We Deserve A Break Today
Recently there was a news story reporting the results of a study that said children preferred food that was "from McDonald's" over the same food presented to them without the McDonald's packaging.
The study is trying to prove that preschoolers are seeing too much advertising and are influenced more by such ads. while sure, McDonald's does do a lot of work targeting their brand to children, I have to say that this is not all McDonald's fault.
For one, the news report doesn't say that the kids necessarily could pick out the McDonald's packaging, or what made the packaging distinctly Mcdonald's so they could tell the branding over any other brand. Did they really see the golden arches logo as being what they recalled was from McDonald's, or was the packaging just more distinctive than that of the generic food?
The story said they were exposed to McDonald's packaging and "unbranded", but colorful packaging. Had they used packaging from Burger King or Wendy's, would the kids have made different choices? It's hard to tell if it's just that the kids liked the packaging of McDonald's more, or did they really understand the brand?
My real culprit is not McDonald's itself, but the children's parents. Television can only do so much to reenforce a brand, and sure, Mcdonald's has been using Ronald and McDonaldland commercials for years, and used Happy Meals to get children excited about a vist, but think about this, it's parents who often use a trip to McDonalds as a reward. Parents use it as a threat as well. If the child doesn't behave, they won't get a Happy Meal. With McDonalds food having so much power in a young person's life, how could a kid not get a certain feeling that McDonald's must be better?
I know when i was a kid it was a big deal to go to McDonalds. Still, when I was a kid I never lived in a city where there was a McDonald's within 30 miles. I remember when my dad said we were going to move to Conroe Texas in 1978 I was so excited becuase Conroe had a McDonalds, and it was one with a play yard. I was instantly sold on the town, even though our current home, Nacogdoches, had a Burger Chef, and dairy Queen and at last, a Burger king that just moved in. Still, we would drive to Lufkin to go to McDonalds about once a month, so then my parents did make it special.
Now that there's one on seemingly every block, it's not so special anymore.
The whole study seems to be connected to trying to cut child obesity by cutting off the source. I'd say it's kind of wrong-headed. If parents would make better choices, their kids might too. I'm a good example, as my parents didn't really create good eating habits for me, I grew up with a poor diet for the rest of my life. Still, some people think if they can cut children's exposure to commercials, they won't want to eat McDonald's food, or have that sugary cereal. The fact is, you deny a kid something, and he'll eventually hear about it from some friends with more liberal parents, he's still going to try to get it somehow.
I'll be interested to see how the cereal makers do as they voluntarily take commercials off the air for cereals that have more sugar, or other unhealty attributes. While we loved the antics of Lucky, the Trix rabbit and Tony the Tiger, kids today will be enjoying ads for Cheerios, Mini Wheats and Kix. (I'll admit I'd be happy to see more ads with the Kashii bear, myself) I think if Saturday Morning Cartoons aren't dead now, they will be soon.
I just don't see how this revelation is a big deal. McDonald's adds healthier items to their menu, but people really don't care, they go there for a burger, and the children see this. If anything it could be good. If a child sees the apple bites, or carrots or milk and would rather eat those because it has a McDonald's wrapper, then bring it on. if McDoanld's can make that cool with kids over burgers and fries, then let them do it.
Most families don't have the time to prepare healthy food, and lower income families struggle to provide it. McDonald's is at least trying. they haven't been adding one pound burgers and enormous egg sandwiches to their menu, even when it might sell well for them. They know they are under scrutiny and have tried to do well under pressure.
I personally get sick of these nanny state developments where they try to take away something from everyone because they can't abide by letting people make a decision. I say bring on Capt'n Crunch and make a parent have to tell the kid no and buy them Wheaties. I try to keep my McDonald's intake low, and I think parents should make that decision too.
Personally I find these types of research studies a waste of time, especially when they are so pointed against one product or one company. I'd like to see this same study broadened to include other brands and to have a real test of wether the McDonald's brand really is that strong, or just better than the generic brand X. Plenty of studies have been made showing many people prefer branded merchandise.
Oh, and one last thing about McDonald's advertising. Did the Hamburglar actually make anyone go out and steal hamburgers?
The study is trying to prove that preschoolers are seeing too much advertising and are influenced more by such ads. while sure, McDonald's does do a lot of work targeting their brand to children, I have to say that this is not all McDonald's fault.
For one, the news report doesn't say that the kids necessarily could pick out the McDonald's packaging, or what made the packaging distinctly Mcdonald's so they could tell the branding over any other brand. Did they really see the golden arches logo as being what they recalled was from McDonald's, or was the packaging just more distinctive than that of the generic food?
The story said they were exposed to McDonald's packaging and "unbranded", but colorful packaging. Had they used packaging from Burger King or Wendy's, would the kids have made different choices? It's hard to tell if it's just that the kids liked the packaging of McDonald's more, or did they really understand the brand?
My real culprit is not McDonald's itself, but the children's parents. Television can only do so much to reenforce a brand, and sure, Mcdonald's has been using Ronald and McDonaldland commercials for years, and used Happy Meals to get children excited about a vist, but think about this, it's parents who often use a trip to McDonalds as a reward. Parents use it as a threat as well. If the child doesn't behave, they won't get a Happy Meal. With McDonalds food having so much power in a young person's life, how could a kid not get a certain feeling that McDonald's must be better?
I know when i was a kid it was a big deal to go to McDonalds. Still, when I was a kid I never lived in a city where there was a McDonald's within 30 miles. I remember when my dad said we were going to move to Conroe Texas in 1978 I was so excited becuase Conroe had a McDonalds, and it was one with a play yard. I was instantly sold on the town, even though our current home, Nacogdoches, had a Burger Chef, and dairy Queen and at last, a Burger king that just moved in. Still, we would drive to Lufkin to go to McDonalds about once a month, so then my parents did make it special.
Now that there's one on seemingly every block, it's not so special anymore.
The whole study seems to be connected to trying to cut child obesity by cutting off the source. I'd say it's kind of wrong-headed. If parents would make better choices, their kids might too. I'm a good example, as my parents didn't really create good eating habits for me, I grew up with a poor diet for the rest of my life. Still, some people think if they can cut children's exposure to commercials, they won't want to eat McDonald's food, or have that sugary cereal. The fact is, you deny a kid something, and he'll eventually hear about it from some friends with more liberal parents, he's still going to try to get it somehow.
I'll be interested to see how the cereal makers do as they voluntarily take commercials off the air for cereals that have more sugar, or other unhealty attributes. While we loved the antics of Lucky, the Trix rabbit and Tony the Tiger, kids today will be enjoying ads for Cheerios, Mini Wheats and Kix. (I'll admit I'd be happy to see more ads with the Kashii bear, myself) I think if Saturday Morning Cartoons aren't dead now, they will be soon.
I just don't see how this revelation is a big deal. McDonald's adds healthier items to their menu, but people really don't care, they go there for a burger, and the children see this. If anything it could be good. If a child sees the apple bites, or carrots or milk and would rather eat those because it has a McDonald's wrapper, then bring it on. if McDoanld's can make that cool with kids over burgers and fries, then let them do it.
Most families don't have the time to prepare healthy food, and lower income families struggle to provide it. McDonald's is at least trying. they haven't been adding one pound burgers and enormous egg sandwiches to their menu, even when it might sell well for them. They know they are under scrutiny and have tried to do well under pressure.
I personally get sick of these nanny state developments where they try to take away something from everyone because they can't abide by letting people make a decision. I say bring on Capt'n Crunch and make a parent have to tell the kid no and buy them Wheaties. I try to keep my McDonald's intake low, and I think parents should make that decision too.
Personally I find these types of research studies a waste of time, especially when they are so pointed against one product or one company. I'd like to see this same study broadened to include other brands and to have a real test of wether the McDonald's brand really is that strong, or just better than the generic brand X. Plenty of studies have been made showing many people prefer branded merchandise.
Oh, and one last thing about McDonald's advertising. Did the Hamburglar actually make anyone go out and steal hamburgers?