Saturday, February 5, 2011

McDonald's Response from Danya Proud



From: "Proud Danya" <Danya.Proud@us.mcd.com>
Date: Feb 20, 2011 3:55 PM
Subject: RE: Happy Meal Toy Study and Survey
To: "Chito Peppler" <chito.peppler@gmail.com>


Good afternoon,

In response to your inquiry, please find below a statement for your use:

February 16, 2010

MEDIA STATEMENT

“While we share in the desire to find a meaningful solution to the growing problem of kids' health and nutrition, we believe taking away a toy from a kids meal
does absolutely nothing to improve children’s health, nutrition or well-being. 

We are extremely proud of our Happy Meals which give our youngest guests wholesome food and toys of the highest quality. Getting a toy with a kid's meal is just one part of a fun, family experience at McDonald's.

Public opinion has – and continues to be - overwhelmingly against this idea. It 
does not reflect what consumers want, nor is it something they asked for.Parents tell us they want to have the right and responsibility to make their own decisions and decide what’s right for their children – not lawmakers.
Any fair and objective review of our menu and the actions we’ve taken will demonstrate we’ve been responsible, we’re committed to children’s well being, and we’ll continue to learn and take action for our customers that is guided by science and facts.

Banning a toy is not the way to fight obesity or improve children’s well-being. Solutions will come only from education and awareness based on science and fact.”

Danya Proud, Spokesperson
McDonald’s USA

McDonald's Happy Meal Toy Survey


Should McDonald's be allowed to put toys in their Happy Meals? Obesity in children has tripled in the last 30 years. The American Academic of Pediatrics considers advertising to children illegal since they do not have the cognitive capability to understand deceptive marketing.



DownloadCreate Chart1. McDonald's claim that the Happy Meal does have one healthy option: chicken nuggets, apple dippers, juice and low-fat milk. However, children do not always pick the healthy option. McDonald's claim that their freedom to advertise is protected under the First Amendment.
answered question58
skipped question
1
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Including the toy in the Happy Meal is ethical
34.5%20
The toy is deceptive marketing but McDonald's should be allowed to include a toy
34.5%20
The toy is deceptive marketing so McDonalds should NOT be allowed to include it.
19.0%11
Not sure
6.9%4
Other (please specify)
Show Responses
5.2%3

Friday, February 4, 2011

The Most Influential Man Who Never Lived


He was the most famous man who never lived.   The iconic image of this rugged, handsome cowboy riding off in the sunset was indelibly stamped in the hearts and mind of both smokers and does who staunchly opposed it.  He was so effective in tugging both the heart strings and pocket strings of people of all ages all over the world and personally responsible for the suffering of millions that he was eventually banned from TV, print and billboards.
 

In 1999, Marlboro settled a lawsuit agreeing to remove all cowboys from billboard ads.  This ended one of the most mythical, successful and hated brand icons in the advertising history.

Leo Burnett, the former Peoria Journal reporter turned advertiser, created the Marlboro man in 1951.  The success was astronomical.  Marlboro sales increased nearly 3,250% in 1955.

In 1964, Phillip Morris refreshed the image by putting him in mythical Marlboro country.  In 1971 cigarette ads were banned from TV, but the vivid image of the rugged cowboy smoking a cigarette endured.

Even today if you see a picture of a cowboy riding off in the sunset, you may immediately think of Marlboro Man.  In fact, USA Today has ranked him number one in the 101 list of most influential people.

That is because Marlboro has indelibly stamped this rugged image into the hearts and minds of people all over the world.

At least for this generation, the image belongs to them.  Marlboro gets free advertising and don't even need to do the work.

For example, if you search for the word "cowboy" in Google, the very first picture that comes up is the one above.  

Are Happy Meal Toys Bad for Waistlines?

Should McDonald's be allowed to put toys in their Happy Meals.  The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is suing McDonald's to remove the toys.  Claiming that childhood obesity rates have more than tripled in the last 30 years.  McDonald's claim that the Happy Meal does have a more healthy option:  chicken McNuggets with low fat caramel dip, apple dippers and low fat milk.  Still the Washington-based consumer advocacy group stated that many children opt for the less healthy option.  Further study shows that McDonald's staff automatically serve the hamburger and fries to the kids without mentioning the healthy option.

Say "No" in Santa Clara
Already, California's Santa Clara County voted in 2010 to ban restaurants from giving away toys with high-calorie meals.  The problem with the toys according to the CPSI is that kids will nag parents to get the meals because of the toys.


First Amendment
McDonald's is defending their position based on the First Amendment.  However, the CPSI claims that the free speech clause does not give companies a blank check to advertise deceptively to individual groups especially children.



Brilliant Marketing Campaign
Ever since the first Happy Meal was sold in 1979, McDonald's has released thousands of varieties of toys.  They also earn advertising revenue by marketing movie and Disney promotions.  In 2005, Disney celebrated their 50th Anniversary by releasing a special edition toy comprised of Mickey, Minnie, Goofy, Pluto, and others.  Today, Happy Meal toys are popular collectors items.  A 11-year old kid recently sold his 7,000-piece collection at an auction in England for $11,000 US.

