What do you enjoy reading the most here on my blog?

Search My Blog

Showing posts with label McDonald's. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McDonald's. Show all posts

Sunday, February 06, 2011

Ronald McDonald and the Food Liberation Army

article-1353729-0D0B74F3000005DC-133_634x349

No, this picture is not a fake. It is, however, a horrible spoof of an Al-Qaeda video - a spoof perpetrated by a Finnish group calling themselves the "Food Liberation Army". They have kidnapped a Ronald McDonald statue and are holding it 'hostage' unless the McDonald's corporation answers certain questions about its manufacturing process.

Questions that specifically include:

1. Why are you not open about the manufacturing processes, raw materials and additives used in your products? what are you afraid of?

2. How many tons of un-recycled waste do you produce each year? Why do you not publish that figure?


They state that if the questions are not answered, Ronald will be 'executed' on Friday the 11th of February at 6:30pm. I believe that's in England's time zone.

These kids need a goddamned Happy Meal, if you ask me. Because they apparently do like the food. Which just makes this thing 3 extra levels of ridiculous.

I found out about this news event from Fark.com, referencing me to this website which was in turn sharing the information from a UK news website. So forgive me for the fact that this is not all that new of news.

The video released by the FLA group goes on to state that "though they are fans of McDonalds burgers and fries, they believe that the food they love is being destroyed."

You. Idiots.

First of all, you're calling yourself the "Food Liberation Army" - yet you haven't liberated any goddamned food, other than into your gullets. How the fuck do you even "liberate" food in the first place? You can't set something free that's already dead, especially after it's been processed into food. All you've done so far is steal a statue and place a hood over its head in a mocking video. It's not food, and you haven't freed it. You want to KILL it. The "sweet release of death" does not count as liberation, especially since it's a fucking statue and not alive or dead at all. In fact, it has clones of itself in every damned restaurant in the franchise!

Is your next plan to rob a McDonald's of all its Chicken McNuggets, and then set them free in a field, where they can live out the rest of their days in peace? where they don't have to suffer under oppressive human rule, awaiting death by consumption, until they are... consumed by wildlife or a passerby hobo?

And how do your random questions being answered make any difference in the grand scheme of things? Un-recycled waste amounts and more detail of the ingredients used in the manufacturing process of McDonald's food? They're a publicly-traded billion-dollar company. This shit is already available information. Try asking the Food and Drug Administration, or the Health Bureau or whatever governmental body in England would have investigated and would know the manufacturing processes after approving them as upholding the health code? Hell, McDonald's spokesperson even said that they are willing to engage in constructive conversations with our customers, stakeholders and the media - which means that if you weren't acting like idiots, you'd get your answers even faster.

This is, all in all, an unnerving trend where groups of idiots think that by giving themselves a ridiculous name and spoofing acts of terrorism, that they are entitled to whatever they want and have the moral high ground.

You are wrong, Food Liberation Army. Your moniker is ridiculous. You have committed an act of theft. You have made insipid demands for information that could easily be attained through various legal channels. You have lampooned the acts of terrorists and deserve to be punished for both making light of actual horrible acts as well as encouraging others to do the same.

I know it comes as no surprise that I would side with McDonald's here, but after such an incredibly-dumb act has been perpetrated by such a group of incredibly-dumb criminals - wouldn't you agree?

What do you think? Should McDonald's negotiate with these "terrorists"? Leave a comment!

And then Digg this article!

Read more!

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Doodle - 01/25/2011 (2)


Doodle_110125b, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

It's the LOVE that makes it taste so special. And the GREASE.

*Nugget Not Drawn To Scale

*Margins of Error Estimated at +/- 2%

*Your Nugget Results May Vary

Read more!

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Stupidly Good Prices



I just got back from a shopping trip, and I need to vent this little gripe of mine.

Before I get started, I need to explain that I am a fat man. Obviously, I enjoy food and drink in mass quantities, so I'm prone to buying in bulk. I'm also a firm believer in the free market and that businesses should be able to run themselves however they see fit. For example, I am completely against the smoking ban in restaurants. If a restaurant owner wants to serve clientele that smoke, that owner should have every right to be a smoking establishment or have a smoking section and a non-smoking section. Certain people would refuse to remain customers, but certain people would become regular customers. The idea is that it's up to the business owner of who should feel ostracized.

But I digress, this is not a smoking rant. This rant is about stupid food prices.

Before I go any further, please keep in mind that I'm not complaining, really. I just find it to be stupid and I need to vent about things that I find to be stupid - whether that stupidity creates benefits or burdens for me.

Now I am a math person, and I rather enjoy working my brain when I'm in a supermarket, comparing prices per unit and figuring out where the best deal would be between brands or between package sizes. I understand the marketing behind the bulk savings, where the more you buy of a product, the lower the price per unit. Get a single unit of yogurt for a dollar, or get a six-pack of that yogurt for four dollars. It's cheaper than buying six individual units, so you have to decide how much yogurt you want and how much you're willing to pay for it without getting screwed over.

And then there are times when I come across some pricing that just makes me want to go crazy.

I will take one example that I find most often: milk. Milk almost always comes in two container sizes: a half-gallon and a full gallon. One is obviously twice the size of the other, so I could understand if the smaller size were $2.69 and the larger size were $2.99 - you only pay 30 cents more and you get double the amount of milk. That's a good deal. That's a sane and rational pricing model to convince people to buy the larger size and sell more product.

But unfortunately, that is NOT the pricing model I often find. I often find them selling the half-gallon size for $2.99 and the full-gallon size for $2.69. And I want to punch someone. After I've grabbed the large container and put it in my cart, of course.

What is the logic? Where is the sane and rational thought in this pricing model?

I stare at the numbers and the following scene plays out in my head.

The customer picks up a half-gallon of milk and says, "I think I'll buy this much milk today."
Then the supermarket attendant rushes up and says, "But why buy only a half-gallon? It's even cheaper to get a full gallon of milk for 30 cents less!"
The customer replies, "But I only want a half-gallon of milk - I don't think I'd be able to drink that much milk before it goes bad."
That's when the supermarket attendant grabs the full gallon of milk and shouts, "Let's make everyone happy then! You want to pay $2.99 for a half-gallon of milk, so I'll pay you 30 cents back and I'll just pour half of this gallon of milk onto my head! Then you get your half-gallon of milk at a lower price and I get a lovely milk shower!"

And then the milk starts getting poured everywhere and eventually I realize I've been staring at the milk case for 10 minutes and I really wish some old lady would pick up one of those half-gallon bottles just so I could see if it would really happen.

But that's basically what the supermarket is doing. They'd rather you pay less money to waste half a gallon of milk. And it's not just milk. My other favorite instance of this faulty logic is at McDonald's. The McDouble sandwich is a burger with two meat patties and one slice of cheese, and it costs one dollar. Guess what costs MORE than a dollar? A cheeseburger! One meat patty and one slice of cheese and it costs on average ten cents MORE than a McDouble. If you want to buy a cheeseburger, McDonald's will pay you back 10 cents to eat an extra burger patty.

This one I HAVE actually acted on. I saw this little old lady ahead of me in line order one cheeseburger. I had to stop her. I leaned in and said, "you know, it's actually cheaper to get the McDouble and it comes with an extra burger patty." She gave me the classic "well I don't know if I'm hungry enough to eat that much" excuse and I flat-out responded that she could throw away that extra patty and she'd still be saving herself money in the end. The cashier looked at me and made this half-shrug, half-smirk as if to say "he's not wrong."

AND SHE DID. She bought a cheaper burger that offered more food and she threw away the extra food. McDonald's paid her 10 cents to throw away a meat patty. Of course, one can also debate that McDonald's standard burger patties aren't even worth 10 cents each, but that's not what I'm getting at.

What I'm getting at is that it's an incredibly stupid thing for a business to do. But that business has every right to do it. And we as customers have every right to take advantage of it.

And now I'm off to enjoy half a gallon of milk that the supermarket paid me 30 cents to purchase.

Because I'm fat and I know a stupidly-good deal when I see one.

Please Digg this article if you also find it weird that it's always little old ladies in these scenarios.

Read more!

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Corporate Sponsorship

Nothing about a news story or a hardcore rant about an objectionable topic today. Maybe sometime soon I'll touch upon Jena coming back to the public eye, and on Sunday I hope to post about Week 1 of starting the Atkins diet, but for now all I have is a random thought that's been brewing on and off for a while.

It all started with the Latin Grammies, I think.

No, I didn't watch them. I'm not much for ethnic culture and not a personal fan of the metric system. What caught my eye was the McDonald's-sponsored viewing party being advertised on the ad on the train. I started wondering what happens if a food chain sponsors a party...

One would assume that in return for either providing money to hold the event or product for the event (in this case, maybe the McRib or something) - the event would have that company's logo on things or something like that. Maybe there would be TVs present with ads for that company, or the logo has to appear on all promotions or advertising for the event.

So how would one go about getting McDonald's to sponsor their personal party?

I mean if it's about ad placement and visibility, I have no shame about that. I'll play a McDonald's commercial video on my TV the entire length of the party. I'll hang up McDonald's posters and wear a McDonald's hat and even print up fliers for my party just so they can see the McDonald's logo on it.

I just want a few thousand bucks to throw a kick-ass party, or the equivalent in McDonald's food to be consumed at the party.

I guess it would all come down to McDonald's trying to figure out how much revenue would come back to THEM as a result of sponsoring the party. I mean all of the logos and ads at my place might be an enticement for some to go to McDonald's more often - especially after getting hooked on McNuggets after eating them from a McDonald's-branded trough full of them, but how can you really estimate the return value?

How can they estimate the return value from the Latin Grammies viewing party, though? I'm willing to venture that the amount of extra revenue from people at THAT party deciding to spend some extra money at McDonald's is VERY COMPARABLE to the amount of extra revenue from people at MY party deciding to spend some extra money at McDonald's.

It's just like Coca-Cola and Pepsi commercials. We're more or less fans of one or the other. Have ANY commercials, no matter how often they run, made you consider switching teams? Have ANY commercials, no matter how often they run, made you consider buying more of your favorite?

I rest my case.

McDonald's - I'll take $2,000 in party funds and $1,000 worth of Big Macs and french fries. In return, I'll whore out your corporation as much as possible. I'm sure it's nowhere near a FRACTION of what you spent for that Latin Grammies party. Do we have a deal? Read more!

Monday, October 01, 2007

McDonald's Causes Better Eating Habits Than Subway!

And no, I'm not talking about the wussification of McDonald's with the inclusion of salads and parfaits and whatnot. I'm talking about good ol' fashioned Big Macs versus Subway and their Italian sub sandwiches. And you wouldn't believe it, but the Big Macs led to better eating habits than the Subway options. The researcher uses terms like "health halo" for Subway and "health shadow" for McDonald's, but what it all comes down to is that you don't have a freaking clue what's healthy for you and what's not, so you base your guess on asinine advertisements and screw yourself over in the end.

Super Size Me, Jared!

Jared and his whiny little commercials about how all McDonald's food is bad for you and Subway is nothing but sweet angel food that reduces your waistline simply by cramming it down your throat. We've all seen them. So here's what this researcher did: he gave 46 graduate students a coupon for a McDonald's Big Mac, which at the time had about 600 calories, or a Subway 12-inch Italian sub with meat, cheese and mayonnaise, which had about 900 calories. The students weren't told the number of calories in their sandwiches. Participants also were given a menu and asked to indicate what extras they would like to order, if anything.

Thanks to the "health halo" - these students thought that since they made the "right decision" by opting for Subway, and decided to reward themselves for it with what they probably assumed was a caloric difference - ordering cookies and sodas and whatnot. Those with the Subway coupon ended up ordering a meal with an average 1,011 calories. Those with the McDonald's coupon got meals with an average of 648 calories.

Following those lines of logic, in a second test, the calorie count of the coupons were set even at about 600 calories. Not surprisingly, people ate more snacks later in the day if they had eaten a Subway sandwich than a Big Mac. I personally would have liked to see a little interview data about which coupon option left the participant feeling more full or more satisfied. Perhaps the extra snacking isn't JUST due to the "health halo" of thinking you can spare the calories because you ate healthier - maybe it's just that they were hungry again in less time because it was less filling. I personally feel hungier again earlier in the day after eating Subway than I do after eating McDonald's.

More research was indeed done in these studies, though not my idea of fullness. These questions were about guessing how many calories had been consumed, trying to prove that the "health halo" indeed was a culprit. Could the average person accurately guess how many calories they'd consumed at McDonald's or Subway?

Brian Wansink and colleagues interviewed more than 500 people after they had eaten lunches at either Subway or McDonald's. The scientists also analyzed the calories in 320 meals that included a main dish, side order and beverage. Those meals ranged from turkey sandwiches and Italian subs with chips and soda to cheeseburgers or Big Macs with fries and beverages. People who consumed about 1,327 calories at a meal underestimated the calories by an average of 484 at McDonald's and 681 at Subway. That's a 36% margin of error at McDonald's, compared to a 51% margin of error at Subway.

"There's a double curse to the health halo because you grossly underestimate the calories, and you overeat afterward because you think you deserve it," Wansink says.

