Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Campaign to Retire Ronald McDonald
- Thread starter rdowns
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You summed up any response I have further in this thread.
Thanks.However...
@cleanup: I must have been a stupid kid then, since once I got into my teen years I played sports and actually went outside to play instead of sitting around on a computer all day (BTW, we didnt have computers back then), which is what most kids did. I was quite healthy at 510 159 lbs and a 32 waist. So, if McDs didnt influence me then (when Ronald was much more popular), why do they influence kids now?? Like I said, the crap being alluded to in this thread is ridiculous.
Without Ronald McDonald, we wouldn't have Ran Ran Ru. I'm not sure if I'd want to live in that kind of world.
I've absolutely no problem with a push to decrease the direct marketing of junk food to children. Toys, advertising, clowns. It's all the same.
These groups need to focus on getting parents to teach their kids good eating habits and not blaming the fast food industry for obesity. I eat McDonalds occasionally and am 5'10 at 150lbs. The other times I eat lean meats, salads etc.
A lot of the food in fancy NYC restaurants is far higher in fat, calories than many fast food options. I've seen many pot bellies on people who only eat at high end places.
I'm glad that Skinner stood his ground.
A lot of the food in fancy NYC restaurants is far higher in fat, calories than many fast food options. I've seen many pot bellies on people who only eat at high end places.
I'm glad that Skinner stood his ground.
They need to target everything at their disposal to combat obesity. From parental education, to false and misleading advertising, to advertising to children, to fast food restaurant sponsorship of sporting events etc. The fast food industry is absolutely part of the problem in the equation. They should not be above criticism or being called to account. And to a small amount of credit many are coming around (albeit in excess spin).
Ronald also makes an appearance in this music video. Maybe that is why they are retiring him.
NSFW
http://vimeo.com/8627146
NSFW
http://vimeo.com/8627146
There's nothing wrong with Ronald. I'm not a huge fan of him but he's a fine marketing tool. Nothing wrong with using him as that. The kids like him and he's iconic to the brand. The comparison to Joe the Camel is ridiculous.
And for the people accusing McDonalds of being unhealthy....most anything is in large quantities. Eating at McD's every so often isn't going to make you fat, cause health problems or anything else like that. A lot of people don't seem to understand this. However, eating McD's every day (or any junk food, every day, for that matter) could lead to those problems. It's all about moderation, balancing your diet and keeping up an active lifestyle.
Companies should never pander to these groups. I'm glad to see Skinner standing his ground.
And for the people accusing McDonalds of being unhealthy....most anything is in large quantities. Eating at McD's every so often isn't going to make you fat, cause health problems or anything else like that. A lot of people don't seem to understand this. However, eating McD's every day (or any junk food, every day, for that matter) could lead to those problems. It's all about moderation, balancing your diet and keeping up an active lifestyle.
Companies should never pander to these groups. I'm glad to see Skinner standing his ground.
The food at McDonalds is not poison like a cigarette essentially is. If consumed in moderation it wont hurt you or cause weight gain. As long as they are forthcoming about the nutritional facts of the meals, there is no reason why they should restrict their advertising or alter their sponsorships.
McDonalds offers a product that some people choose to buy. I'm not sure what you mean by fast food companies being "called to account". Are you saying the government or some authority should tell me what I should have for lunch?
I never claimed it was.
This is a non-sequitur. Yes they offer a product for people to chose to buy and make their nutritional information available to adults. Advertising to kids with the use of toys and clowns is to get their interest has nothing to do with the above. And companies do it because it works and it's incredibly profitable. Their advertising to children is entirely manipulative.
For their contribution to obesity.
I have no idea how you drew this conclusion. It appears the discussion you'd like to be having is quite different from anything I'm posting.
The sad fact is that children's advertising is a multi-billion dollar matter, and Ronald's image is a part of it. It would be unfair, in a sad but matter-of-fact way, to prevent McDonald's to advertise to children while allowing Mattel, Cadbury & Chuck-E-Cheese to continue doing so.
Personally I think children's advertising as a whole is completely wrong and entirely reprehensible, but there's not much that can be done about it. The corporate machine will soldier on.
Personally I think children's advertising as a whole is completely wrong and entirely reprehensible, but there's not much that can be done about it. The corporate machine will soldier on.
Ok--but from the tone of your posts you make it sound as if a burger and fries is worse than handing a child a vodka tonic.
Children are accompanied by adults who are expected to see that their children make good food choices. You seem to be implying that young children walk into McDonald's alone.
What contribution? Again, they offer food and you decide to buy--or you decide to buy it for your child. It's solely the parent and/or the person doing the eating that is contributing to their own obesity. I know its not fashionable to hold someone responsible for the personal choices they make, but responsible they are.
Your posts strongly imply that something should be done to prevent "manipulative" advertising to children and fast food's "contribution to obesity". It's hard to believe that you think these changes will come about voluntarily on the part of these restaurants. If they aren't voluntary--then that means regulation.
Nonsense. Your hyperbole is entirely unwarranted and unproductive.
True but to try and belittle the effect that children's wishes and wants on their parents is ignoring reality. Which has always been the case and is not a new phenomenon no matter how people like to dress it up as a pandemic with "parents these days". Which is exactly why franchises such as mcdonalds pour so much money into advertising directly to children, into brand recognition at children's sporting events, and into trojan horse "nutritional" talks in schools etc. This effect is entirely well established in the medical literature;
New England Journal of Medicine said:
The "personal responsibility" argument is indeed a valid one and one that is also an important part of public education. Mcdonalds (and many other franchises) continue to be entirely cynical with their advertising of "healthy choice" menus etc with entirely deceptive advertising. "Low in fat" is used to hide the incredibly high calories from sugars, and conversely "low in sugar" is used to mask foods incredibly high in fats. Advertising things as "XX% of your daily intake of calcium" again is a misleading term which is used to hide other adverse stats. All these are entirely confusing to consumers which is why there needs to be a standardisation in advertising.
