain in ways that resemble addictions to cocaine, nicotine and other drugs.
“The data is so overwhelming the field has to accept it,” said Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. “We are finding tremendous overlap between drugs in the brain and food in the brain.”"
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-11/fatty-foods-addi...
Not saying the science is done, but there's a strong possibility that burgers are addictive.
The fries are probably more perilous (unfortunately, also the one thing they do really well). The full-sugar soda is probably just straight-up toxic.
Toxically delicious!
Surprisingly, Sweet Tea (otherwise known as would-you-like-some-water-with-your-sugar in the south) has about 15 grams less carbs in the large than a Coke. I think I might never order another coke again.
Surprisingly, Sweet Tea (otherwise known as would-you-like-some-water-with-your-sugar in the south) has about 15 grams less carbs in the large than a Coke. I think I might never order another coke again.
Nobody lives on Ben & Jerry's.
Frito Lay is possibly even more morally fraught than McDonalds, since a large part of their business involves marketing themselves into kids lunches.
I'm not sure where Campbells comes into this. It's not great soup, but it's soup.
Obviously, there are people who think there's nothing wrong with a particularly successful marketing campaign for an unhealthful product. There are plenty of people who think there's nothing immoral about selling cigarettes.
I don't think less of those people, but I strongly disagree with them.
Frito Lay is possibly even more morally fraught than McDonalds, since a large part of their business involves marketing themselves into kids lunches.
I'm not sure where Campbells comes into this. It's not great soup, but it's soup.
Obviously, there are people who think there's nothing wrong with a particularly successful marketing campaign for an unhealthful product. There are plenty of people who think there's nothing immoral about selling cigarettes.
I don't think less of those people, but I strongly disagree with them.
I think what you're trying to illustrate is the systematic risk many of these companies fail to recognize. Or they recognize them and its in the best interest not to do anything about it.
This is the same thing as pointing to the banks for selling CDOs. Risky for the banks? No. Risky for the whole system to collapse? Yes. Since systematic risks are largely not direct risks they never get counted as risks to begin with, and therefore do not impact decision making.
This is the same thing as pointing to the banks for selling CDOs. Risky for the banks? No. Risky for the whole system to collapse? Yes. Since systematic risks are largely not direct risks they never get counted as risks to begin with, and therefore do not impact decision making.
The real issue is that individuals lack self control and maintain ignorance, which leads to poor health related decisions. I see where you are coming from, but I insist that people should rely only on themselves in these cases. Placing the blame on businesses or government is particularly irresponsible. Note that I am not insinuating you make these poor health decisions, because clearly you are aware.
Businesses have thrown billions at turning the psychological research on persuasion into money and in the process have turned propaganda from an art into a science. They have a significant edge over the individual on this and have done it quite deliberately and in full knowledge of the aims, process and outcomes of these actions. I think they can afford to take some of the blame for the consequences.
Indeed. It seems reasonable to hold partially accountable for customers' choices any business that employs psychologists for the purpose of creating new or cementing existing customers.
> Last I checked, burgers are non-addictive.
Well fats are addictive. Not in the you will die from withdrawl like heroin or alcohol way, but in the way that gamblings and sex is.
Well fats are addictive. Not in the you will die from withdrawl like heroin or alcohol way, but in the way that gamblings and sex is.
The burgers are addictive, man. The craving, the feeling of being overcome by the desire to consume when you get one, the shitty feeling you get afterwards and yet still continue to eat it - that's addiction, bro.
And like the other guy said - it's backed up by science too. The insane amounts of fat, salt, and sugar spike the reward processors in the brain WAY past what they're built for. They are hacking you.
And like the other guy said - it's backed up by science too. The insane amounts of fat, salt, and sugar spike the reward processors in the brain WAY past what they're built for. They are hacking you.
> Also their burgers are pretty gross.
Some people must think they taste "good enough", given their popularity. Convenience and price obviously play big roles here, but they are also likely choosing McDonalds over other options on at least some basis of taste.
> But make no mistake that McDonalds is a business that is, if not as harmful as Philip Morris, gradable on the same scale. For the most part it's a company whose core business model is "leverage unfathomably vast marketing resources to coerce large numbers of people into making the least healthful dietary choice available to them at any given moment".
