McDonald's Laughs Off Criticism Embedded In April Fool's Joke

from the inappropriate-responses dept

Tue, Apr 20th 2010 11:09pm — Joyce Hung

On April 1st, Grist posted an April Fools story about McDonald's that claimed the fast food chain would no longer follow through with its global composting initiative after scientists at the University of California-Berkeley found that none of the items on McDonald's menu were suitable for composting -- and none of the "food" would break down even after 1,000 years.

The story was certainly inspired by a recent blog post by Joann Bruso claiming that the Happy Meal she had purchased and placed on a shelf for an entire year looked virtually unchanged -- no mold, no decomposition or smells. In this case, McDonald's reacted by posting a response on its website, calling Bruso's story an urban legend.

Apparently, many people fell for Grist's joke because it just seemed so plausible. Allison Arieff, a writer for GOOD and The New York Times, tweeted the news -- and just minutes later, McDonald's Twitter contact tweeted back a very odd reply:

Arieff: "McDonald's scraps composting program because the items on their menu WON'T DECOMPOSE. Yikes. http://ow.ly/1tClQ (via@edibleIA,@edibleSF)"

Molly at McDonald's: "They say April Fools jokes are a form of flattery! This one had us laughing too! ^Mol"

Here's a story that's further spreading the idea that the food at McDonald's is so unnatural that it won't even decompose, and what does McDonald's do? Laugh it off, of course. Was this the right response? Well, it was definitely not one that people were expecting. McDonald's had a chance to address the criticism, but instead they chose to just brush it off. Maybe they didn't want to open a can of worms, and since they're so big, they figured that they could get away with it. And they're probably right -- the number of people who were turned off by their response (or even aware of the story) was likely to be insignificant for the fast food giant.

However, it's likely a different story for smaller businesses. They really need to pay attention to and deliver what their customers want. It's probably not a good idea to attempt to brush off customer complaints with "humor." Perhaps even McDonald's should be more careful with its tweets now that everything they say will be archived for posterity. We'll see how long it takes for tweets to decompose.

Filed Under: jokes, pr spin
Companies: mcdonalds

66 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2010 @ 11:43pm

What the hell is this acceptpay bullshit in your article?

"Of course, the content of this post consists entirely of the thoughts and opinions of the author."
Do you seriously think that we'll believe this when you have a HUGE conflict of interest here. They pay you. I can't imagine that they'll keep paying you if you write anything negative about them. I can't imagine that you aren't human and aren't the least bit tempted to censor yourself or withhold negative articles about them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2010 @ 11:45pm

Of course this was the right response. What would you prefer they do, sue them for slander? Every single time someone says something like this about a company, the company sues whoever said it. Finally we have a company that actually understands a joke for what it is... a joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 12:12am

How many of McDonald's customers do you think took that "concern" any more seriously than Molly? 0.00002 percent? More? I doubt anywhere close to that.

No one was offended who wasn't trying to inspire a blog post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 12:17am

I think McDonalds made the right decision here. What could they do, post a picture of a thousand half-decomposed Big Macs? Getting angry and sending out lawyers would have been bad. This seems like an appropriate response to a joke. Companies should take note. Laugh at the joke, then post a friendly reassurance or refutation of the claims if you think there might be any doubt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 12:18am

I guess they've learned a thing or two from the McLibel incident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mclibel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 12:20am

Re:
You are an idiot!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 12:29am

Come on, who in their right mind would seriously believe those ridiculous claims? They're actually an obvious joke! Food that doesn't decompose for a thousand years?? No one should have to reply seriously to a joke, especially an obvious one, especially one made on April's fools. People who treat this seriously are fools; I believe that's all the concept of April's fools.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Radjin, 21 Apr 2010 @ 12:43am

Who in their right mind (or left for that matter) would eat at McDonalds?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zenith (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 12:53am

I think McDonald have the right idea.

The Streisand Effect shows that denying and restricting (any possibly denying) information has a negative affect.

In this case, the Lady McDonald could easily be seen to protest too much.

To simply laugh it off - and indeed, give the joke the due it's worth, as it was originally a joke - is obviously the best cause of action.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 12:57am

I disagree that this is an inappropriate response. If they had reacted angrily, or tried to vigorously defend themselves from the prank, many folks would think, "Jeez. Get a sense of humor. It's obviously a joke."

