A new study in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (which sounds like a fun read, btw)
shows that kids aged three to five overwhelmingly prefer McDonald’s-branded food items to generic ones. In the test, the tikes consistently reached for MickeyD french fries over those in plain white bags. They also opted for hamburgers, chicken nuggets and even carrots enclosed in wrapping paper with the golden arches.
This is scary stuff and shows how insidious and infectious TV advertising can be to little kids who stare at their sets hour after hour. There’s no doubt they are clearly connecting to the McDonald’s TV spots. It wouldn’t be so outrageous if childhood obesity wasn’t at all-time record highs.
So, what’s McDonald’s response to the study? A spokesman said "….. (It) was important and McDonald’s has been addressing it for quite some time." Yeah, sure.
McDonald’s, like big tobacco, has hooked millions and millions of Americans on their horrific food items and they’re not about to abandon future generations. Sure, they’ll add a salad or two to the menu, but TV commercials highlighting artery-clogging fries and burgers are just as important to Mickey D’s ongoing success as Pinocchio, The Lion King and The Little Mermaid are to Disney.
In my opinion, McDonald’s is paying lip service to the problem (pun intended). It’s up to parents to police kids’ TV viewing if they want today’s tiny tikes to avoid becoming tomorrow’s two-ton teen time bombs.
That is definitely pretty attention-grabbing, You happen to be a terribly skilled blog writer. We have became a member of the supply and crunches with regard to hunting for additional of your respective magnificent article. Furthermore, I’ve got shared your internet-site around my myspace
The term “McJob” was added to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary in 2003,[33] over the objections of McDonald’s. In an open letter to Merriam-Webster, Jim Cantalupo, former CEO of McDonald’s, denounced the definition as a “slap in the face” to all restaurant employees, and stated that “a more appropriate definition of a ‘McJob’ might be ‘teaches responsibility.'” Merriam-Webster responded that “we stand by the accuracy and appropriateness of our definition.” McJob is defined by Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary as “a low-paying job that requires little skill and provides little opportunity for advancement
The McLibel Trial, also known as McDonald’s Restaurants v Morris & Steel, is an example of this criticism. In 1990, activists from a small group known as London Greenpeace (no connection to the international group Greenpeace) distributed leaflets entitled What’s wrong with McDonald’s?, criticizing its environmental, health, and labor record. The corporation wrote to the group demanding they desist and apologize,
mcdonalds just brings the kids in everyday. i do not know a kid that does not like mcdonalds.
disney merchandise games toys
my daughter is 3. she can hum the mc’ds jingle. shame on me.
As so many have pointed out here, the answer was obvious. Who doesn’t spend a significant hunk of the budget on appealing packaging? So what was the point of the test? The real point is that kids have to be INSIDE a McDonalds to choose the stuff in the pretty wrappers. Who brings them there? Right! And to make this a McDonald’s issue (much as I’m horrified to find myself advocating for a place I’d only enter to use the bathroom on a long road trip) is entirely beside that point. McDonald’s can be blamed for many things — pillaging old growth forests for grazing land, treating employees like serfs, filling our dumpsters with disposable (but not degradeable) offal — but our national sleepwalk when it comes to food and nutrition is just their good luck, not their fault.
As so many have pointed out here, the answer was obvious. Who doesn’t spend a significant hunk of the budget on appealing packaging? So what was the point of the test? The real point is that kids have to be INSIDE a McDonalds to choose the stuff in the pretty wrappers. Who brings them there? Right! And to make this a McDonald’s issue (much as I’m horrified to find myself advocating for a place I’d only enter to use the bathroom on a long road trip) is entirely beside that point. McDonald’s can be blamed for many things — pillaging old growth forests for grazing land, treating employees like serfs, filling our dumpsters with disposable (but not degradeable) offal — but our national sleepwalk when it comes to food and nutrition is just their good luck, not their fault.
hey rep- just gonna stand there and take blow after blow without responding? come on rep- you can at least try spinning your way out of this, cant ya?
Having studied the persuasive effects of advertising from a social marketing perspective, I agree that McDonalds has been effective in targeting consumers, but I strongly disagree that they should be blamed for childhood–or any other kind–of obesity. We have turned into a society where we like to say that we’d all be perfect if only someone didn’t tempt us with something that’s bad for us. Furthermore, McDonalds wouldn’t be so successful among children if it wasn’t successful in persuading us as parents to stuff our children’s faces with their food. Bottom line–we’re responsible for our actions as adults, and as parents we’re responsible for raising our children to make responsible decisions regarding their actions. No company is responsible for us being fat.
The repman has officially lost it (that assumes he ever had it). With all the image and rep stories in the news from Mattel, to the mining industry, to Bear Stearns and so on, the “rep” man finds these topics to blog on. But here’s the kicker- his points are just plain old stupid. Of course the kids picked the McDonalds bag over the plain white one. Does the rep really think the kids wouldn’t. Now that would be “news” repman. Maybe you should try sticking to your day job in PR, then again, maybe not based on this one.
First of all, we are talking about kids! It should not be surprising that they prefer the branded packaging over a plan white one. The results would probably have been less dramatic, if the kids were offered two colorful products, with entertaining packaging.
Also, the big danger of studies like this is that now parents have a scapegoat. They can point a finger and say “it is not our fault that our son is fat, McDonald’s corrupted his mind”. But the fact remains that a 12 year-old is not driving himself to McDonald’s or any other fast food joint. It is up to the parents, they are (or should be) in full control!
I am no fan of McDonald’s and think advertising to kids is nothing short of criminal, but wouldn’t you purchase a shirt with a Ralph Lauren tag instead of an identical shirt with no tag? Wouldn’t you fly on a United-branded plane rather than an identical plane operated by “Uncle Eddie’s Airline”? Wouldn’t you rather stay in a St. Regis rather than an identical hotel that happened to be named the “Soap and Sleep Inn”? My point is that the advertising works. But that is not the problem. Good ole Mom and Dad who are too lazy (or stupid) to care are at the root of the problem.