Wednesday, June 16, 2004

The debate gets fatter

Adding some more useless, fatty arguments to the arteries of the McDonalds debacle
What a turn of events this is? McDonalds, who were once being silent over the film Super Size Me, has now suddenly released a multi-million dollar campaign trying to rebut some of the claims made in said film and to just basically try to (in a way) tarnish Morgan Spurlock's reputation vary much like he has tarnished the reputation of those famous golden arches (more so).
Boy, oh boy, I had one of the biggest laughs of the week when I heard this. By the time I visited the McDonalds site, I was pissing myself laughing. This is a sheer act of paranoia and a try-hard attempt to save face.
Lets begin with their treatment of the movie. Go to the site (http://www.mcdonalds.com.au)or watch one of their ads. Notice how they never refer to Super Size Me by its name. They refer to it, but never directly mention "that movie". An attempt to avoid breach copyright laws, or something more cowardice?

Speaking of the site, some of the stuff there is pure comedy gold. Let's go over some of this stuff.
A real feature is the letter that they somehow got from America from Spurlock, which contains him praising the new nutritional moves. A sign of how low they will go in order to disgrace the guy. But still, while Maccas have a valid point (in the letter), at the same time, it may have been a suck-up attempt by Spurlock in order to get an interview, where all the required bits (ie. Anti-McDonalds comments) will be included in the movie, and the excess stuff cut out. What any other political documentary will do.
The other big thing on the site is the 'myths and facts' section. Again they refer to the movie as "That Movie". Some of the claims however, I want to add my own little spin and analysis onto.
The supersizing of meals
McDonalds mention that they don't sell supersize meals at all. Though they can never say that they haven't ever sold the size. Back in 2001, they sold a 'Monster Size' meal in conjunction with Monsters Inc. A quarter of kilo of chips and over a litre of coke, all combined with a big, yet average, burger. And last year (if memory serves me correctly), they were advertising supersize cokes on the screens. And I've even heard that immediately before and after the movie's release, supersized products were still available on request.
Sundaes and Yoghurts
Super Size Me claims that there is nearly as much calories in a Yoghurt Parfait as there is in a Hot Fudge Sundae. McDonalds argues this claim by praising the Berrynice Yoghurt Crunch (Notice the use of a possibly different product) and its lesser calories. This claim however, is a bit fruity. Looking at the nutritional information that McDonalds claims to have in large availability, the Sundae has a total of 343kCal. Guess how many calories are in the Yoghurt...317kCal. It does have less calories, but I don't think that 26kCal will have much of an affect on the average diet.
The fatness and caloric fun of the TV ads
Drastically changing topics here, on the TV ads, the guy speaking (Guy Russo) contradicts Spurlock's claim of McDonalds' unhealthiness by saying "I could have told him that." But Guy, by saying this to us, all you will be doing is making us hear this for the millionth time in our lives. It is common fact that McDonalds foods are unhealthy. We were raised on this fact. And also, isn't it a bit of an anti-ad by saying that your own product is unhealthy and bad for you?

Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that the effort that McDonalds Australia has put into trying to saving a bit of face is a bit over the top, and at times useless and fictitious. They didn't even have to go this far. After all, we should all realize that Super Size Me was mainly aimed at the American branch of McDonalds. The Australian branch isn't mentioned once in the movie. In fact the only time the land down under is mentioned (and I'm a bit unsure on this) is when we're named the second fattest country on Earth. They could've left it to the Americans to pay for a half-decent smear campaign. But instead, this half-baked and malnourished campaign has many of its points lost on many of its targets.

No comments: