ADVERTISING

1. W/Co

(1) XHeadings:

(1) "McDollars" "McGreedy"

"McProfits" "McRipoff"

But also (2) "McCancer" "McDisease" "McDeadly"

(2) Main heading (p.4 leaflet):

"How do McDonald's deliberately exploit children?"

(3) Subheading:

"The normality trap"

(4) Text: key words:

"aimed at" 1st col

"hide" 2nd col

"seduce" "

"poisonous" "

2. This is all about adverting to children. Forget advertising to adults (except in relation to nutrition: more later).

3. Pleaded meanings: Ream S/C

J and K on p.16

- but NB context, too.

- so M for degree of risk in K.

- And J's mng. on nutrition for the overall risk to health of children.

These are defamatory allegations of fact about both Plaintiffs.

(1) They state the effect (alleged) of the advertising on children ('seduced', 'trapped') etc; and

(2) They state the Pffs intentions

(alleged) in making the advertisements and aiming them at children ('deliberately exploit', 'seduce', 'trap') .

Those are both assertions of fact. So too is

(3) The allegation that the Pffs 'hide' (with gimmicks etc) the fact that the food could poison the children: you can't hide what you don't know.

See FP.

pare 4.

Therefore, 3 allegations:

(i) the food may well poison the children; hide

(ii) the Pffs know it; but

(iii) hide it.

5. Immediate concession

Since small children don't normally have the resources to get to McD's on their own, advertising by McD's to small children must be intended, directly or indirectly, to influence their parents' decision whether and, if so, how often to take them to McD's.

Whether this matters is another question entirely (as to which, see later).

6. The following qq. arise:

(1) Do McD's aim any significant part of their advertising at children?

(2) If so, how much?

- this is a subsidiary q., but since the w/co say "nearly all", I shall have to deal with it (briefly).

(3) Does this matter? So

(4) Is the advertising itself in any way deceptive, dishonest or unfairly manipulative?

is it, as advertising directed at children, objectionable in itself?

(5) Whatever its quality as advertising, is the food which is eaten by the children as a result dangerous to their health, long or shortterm,

(i) because it is v. unhealthy; and/or

(ii) because it is likely to give them food poisoning?

7. Answers to those qq:

(1) Yes.

(2) About 4/7ths (TV exposure) or 3/8ths (all broadcasting).

In cost, 1020%.

Not "nearly all", whichever way you look at it.

(3) No.

(4) No.

(5) No and No. See Nutrition and Food Poisoning, ante.

8. So the only qq. which need to be examined in this section are:

(2) How much to children?

(4) The quality of the advertising.

9. The other q. not included above, but which has some bearing on nutrition, is

What is the general purpose and effect of McD's advertising? (Beyond getting people to eat their food!).

10. How much of McD's advertising is aimed at

children?

10.1 Depends on whether you look at this in terms

of cost or exposure (though, of course, the

two are related).

10.2 Cost: adults/children split:

(1) UK: 19902 < 15%

19889 c.22%

1987 27%

1986 32%

Figures from

Y VI/I/'A'

Confirmed by

Hawkes: 41:278

(2) Main reason for higher cost in UK 19869: less need to concentrate on children as awareness of McD's amongst families has increased.

Hawkes: 41:28:1218.

(3) US: c.10% (198992).

Y XII/10

(agreed by Ds).

10.3 Exposure

(1) Children's advertising time is cheaper. Therefore you get more exposure for your money. Therefore cost (in £s or $s) is not the best guide.

(2) Actual cost depends on Gross Rating Points (GRPs) .

Green: (3) These are worked out as follows:

(a) In essence, you pay for the number of people who are going to watch the ad. More people, higher cost.

43:46

45:66

(b) This is worked out (at considerable expense!) by the market research people the 'ratings services'

46:5

c) In general, for TV, the average adult will watch an ad. about 5 times a week (or 270 x pa). The average child will watch it e. 3 x Her week (or 140 x pa). So the ratio adults: children is about 7:4.

46:23

(d) For all broadcasting (no radio ads. directed at children), the ratio is about 8:3.

45:69

(e) Therefore adult time costs more(!).

(f) There are some refinements

(which don't matter very much):

(i) You select your target

say, adults 1849 or children 211 (hoping to catch the 12/13s) .

Green:

(e. g)

46: 6670

(ii) You know others 1417s or 50+s may see the ad., but the calculation doesn't include them.

(iii) You then judge by ref. to market research how many of the chosen class are going to be watching the ad. at a particular time of day or during a particular programme.

(iv) The greater the number in the chosen class at the chosen time, the higher the GRPs and the greater the cost.

(v) More ads are aimed at adults than at children (because it is known that their exposure is greater) .

(vi) Most of these (60%) feature adults only.

(vii) The majority of them are shown in prime time (bigger audience/exposure ) .

(viii) Teenagers are not specifically targeted

(a) because they are known to be 'promiscuous' (why waste money?); and

(b) because they're apt not to fit into the family ambience of McD's restaurants (doesn't stop them going! ) .

(g) When Mr. Hawkes came back for his second visit, * he was crossexamined at length (by HS)* on some docs in P VII/12. For reasons best known to themselves, the Ds have not agreed that these documents should be admitted in evidence. Since they don't prove themselves, they must be ignored, together with the XX.

* 8.11.94 *48: 1617

11. Is the adverting, as advertising directed at

children, objectionable in itself?

11.1 In answering this q., two further qq. must be

answered:

(1) Is advertising to children intrinsically objectionable, in all circumstances?

(2) Is the quality and effect of McD's advertising objectionable?

11.2 It might be thought a sufficient ans. to the

first q. simply to say that most countries in

the world don't appear to think so. Most of

them regulate children's advertising, but few

of them prohibit it.

Q(1)

11.2.1 But that's not necessarily a complete answer, because the regulatory authorities and the Govts. which stand behind them (the ITC, eg, is a creature of statute) cannot replace the tribunal of fact in a court.

11.2.2 The tribunal here is a judge. But for (nearly) the first time in the case, the time has come for him to enter what is, in truth, pure jury territory.

11.2.3 The answer to the q. could only be,

"Yes, in all circumstances"

if one took the view that children especially small children were unable to distinguish fact from fiction, reality from fantasy.

11.2.4 And one would then have to add the view that, somehow or another, that inability had the consequence that the children were buying or getting their parents to buy more of the advertised product than they otherwise would.

11.2.5 Both of these propositions are a nonsense. There has been some research into children's ability to distinguish ads. from programmes on TV, let alone reality from fantasy*: even very young children (4 yr olds) seem to have that ability.

See, eg, XX of

S. Dibb

:55:6569

:65:4950

* (If the whole

of here XX is read, it

can be seen that she,

like Dr. Barnard, gave

a very misbalanced account

of the relevant material.)

11.2.6 But that shouldn't surprise anyone who has had children of their own or, indeed, who can remember their own childhood.

(more later, in relation to McD's ads.).

11.2.7 Nor should it surprise anyone with experience

of bringing up children that children will nag

their parents for particular things be they

toys, food, outings or football shirts. After

all, as (tritely) observed earlier, most young

children don't have the resources to obtain

these things for themselves.

Miles: 47:8

(more later, in relation to McD's ads

12. How McD's advertising to children works.

Hawkes & 12.1 In essence, the idea is to keep children's

Green: perceptions of McD's both alive and friendly,

passim with the result that the family is more

likely to go to McD's than BK, KFC, PH, etc.

See, eg:

Green: 43:245

12.2 Although, in relation to children, you might expect to attract some firsttimers by your advertising, its dominant purpose is to keep McD's "top of mind".

Hawkes:

41:6

48:16

(eg)

12.3 This only works or works well enough to

justify all the money spent on the advertising if the experience which the children, and

their parents, have when they get to

McD's is pleasurable indeed, sufficiently

pleasurable to make them want to go back

there.

This is the dominant factor.

"Pesterpower"* obviously has a role in this. But it won't work if either the children or the parents, or both, have not enjoyed their previous experience of McD's or, at least, it works not more than once!

eg: Hawkes: 41:6 and 8 41:14

Green: 46: 701

Green: 43: 26

* 'Markerese' 12 .4 for children trying to persuade their parents to indulge their wishes: an everyday incident of family life. Leapt on by the 'antis', of course, as something sinister.

12.5 That can only happen if 5 conditions are

fulfilled:

(1) The customers parents and children enjoy the food (to some extent, at least!).

(2) The children (continue to) think that McD's is a "fun place".

eg: Hawkes: 41:27

(3) The parents realise that the children

think that it is a nice place to be:

- lunch in a restaurant where your 4 and 6 yr old children are bored

and fractious. . . ! ?

Green: 43:52 (4) The parents think they are getting value

for money (the children don't have a

view!) .

Hawkes: 42:56 (5) Neither parents nor children think they

have been 'conned' by the advertising: if

they do, it is sure they won't be back.

The reality must live up to the promise.

12.6 The practical consequences

Hawkes: 42:29; (1) This really doesn't need evidence

49:50 the 'jury' knows it all any way.

(2) Just the same, 3 little scenarios from real life:

(i) The family is out shopping. Saturday lunchtime.

Children: "Can we go to McD's?"

Mum (who would rather have a pizza):

"What about PH?"

Children: "Oh, Mum...."

Mum: "Oh, all right."

(ii) Father and son (9) have been to a football match. Wednesday evening, 8.45.

Son: "Dad, can we go to McD's?"

Dad (who would rather go home/to the pub):

"It's awfully late.."

Son: "But I'm hungry; please, Dad..."

"Oh, okay."

(iii) Daughter (7): birthday imminent

Daughter: "Can I have a party?"

Mum: "Why not?"

Daughter: "Here?"

Mum: (who will be working until 4 p.m.

on the day):

"Well, I suppose... what about McD's?"

Daughter: "Great! " .

12.7 If those little vignettes are something like

reality, and if, in consequence, McD's can

feel that the money they're spending on

children's advertising is well spent, how can

it be said that the advertising is

objectionable* ?

*ie, deceptive, unfairly manipulative.

Because if it were, and both parents and children found that the reality did not match the promise, then the process wouldn't work at all: people would come once, perhaps, and never return.

12.8 And each of those 3 'real life' cameos could,

of course, be rewritten to produce a negative

response from parent, or child:

(i) Mum: "No. I want a pizza, and for once in your lives, you'll do as I want, not as you want".

(ii) Dad: "No, I'm sorry. It's nearly 9 o'clock and you've got school tomorrow. Your mum will give you something when we get home."

(iii) Child: "But we went there (McD's) only last week. And we could have it in the garden. "

Mum (sighing): "All right, dear. But I'm going to have to buy a cake. I won't have time to make one."

12.9

There is a serious point here; which the

'anti' brigade . (se. Dibb and allies) seem to overlook:

For young children 210? the parents are the restraint upon the child's desires. They are the buffer between the effect of the advertising on the child and its translation into till transactions. Sometimes "Yes", sometimes "No'' .

12.10 What, then, does the advertising lead the

children to expect?

12.10.1 If such as Ms Dibb are to be believed, children are so gullible that they will arrive at McD's expecting to find

real, live talking McNuggets!

talking dogs!?

-Ronald waving his hands so as to make sparkling Golden Ms appear! ?

- hamburgers growing in the back garden! ? etc .

12 .8.2 Palpable (and ignorant) nonsense. Who's ever had children, or been a child him/herself, knows very well how easily children are able to distinguish reality from fantasy; and how easily they slip from one to the other:

- Does the 7 year old who's just spent an hour shooting Red Indians from behind the garden shed bring them with him when he comes in for tea?

- Does the 9 yr old who dons a MU shirt with No. 7 on its back for a game in the park think he's Eric Cantona?

- Does the 5 yr old who so adores Postman Pat that he has books all about him and posters on his bedroom wall think he's going to deliver the letters at No. 23 Inkerman Terrace, SE?

12.8.3 No doubt children like the fantasy of the McD's ads, and grow fond of the characters:

Hawkes: Ronald

42:57 - Hamburglar

Green: - The McNuggets

43:278 - Grimace. etc.

But this is very far from saying that they don't know that it's fantasy or that the characters are just characters.

12.8.4 If it were otherwise, the consequences for McD's would be very bad indeed.

If the children arrived at McD's expecting to find real, live talking McNuggets and Ronald doing magic tricks, and were disappointed (which, inevitably, they would be), then both parents and children would surely take it out on McD's

first, and most obviously, by staying away

- Parents are very alive to their children's disappointments, which can be very keen.

- second, by complaining, in vast numbers: a lot of people see the ads. and a lot of people go to McDs.

But neither of these phenomena occurs.

Families still flock to McD's, and Mr Green's 'complaints' file is virtually empty.

Green:

46:70

12.8.5 All that the advertising actually does is to engender in children a 'good feeling' about McD's, so that when the choice for the family is 'Where?', the answer may be McD's rather than BK or KFC or PH etc*.

* See, eg, P X/149, 1st 2 pares.

13. The general purpose (and desired effect) of

McD's advertising

13.1 True, no doubt, in an ideal world, McD's

shareholders would like everyone to eat at

McD's all the time.

13.2 Hawkes and Green {passim) live in the real

world, however. They recognise that it is the

QSR user who matters, and within that

sector, the hamburgereater and the heavy

user.

Green 43:22 13.3 The competition is keen: '

(1) In the UK, which is, perhaps, a more diverse 'market than the US, fish and chips and Chinese TA/deliveries between them have c. 57% of the QSR market:

Y V/3

AFI, p6

Burger houses have 16%, of which McD's have c.70% = only about 11% of QSR.

AFI/7

(2) In the US, fish and chips isn't a significant factor, and although burgers have 33% of the QSR market, McD's only have 40% of that ( 13% of QSR).

Green: 43:20

(3) In both countries, QSR = 50% of eating out .

AFI/5

Green: 43:20

13.4 So if McD's are going to hold their place in

this competitive environment, never mind

increase their share, they must do everything

they can to ensure that they don't lose their

existing customers to their competitors.

13.5 The most effective weapon in the battle for

customers is, as Hawkes and Green have

explained, the quality of the product (food,

service, ambience, value for money, etc. ) .

But advertising is a necessary adjunct to

that: in essence, if you don't keep reminding

people that you exist, they will soon forget

that you do and go elsewhere.

eg: Green: 43:22

13.6 This being so, and resources being finite

(even for McD's), the advertisers and

marketing people have got to judge where

best to put their money.

13.7 It follows (and it doesn't need a marketing

man to explainwhat is obvious common sense)

that McD's are not going to spend a lot of

money and effort trying to persuade people

who are intending to spend 2 or 3 hours

having dinner at La Laguna in Brentwood

High Street on a Friday evening to come to

McD's instead!

13.8 Quite obviously, what you have to aim at is

the sector which, at different times and for

different reasons, wants fast food:

· people in a hurry;

- people with small children;

people who don't want to spend very much

and so on.

13.9 If you focus on that sector, which is your

obvious market, then it follows that your

competitors are not La Laguna (or the

Savoy), but the outlets which your potential,

and existing, customers might otherwise be

tempted to patronise:

BK, PH, KFC, Wendy's etc.

13.10 And this applies just as much to the heavy

users of fast food as it does to the

population at large: you want the heavy

users to use your restaurants more

frequently, at the expense of your

competitors.

13.11 The conclusion that matters in all of this is:

(1) If McD's advertising is successful in attracting people away from BK, PH etc even from fish and chips,

or even just in ensuring that their existing customers don't migrate to their competitors;

(2) And if one assumes that people's diets are relatively stable or constant at certain periods in their lives. *

*Naismith: 253:16 And Nutrition, Part 2, generally.

Then (3) The success of the advertising is, by and large, having little or no effect (for good or ill) on the diets of their customers.

13.12 This is probably even true for the 'new'

childcustomers who enter the market as they

grow old enough to eat the food: if their

parents didn't bring them to McD's as occasion

demanded, then they'd no doubt take them to

some similar place elsewhere.

13.13 This shows why Prof. Crawford's 'contribution'

thesis (which, on his own figures, was

anyway overstated) is sterile: if the

customer wasn't getting his 1/32* (or 1/16+)

SF contribution from McD's, he'd be getting it

elsewhere.

* at 1 x pw + at 2 x pw

ADVERTISING

1. W/Co

(1) XHeadings:

(1) "McDollars" "McGreedy"

"McProfits" "McRipoff"

But also (2) "McCancer" "McDisease" "McDeadly"

(2) Main heading (p.4 leaflet):

"How do McDonald's deliberately exploit children?"

(3) Subheading:

"The normality trap"

(4) Text: key words:

"aimed at" 1st col

"hide" 2nd col

"seduce" "

"poisonous" "

2. This is all about adverting to children. Forget advertising to adults (except in relation to nutrition: more later).

3. Pleaded meanings: Ream S/C

J and K on p.16

- but NB context, too.

- so M for degree of risk in K.

- And J's mng. on nutrition for the overall risk to health of children.

These are defamatory allegations of fact about both Plaintiffs.

(1) They state the effect (alleged) of the advertising on children ('seduced', 'trapped') etc; and

(2) They state the Pffs intentions

(alleged) in making the advertisements and aiming them at children ('deliberately exploit', 'seduce', 'trap') .

Those are both assertions of fact. So too is

(3) The allegation that the Pffs 'hide' (with gimmicks etc) the fact that the food could poison the children: you can't hide what you don't know.

See FP.

pare 4.

Therefore, 3 allegations:

(i) the food may well poison the children; hide

(ii) the Pffs know it; but

(iii) hide it.

5. Immediate concession

Since small children don't normally have the resources to get to McD's on their own, advertising by McD's to small children must be intended, directly or indirectly, to influence their parents' decision whether and, if so, how often to take them to McD's.

Whether this matters is another question entirely (as to which, see later).

6. The following qq. arise:

(1) Do McD's aim any significant part of their advertising at children?

(2) If so, how much?

- this is a subsidiary q., but since the w/co say "nearly all", I shall have to deal with it (briefly).

(3) Does this matter? So

(4) Is the advertising itself in any way deceptive, dishonest or unfairly manipulative?

is it, as advertising directed at children, objectionable in itself?

(5) Whatever its quality as advertising, is the food which is eaten by the children as a result dangerous to their health, long or shortterm,

(i) because it is v. unhealthy; and/or

(ii) because it is likely to give them food poisoning?

7. Answers to those qq:

(1) Yes.

(2) About 4/7ths (TV exposure) or 3/8ths (all broadcasting).

In cost, 1020%.

Not "nearly all", whichever way you look at it.

(3) No.

(4) No.

(5) No and No. See Nutrition and Food Poisoning, ante.

8. So the only qq. which need to be examined in this section are:

(2) How much to children?

(4) The quality of the advertising.

9. The other q. not included above, but which has some bearing on nutrition, is

What is the general purpose and effect of McD's advertising? (Beyond getting people to eat their food!).

10. How much of McD's advertising is aimed at

children?

10.1 Depends on whether you look at this in terms

of cost or exposure (though, of course, the

two are related).

10.2 Cost: adults/children split:

(1) UK: 19902 < 15%

19889 c.22%

1987 27%

1986 32%

Figures from

Y VI/I/'A'

Confirmed by

Hawkes: 41:278

(2) Main reason for higher cost in UK 19869: less need to concentrate on children as awareness of McD's amongst families has increased.

Hawkes: 41:28:1218.

(3) US: c.10% (198992).

Y XII/10

(agreed by Ds).

10.3 Exposure

(1) Children's advertising time is cheaper. Therefore you get more exposure for your money. Therefore cost (in £s or $s) is not the best guide.

(2) Actual cost depends on Gross Rating Points (GRPs) .

Green: (3) These are worked out as follows:

(a) In essence, you pay for the number of people who are going to watch the ad. More people, higher cost.

43:46

45:66

(b) This is worked out (at considerable expense!) by the market research people the 'ratings services'

46:5

c) In general, for TV, the average adult will watch an ad. about 5 times a week (or 270 x pa). The average child will watch it e. 3 x Her week (or 140 x pa). So the ratio adults: children is about 7:4.

46:23

(d) For all broadcasting (no radio ads. directed at children), the ratio is about 8:3.

45:69

(e) Therefore adult time costs more(!).

(f) There are some refinements

(which don't matter very much):

(i) You select your target

say, adults 1849 or children 211 (hoping to catch the 12/13s) .

Green:

(e. g)

46: 6670

(ii) You know others 1417s or 50+s may see the ad., but the calculation doesn't include them.

(iii) You then judge by ref. to market research how many of the chosen class are going to be watching the ad. at a particular time of day or during a particular programme.

(iv) The greater the number in the chosen class at the chosen time, the higher the GRPs and the greater the cost.

(v) More ads are aimed at adults than at children (because it is known that their exposure is greater) .

(vi) Most of these (60%) feature adults only.

(vii) The majority of them are shown in prime time (bigger audience/exposure ) .

(viii) Teenagers are not specifically targeted

(a) because they are known to be 'promiscuous' (why waste money?); and

(b) because they're apt not to fit into the family ambience of McD's restaurants (doesn't stop them going! ) .

(g) When Mr. Hawkes came back for his second visit, * he was crossexamined at length (by HS)* on some docs in P VII/12. For reasons best known to themselves, the Ds have not agreed that these documents should be admitted in evidence. Since they don't prove themselves, they must be ignored, together with the XX.

* 8.11.94 *48: 1617

11. Is the adverting, as advertising directed at

children, objectionable in itself?

11.1 In answering this q., two further qq. must be

answered:

(1) Is advertising to children intrinsically objectionable, in all circumstances?

(2) Is the quality and effect of McD's advertising objectionable?

11.2 It might be thought a sufficient ans. to the

first q. simply to say that most countries in

the world don't appear to think so. Most of

them regulate children's advertising, but few

of them prohibit it.

Q(1)

11.2.1 But that's not necessarily a complete answer, because the regulatory authorities and the Govts. which stand behind them (the ITC, eg, is a creature of statute) cannot replace the tribunal of fact in a court.

11.2.2 The tribunal here is a judge. But for (nearly) the first time in the case, the time has come for him to enter what is, in truth, pure jury territory.

11.2.3 The answer to the q. could only be,

"Yes, in all circumstances"

if one took the view that children especially small children were unable to distinguish fact from fiction, reality from fantasy.

11.2.4 And one would then have to add the view that, somehow or another, that inability had the consequence that the children were buying or getting their parents to buy more of the advertised product than they otherwise would.

11.2.5 Both of these propositions are a nonsense. There has been some research into children's ability to distinguish ads. from programmes on TV, let alone reality from fantasy*: even very young children (4 yr olds) seem to have that ability.

See, eg, XX of

S. Dibb

:55:6569

:65:4950

* (If the whole

of here XX is read, it

can be seen that she,

like Dr. Barnard, gave

a very misbalanced account

of the relevant material.)

11.2.6 But that shouldn't surprise anyone who has had children of their own or, indeed, who can remember their own childhood.

(more later, in relation to McD's ads.).

11.2.7 Nor should it surprise anyone with experience

of bringing up children that children will nag

their parents for particular things be they

toys, food, outings or football shirts. After

all, as (tritely) observed earlier, most young

children don't have the resources to obtain

these things for themselves.

Miles: 47:8

(more later, in relation to McD's ads

12. How McD's advertising to children works.

Hawkes & 12.1 In essence, the idea is to keep children's

Green: perceptions of McD's both alive and friendly,

passim with the result that the family is more

likely to go to McD's than BK, KFC, PH, etc.

See, eg:

Green: 43:245

12.2 Although, in relation to children, you might expect to attract some firsttimers by your advertising, its dominant purpose is to keep McD's "top of mind".

Hawkes:

41:6

48:16

(eg)

12.3 This only works or works well enough to

justify all the money spent on the advertising if the experience which the children, and

their parents, have when they get to

McD's is pleasurable indeed, sufficiently

pleasurable to make them want to go back

there.

This is the dominant factor.

"Pesterpower"* obviously has a role in this. But it won't work if either the children or the parents, or both, have not enjoyed their previous experience of McD's or, at least, it works not more than once!

eg: Hawkes: 41:6 and 8 41:14

Green: 46: 701

Green: 43: 26

* 'Markerese' 12 .4 for children trying to persuade their parents to indulge their wishes: an everyday incident of family life. Leapt on by the 'antis', of course, as something sinister.

12.5 That can only happen if 5 conditions are

fulfilled:

(1) The customers parents and children enjoy the food (to some extent, at least!).

(2) The children (continue to) think that McD's is a "fun place".

eg: Hawkes: 41:27

(3) The parents realise that the children

think that it is a nice place to be:

- lunch in a restaurant where your 4 and 6 yr old children are bored

and fractious. . . ! ?

Green: 43:52 (4) The parents think they are getting value

for money (the children don't have a

view!) .

Hawkes: 42:56 (5) Neither parents nor children think they

have been 'conned' by the advertising: if

they do, it is sure they won't be back.

The reality must live up to the promise.

12.6 The practical consequences

Hawkes: 42:29; (1) This really doesn't need evidence

49:50 the 'jury' knows it all any way.

(2) Just the same, 3 little scenarios from real life:

(i) The family is out shopping. Saturday lunchtime.

Children: "Can we go to McD's?"

Mum (who would rather have a pizza):

"What about PH?"

Children: "Oh, Mum...."

Mum: "Oh, all right."

(ii) Father and son (9) have been to a football match. Wednesday evening, 8.45.

Son: "Dad, can we go to McD's?"

Dad (who would rather go home/to the pub):

"It's awfully late.."

Son: "But I'm hungry; please, Dad..."

"Oh, okay."

(iii) Daughter (7): birthday imminent

Daughter: "Can I have a party?"

Mum: "Why not?"

Daughter: "Here?"

Mum: (who will be working until 4 p.m.

on the day):

"Well, I suppose... what about McD's?"

Daughter: "Great! " .

12.7 If those little vignettes are something like

reality, and if, in consequence, McD's can

feel that the money they're spending on

children's advertising is well spent, how can

it be said that the advertising is

objectionable* ?

*ie, deceptive, unfairly manipulative.

Because if it were, and both parents and children found that the reality did not match the promise, then the process wouldn't work at all: people would come once, perhaps, and never return.

12.8 And each of those 3 'real life' cameos could,

of course, be rewritten to produce a negative

response from parent, or child:

(i) Mum: "No. I want a pizza, and for once in your lives, you'll do as I want, not as you want".

(ii) Dad: "No, I'm sorry. It's nearly 9 o'clock and you've got school tomorrow. Your mum will give you something when we get home."

(iii) Child: "But we went there (McD's) only last week. And we could have it in the garden. "

Mum (sighing): "All right, dear. But I'm going to have to buy a cake. I won't have time to make one."

12.9

There is a serious point here; which the

'anti' brigade . (se. Dibb and allies) seem to overlook:

For young children 210? the parents are the restraint upon the child's desires. They are the buffer between the effect of the advertising on the child and its translation into till transactions. Sometimes "Yes", sometimes "No'' .

12.10 What, then, does the advertising lead the

children to expect?

12.10.1 If such as Ms Dibb are to be believed, children are so gullible that they will arrive at McD's expecting to find

real, live talking McNuggets!

talking dogs!?

-Ronald waving his hands so as to make sparkling Golden Ms appear! ?

- hamburgers growing in the back garden! ? etc .

12 .8.2 Palpable (and ignorant) nonsense. Who's ever had children, or been a child him/herself, knows very well how easily children are able to distinguish reality from fantasy; and how easily they slip from one to the other:

- Does the 7 year old who's just spent an hour shooting Red Indians from behind the garden shed bring them with him when he comes in for tea?

- Does the 9 yr old who dons a MU shirt with No. 7 on its back for a game in the park think he's Eric Cantona?

- Does the 5 yr old who so adores Postman Pat that he has books all about him and posters on his bedroom wall think he's going to deliver the letters at No. 23 Inkerman Terrace, SE?

12.8.3 No doubt children like the fantasy of the McD's ads, and grow fond of the characters:

Hawkes: Ronald

42:57 - Hamburglar

Green: - The McNuggets

43:278 - Grimace. etc.

But this is very far from saying that they don't know that it's fantasy or that the characters are just characters.

12.8.4 If it were otherwise, the consequences for McD's would be very bad indeed.

If the children arrived at McD's expecting to find real, live talking McNuggets and Ronald doing magic tricks, and were disappointed (which, inevitably, they would be), then both parents and children would surely take it out on McD's

first, and most obviously, by staying away

- Parents are very alive to their children's disappointments, which can be very keen.

- second, by complaining, in vast numbers: a lot of people see the ads. and a lot of people go to McDs.

But neither of these phenomena occurs.

Families still flock to McD's, and Mr Green's 'complaints' file is virtually empty.

Green:

46:70

12.8.5 All that the advertising actually does is to engender in children a 'good feeling' about McD's, so that when the choice for the family is 'Where?', the answer may be McD's rather than BK or KFC or PH etc*.

* See, eg, P X/149, 1st 2 pares.

13. The general purpose (and desired effect) of

McD's advertising

13.1 True, no doubt, in an ideal world, McD's

shareholders would like everyone to eat at

McD's all the time.

13.2 Hawkes and Green {passim) live in the real

world, however. They recognise that it is the

QSR user who matters, and within that

sector, the hamburgereater and the heavy

user.

Green 43:22 13.3 The competition is keen: '

(1) In the UK, which is, perhaps, a more diverse 'market than the US, fish and chips and Chinese TA/deliveries between them have c. 57% of the QSR market:

Y V/3

AFI, p6

Burger houses have 16%, of which McD's have c.70% = only about 11% of QSR.

AFI/7

(2) In the US, fish and chips isn't a significant factor, and although burgers have 33% of the QSR market, McD's only have 40% of that ( 13% of QSR).

Green: 43:20

(3) In both countries, QSR = 50% of eating out .

AFI/5

Green: 43:20

13.4 So if McD's are going to hold their place in

this competitive environment, never mind

increase their share, they must do everything

they can to ensure that they don't lose their

existing customers to their competitors.

13.5 The most effective weapon in the battle for

customers is, as Hawkes and Green have

explained, the quality of the product (food,

service, ambience, value for money, etc. ) .

But advertising is a necessary adjunct to

that: in essence, if you don't keep reminding

people that you exist, they will soon forget

that you do and go elsewhere.

eg: Green: 43:22

13.6 This being so, and resources being finite

(even for McD's), the advertisers and

marketing people have got to judge where

best to put their money.

13.7 It follows (and it doesn't need a marketing

man to explainwhat is obvious common sense)

that McD's are not going to spend a lot of

money and effort trying to persuade people

who are intending to spend 2 or 3 hours

having dinner at La Laguna in Brentwood

High Street on a Friday evening to come to

McD's instead!

13.8 Quite obviously, what you have to aim at is

the sector which, at different times and for

different reasons, wants fast food:

· people in a hurry;

- people with small children;

people who don't want to spend very much

and so on.

13.9 If you focus on that sector, which is your

obvious market, then it follows that your

competitors are not La Laguna (or the

Savoy), but the outlets which your potential,

and existing, customers might otherwise be

tempted to patronise:

BK, PH, KFC, Wendy's etc.

13.10 And this applies just as much to the heavy

users of fast food as it does to the

population at large: you want the heavy

users to use your restaurants more

frequently, at the expense of your

competitors.

13.11 The conclusion that matters in all of this is:

(1) If McD's advertising is successful in attracting people away from BK, PH etc even from fish and chips,

or even just in ensuring that their existing customers don't migrate to their competitors;

(2) And if one assumes that people's diets are relatively stable or constant at certain periods in their lives. *

*Naismith: 253:16 And Nutrition, Part 2, generally.

Then (3) The success of the advertising is, by and large, having little or no effect (for good or ill) on the diets of their customers.

13.12 This is probably even true for the 'new'

childcustomers who enter the market as they

grow old enough to eat the food: if their

parents didn't bring them to McD's as occasion

demanded, then they'd no doubt take them to

some similar place elsewhere.

13.13 This shows why Prof. Crawford's 'contribution'

thesis (which, on his own figures, was

anyway overstated) is sterile: if the

customer wasn't getting his 1/32* (or 1/16+)

SF contribution from McD's, he'd be getting it

elsewhere.

* at 1 x pw + at 2 x pw

[Vol 2: Food Poisoning] [Back to Index] [prev Vol] [next Vol]