I completely agree that focus also continually needs to be on education to parents but where we differ is that I also think that concentrating on as many aspects of the problem as possible is the best foot forward. In the end the goal is to reduce obesity and morbidity in children. Just saying "it's the parents fault" does little to address the overall picture and makes no positive inroads. Which is exactly why spokespersons from the fast food companies push the "personal responsibility line" wherever and whenever possible. They know that it doesn't work and they know that with adequate advertising and manipulation of truths, they can overcome it.
I absolutely think regulation in the form of advertising standards is part of the answer from a public health point of view. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the government "telling you what you can have for your lunch". Again your hyperbole is entirely unnecessary and has confused your own train of thought.
Ha!
I can't tell you how many threads I've refrained from posting because I read your posts and think: "Well, that's pretty much what I was going to say. No need to be repetitive..."
I can't tell you how many threads I've refrained from posting because I read your posts and think: "Well, that's pretty much what I was going to say. No need to be repetitive..."
I like a Mac sometimes, as do my kids. Who the hell cares about their mascot? However, I'd have to say banning any restaurant that serves any fat whatsoever would be a good idea that side of the pond. Elsewhere we have enough self-control to better balance our diet.
I guess we just differ on this one. I maintain that parents are *entirely* responsible for what their young kids eat. Children make all kinds of unreasonable requests of their parents--because they are children. I think its ludicrous (not you personally, the idea) that you would say that its "unrealistic" to deny a request to your child that would be unhealthy or dangerous for them. If your 5 year old asked if he could jump from the roof of your house like Superman your saying you would cave in and let him -- because it would be "unrealistic" to say no? I guess then that would be the fault of the studio for releasing the movie then I suppose.
The exception being school lunch when the parent isn't present. There should be requirements that school lunch meet certain nutritional guidelines.
If a fast food joint is making *untrue* claims about its product than I agree that should not be allowed. However, the study that you cited in your last post merely told me that their ad campaign was effective. It didn't cite any untrue claims made by the industry. It also told me that a great many adults and by extension their children were making bad choices. Is that the only bad choice they made that day do you think? I doubt it. Perhaps for dinner they down to an equally unhealthy home cooked meal. What to do then? If I watch an ad for a new Mac and then go purchase one when I can't afford it--is that the fault of Apple's ad campaign or my poor spending habits?
I believe that the focus of the obesity problem needs to be to help adults and children *voluntarily* make better food choices. However, this problem is far more complex than people simply not knowing what food to eat--so I agree that this problem needs to be addressed in multiple ways. I just think it needs to be done in a way that doesn't erode a person right to choose. I think we are overly interested in the idea that regulations will solve the problem. Frankly, I'd say the majority of overweight people know that a double cheeseburger isn't health food--the message is out there. The problem also has to do with how people deal with stress, how much time they have, whether they have access to healthcare, etc--in other words problems that are ingrained and very difficult to fix.
Which is why education is very important. As I pointed out previously fast food outlets go out of their way to advertise foodstuffs that are incredibly high in calories as healthy options by focussing on low fat status or low in sugar. People often think they are making healthy choices when in fact they aren't. Nutrition is a lot more difficult than most people make out.
Again this analogy is unhelpful and unproductive hyperbole. But in a way it does illustrate one of the temporal problems with a poor diet. In your example a parent would know that jumping off the roof would immediately result in injury. However when it comes to a poor diet things are not so evident. When one eats fast food there is no immediate signs that injury has taken place. As has been pointed out in moderation there is little effect. However the very early stages of atherosclerosis (for instance) are entirely silent. A parent will never see the damage. Likewise weight gain. It is slow and insidious, and something that a parent or anyone seeing an individual on a day to day basis will appreciate until it's quite significant.
This is another place where healthy foods should be advocated.
That was not the point of posting the study. If you re-read my post you'll see these were separate paragraphs. The first (where I posted the study) was to demonstrate that advertising to children absolutely increases the rates of fast food consumption and obesity. This is well established both in the scientific literature and by the fact that fast food companies pour large swathes of their budgets at children. The second paragraph was to illustrate that making healthy choices isn't as easy as people make out due to misleading (not "untrue" as you've called it) advertising. I never claimed the study showed the latter - you've entirely muddled up my two paragraphs.
Which again is the drum beat put out by the fast food outlets. They know this doesn't work well (look at the continuing climbing rates of obesity despite decade long education campaigns) and is something they can combat with advertising. Although at its basis obesity is a problem of excess caloric consumption it's actually a lot more complex than that. It's also has psychological and physiological causes which to our detriment we ignore.
Regulating advertising to kids does not erode your personal right to choose.
It is with items like a cheeseburger but again this is hyperbole. There are many, many foodstuffs that are sold as "healthy" which categorically aren't. Likewise as I stated above this ignores the problems of weight gain being both psychological and physiological. There is far more to overcome than just telling people to eat less and make healthy choices. This has never worked - i.e. there is not a single medical study (despite many) that an intervention of this type works at all in the long term.
I agree with this. A multifaceted approach as I've been advocating is the best way forward at this stage.