I know McDonald's food is bad, but this is ridiculous.

[EricTheFred]

We need a In and Out Burger around these parts. McDonalds is garbage compared to them.

Around these parts, it's Burger Street. Whataburger is good, too.

Or, if you are lucky enough to live near SMU, you can go over to Jack's Grill. Nothing except the prices has changed since the 1950s.

[Alice]

I like McDonalds. Of course I only eat it once every month or two. It is *never* salty enough.

[creed4]

Around these parts, it's Burger Street. Whataburger is good, too.

Or, if you are lucky enough to live near SMU, you can go over to Jack's Grill. Nothing except the prices has changed since the 1950s.

Whataburger..... I have to go a hundred miles for one

[termyt]

I think a lot of complaints about the quality of McDonald's food is based on impression rather than fact.

To think - back in the day people were excited about getting a McDonalds in town because of their reputation for cleanliness and quality. Proof that negative advertising really does work.

But what’s a clean, quality discount burger joint to do when we live in a country where the thought paying $13 for a “gourmetâ€

[EricTheFred]

Just for the record, none of the cases I cite as better burgers than McDonalds are "$13 gourmet burgers". Yes, they all cost a little more than McDonalds, but that is because you are getting more and higher-quality food than McDonalds. However, I'm pretty sure that lunch at Whataburger, Jacks, or Burger Street would cost only a dollar or two more than lunch at McDonalds, and I would actually enjoy my food as a bonus.

I don't ever remember McDonalds having a reputation for cleanliness or quality. In my 46 years on this planet, the best I can credit them with is a reputation for consistency. However, consistently mediocre is not to my personal tastes.

The one thing they do have going for them is a highly effective marketing department. Effective marketing departments don't work too well on me, explaining why none of my three favorite burger places have much of an advertising budget at all. Whataburger is the only one that really has any marketing.

[mitsuki lover]

I have to admit some of the best burgers I have eaten have been at
Hardees.
They also have great Curly Fries!
Although White Castle is famous for having the best and cheapest around.

[termyt]

Just for the record...

I didn't really mean to imply the Whataburgers are gourmet burgers, although it is clear to see the connection there, so I apologize for the misunder standing.

However,

... and I would actually enjoy my food as a bonus.

I don't ever remember McDonalds having a reputation for cleanliness or quality. In my 46 years on this planet, the best I can credit them with is a reputation for consistency. However, consistently mediocre is not to my personal tastes.

The one thing they do have going for them is a highly effective marketing department. Effective marketing departments don't work too well on me, explaining why none of my three favorite burger places have much of an advertising budget at all. Whataburger is the only one that really has any marketing.

So, McDonalds offeres sub-quality food that not many people actually like and it is their extensive and effective marketing that get people to eat their lousy food.

How can this truly be so? If their marketing is so effective, why is it so many of the folks here are saying their food is lousy garbage? That does not sound like effective marketing to me. If the marketing were that good, we'd all think it was at least OK. And no matter how good marketing is, if the food is that bad, people won't eat it a second time.

[Nate]

So, McDonalds offeres sub-quality food that not many people actually like and it is their extensive and effective marketing that get people to eat their lousy food.

I'd say that's a pretty accurate assessment. XD

If their marketing is so effective, why is it so many of the folks here are saying their food is lousy garbage? That does not sound like effective marketing to me. If the marketing were that good, we'd all think it was at least OK.

But we're not the target demographic. McDonald's has branched out a bit since I was a kid, but their main targets are still kids. Happy Meals are an icon for children, and kids will put up with a lot to get a toy. Also consider that kids eat dirt, so really they're not the best judge of what food is good or not (by the way, I remembered sometimes my sarcasm doesn't come through clearly, so I'll emphasize this statement is a joke, and not meant to be taken as fact XD).

*remembered something else*

But you have to think, even if everyone else in this thread with the exception of you and beau99 says that McDonald's is terrible, we're still only a fraction of a fraction of the population. Especially on the internet, what a majority of people say is in no way indicative of the majority in the real world...otherwise Snakes on a Plane would have been a massive box office hit given all the internet hype it built up.

Regardless of the fact that most people here on CAA are unaffected by McDonald's advertising and believe its food is terrible, the fact that McDonald's is doing so well proves that its marketing IS effective.

And no matter how good marketing is, if the food is that bad, people won't eat it a second time.

Ah ha, but that's where you're wrong. Studies have shown that carrots and other healthy foods that were served in a McDonald's bag were said by children to taste better than unmarked foods, though the foods were purchased at the same place, merely the packaging was different.

As a control group, the children were also given french fries, hamburgers, and chicken nuggets purchased from McDonald's, served in both marked and unmarked bags. Again, though the food was from the same place, a majority of children said the food in the marked bags tasted better.

Advertising and brand familiarity can work wonders for crappy tasting food.

EDIT: Remembered something else to help support this. If you remember a while back, Pepsi did some blind test tastes against Coke. People would state their favorite of the two, do a blindfolded test, and say which they preferred. Oddly, though most people said Coke was their preferred beverage, Pepsi did better in the blind taste tests. Some people who preferred Coke that picked Pepsi even got upset, going so far as to accuse the administers of the taste test of cheating or swapping at the last second.

Based on the taste test, Pepsi should be doing much better in the market than it is, better than Coke. But why aren't they? Simple, brand familiarity. Especially in the deep South, where EVERY soft drink, no matter what kind, is called "Coke," Coke is simply the iconic beverage. It's not that it tastes better, it's simply that it's ingrained in people's minds as the soft drink. So there you go.

[Shao Feng-Li]

... I just make my own hamburgers...

[termyt]

There are some huge flaws in your logic. I will point them out for the sake of making you a better debater, not because I care that much about McDonalds.

I'd say that's a pretty accurate assessment. XD

But we're not the target demographic. McDonald's has branched out a bit since I was a kid, but their main targets are still kids. Happy Meals are an icon for children, and kids will put up with a lot to get a toy. Also consider that kids eat dirt, so really they're not the best judge of what food is good or not (by the way, I remembered sometimes my sarcasm doesn't come through clearly, so I'll emphasize this statement is a joke, and not meant to be taken as fact XD).

*remembered something else*

But you have to think, even if everyone else in this thread with the exception of you and beau99 says that McDonald's is terrible, we're still only a fraction of a fraction of the population. Especially on the internet, what a majority of people say is in no way indicative of the majority in the real world...otherwise Snakes on a Plane would have been a massive box office hit given all the internet hype it built up.

Regardless of the fact that most people here on CAA are unaffected by McDonald's advertising and believe its food is terrible, the fact that McDonald's is doing so well proves that its marketing IS effective.

Any sample size is only a fraction of the population. CAA actually contains a nice spread in the demographics category and you are not comparing apples with apples. The hype generated for Snakes on a Plane was planned and executed by an advertising firm to generate interest in the film before it was seen. What we are discussing here is (at least I hope) a reflection of honest opinions based on actual experience with McDonalds food and not just on interest garnered by McDonalds advertising. Snakes on a Plane was a disappointment, which was reflected even here on the internet once people actually got to see it. Just what are you implying when you say the fact many in this thread have a poor opinion and that is not reflective of the general population? That the folks her at CAA are harder to fool with flashy advertising? Many here were pumped up about Snakes on a Plane, too.

You also state that McDonalds does well because their marketing is aimed at children, who are perfectly happy eating crappy food if they get a toy. That may be true, but it does not reflect my experiences at McDonalds. The dozen or more McDonalds I’ve been to are also just a fraction of all McDonalds out there, but they do branch a number of different countries, cultures, and income ranges, so I think they probably suffice. My experience shows that while children are often found at McDonalds, adults are ALWAYS there. If the only reason McDonalds remains in business is to fool children into eating crap with toys, then certainly adults would not be found there unless their children begged them to go.

And no matter how good marketing is, if the food is that bad, people won't eat it a second time.

Ah ha, but that's where you're wrong. Studies have shown …


EDIT: Remembered something else to help support this. If you remember a while back, Pepsi did some blind test tastes against Coke...
So there you go.

It is always possible for me to be wrong. It may even be possible in this case. Unfortunately the evidence you use to make the assertion does not back up your claim. If you want to prove me wrong, you are going to need to try harder.

I said the best marketing will not get you to buy bad food a second time. To that assertion, you pointed out that kids chose food in a McDonalds bag over the same food presented in some other way and the people continue to buy Coke even though they said Pepsi tasted better.

To this, you concluded that “Advertising and brand familiarity can work wonders for crappy tasting food. .” However, nowhere in your statement was there anything implying that any of the food tested was “crappy.” Did the kids say “this one tastes like fillet mignon, but the other taste like my dog’s leaving. But since the crap was in a Mikey D’s bag, I’ll take it.” No, in fact the food the were eating was the same. So clever marketing by McDonalds convinced kids, that when faced with two EQUAL products, they should prefer the product in a McDonalds bag. That not only fails to refute my claim, it does not even support your own conclusion.

In the second case, at least the products being tasted were different, but the findings were of which one tasted BETTER. At no point did we discover that one tasted good while the other one tasted like crap. So, how does this support your claim? It seems to me that marketing and tradition here may have triumphed between two similar products of similar quality – unless you have some evidence that Pepsi is a quality product while Coke is made of crap.

However, that is not the end of this story. People were shocked and even upset to find out they chose Pepsi over Coke, but do you also remember the outcome of this advertising campaign? Pepsi’s sales gained and Coke’s declined. Pepsi even, for the first time in history, matched Coke in sales causing Coke to panic and unleash “New Coke” on an unsuspecting public – perhaps the greatest marketing disaster in history. So the brilliant marketing here was actually that of Pepsi, not Coke. The fact that changing Coke’s flavor reminded people why they bought Coke instead of Pepsi in the first place (that tradition, history, and remembering good times with friends and family was more important to them then the minor difference in taste of two very similar products) was just a happy accident, not some brilliant marketing ploy.

So, once again, this example does nothing to refute my claim.

To support your claim and refute mine, the children would have had to choose rancid food in the McDonalds bag over McDonalds food in an unmarked container and the taste tester would have had to choose muddy water in a Coke can over Coke in a Pepsi can. As the examples you sited stand, all we really saw is that marketing is effective when the products are of same or similar quality not that, because of marketing, clearly inferior “crappy” food will be chosen over good, quality food.