Recognizing it for what it was and making sure everyone else did too while making light of the whole thing is a wise move in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 1:03am

Re:
Exactly. What is this nonsense about how it was a questionable response? Every time something like this happens, Techdirt is the first to point out why company A is overreacting. If it's an April Fools joke, McDonald's responded correctly in not taking it too seriously and letting its customers know that it's human enough to understand jokes are making people laugh, not for overreactive prudes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ralph-J (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 1:09am

It wouldn't affect their sales
Society has accepted McDonalds for what it is; a fast food restaurant with not-so-healthy food products. They have tried adding salads, fruits etc. to their menus, but healthy choices are not popular choices.

I agree with Zenith that stronger forms of denial (than te current urban legend page) would probably lead to the Streisand Effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PR nonexpert, 21 Apr 2010 @ 2:01am

No better response?
I don't think the suggestion here is that McD should have sued over an April fool joke. But the "laugh it off" response could have been better. McD can accept its image as a junk food maker, but it could also try to.address concerns about its products and environmental policies.

Perhaps laughing off its existing image was the best response. But there might have been a more constructive response, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PR nonexpert, 21 Apr 2010 @ 2:05am

No better response?
I don't think the suggestion here is that McD should have sued over an April fool joke. But the "laugh it off" response could have been better. McD can accept its image as a junk food maker, but it could also try to.address concerns about its products and environmental policies.

Perhaps laughing off its existing image was the best response. But there might have been a more constructive response, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alex, 21 Apr 2010 @ 2:06am

What a wierd post from Techdirt
What an odd post from Techdirt.

Companies overreacting to criticism and responding with inappropriate, chilling, and frequently over-the-top legal action are bread and butter for you.

Why criticize McDonalds for the sort of behavior you otherwise seem to be keen on. What sort of response did you think they should have made? A lawsuit? A publicity campaign with ads showing immense piles of moldy decomposing burger buns in glorious technicolor?

I think that perhaps you struck the wrong note here altogether.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 3:29am

Poor article Techdirt. McDonalds was right in just 'laughing it off.' Any other response would have got greater critism from Techdirt I feel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 4:34am

Re:
If it had been Mike writing this article, it would have been gushing with praise that a large corporation finally did the right thing and got a sense of humor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 4:34am

Re:
This story was broght to you from Micky-Ds ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 21 Apr 2010 @ 4:36am

Re: Re:
If this story had been written by the AC, it would be full of angst and negativity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
STJ, 21 Apr 2010 @ 4:40am

If McD had critized the article, then techdirt would have said they should have ignored or laughed about it. Since they laughed about it, then they made the wrong decision.

It's a no-win for a big company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ElSteevo (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 5:15am

"We'll see how long it takes for tweets to decompose. "

I don't know how long they take to decompose, but the only thing tweets are good for is compost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lance (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 5:20am

Definitely different
Like most of the other responders I've seen to this article, I was surprised to see the suggestion that McD's should have responded differently.

Giving Joyce the benefit of the doubt, I'm guessing that she actually meant to point out that smaller companies do not have the latitude in responding to "customer complaints". Unfortunately, I believe she picked a poor example to make that point. It seems a bit contrived to use an April Fools prank, and the subsequent response from the "victim" of said prank, as the basis for a serious discussion of customer service.

Why she would use this example, given the huge number of examples where a huge company doesn't respond appropriately to authentic customer complaints? As this is an article sponsored by AcceptPay/Amex, is there some agenda being served? I sincerely hope that this is not a reflection of the kinds of submissions we can expect, when the submission is sponsored.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 5:42am

Re:
Every living and breathing life form in America.

If you don't think you've ever eaten McDonald's watch the movie Food Inc. (or any of a hundred other documentaries on commercial food production.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 5:47am

Either way - TechDirt has an article. If someone doesn't respond with outrage and legal proceedings, they are callous and don't care about the customers; if they send out the lawyers, deny or try to explain, they are covering up or trying to bully the "little guy". Win-Win for the writer and TD.