Okay, so McDonald's isn't actually "healthier" than Subway. I'll still give you that. I'm sure that fat content and sodium levels are probably way worse at McDonald's than they are in the Subway alternatives, even if you're chowing down the same amount of pure calories. But odds are that you're STILL going to screw that up if you're using your little Subway "health halo" to scarf down junk food later on because you think you deserve the treat for "eating healthy". In the end, your eating habits will IMPROVE if you eat bad food and ADMIT that you're eating bad food. Admitting to delving into a guilty pleasure means you'll feel GUILTY about it and will eat LESS afterwards or make it up some other way. On the other hand, eating health halo food can have MORE calories and leave you feeling like you deserve MORE food because of it.

Accept the science, and stop trusting Jared and his stupid commercials.

McDonald's leads to better eating habits than Subway. Chew on THAT, Jared!

And yes, he'd probably want some fries with that.

(Article with the research)







Read more!

Friday, August 03, 2007

McDonald's and Rap Music

You know, even though I'm a huge fan of McDonald's and have been an addict for nigh on thirteen years or so, I will always admit that it's bad food. You know it, I know it - the whole world knows that McDonald's is and will always be synonymous with "bad for you". This doesn't mean it's the WORST for you, and it certainly doesn't mean its TASTE is bad (not in the least!) - it just means that it's not healthy and it shouldn't be.

Whole Foods is synonymous with "healthy" and/or "pretentious" (at least in my book) - you wouldn't trust them coming out with a "Supreme Meat Lover's Cheeseburger Pizza", would you? That's because they know what they are and they stick by it. And McDonald's, you're "fatty burgers and fries" to the extreme - don't ever lose that. But enough of my pleas to fast food chains to stay true to their titles and lay off the healthy food menu items - this is about Twista.

It's okay if you haven't heard of this whole mess - I hadn't either, until I picked up my RedEye this morning. So for those of you who get the news from sources like me and my RedEye regurgitations, here's the scoop:

McDonald's is hosting a concert series. One of the concerts is going to be in Chicago and McDonald's picked Twista, a Chicago-native rapper, to be in the concert. They promoted the concert using Twista as one of the performers. And suddenly, there was a wave of billboards being put up chastizing rappers for their derogatory language, naming Twista as one of the long list of perpetrators. According to the rapper, McDonald's had even told him they were behind him during this potty-mouth-lyrics situation.

And then all of a sudden, as Twista so eloquently describes it, "they just told us that they didn't want me performing no more."

This is where the hypocrisy comes in. McDonald's obviously knew that derogatory lyrics were used - not only from the public accusations on billboards, but the fact that, uh, TWISTA IS A RAPPER! We don't live in the 80s or even the 90s anymore. You won't hear "rapping" about happy things like "saying hello to the black, to the white, the red, and the brown, the purple and yellow" or even hilarious things like "cooking MCs like a pound of bacon". Rap has degraded into this amalgam of debauchery and violence, and we ACCEPT THAT. You either like rap or you don't. But don't say you like rap while trying to deny everything that rap now is.

Sure, I loved the Sugar Hill Gang. But then rap grew up and starting f*%^ing the police.

So here's what I'm saying to you, McDonald's: accept Twista and the fact that his lyrics are lewd because he is, indeed, a rapper. You and rap have so much in common, let's all face the facts...

- Most people either love it, or they hate it. There's a few fence-sitters, who likely haven't experienced much of it.

- Most people against it say, "It's bad for you and bad for society in general." Most people for it say, "Sure, but we like it anyway."

- If you hear about a person who likes it, you'll immediately jump to a negative stereotype of what that person looks like based solely on that fact and without even having seen them once.

- Both are having a huge impact on the newest generation of consumers, and a huge number of people are up in arms about it being a huge NEGATIVE impact.

- Both are always trying to claim to be "cleaning up their act"; we know it'll never really happen.


So c'mon, McDonald's - just say Twista can play in the concert again. He had such nice things lined up because it was such a big gig and in his hometown. He was going to get a children's choir to join him for a song, and he was going to donate the money raised by his performance to two of his favorite Chicago charities. Does that make up for "crude lyrics"? Beats me. But he's not the only one to come up with catchy chants that society wants to blame all its ills on, is he, McDonald's?

I'll leave you with a "rap" from my childhood, written by McDonald's itself:

"Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun!"

(Twista's RedEye blog telling the whole story from his perspective)

Read more!