No it isn't. The advertising budget of McDonald's does not demonstrate that commercial advertising involving clowns or other similar items is what is causing children to be obese. We would need an effective study for that, and one could be done. We do, however, have mountains of evidence that the number of hours spent in front of television and video game screens, plus a market increase in calorie consumption OVERALL, causes people to be overweight and obese.Seraph wrote:The evidence is right there in MacDonalds' advertising budget, for crying out loud.Coito ergo sum wrote:Nobody said it was ineffective.Seraph wrote:If advertising was ineffective, MacDonalds wouldn't waste billions of dollars on encouraging to eat more of their fattening foods.
Where's the evidence that kids are obese because of mascots like Ronald McDonald?
However, there is no demonstrable or empirical evidence hat if you eliminated all McDonald's commercials altogether, let alone just eliminated Ronald, that the rate of obesity would decline.Seraph wrote: As you acknowledged, kids eat too much, and MacDonalds is spending billions in enticing them to eat more.
Of course not. But work to accomplish what? Make people obese? There is no demonstrable or empirical evidence that eliminating McDonald's advertising altogether would reduce the obesity rate. It may well be that kids would just keep sitting in front of the t.v. and continue to shovel food in their sedentary mouths, and continue to get obese.Seraph wrote:
One of their tools is the Ronald MacDonald device. If it didn't work for the corporation it wouldn't fucking well spend all that money on it, would it?
Regardless of whether you think it's moot or not, it's a yes, right?Seraph wrote:Moot point. See above.Coito ergo sum wrote:So, it doesn't matter if stopping Ronald McDonald doesn't reduce obesity, you just don't like the companies or their product. Yes?Seraph wrote: This has nothing to do with liberties. It's a callous, socially pernicious endeavour and should be stopped just the way tobacco companies are basically prohibited from promoting the consumption of their coffin nails in many countries now.
McDonald's is a lawful product, and eaten in moderation there is nothing wrong with it. McDonald's advertising budget has a lot to do with keeping people from eating other things, perhaps just as unhealthy, and having them choose McDonald's instead. So, if mom and dad are thinking about going to Chili's with the kids, McDonalds wants them to pick McDonald's instead.
Look at the slippery slope here - we talk about McDonald's now, but why not Chilis? Their portion sizes are enormous, and the food is just as unhealthy as McDonalds. Look at Ruby Tuesday, TGIFriday, and Applebees - eating there is no better than eating at McDonald's, and are probably worse given the portion sizes are much larger at those restaurants.
What are we to do? Live in a society where all food advertising messages have to clear an approval board or something and made sure they're only on at certain hours of the day and on certain channels?
And, if these "messages" really do control people, then was Tipper Gore's PMRC right in the 1980s, and rock music messages made kids violent, sexually promiscuous, and disobedient, oh, and suicidal? Perhaps free speech ought to go away altogether, and if you're sending the "wrong message" then you ought not be able to disseminate that message......yes?
)