Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Coito ergo sum]

BANNED!!!!

BANNED!!!! god damn Easter Bunny!!! Kids beg for candy and their parents can't resist giving it to them....

BANNED!!!!

BANNED!!!!


You know - as a society, we latch onto things and focus myopically on them until we move on to another fad-of-the-day. Today, it's McDonald's. But, is there any rational reason why we're not also talking about children eating hot dogs, macaroni & cheese, hamburgers made at home, fried chicken, fish sticks, hot pockets, bagel bites, etc., all of which parents gladly fork into their kids' faces? What's the difference?

And, why are we fat:

In 1971, women consumed an average of 1,571 calories per day. Of those, 45.4 percent came from carbohydrates. By 2000, women had increased their average daily consumption to 1,877 calories – a 22 percent increase... Men increased their daily calorie consumption from 2,450 to 2,618 calories per day during that same time frame Meanwhile, obesity rates jumped from 14.5 percent of U.S. adults in 1971, to 30.9 percent in 2000. Fast-forward eight years, and today, the average American consumes a whopping 3,770 calories a day, [and] is 10 pounds overweight.

Gee...it's McDonald's fault....not the fact that people eat gargantuan amounts of food all day every day....

[RuleBritannia]

Ooo! Easter Bunny, that's a good one.

BANNED!!!!

This is fun, so many things to ban so little time.

[sandinista]

Ronald McDonald is EVERYWHERE!

Raising money to help children with Cystic Fibrosis.


Providing free lodging for parents of children with Strep B Meningitis.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrABmHOT ... re=related[/youtube]

DAMN YOU RONALD McDONALD, YOU BURN IN HELL!!!

I hope you seriously don't think this is mcshit doing a "good deed". fucking hell.

[Coito ergo sum]

Fuck 'em! Damn corporations! Makin' stuff, and charging people money for it! Bastards!

[sandinista]

Fuck 'em! Damn corporations! Makin' stuff, and charging people money for it! Bastards!

Yah...thats all corporations do...make stuff and sell it. How innocent. Naive much?

[Cunt]

I don't accept advertising works that way, I've seen hundreds maybe thousands of adverts for Nike shoes, yet I've never bought a pair, and it's nothing to do with the cost as I buy Puma which are just as expensive. Why do I choose Puma over Nike? I don't know, but it's nothing to do with their adverting as Nike tend to make the best adverts with hugh budgets and famous sports men and women.

I have seen careful, successful companies spending horrific amounts on advertising, betting every time they do that their advertising works.

They keep on winning that bet, so I won't simply take on your opinion that advertising doesn't work that way.

----------

However I believe ALL drugs should be legal to consume and advertise.

Interesting take.

It makes me consider that the fact that some things are not allowed to be advertised as openly (or at all) such as booze, prostitution or lawyers may suggest a certain respectability to those products which can be advertised.

Certainly allowing everyone to advertise anything would take any respectability away from advertising. I don't know if that would reduce its effect, but one can hope...

----------

No don't ban, that would be a free speech issue. Just ban advertising aimed at kids, including product placement in films and TV. Not all that hard.
If McD's didn't target that demographic, it wouldn't use Ronald, that's for fucking sure.

It might make more sense if the companies advertising food had to put an equal amount of advertising dollars into Health Canada's pockets with specific direction to educate people about healthy eating.

Maybe with their own clown (Stephen Harper might serve)

LOL - healthy eating education course.

Lesson number 1 - eat vegetables, fruit, some protein and some carbs
Lesson number 2 - don't eat too much - if you're getting fatter, eat less.
Lesson number 3 - go for a walk once in a while.

That'll cost the gubment $1 billion, I'm sure.

McDonalds pays advertising companies to say less...they say.

McDonalds is good. Go eat there.

How much do you think they pay to say it? Why would a fiercely competitive corporation pay so much to say so little?

----------

[JimC]

An interesting point, CES...

Let's say you are correct, and a ban on advertising will have no effect on children's obesity, or even the amount of fast food they consume...

Let's say a ban is imposed anyway on junk-food advertising to children for all brands, not just Macdonalds, by an evil socialist government...

Result - the fast-food companies rub their hands together, having decreased their advertising budget with no impact on their bottom line, and advertising executives are seen jumping from 30 story buildings like son many corpulent, well-groomed lemmings... :twisted:

I don't think that is likely, but the thought amused me...

[Clinton Huxley]

i'll have a double sausage and egg mcmuffin, please.

[Tigger]

i'll have a double sausage and egg mcmuffin, please.

Do you want fries with that? [/Pavlov]

[AshtonBlack]

i'll have a double sausage and egg mcmuffin, please.

Do you want fries with that? [/Pavlov]

Would you like to go large for 30p extra? [/cynical]

[Clinton Huxley]

i'll have a double sausage and egg mcmuffin, please.

Do you want fries with that? [/Pavlov]

Yes [/Pavlov]

[Trolldor]

Britannia, Macca's asks for donations for fuck's sake, they "donate" 20c from a $2 hamburger DURING A PROMOTION, and yet they rake in billions every year. That whole thing is a farce, a PR stunt.

I don't accept advertising works that way, I've seen hundreds maybe thousands of adverts for Nike shoes, yet I've never bought a pair, and it's nothing to do with the cost as I buy Puma which are just as expensive. Why do I choose Puma over Nike? I don't know, but it's nothing to do with their adverting as Nike tend to make the best adverts with hugh budgets and famous sports men and women.

But it does. Look around at the most popular, most worn shoes, they will coincindentally be the ones with the most successful advertisements.

[Coito ergo sum]

Fuck 'em! Damn corporations! Makin' stuff, and charging people money for it! Bastards!

Yah...thats all corporations do...make stuff and sell it. How innocent. Naive much?

What are these other things to which you allude? Be specific.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't accept advertising works that way, I've seen hundreds maybe thousands of adverts for Nike shoes, yet I've never bought a pair, and it's nothing to do with the cost as I buy Puma which are just as expensive. Why do I choose Puma over Nike? I don't know, but it's nothing to do with their adverting as Nike tend to make the best adverts with hugh budgets and famous sports men and women.

I have seen careful, successful companies spending horrific amounts on advertising, betting every time they do that their advertising works.

Nobody is saying advertising doesn't work.

They keep on winning that bet, so I won't simply take on your opinion that advertising doesn't work that way.

Nobody is saying advertising doesn't work.

This isn't about allowing advertising that doesn't work, and restricting advertising that does work. There is nothing wrong with advertising working.

The issue is whether the elimination of Ronald McDonald as an advertising mascot will reduce the rate of obesity.

[

McDonalds pays advertising companies to say less...they say.

McDonalds is good. Go eat there.

Those bastards!

[

How much do you think they pay to say it? Why would a fiercely competitive corporation pay so much to say so little?

----------

To establish name and brand recognition, for example.

[Coito ergo sum]

An interesting point, CES...

Let's say you are correct, and a ban on advertising will have no effect on children's obesity, or even the amount of fast food they consume...

Let's say a ban is imposed anyway on junk-food advertising to children for all brands, not just Macdonalds, by an evil socialist government...

Why do you have to add the snark at the end - "an evil socialist government?" You know, I have never mentioned socialism in any way. Further, whether you or I think socialism is good, evil, or something in between, is really irrelevant to the issue.

Result - the fast-food companies rub their hands together, having decreased their advertising budget with no impact on their bottom line,

You are confusing two things. The bottom line of McDonald's is not the cause of obesity. A reduction in sales from McDonald's or even fast food chains like McDonald's in general, has not been shown to even be likely to reduce obesity. Why? Because people are fat because they eat gobs and gobs of food from all sources. People are under the mistaken impression, quite often, that going to a chain restaurant, like Ruby Tuesday or Chilis or Applebees, or having pizza or cooking burgers on the grill, is somehow less fattening than McDonalds and Burger King. They aren't.

In addition, people fork down snacks, chips, ice creams, all that sort of stuff in far greater qunantiies than ever before, and drink soft drinks in far greater quanities than ever before.

If people don't eat their once a week fast food meal, they'll just go to another restaurant and eat 1200 calories there, or they'll cook burgers and dogs on the grill and eat 1200 calories there.

People are fat - I will repeat - because they eat WAY more calories per day on average than they did 30 and 40 years ago, and they are FAR more sedentary.

and advertising executives are seen jumping from 30 story buildings like son many corpulent, well-groomed lemmings... :twisted:

I don't think that is likely, but the thought amused me...

The thing is, a lot of people here seem to be confusing "reducing McDonald's sales" with "reducing obesity."