The McWhopper Proposal

This is a tough one. I think it’s one of the best marketing ideas I’ve seen in a while on one hand, and depressingly ridiculous at the same time on the other. My cynical side is struggling with the exciting possibility of eating a McWhopper, and even the idea of bringing peace and type 2 diabetes to the world one McWhopper at a time! And there goes my cynical side again. I guess I could also go and buy a Big Mac and a Whopper and just put them together myself without waiting for World Peace Day, but that’s besides the point.

It is definitely and already great for Burger King, and I’m pretty sure it’s already unexpected (?) positive media exposure for McDonald’s, and they haven’t even responded as far as I know.

Is it any good for the World Peace Day and the Peace One Day NGO..? That’s just one of the other areas I have doubts about.

My first impression is that the Peace One Day’s message is drowned out. It’s certainly benefiting the burger makers. Let’s say it is about making the world a better place, if so then how are they doing that exactly? Are they handing out some cash on the 21st September? How would that cash be spent?

My second set of doubts come from looking at Peace One Day – I’ve only had a quick look at their site and a couple of video so I admit I could be missing information. Their main message seems to be: ” Awareness creates action, and action saves lives”. I saw it on their website, and on this McWhopper video.

I’m not convinced awareness creates much immediate action. I knew smoking was bad and I kept smoking for years, it’s an easy example and I’m sure we can easily think of similar ones. And certainly not all action saves lives. Some actions even eliminate them, actually.

I also thought of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge from last year, and the numbers tell us the viral sensation raised $115 million for the ALS Association. They also produced a nice infographic to tell people how they’ve been spending the money so far. I find interesting in comparison that the whatever you thought of the ALS ice bucket videos, the message was pretty clear and straightforward: Throw an ice bucket over your head, commit to donating to the ALS Association, and nominate friends in your video to keep the chain going. The ALS Association is spending the money on research, patient care, etc.

I don’t see this kind of simple message with the McWhopper Proposal, and certainly not the difference it’s going to make for peace in the world. The ice bucket videos weren’t branded, so maybe it’s just a bad comparison altogether. World Peace is a great ideal but not as simple as researching a cure to a disease, even the most difficult one.

The video suggests Atlanta as a middle ground between two US locations, none of which are or have been at war for a long time. Maybe well played Burger King, but what are you actually going to do in the name of World Peace then..?

I agree that these companies have the kind of size and influence required to make changes on society, but in this context I fail to see how Burger King and McDonald’s can make a positive difference towards peace in the world with a McWhopper restaurant in Atlanta. If anything, it may just be showing how much more people like fast food than the idea of world peace.

I also think fun and play is important, and if that’s only what Burger King has in mind, then great. That said, just tell us what this is actually doing for World Peace, because I don’t think the so called “war” between two fast food giants is what the UN wanted to solve by creating the International Day of Peace.

Or am I being too cynical (for a change)?

Who Does Advertising Serve?

Bronze plate printing an advertising for the Liu family needle shop at Jinan. Song Dynasty era (960 – 1270). One of the earliest existing examples of printed advertising.

I’m catching up on some reading and came across this article written by Tracy Follows: “Cannes Lions: will advertising ever again be about the people it serves?”.

At first I didn’t take any special notice at the title, I might have been paying more attention to the Cannes Lions part of it. I was mostly nodding to myself in agreement at several points made as I was reading. And then towards the end the title question appears again and that’s when I really took notice:

“The question for the future, then, is this: will advertising ever again be about the people it serves?”

You might think I’m being too concerned with semantics, and you might be right. I may well be focusing on a different definition of the word service than Tracy had in mind. In any case, I thought: “Wait a second, when has advertising ever been about serving the people it’s made for? Who does advertising serve?”

Just to be clear, I enjoyed the article and I agree with Tracy’s interesting points made about creativity vs. media and technology, about the fascination of the industry with technology at the detriment of creativity or better understanding people.

At the same time I can’t help but thinking there is a slight leap made in the article that jarred with me. It’s related to the word serving, and the notion of service. I went to read the Wikipedia article about advertising for a quick history overview, to make sure I wasn’t missing anything obvious about the origins and history of the practice.

I picked the image above from there, apparently one of the first still existing examples of printed branding and advertising, for a needle shop in Song Dynasty China, between 927 – 1270. It seems like an old enough example to suit my purpose. Along with the rabbit brand logo representing the Liu family name, the text above and below reads:

“We buy high quality steel rods and make fine quality needles, to be ready for use at home in no time”

Who does this serve, first and foremost? I say it serves the Liu family needle shop. Advertising serves the client, the company advertising or promoting their products and services. It doesn’t serve the consumer, not first at least. I don’t think it ever has, so it would be difficult to have it be about that again.

Advertising, the modern 20th century style of it in particular, is about creating demand and persuading people they want or need something, whether they actually need those things or not, or whether it’s useful or not.

 

Both World Wars and cigarette advertising are famously what allowed the advertising to grow into what it is has become today. I remember visiting the Weapons of Mass Communication exhibition at London’s Imperial War Museum years ago, which was very interesting in that regard. With what we know about the ill-health effects of smoking nowadays, I find it tough to say those ads were serving the people they were destined for.

I absolutely agree it’s ideal if advertising is made for the people it is destined to. It is better when ads are concerned with real people, their lives, motivations, feelings, concerns, etc. In rare cases I’m even inclined to believe advertising serves the consumers as well as the advertiser.

It is probably part of the reasons most people dislike advertising: everybody knows it’s trying to have them do something, most often buy something – possibly against their will. Nobody likes the impression of being influenced or manipulated against their will.

I’m writing all this because I believe it is possible for advertising to be relevant, entertaining, and even useful to the people it is destined for. I think that’s an important point the heart of Tracy’s article, and if I’m correct in my understanding I agree. I don’t know if there was a time the industry did a better job at that, but I’m sure it can do better now. I aim to help with that in the work I do with clients, though I admit I don’t always succeed as much as I’d like to.

I also think mass communication can be used to make a positive difference for people. I recently found out about The International Exchange and it’s great to see this type of exciting projects in the world, committed to making a difference with the help of communication professionals.

That said, I’m questioning the distinction of who advertising serves because I think it’s important to be honest and realistic about it. The next question could be: if it serves the advertisers, then how can it serve them better by being for the people they are targeting?

To finish on a another thought, I particularly liked this definition of service in the Merriam-Webster:

2c. Contribution to the welfare of others.

Going one step further with this definition in mind, if advertising served the people it is targeted to, then how would it influence products and services being developed by advertisers, rather than the other way round?

22/08/2015 update:

In the middle of an unrelated conversation a day after writing this, a friend reminded me that the origins of the verb to serve and servir (we were talking in French) are from the latin servire, literally “be enslaved”, related to servus “slave”. The meaning then extended to being a servant later on, and then even later into the figurative kind of meaning I used for this post.

Taken in this sense, the title also makes for an interesting question to ponder: Who is enslaved to advertising?

 

Le Coq à l'Ane is Open!

My brother Morgan opened his first restaurant & wine bar on Saturday 1st August, which I was – and still am – very excited about! It is called Le Coq à l’Ane, a playful name based on a French saying which translates best in English as a non sequitur, going from thing to another completely unrelated or illogically. Literally the saying translates as “going from rooster (or cock) to donkey” and the restaurant name can literally translate as “the donkeyed rooster (or cock)”.

My brother told me the saying was used as early as the 14th century in France, and “l’âne” then was spelled “l’asne” and designated a female duck rather than a donkey. The saying originally referred to farm cocks that would have sex with ducks.

As for the restaurant, Morgan liked the sound of it, and he feels it reflects what guests will be experiencing when they visit, depending on what produce are available at the market and his inspiration or mood, one day he might be cooking something very elaborate and gastronomic, and the next day a simple like you’re at home Catalan sausage and mash, or an Indian curry another day. Main dishes can change suddenly with no rhyme or reason, yet you can be sure it will all be delicious and very affordable.

The restaurant is in the small village of Latour-de-France, by a lovely river. The village has a reputation amongst all-natural wine aficionados; while small the village boasts twelve different independent organic and/or all natural winemakers. The restaurant is also a wine cellar, so you can try different local wines and craft beers, or select a bottle and enjoy it at home or by the river with friends. For now he mostly has wines from the village, and he intends to get wines from other regions of France soon enough.

Morgan cooked delicious slow-roasted pork ribs and mashed potatoes for opening night dinner

The opening night was a success and different generations of villagers came by to have drinks and plates of artisan cheese and charcuterie, the atmosphere was great and it was a pleasure to be there. We finished late at night with Morgan’s ex-colleagues from the previous place he worked at, La Coopérative Riberach, a Michelin-starred restaurant nearby.

 

If you’re in the South of France near Perpignan or know of anyone visiting, please come by or tell them about the restaurant! In the meantime, they are regularly updating the Facebook Page with photos and information, check it out!