In Australia, they actually [no doubt due to social pressures] a large range of "healthy options" that are actually half-decent. I'm not sure whether they offer this stuff in the US, but compared to the numerous fried chicken, roast chicken and Burger King restaurants here, they are leagues ahead.
Note that I'm not defending their past behaviour-which I think we can agree was abysmal-but they have at least tried to reform and for a business of their size and brand, is no easy feat.
Some people must think they taste "good enough", given their popularity. Convenience and price obviously play big roles here, but they are also likely choosing McDonalds over other options on at least some basis of taste.
> But make no mistake that McDonalds is a business that is, if not as harmful as Philip Morris, gradable on the same scale. For the most part it's a company whose core business model is "leverage unfathomably vast marketing resources to coerce large numbers of people into making the least healthful dietary choice available to them at any given moment".
In Australia, they actually [no doubt due to social pressures] a large range of "healthy options" that are actually half-decent. I'm not sure whether they offer this stuff in the US, but compared to the numerous fried chicken, roast chicken and Burger King restaurants here, they are leagues ahead.
Note that I'm not defending their past behaviour-which I think we can agree was abysmal-but they have at least tried to reform and for a business of their size and brand, is no easy feat.
Their burgers are (deliberately, carefully engineered to be) hyperpalatable. There are plenty of hyperpalatable foods that also happen to be gross.
The ones I've had both in Romania and the UK have been excellent.
Can't comment about US ones.
Can't comment about US ones.
In Australia (and Canada for that matter), McDonald's food is far better than it is the the US.
Rubbish. As an Aussie who has tried both, I have not noticed the difference. I deliberately tried the ones in the US to see if they were better, as people had said. They were the same tasteless garbage.
I can't eat at McDonald's in Canada, but I really like to go there when I'm in Eastern Europe. It tastes so much better there.
UPDATE: And I didn't like it in the US either.
UPDATE: And I didn't like it in the US either.
I only have experience with McDonald's in Western Europe, and here the food is not good. The pattys seem like the meat was thoroughly grinded to a smooth paste. The bread doesn't have any flavour, and because it's in a closed package with the rest it becomes soaked and soft from the steam. The worst part is the cheese (if you can call it that -- it doesn't look or taste like cheese at all). The fries are okayish. On the rare occasion that I'm with a group of people who want to eat something at McDonalds, I usually take a salad with the sauce in a separate package, because even the salad sauce doesn't taste good.
This was surprising to me. You can make a much better burger than McDonalds in 10 minutes with standard equipment. Just take some minced meat, form it into a flat cylinder, rub some olive oil salt and pepper, cook it in a frying pan, after you turned it around add (real) cheese on top and cook the other side, slice a bread in two and roast it a little in the same pan, and stack up the burger with some lettuce, tomato and some mustard and/or ketchup. Why can't a company whose primary purpose is to make burgers not make a burger half as good? It's not like the ingredients here are more expensive. Or do people really prefer McD's burgers?
Don't get me started on restaurants that use canned peppers and mushrooms that make the whole pizza wet and acidic. Also: http://popsop.com/wp-content/uploads/kraft_cheese_snack_befo... WTF? "Natural cheese made with 2% milk no added growth hormones"
This was surprising to me. You can make a much better burger than McDonalds in 10 minutes with standard equipment. Just take some minced meat, form it into a flat cylinder, rub some olive oil salt and pepper, cook it in a frying pan, after you turned it around add (real) cheese on top and cook the other side, slice a bread in two and roast it a little in the same pan, and stack up the burger with some lettuce, tomato and some mustard and/or ketchup. Why can't a company whose primary purpose is to make burgers not make a burger half as good? It's not like the ingredients here are more expensive. Or do people really prefer McD's burgers?
Don't get me started on restaurants that use canned peppers and mushrooms that make the whole pizza wet and acidic. Also: http://popsop.com/wp-content/uploads/kraft_cheese_snack_befo... WTF? "Natural cheese made with 2% milk no added growth hormones"
The cheese on a fast food hamburger is really more a condiment than an ingredient, serving a purpose somewhere in between "cheese" and "mayonnaise".
The price of beef varies pretty dramatically around Europe.
I think it's better in most of the world than the US. It's almost considered classy in Thailand, and to me, it seems to taste better, too.
Obviously you've not tried them in the UK. We've been to Vegas in the US and thought the burgers there were amazing. Like, "oh my god, this actually looks a bit like real beef!"
> For the most part it's a company whose core business model is "leverage unfathomably vast marketing resources to coerce large numbers of people into making the least healthful dietary choice available to them at any given moment".
They don't coerce anyone to eat their food. What a ridiculous hyperbole.
They don't coerce anyone to eat their food. What a ridiculous hyperbole.
Depends whether you accept emotional manipulation in the definition of coercion, or use the more strict definition and restrict the concept only to actual or threatened force.
If you are accepting advertising as emotional manipulation, then say your real point: advertising is immoral coercion.
Or are you seriously going to argue that McDonalds has ads that are considerably more emotionally manipulative than other typical advertisers?
Or are you seriously going to argue that McDonalds has ads that are considerably more emotionally manipulative than other typical advertisers?
My point was as I said. There are two main definitions of coercion, one of which is stricter than the other. I was just replying to the statement that McDonalds does not employ coercion by pointing out that it rather depends on which definition you choose as if you choose the wider definition then most advertising is coercive to one degree or another. I wasn't really talking about the moral angle, just the semantics.
Also their burgers are pretty gross.
Yea well that's just your opinion man.
Yea well that's just your opinion man.
Seriously? This is just another advertisement!
[deleted]
I once saw a TV segment showing some starlet being photographed for a print clothing ad campaign. The stylist used metal clips (the sort one can buy at an office supply store for holding 50 sheets of paper together) to tighten the garment around her torso. From the front, the dress looked like it fit her perfectly. However, the back exposed a bunch of black metal clips holding back fabric. How does such an ad compare ethically to the specially-made McDonald's burger? A woman with the same measurements buying that same garment would not look as good as the starlet being photographed.
I do a bit of a photography on the side and know a few working fashion photographers. Generally when you're supplied clothing from a company it'll come as a specific size, say size 8. You put out a casting call for a size 8 model that meets your specific requirements, and find that the clothes are too big for her due to sizing being weird. You then have to style it so it looks perfect and go from there, it's not so much about fake it to make it look more perfect (that's what gratuitous liquify is for) but to Get The Job Done.
Someone with the exact same measurements generally has the benefit of being able to try the different sizes on, photographers often don't unless working with a company rep on hand, or they've sent multiple sizes which often only happens at the higher end.
Someone with the exact same measurements generally has the benefit of being able to try the different sizes on, photographers often don't unless working with a company rep on hand, or they've sent multiple sizes which often only happens at the higher end.
I understand and support these tools and "tricks of the trade" when it comes to fashion shoots. My understanding and expectation of fashion shoots is to show what is possible instead of showing what is being sold.
However, I find the practice misleading in catalogs and in-store displays. The expectation in catalogs is to present the wares the seller is advertising. Using clips and pins misrepresents the product.
I really appreciate transparency and clarity in exactly how a garment is cut. Some sellers accomplish this wonderfully. One such seller is Mr. Porter. On their online catalog, you can see that some garments do not fit perfectly on the model because that is simply how the garment naturally hangs without clips/pin/tailoring. They also give the model's measurements so that you can compare your sizes to the models and a size chart. This has been enough for me to accurately judge how a garment will fit me even without trying it on! (Example: http://www.mrporter.com/product/301852 , select "Size & Fit"). Another website that does this is Amazon's myhabit.com
I don't mind GQ using clips and pins. GQ is presenting what is possible. A store, on the other hand, should show what they are trying to sell, and I believe using clips misrepresents their wares by obscuring the exact nature of their wares: sizing, cut, how it hangs, what would have to be tailored, etc.
However, I find the practice misleading in catalogs and in-store displays. The expectation in catalogs is to present the wares the seller is advertising. Using clips and pins misrepresents the product.
I really appreciate transparency and clarity in exactly how a garment is cut. Some sellers accomplish this wonderfully. One such seller is Mr. Porter. On their online catalog, you can see that some garments do not fit perfectly on the model because that is simply how the garment naturally hangs without clips/pin/tailoring. They also give the model's measurements so that you can compare your sizes to the models and a size chart. This has been enough for me to accurately judge how a garment will fit me even without trying it on! (Example: http://www.mrporter.com/product/301852 , select "Size & Fit"). Another website that does this is Amazon's myhabit.com
I don't mind GQ using clips and pins. GQ is presenting what is possible. A store, on the other hand, should show what they are trying to sell, and I believe using clips misrepresents their wares by obscuring the exact nature of their wares: sizing, cut, how it hangs, what would have to be tailored, etc.
All the mens shirting still photos you see are shot in this manner. If you were to wear shirts that fitted so snugly, you might not even be able to move or breath.
That sounds like more of a shortcut than anything. Clothes are available in a variety of sizes, and it's just faster to clips than it is to figure out exactly what size this model needs.
Did I just hear a photographer say that photographs are one-dimensional?
The area in which you can show the condiments/additions of the sandwich is (approximately) one dimensional. It is defined by the line between the patty and the bun, which is fairly thin. There is really only one degree of freedom in placing food there.
Photos of ad vs. reality for fast food... http://www.alphaila.com/articles/failure/fast-food-false-adv...
"403 Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /article/adages/video-burger-ad/235508/ on this server.
Apache Server at adage.com Port 80"
Apparently goes for the whole site. :(
You don't have permission to access /article/adages/video-burger-ad/235508/ on this server.
Apache Server at adage.com Port 80"
Apparently goes for the whole site. :(
It's the same reason your Victoria's Secret's ... well, I'll just stop there.
My 3 year old nephew sometimes slips, falls down and cries. His parents wiggle a colorful toy sometimes and he forgets he fell down, forgets he is still hurting and runs behind the toy.
This ad reminds me of the toy. Fast food is bad. I am not interested in the question to start with, so I won't bother with the given answer. thank you very much.
That said, sadly this is a good ad campaign, because sadly most of us most of the time are attracted to colorful toys.
This ad reminds me of the toy. Fast food is bad. I am not interested in the question to start with, so I won't bother with the given answer. thank you very much.
That said, sadly this is a good ad campaign, because sadly most of us most of the time are attracted to colorful toys.
sometimes, in a pinch, i use mcdonalds to hit my proteins/carbs/fats macros and calorie count because these stats are so well published (i even have my favorite quarter pounder minus dressing combo with milk and a healthy side memorized!). it does have its place with people on a sensible diet
How horribly patronizing.
I just ate a Whopper. It was delicious. I eat in moderation, have an active life, and there is nothing particularly insidious or evil about this food.
Some people just have to have their cause.
I just ate a Whopper. It was delicious. I eat in moderation, have an active life, and there is nothing particularly insidious or evil about this food.
Some people just have to have their cause.
For all of you wanting the source of the FTC rules, see
In re Campbell Soup Co., 77 F.T.C. 664 (1970), which sets forth the basic rules for advertising foods.
There are print copies available, but the case generally precedes the digitized archives available freely or with subscriptions to legal research archives (i.e., Lexis/Westlaw). You can pay for individual case access if you actually need to read the case digitally. It is not cheap.
There are print copies available, but the case generally precedes the digitized archives available freely or with subscriptions to legal research archives (i.e., Lexis/Westlaw). You can pay for individual case access if you actually need to read the case digitally. It is not cheap.
I grew up in rural Jamaica, where there was no fast food, but I came to the capital city (Kingston) twice per month, where we would always eat at KFC. So I'd never had a burger before (KFC dominates every fast food chain in Jamaica).
When I was maybe 12 or 13, we had a class trip to Kingston, and after the outing, we went to a McDonalds.
So I'm standing in the line, and looking at the ad suspended from the ceiling. I wondered "how in the world could someone eat something so big!" I decided to order it anyway. You only live once.
Imagine my disappointment when the tiny box came back with an even tinier burger. I felt cheated, almost to the point of anger.
Anecdotes aside, this is genius marketing by McDonald. No PR-speak, no cover-up, but rather: "Are the burgers in the ad different from the store? Sure!!! Come on in, let me show you everything. See, we do A, B, and C and that gives us D!" That deflates any possible anger and makes it look like they have nothing to hide.
She deserves a raise.