Too Many Empty Calories
A 2006 study by the Journal of Pediatrics shows that the average child consumed up to 165 calories more than needed and some teens took in as many as 1,000 calories more each day than needed.  A recent article in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association states that kids are not only eating more, but they are getting empty calories -- food that are high in calories, fat, or sugar, but low in nutrition.


Should Big Government Regulate?
Supporters of consumer advocacy groups state that the government should step in to protect groups against such vices as obesity, smoking, drinking, etc.  Marketers in general will try to push their products zealously -- that's their job.  The job of consumer advocacy groups and the government is to keep them in check.  Thus we should not allow companies to advertise as they wish, right.


Touted for Ethics



 McDonald's touts that it has recently received an A+ rating at the Better Business Bureau for its "proven record of trustworthiness and ethics in its customer-related business practices."

Socially Responsible?
Researchers have proof that children are drawn to meals associated with toys.  


They further state that companies are offering these toys as a form of marketing to lure children to purchase the meals. 
The key issue here is whether this is deceptive.  Because children do not yet have the reasoning to understand unfair marketing.  "The American Academic of Pediatrics considers advertising to young children to be inherently deceptive and exploits children under the age of 8 years."


Exercise is the Antidote
Meanwhile, advocates of McDonald's claim that the best way to fight childhood obesity is more exercise and less time spent watching TV or playing video games.

Should advertising fast food to children be illegal?  Certainly, there are many questionable cases. But what is the government's role? The FTC, FCC and BBB already have their hands full of deceptive marketing claims.  They cannot tackle every one of them.  And when it affects critical issues like childhood obesity,  consumer watchdogs and even the American public are now stepping up to the plate to pinch hit.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Thursday, January 27, 2011

The New Tool to Democracy: Social Media



As a public affairs officer in the US Navy, I was intimately familiar to the power and pull of the social media revolution. Tweets, status updates, blogs, microblogs, and yes, even Vlogs, have been indispensable tools to communicate in a viral medium as well as to track the pulse and viability of a story long after it is written and forgotten.

Credit: thepunch.com

During the Iran presidential elections in the summer of 2009, the US State Department specifically requested that Twitter not be taken down for maintenance.  This request substantiated the geopolitical value of Twitter and forever changed the landscape of social media in government, politics, and yes, even diplomacy.

A mini revolution ignited in Iran after the flawed Presidential election of dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.   Meanwhile, the Iranian fascist government virtually choked off the flow of news to and fro Tehran.  Many Iranians who protested that the election was rigged did so via Twitter. Twitter, not CNN, evolved as the ideal medium because it was real-time, was shot-gunned by the people closest to the action, could be deployed by virtually anyone with a computer or cell phone and was virtually impossible for the government to track or block.

During a revolution, crisis or emergency, Twitter really showed its spunk and stamina.  Forward to the present day: Egyptians vividly remember Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979, almost a generation ago.  The unprecedented uprising of how the people threw out an indominable monarch has been magically weaved into the anecdotes of society as cohesively as the tales of Sinbad have become an endearing part of Arabian culture.  
Credit: Washington Post

However, history is never fully flawless. Diplomacy is screened through dense filters manipulated by the ideology of totalitarian states.  In today's dramatic string of Middle East uprisings, social media has been the decisive medium to execution.

So could this revolution happen without Facebook?  It is no coincidence that Mark Zuckerberg was chosen as the 2010 Time Person of the Year.


Just as Twitter was instrumental in Iran, Facebook has been even more crucial to the development of political ideology that has led to this historic uprising.  Without Facebook, poverty, struggles and tension would still exist in Egypt.  But without a Facebook, there would be virtually no way for these tensions to escalate to a boiling point and no way for disparaged Egyptians to vent their anger at Mubarak and no way for that anger to be fostered via uprisings across nations and borders.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Greenwashing -- Navigating the Complicated Eco-babble


"So even if the plastic bags were to degrade within a year in an open-air environment, most Americans do not compost their plastics making the 'degradable' claim irrelevant."

Greenwashing is not a recent phenomenon.  For the last 20 plus years, the practice of making an unsubstantiated or misleading claim about the environmental benefits of a product, service or company has surely existed.

But in the last few years, the use and abuse of green advertising has sharply escalated as companies strive to meet burgeoning consumer demand for products that will help save Mother Earth for our children's children.

Just make your weekly pilgrimage to Whole Foods and there are surely a whole slew of products that claim to be ozone-safe, eco-friendly, carbon-negative and made with renewable energy.

They all sound well and good and makes me feel extra eco-altrusitic (until I go home and slaughter a whole pig for dinner) But will they really make Mother Earth beam with pride?  Or perhaps more importantly what do these terms mean and do these products meet the industry standard set by the consumer-coddling Federal Trade Commission?

RUNIN OUT