This particular little gem was found within the Guardian, roaming the camera around a corpse before finally breathing out the words 'Make it Vegetarian' slam the ads. In response, McDonald's is replying in full with a statement stating it's essentially up to the consumers to decide themselves as to what they do or don't eat.
Furthermore, the National Restaurant Association (NRA for short, and mis-interpretive amusement if that's what makes you smile) has, according to the Guardian, scared the public with limited information on nutrition. There are a few grey areas that are much subtler than some people may think here, and there are some basic constitutional as well as legal factors to consider that bely yet another layer of market paradigms and economic zeitgeists.
Let it be known that I am certainly a man who looks out for his health - I exercise regularly, I'll eat and drink enough healthy foods to offset any cholesterol or general consumptive unmentionables that would otherwise have no qualms enacting the battle of Normandy in my stomach. That said, I feel more inclined to consider that this situation is in favor of McDonald's than the Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).
Suffice to say, while the attack ads are generally aimed to reduce consumption of McDonald's products, I do believe that McDonald's may in fact be receiving in a better position than without the attack ad. In fact, there is a definite silver lining in this cloud that people might not see (and I strongly doubt that McDonald's might even see). That said, this is speculative at best, so whether this attack ad does something and I just had too little faith in my fellow man is another question altogether.
We know the idea of market paradigms and economic zeitgeists. The concept is the fact that people will buy things because it is generally accepted that they want to buy things because it's what's socially 'cool'. People drink at Starbucks and not buy Nabob rip-offs because it is 'cool' to get things from Starbucks. The Fashion Industry, as another example, determines seasonally what the market paradigm and economic zeitgeists will be. As such, understanding market preferences based on peoples' perception of 'desirable' and 'undesirable' is important.
We can say that with the current status of healthier eating and attack campaigns from groups such as the documentary Supersize Me, the perception of McDonald's is still low enough that attack ads may not be an effective motivation for people to drop Big Macs and pick up soy milk and eat tofu chips (which are delicious, by the way). Now, I'm saying this because the ad specifically called for people to 'Eat Vegetarian', so there's an agenda that's not immediately apparent - it's pushing the consideration for a more vegan lifestyle, and improperly managed, is a costlier move.
This goes down to money - organic and environmentally kept products are much more difficult to offset in terms of cost because of both their economy of scale (smaller markets) and the difficulty in maintaining the standards compared to competition. Americans may not be willing to adopt the practice of vegetarianism, and considering the economy's state, it may not affect McDonald's strength that much. Though hamburgers in the America may not be recession-proof like those in Canada, McDonald's still reports strong quarterly numbers.
So will it make a dent in the market? Possibly not, at least, not a noticeable one considering how much the company rakes in per quarter, and the transition from eating Big Macs to warrant killing someone to become a vegetarian is a jarring and (in the poor fiscal hands of American middle class) costly change. Vegetables may be cheap in theory, but to get the allotted nutrients requires some other unorthodox substitutes for the meat dilemma.
I can't envision Americans shifting halfway, but rather shrugging plainly and giving up to another Big Mac, only to promise to 'do some running' to placate their own self-image. I just don't think we're in the stage to re-affirm Green, Alternative and Libertarian policies again because we don't have a good enough economy yet.
Now, so while it doesn't affect the market, we know that the paradigm is pushing for a 'McDonald's is bad' campaign, so what does that mean? Well, it means that less successful foolish cases will be filed against McDonald's, whether out of greed or sheer idiocy. In fact, the attack ad affirms McDonald's position as generally providing unhealthy food, so it may be advantageous for them since it gives them third party evidence that it is widely known that their food is on consensus unhealthy.
While it seems like an odd thing for me to argue, the fact that they have a leeway out of the 'impression it is good for you' is no longer a viable means for people to commit lawsuits for health reasons against them (or at least, successfully). The paradigm and zeitgeist that McDonald's is unhealthy also shoves away people who may genuinely not know the effects of McDonald's food, but may choose to eat there anyways. In other words, it gives the company a way-out in saying that people do know their food is unhealthy.
If this doesn't turn out to be true, then like I said, it's speculation, but if it is true, then perhaps McDonald's may find a blessing in this after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment