McDonald's Laughs Off Criticism Embedded In April Fool's Joke
from the inappropriate-responses dept
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)"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.
Molly at McDonald's: "They say April Fools jokes are a form of flattery! This one had us laughing too! ^Mol"
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.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one was offended who wasn't trying to inspire a blog post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mclibel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
It wouldn't affect their sales
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 chronology ]
No better response?
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 chronology ]
No better response?
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 chronology ]
What a wierd 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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a no-win for a big company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Definitely different
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is some what true
BTW: it did 'look' exactly the same but was hard as a rock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Good Response
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 chronology ]
I'm gonna have to add my voice to the chorus that
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Pretty good response from McDonalds actually
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, finally a company does something right...
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 chronology ]
More on the sponsored post deal
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 chronology ]
WTF?
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 chronology ]
If i were accupay
. . . 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 chronology ]
Sponsered Posts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This post has made me hungry for a quarter pounder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Feedback for Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fielding the feedback..
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 chronology ]
Re: Fielding the feedback..
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Fielding the feedback..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fielding the feedback..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fielding the feedback..
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 chronology ]
Re: Fielding the feedback..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and not even returning to the comments to address very direct criticisms of the piece.
CwF+RtB = ConfuseWorthyFans+ReasonToBail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what are McDonald's options here?
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McDonald's April Fool Joke
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 chronology ]
The indestructable
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 chronology ]
Some clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]