The SunBreak
posted 07/20/10 09:36 AM | updated 07/20/10 10:21 AM
Featured Post! | Views: 0 | Comments : 2 | Business

McDonald's Adds Insult to Injury with Local Billboard Campaign

By Constance Lambson
Recommend this story (2 votes)
Share

Photo courtesy of Gilman Park blog.

Coincidentally, I happen to be reading Mark Bittman's screed against agribusiness, junk food, and fast food, Food Matters, just as McDonald's "localwashing" ad campaign splashes across Seattle billboards. Gilman Park blog apparently broke the story on July 18, and it is now spreading across the internet. See Grist.com, Change.org, Fast Company, and Web Design Cool for various takes on the fast food giant's blatant and insulting attempt to hitch a ride on the locavore wagon.

The irony of the campaign is that a marketplace such as Seattle, with strong farmers markets, restaurants committed to sourcing locally, and an educated, informed populace, is not likely to respond well. That doesn't really matter. McDonald's has a marketing budget of over a billion dollars, the bulk of which (over $800 million, as of 2006) is spent on U.S. media. That's about 16 percent of gross sales, paid for with every Big Mac, fries, and shake. Test marketing an ad campaign that will be about as successful as their pizza trial a few years ago is just a part of the equation.

What will be significant is the how much media attention the campaign gets, whether the campaign becomes a "teaching moment" for consumers in other markets, and whether other communities heed the warning: Localwashing appears to be the next frontier for advertising. It's certainly easier and cheaper than actually sourcing and using local, sustainable, and organic ingredients. Very, very low hanging fruit for McDonald's, in fact, since the company is the single largest purchaser of beef, pork, potatoes, and apples in the U.S.

While consumers have traditionally worried about the number of calories we consume eating our food, in Food Matters, Bittman points out just how many calories are consumed by the production, processing, and transportation of food. (Bittman isn't the first, of course, but unlike Michael Pollan, et al, Bittman includes recipes. And his book is really short.)

The potatoes that McDonald's purchases in Richland may end up in Florida, and there is no telling where the beef comes from. McDonald's buys grass-fed beef from Australia and New Zealand, and CAFO beef from the U.S, but those two all-beef patties must contain combined meat from multiple sources in order to maintain the necessary product consistency. Locally sourced products taste different, taste local, and have terroir, a characteristic that is anathema to mass-market fast food.

McDonald's, no matter how many potatoes they buy from Richland, remains a bad bargain.

Save and Share this article
CommentsRSS Feed
You're misreading that ad.
The potato's from Richland. It's pictured to scale. Hanford and all...
Comment by Jeremy M. Barker
5 months ago
( +1 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
Pet Peeve
"It's certainly easier and cheaper than actually sourcing and using local, sustainable, and organic ingredients."

It bothers me when people lump together issues as some sort of "movement" that must be adhered to. I for one will buy something local. I think it supports local economies by keeping money local, decreases our use of oil for transportation, and allows for fresher goods since they travel less.
That said, I could care less about it being organic or sustainable.

You may have other concerns. If pesticides and are your issue, good. Buy organic goods even if they're from Brazil. If you hate big business and what it's done to our food, fine. Buy from small farms. Everyone needs to understand the issues make decisions on their own and make the appropriate trade offs. (including ones about cost...)

But we can't simply lump everything into a "Good" bucket and a "Bad" bucket, or point to McDonald's as "bad". It's too simple, and ultimately unrealistic.

In fact, if we actually studied it, I'll be McDonald's transportation costs (and by extension, their use of natural resources in their transportation) is substantially lower per unit of food produced that anyone else. I'd bet their scale and centralized operation allows for unbelievable efficiency.

Now, it may be crap for you from a health perspective and for the environment from a CAFO/Pollution perspective and not even particularly good tasting, but those are all separate issues from the specific one about getting goods locally to keep money in the community and reduce the fossil fuels used in transport.
Comment by Frank
5 months ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
Add Your Comment
Name:
Email:
(will not be displayed)
Subject:
Comment: