McDonalds advertised on MN

[glasnost]

McDonalds get this going on AIBU

Absurdity, glasnost. You think apathy is a "piss poor" example to set, but getting into a huge mouth breathing rage when something as farcical, inconsequential and vapid as a small advert on a small website predominently in one small country is a good example to set?

Grow up. Look at the world. That is where you will find something worth fighting for and against.

So think about that next time you deign to insult us by calling us apathetic about something that has an importance - on any scale you care to measure - something that is so close to zero it might as well be.

Then come back and say that we make you despair.

I don't understand why McDs need to advertise -surely must be about the best known brand in the world. As long as you don't live on 'em and nothing else what the problem? We eat healthy stuff normally, but after standing for 1.5 hours in the pouring rain on a freezing day watching DC at a footie match, was delighted on the drive back from the arse end of nowhere Croydon to see those golden arches looming in the distance and recognise the brand -ie know what I could get, for how much, and that I could sit in my car and buy it and eat it. Grub never tasted better

Yeah they respond much better to 2 golden arches promising eternal happiness. Now THAT'S patronising.

Soon you'll see it on MN.

at least mcdonalds pleases for a while, before you feel a bit sick..you on the other hand......

Nearly every advertising company offers you the world, forever happiness and a great sex life.

It is up to each indvidual whether they buy into that or just decide that it is just an advert trying to sell me something. You then have to decide do you want it, do you needed it.

It's not just McDonalds!!

I know this because I'm worth it!!!

OK that was rubbish but I can't think of any other advert stuff off the top of my head!

"US" "WE" since when do you thing you represent the majority? tiswas. As usual what should've been an interesting debate descends into factional sniping. It's snoozesome. The world of advertising forms and deforms the world around us. It's not separate to us anymore.

Have already given my opinion on the other thread, but basically - I have never yet been compelled to buy something because it is advertised and have never met anyone who has.

An advert is exactly that - an advert. It is not a command. They let you know what they have to offer and you decide whether or not you want it.

An advert is not an endorsement. I do not think that ITV is backing everything they advertise. I do not think that by selling an advertising slot, ITV are telling me that they think I should buy one of everything.

I don't think that an advert on mumsnet is an endorsement by mumsnet.

And finally, I think that people need to stop seeing mumsnet as all great and powerful.

It's a website. It's a chat forum. It's information which we choose to access. It is a facility that we use. It is not Life, The Universe And Everything.

Crack's less dangerous than McD's? I'm off to get some!

upahill thankyou for that. You've restored my faith in MNers which had been temporarily dented by buzzet al. I don't agree but I like your point. It's thought provoking and amusingly put. You don't haveto resort to being personal as others do.

It's true what you say re. advertising which is why we haveto be alert.

But here I'm not really sweating the ads as I don't even look at them personally on MN. It's where do you draw the line? Any unethical company can advertise on MN?

I'm so upset, really, crying buckets that I destroyed your faith in mumsnetters. No, wait, I mean...fuck, does this mean you aren't leaving after all?

I'd think less of you MN if you do.

But 'it's a treat, innit?'

No, its actually shit, for a global organisation which is everywhere and therefore is acceptable and no one questions it. If MN advertises it will reinforce that.

Like MrsGuy I know that 1.5 hours standing in mud watching footy on a Saturday morning, and on occasion its a drive-though on the way home. The kids don't often object - but its not for 'a treat' its to get lunch on the way home. How you sell it to your children makes a difference. Telling them its special is reinforcing that junk food is in some way a good thing. That's the main crux of my personal objection, aside from its trampling of the rainforests etc.

I am usually the lone voice in the Mcd's debate on here these days.

Fantastic response glasnost, let me take the time to respond to it line by line:

"US" "WE" since when do you thing you represent the majority?

Glad you asked. Judging by the responses on this thread, I am in the majority.

As usual what should've been an interesting debate descends into factional sniping.

Factional sniping, eh? That is interesting, coming from someone who did not address a single point I brought up and instead resorted to ad hominim attacks. (the US/WE thing, accusing me of being boring)

It's snoozesome. The world of advertising forms and deforms the world around us. It's not separate to us anymore.

No, it does not form the world around us. It can reflect the values that the society we live in has, but that does not mean it DOES reflect them. And, as several people have said, advertising is not a command. To restrict the use of advertising is both patronising and a slippery slope to fascism.

Cheers Hecate good points. I realise it's not necessarily an endorsement on the part of MN to McD. But it's an unethical company. Would you be happy to see an arms manufacturer advertising here?

Don't Tesco advertise on here? No problems with that then?

Okay, Glasnost I share your point of view about McD's but I don't think getting cross is helpful.