This comment was NOT sponsored by anyone, but a few electrons, captured within silicon and germanium cages, were tortured to reveal their true location.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Todd, 21 Apr 2010 @ 5:56am

What a stupid, moronic article. Why should McDonald's have had any other reaction than what they did? An April Fool's joke is now a "customer complaint?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 5:58am

It is some what true
As a University student and a battle of wills with the room mate a MDs Cheese burger was left unwrapped on the coffee table for 3 month! It looked just as fresh as the day it was purchased... it was a shame to discard our monument to the fast food diet!

BTW: it did 'look' exactly the same but was hard as a rock.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 6:01am

Re: Re: Re:
You'll never understand my pain! The pain that millions will read my words and never know who I am. Damn you "abc gum"... I'll get you... some day!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 6:03am

"However, it's likely a different story for smaller businesses. They really need to pay attention to and deliver what their customers want. It's probably not a good idea to attempt to brush off customer complaints with "humor."

So in your summary you throw out an argument with no substance or backing (apparently laughing at jokes does not work for small business in your opinion) and then misrepresent JOKES as complaints. You should give AcceptPay their money back for such an empty post.

FTL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 6:25am

Good Response
Personally, I think it was a good response. April Fools Pranks are meant to be humorous. To laugh in response is the appropriate immediate reaction. Especially over a tweet.

Now, the question becomes what is their long-term reaction? I would think that a press release about how well their composting project is going would be a great response the week after.

This sort of response would work well for big and small businesses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike42 (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 6:26am

Re:
I agree completely. The no-decomposition post was ridiculous, and should be treated as such, regardless of the size of the business.

Joyce, do you know what site you're posting on?

Besides, anyone with children knows that McDonald's food REEKS after a day or two. That's how you find that half-eaten hamburger in your car!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Mac, 21 Apr 2010 @ 6:35am

I'm gonna have to add my voice to the chorus that
McDonalds took the best stance possible. Take it for the joke it is, and give it a laugh. Claims that their food never decomposes is not that demeaning in the light that the crack is more hyperbole about the food than anything else.

I would love to see a little more banter between a company and its public.

"You think our food is well-preserved, you should see our CEO, he's 65 and doesn't look a day past 40!"

I'll be here all week.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nate, 21 Apr 2010 @ 6:53am

Glad everyone else thinks they made the right move.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 7:14am

"McDonald's had a chance to address the criticism, but instead they chose to just brush it off."

It was an April Fools joke. Criticism in the form of an April Fools joke should be address in the manner in which it's presented....as a joke.

You criticize McDonald's for not making the 'right' response to this, but you don't actually go as far to say as what you feel the 'right' response would have been.

It obviously wouldn't be suing the poor sap who wrote the article. It wouldn't be demanding that the article be taken down.

Taking the joke seriously as if it were real would have shown the people at McDonald's have a slight case of the dumb and can't tell a joke when they see one. And criticizing the joke by saying they don't find it funny to make fun of their brand would again make them look like they can't laugh at themselves.

So they should have said nothing then? But even that would have made it look like they are out of touch with what's going on.

Unless there is another reaction that you had in mind, I would say what they did was the best choice. McDonald's is such a huge brand. If Super Size Me, Food Inc. and various other documentaries don't make that huge of a dent in it's profits, I doubt one April Fool's joke will. And I'm will to bet they see it the same way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick Coghlan (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 7:16am

Pretty good response from McDonalds actually
Angry response? "Geez, it was just a joke, chill out"
Factual response? "Geez, it was just a joke, no need to get all serious about it" (plus, a restaurant publishing details on how long it typically takes their meals to decompose would be kinda disturbing)

Genial response, acknowledging the joke and laughing it off? Probably about the best thing they could do.

McDonald's are dealing with complaints about the quality of their food in many different ways (and to give them credit, the ones around here really do have a much better menu selection and level of quality than they did even 5 years ago). There was no need for them to bring all that into their response to a well-executed April Fools prank.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 7:18am

total fail, joyce. bad start. you need to sing in tune. mike won't be happy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jon B. (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 7:18am

Re:
I'm not sure it was an article. It didn't really have any content, it's surrounded by more advertising than content, and the author only has one other post here that was tl;dr, but the comments made it sound equally ... empty. The TIC posts (even when there's a sponsor) are interesting. This one isn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Drew (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 7:20am

Seriously, finally a company does something right...
This is another example of Techdirt articles ripping on a company for doing EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO! McDonalds decides NOT to lawyer up and sue, but instead laughs along with us, and you complain!

I just don't understand it. You wonder why Techdirt gets painted as this radical anti-copyright, anti-business organization, it's because sometimes (according to Techdirt articles) business can do no right.

Let's think about this before next time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick Coghlan (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 7:20am

More on the sponsored post deal
It would actually be good to get a post explaining how this whole "sponsored post" deal works.

Is it just a straight advertising gig? (i.e. X number of posts per day get the AcceptPay blurb on them)

Are AcceptPay able to pass links/stories over and say "we'd like your thoughts on this topic" (again, capped to a certain number of stories per day)

It doesn't bother me, but we're fairly interested in business model experiments in these parts, and there's bound to be some natural curiousity as to what lies behind this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Burger, 21 Apr 2010 @ 7:38am

WTF?
OK, If McDonalds sued or filed a retraction on twitter - ( ? )
you would complain that their are too many corporations taking things too seriously and that something is wrong with the legal system and lawsuits.
Now when a corporation enjoys the humor , real or not , and rolls with the punches you chastise them in saying they are not taking this seriously enough.
after all the ranting i get on techdirt of endless lawsuits and endless copyright issues - you roll over like a stuffed swine to rant on dribble like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
known coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 7:41am

If i were accupay
i do not know i would want my brand associated with this article, the author is not showing a good understanding of public relations. McDonalds did the exact right thing, and the author expects some sort of long term retribution to occur to mcdonalds for this?

. . . However, it's likely a different story for smaller businesses. They really need to pay attention to and deliver what their customers want. It's probably not a good idea to attempt to brush off customer complaints with "humor." Perhaps even McDonald's should be more careful with its tweets now that everything they say will be archived for posterity. We'll see how long it takes for tweets to decompose

Hunmor and good nature are exactly how a small business should deal with complaints. What would she prefered Mcdonald's or any small business do, "lawyer up", or just ignore it? Accupay should require better small business writers for their material.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
longtimelurker, 21 Apr 2010 @ 8:19am

Sponsered Posts
It's odd. I've been reading TechDirt for a long time, and I don't really understand this. How is this an inappropriate response? As much as I don't like McD's, this is actually one of the most reasonable responses I've seen from a company. Who is this Joyce Hung, who's only posted 2 stories, does not engage the commentors, and the story doesn't even fit in with the TechDirt philosophy? Are the sponsored stories just vehicles for advertising, and have nothing to do with TechDirt? If so, I'll just make a point to avoid any sponsored posts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse, 21 Apr 2010 @ 8:40am

McDonald's absolutely did address the concern. They labeled this as an April's Fool joke. I don't know what more you want. They handled it perfectly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve, 21 Apr 2010 @ 9:17am

This post has made me hungry for a quarter pounder.
I think they did well. If you respond to jokes and trolls with serious rebuttal, you're just going to waste your time. laughing is the proper response to a joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iamtheky (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 9:18am

Hilarious that a week ago she wrote:

"interns without proper supervision can also come back to haunt employers, especially when interns represent the company and are trusted with interacting with clients."

interaction in the comments seems to be lacking though, it would be fun to hear a defense of this empty shell of a post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 9:51am

Re: Re:
OK, I haven't seen Food Inc., but you're telling me the T-bone steak I grilled last night was from McDonald's?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 9:59am

Re: Re: Re:
The beef in supermarkets is usually quite sad. I had a "real" steak the other night and I could taste BEEF through a diane-like sauce before I even chewed. With the commercial stuff I can't even get real beef flavor if I juice it.

Real beef comes from well-cared-for cattle. I am not sure exactly what they are selling in supermarkets these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 10:21am

Re:
"What the hell is this acceptpay bullshit in your article?"

Psst. It's a sponsored post.

That said, there are far worse ways for corporations to respond to criticism. (e.g., lawyering up.)

Whether that's appropriate in this case, I dunno.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kirk (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 10:42am

"The story was certainly inspired by a recent blog post by Joann Bruso claiming that the Happy Meal she had purchased and placed on a shelf for an entire year looked virtually unchanged -- no mold, no decomposition or smells. In this case, McDonald's reacted by posting a response on its website, calling Bruso's story an urban legend."

I think she's saying that this Apr fools' joke was an opportunity to respond to Bruso's blog post. That would be almost as big a mistake as an angry response. A miscalculation of Streislandic™ proportions, if you will. Why call attention to some obscure (to me) blogger's accusation. I think Joyce happens to read Bruso's blog and wanted to bring everyone into the know. However, I still don't care. Two greasy thumbs up, Ronald!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kirk (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 10:49am

Feedback for Mike
Hi, Mike. Most of these sponsored posts are well worth the read. How did this get past your desk? Anyway, thanks for the great analysis, this post not withstanding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dennis Yang (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 11:37am

Fielding the feedback..
Yes.. as you've all noticed, we've been trying out some new things here on Techdirt, namely the "sponsored conversations" -- we take our editorial integrity very seriously here at Techdirt, so we have been careful to always make the distinction that sponsors do not have any say over the content that goes into these posts, but rather, they are sponsoring the conversation around certain topics.

So, how it works is that, in this case, AMEX is sponsoring the topic around businesses and entrepreneurship -- and then we here at Techdirt just continue about our normal daily business writing about the things that we like to write about, and then, the posts that fall into this topic area get the sponsored treatment.

Furthermore, as you've probably also noticed (or, for some, not noticed -- since they keep talking to Mike on every single post).. We're growing here at Techdirt, and as a result, we've been adding some more voices to the site. And with that, we've learned that we need to be more upfront if an author is presenting a viewpoint that may disagree with the prevailing view on Techdirt. Part of this experiment is to see what would happen if we added some different views on the site, but we should be more upfront and clear when that's happening.

Anyway, my apologies if this post was confusing in any way or made you think that we're not the same old Techdirt that you're expecting. Apparently, we're not immune to screwing up either, so thanks for calling us out on it and keeping us honest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 2:27pm

Re: Fielding the feedback..
"So, how it works is that, in this case, AMEX is sponsoring the topic around businesses and entrepreneurship"

A credit card company is sponsoring a general set of ideas? I'm sorry but do you seriously expect us to believe this bullcrap?

They're sponsoring YOU, not "the topic of business and entrepreneurship". What the hell kind of convoluted logic are you trying to use here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iamtheky (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 2:44pm

how about a comment from......joyce hung..that would be novel. Its not about having a different viewpoint, its about logically defending that viewpoint with concrete examples. Not setting up a summation of "fictitious small business that cant possibly laugh along with jokes like the big boys, dont they know those jokes are really valid customer complaints!"

and not even returning to the comments to address very direct criticisms of the piece.

CwF+RtB = ConfuseWorthyFans+ReasonToBail
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kirk (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 2:49pm

Re: Re: Fielding the feedback..
What they're paying for is to have their name on posts of only this type. Advertisers sponsor TV shows, and they're commercials play only on the shows they sponsor. Same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kirk (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 2:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Fielding the feedback..
Ouch. I meant "their". Too much editing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kirk (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 2:53pm

Re:
Hear Hear!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 3:11pm

Re:
That was my thought too. There have been so many posts here about how companies shouldn't have sued other parties and should have instead embraced the attention. Now, we see a company doing that (kinda, at least they didn't attack the user or try to sue them) and you complain about that too?!

I'm no fan of Mc D's, but seriously, it's like lose-lose around here. I expected better from Techdirt... maybe it's just that Mike didn't pen this one?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
another mike (profile), 21 Apr 2010 @ 3:40pm

