May 3, 2004
JUST DON'T TAKE OUR MCGRIDLES:
When "consumer advocates" attack (Nicholas Stix, May 3, 2004, Enter Stage Right)
According to a March 3 Associated Press report, the phase-out [ of super-sized meals] "comes as the world's largest restaurant company, and fast-food chains in general, are under growing public pressure to give consumers healthier food options in a nation that has suddenly become aware of its bulging waistline and the health dangers that come with it."Had customers protested that McDonald's was offering them too much food, too much value for their money, and making them fat? Not at all. The anti-McDonald's campaign was a partnership of self-appointed consumer advocates, politically correct Big Media, and unscrupulous attorneys, replete with a frivolous lawsuit charging the fast-food giant with having "caused" customers' obesity. Consumers had no say in the matter.
Fortunately, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet dismissed the lawsuit against McDonald's in January of last year, and dismissed a revised civil action in September. Plaintiffs may not refile. Imagine if Judge Sweet had permitted the lawsuit to go forward. The plaintiffs' attorneys would have placed ads in newspapers and on TV, trolling for clients in a class action suit. Millions of people would have responded, and a jury trial might have bankrupted the chain (whether directly, through paying a billion-dollar judgment, or through its having to raise its prices so much to pay the judgment, that its customers deserted it). Then the firm of Lawyers, Activists, Media & Co. would have repeated the process with another fast food chain. And so on. Ultimately, hundreds of thousands of people would have been thrown out of work, and consumers would be forced to grab their food on the run from purveyors working out of unsanitary street carts, or go hungry. Could someone please tell me how consumers would be helped by this?
In liberal circles, "consumerism" is a dirty word, evoking obscene images of ordinary people who want certain things, and businesses who actually provide them at a price consumer and provider alike find agreeable, without either asking for liberal's permission. Not that leftists are against getting what they want. In an essay published in the Utne Reader during the early 1990s, an environmentalist author was concerned that ordinary people were exhausting the earth's resources with purchases of items like laptop computers. Without any hint of irony, the author admitted that he had used a laptop to write his essay. In the leftist worldview, it's the "little people" who may not satisfy their needs.
There are legitimate consumer advocates, e.g., reporters who warn us about scams. Legitimate consumer advocates expand people's choices; phony advocates limit them. But McDonald's wasn't scamming anyone, and certainly wasn't forcing extra food on its customers; it was providing value to its customers. And the advocates, lawyers, and alleged journalists who were attacking McDonald's were the kind of people who wouldn't be caught dead inside one.
Is it not an article of Free-Market dogma that if consumers actually do care about getting more fat per meal that they'll choose from among the alternatives? In fact, mightn't we safely assume that before making such a significant menu and marketing change McDonald's probably conducted fairly extensive surveys to see which was a better position to present the public: (1) Lots of food really cheap; or, (2) We care about your health too? It seems a dubious proposition to think that a major multi-national corporation went out and intentionally alienated its own consumer base. Somewhere in Manhattan there's an ad agency poised to tell us how good we're all being by participating inthis and that by limiting ourselves to just a Big Mac, large fries, Coke and two apple pies we're being damn near ascetic. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 3, 2004 8:52 AM
Considering the politically correct direction Joan Krok had taken McDonald's between the time of her husband's death and her own recent passing, don't be surprised if they did cave to the PC/tort lawyer crowd before devising any public relations spin on the change.
Orrin: Or Swiss Re, or whoever their excess carrier is, threatened to raise premiums through the roof.
Posted by: Chris at May 3, 2004 9:49 AMAs arm chair economists, let us not forget the effect of inflation on the removal of 'super sizing'.
Inflation is on it's way back, and reducing the size of an item with out the necessary increase in price is a rational response.
All of these little things are factors.
Posted by: BB at May 3, 2004 10:56 AMWhile the now-dismissed suits were no doubt a factor, I think Orrin is on the right track here when he suggests that analysis of current public tastes actually plays a much bigger part in the recent changes in McD's menu. Those blasted "low-carb" menus are EVERYWHERE! (Ordering a hamburger without the bun and still calling it a hamburger, how ridiculous is that?) I even saw, if you can believe it, "low-carb" pasta in the supermarket today.
To tell you the truth, I always thought "supersizing" was slightly overrated anyway; I know my own experience isn't any kind of indicator, but I don't believe I ever knowingly ordered supersize anytime at McDonald's. (Not that I go to Mickey D's very much, anyway; Burger King has better burgers IMO, even if you have, like me, to write down your order to get around counter people with imperfect English skills, and so does Wendy's.)
Posted by: Joe at May 3, 2004 8:58 PMI am old enough to remember when the world's biggest fast food chain, by far, was Kentucky Fried Chicken, so the idea that a major, multinational business might shoot itself in the foot cannot be read out of court.
However, at least in this country, if you want a fattier hamburger, there's another outlet on the opposite corner.
We'll see.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 3, 2004 11:45 PMWhen is KFC going to shoot itself in the foot?
Posted by: oj at May 4, 2004 12:02 AMMcD's likely hedged its bets on this one. pulling the supersize helped 'demonstrate' a "We Care" message, while simultaneously allowing the chain to cut costs without passing the savings onto consumers (as someone noted above).
regarding answering the consumer and the recent 'low carb' insanity, that is a perfect example of the speed/efficiency of market change. a few Jarred commercials, the pseudo-founder of the low-carb diet dying, and over 100million fat-ass Americans with more money than brains chanting for a 150 year old 'diet' still not scientifically proven to be beneficial is a testament to capitalism.
god bless america.
Posted by: poormedicalstudent at May 4, 2004 1:31 AMIt's already happened, Orrin.
KFC is now trying to recover from a near-fatal case of John Y. Brown.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 4, 2004 2:34 AMTrying to recover what? They're one of the biggest fast food chains in the world.
Posted by: oj at May 4, 2004 7:12 AMThat's recovery. KFC came pretty close to imploding.
But let's take a gander at how smart large business managers are at understanding what the customer wants: A&P, Woolworth, W.T. Grant, Korvette, KMart.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 4, 2004 5:17 PMWere you expecting 100% of businesses to succeed and endure forever? Darwin may be wrong, but the model he borrowed from economics works where intelligence is involved. Businesses go up and down.
Posted by: oj at May 4, 2004 5:57 PMThe last time I looked, K-Mart was still in business - trying to work its way out of bankruptcy, to be sure, but still hanging in there.
Posted by: Joe at May 4, 2004 7:54 PMKmart's done for, Joe. A walking corpse.
Orrin and I seem to be talking past each other.
On the one hand, he seems to think McD can do no market wrong. On the other hand, if it did it wouldn't be the first.
I've been reporting on business over 30 years now, and while I still cannot pick winners, I have sure learned how to spot sure losers.
When J.C. Penney opened a store here, they stocked it with thick sweaters, flannel lumberjack shirts and jeans. On a tropical island.
They went bust.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 5, 2004 11:52 PMHarry:
Of course they can be wrong, what does that have to do with whether it's a marketing decision?
Posted by: oj at May 6, 2004 12:01 AM