I'm sorry my previous posts have not been more explanatory but I was using my phone.

I personally do not think Mumsnet should accept advertising revenue from McDonalds. For me, the reason for this is wholly unrelated to the healthiness or quality of the food. If it was Pizza Hut we were talking about I wouldn't even post.

I absolutely agree that this is a business and that they need to generate revenue, and advertising I would imagine is just about the only way to do it and should be fully exploited.

However, this is a community of people that will not accept advertising revenue from Nestle, and not on the basis of the acceptability of its products but on the acceptability of its practices.

On this basis, there should be equal reaction to McDonald's practices. For a full explanation of this, it really is worth seeing "Fast Food Nation". Of course a lot of the criticism against McDonald's is over-emotional, over-hyped and can be dramatic.

But at the very least, in the 90's they sued five Greenpeace volunteers in their personal capacity for criticising the organisation. Three of them publiced apologised, but two took McDonald's to court. They earned $12 000 a year between them. The judge found they couldn't prove some points, but could prove others.

[http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/mclibel.html one long explanation]

McDonald's are also accused of exploiting immigrant workers in Mexico, razing enormous sections of the Amazon jungle for grazing in an absolutely avaricious and uncontrolled way, keeping wages low (particularly in the UK), and controlling a lot of media content because of the strength they have due to their advertising revenue.

(To see evidence of this in action, just google them and see how many pages of positive content you have to get through before you see any debate.)

You didn't put any points tiswas.

Even if you ARE in the vocal majority that doesn't make you right, does it?

I'm coming to understand why ohforfoxsake says she's the lone anti McD voice on here usually though. As usual anyone going against the grain gets shouted down. It's a very OBVIOUS quite cowardly thing to do.

Enough. If you're cool with any old body advertising on MN then I think you deserve them, frankly. It's a shame that those less likely to speak out will haveto put up with it or will become disenchanted with MN. (Even without reading buzz's posts):

Sorry, my previous link failed.

I'm crap at links. If you're interested, google the McLibel case.

Also, here is a cut and paste of the key points of Fast Food Nation:

In the introduction, Schlosser offers a startling summary to bolster the importance of his study: one in eight American workers has done time at McDonald's. McDonald's is the largest owner of retail property. It is the largest single purchaser of beef, pork and potatoes. And, importantly, McDonald's, which revolutionized marketing to children, owns more private play space than anyone else in the U.S.A. It wasn't always that way. As Schlosser points out, McDonald's growth into an American institution has largely been in the last thirty years. Now, with the celebrated synergy between McDonald's and Disney, it is hard to imagine a time, as Schlosser reports, when Walt Disney rebuffed McDonald's founder Ray Kroc in his desire to place a franchise in his new Disneyland.

The story goes beyond Mickey D's, of course, just as the impact of the fast food nation goes beyond the American way of eating. Schlosser maintains that the industry deflates wages, encourages monopoly practices in agricultural processing and reduces everything, including Mikhail Gorbachev, to the level of commodity. But all of these problems Schlosser identifies provoke more questions than he can possibly answer. Should we fault a company for delivering a product to consumers in the most efficient and cost-effective manner? Don't consumers value "value" (meaning calories per dollar) over quality? Isn't the rise of fast food coincidental with, and necessitated by, the rise of sprawling southern and western cities and, if so, doesn't that make fast food the symptom of a larger societal problem? And, as Schlosser establishes, if there are unintended negative consequences to this way of eating, are there positive ones too? Don't these major national brands McDonald's, Burger King, even Walmart offer a kind of national cohesion that government could simply not foster?

And sorry, that should have been "strength due to their advertising spend".

I'm not cross rycie. tiswas and buzz sound cross to me. I mentioned the exploitation of Mexican workers in a previous post and is my main objection to them.

"Fast food Nation" was a book before it was a film.

Tesco's isn't a patch on McD's when it comes to the unethical stakes buzz.

I think it's awful and posted on the other thread.

Might as well start advertising Nestle,companies that use child workers,anything as long as mn makes a big buck. Total double standards and I think it stinks to be frank.

I absolutely agree Rycie.

But that was 20 years ago.

In the present their practices appear to be good or improving, so I see little point in punishing them for having improved.

For example the cattle that was being grazed in the amazon was replaced with soya plants, which is if not remotely as good as the original forest, is miles and miles better for the eco system. (Unless there are still cattle there? my memory is not certain)

I heard Hitler got less murderous in the bunker LaWeasel.

La Weaseal, unfortunately it is a fallacy that soya is good for the ecosystem. It is worse.

maybe MN should start charging us to use the site if they have to be so picky with advertising, how else are they going to make money

I wouldn't pay mind, would have to find something more productive to do