what are McDonald's options here?
They could launch a massive advertising blitz focused on their USDA Nutritional Facts. That would be a wasted effort because no one cares. We don't eat McDonalds' food because it's healthy; we eat it because it's the most popular fast food burgers on the planet. Eventually 'Delicious and Nutritious' would be included in a list of the most worthless ad campaigns in history.
Unleash the lawyers? Both bloggers would be sued for defamation, there'd be DMCA takedown notices, the lawyers would get stinking rich, and we'd be reading this as a Streisand Effect article.
MickeyD's could have just completely ignored the original article. It might make an Aprils' Fools prank round-up in a couple months and be utterly forgotten. That would give Ronald McDonald a net neutral effect and a resounding 'meh'.
Instead, McDonalds decided to play like they were in on the joke. Now they're seen as having a sense of humor and not being just a faceless corporate monstrosity. And then when the best pranks article is written, people will actually remember this one. This was the only correct choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Apr 2010 @ 4:15pm

not wasting my time reading all these comments, but how is it an insult to say your food is good forever?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 21 Apr 2010 @ 7:17pm

McDonald's April Fool Joke
I side with McDonald's. Some things are so ridiculous that to answer them would make you look like a fool.

I don't see how anyone could POSSIBLY believe that food, no matter how bad for you, that can be digested, cannot be composted (a form of digestion!).

With all the "Tea Parties" and people voting to give money to the wealthy, etc., I have a low opinion of the average American's intelligence, but, till now, not THAT low!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cheong, 21 Apr 2010 @ 7:29pm

The indestructable
No. As I recalled, the fish filet burger molded very easily, the Big Mac can last longer.

Only the French Fries is truely indestructable - virtually unchanged after be placed in jar for a year.

But then that's because Frence Fries are deep fried with high temperature oil. Most bacteria or so are throughly killed in the process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick Coghlan, 22 Apr 2010 @ 12:43am

Re: Fielding the feedback..
Thanks for the explanation - I thought it was something like that, but good to have it stated explicitly.

You may want to remind your authors about the whole "be a part of the conversation" deal, too. When the response to an article is a collective "Huh?" from regulars and trolls alike, it would be interesting to hear back from the original author as to just what the heck they were smoking (who knows, perhaps they'll even blind us all with a piece of sheer brilliant logic that the rest of us are completely missing...).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
known coward, 22 Apr 2010 @ 6:33am

Re: Fielding the feedback..
that is all well and good, but you should hire people who do not give bad business advice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joyce Hung (profile), 22 Apr 2010 @ 10:01am

Some clarification
Sorry for the confusion about this story. What I failed to make clear is that after posting that "humorous" tweet, McDonald's Twitter contact was hit with a bunch of questions about the company's plans for reducing waste. It's here that McDonald's brushed off consumer concerns by simply providing a link to their "environmental responsibility" page, rather than giving people a real response by providing specific examples of what they're actually doing. The company missed an opportunity to engage their audience on an issue that some obviously find pretty serious. So, jokingingly responding to the outrageous claim about their food, and then ignoring the more serious concerns about their plans to manage waste, just shows that they believe they can get away with that kind of response due to their size. And perhaps they can. Many businesses, however, do not have the same luxury. And it's probably not the best idea for McDonald's either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joyce Hung (profile), 22 Apr 2010 @ 10:11am

Re:
I wasn't suggesting that McDonald's should sue – they already know that doesn't work. Since they felt the need to respond to an April Fool's joke, I think they should have just ignored the story and the tweets -- unless they were actually willing to "embrace" the attention and give people real answers, not just the usual runaround.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iamtheky (profile), 22 Apr 2010 @ 11:34am

(you mention 'food' not decomposing aplenty) Amazing how you failed to mention 'Waste' once in the article when that was your whole intent, cant say that improves my opinion.

Have you been to http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/good/environment.html? Its actually quite well put together, genericized as expected from their largeness, but fairly up to date as it mentions -specific examples- and recent events such as LEED certified buildings, one of them company owned. Please, anything but direct me to a site where you show that you are willing to pay 2x as much for a building to make sure environmental concerns are addressed.

If people are asking frequently asked question, direct them to the FAQ, imho.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 22 Apr 2010 @ 3:05pm

"The story was certainly inspired by a recent blog post by Joann Bruso claiming that the Happy Meal she had purchased and placed on a shelf for an entire year looked virtually unchanged -- no mold, no decomposition or smells."

Did the same thing with a cupcake years back. Other than becoming hard as stone you couldnt tell it had been sitting on the shelf in my office since the previous holloween.
[ link to this | view in thread ]