Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Your McD's Burger Doesn't Look Like the One in the Ad

adage.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 195 posts

Re: Why Your McD's Burger Doesn't Look Like the One in the Ad

#71

Post by ryanwhitney »

nailer wrote: post #68
ryanwhitney wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claim they responded transparently and without sugar coating anything. So what was the answer to the original question? Why does the ad burger patty appear thicker and larger? Edit: So many answers talking about how they might make a quarter pound patty look larger. Anyone can do that. I was addressing the fact that the video in no way covers why they look larger in advertisements. Sidestepping the important ques…

It's shown diagonally. Watch the video, the presenter mentions this.

The question they were asked was "why?" not "how?"

Re: Why Your McD's Burger Doesn't Look Like the One in the Ad

#72

Post by iharris »

xenophanes wrote: post #39
ryanwhitney wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claim they responded transparently and without sugar coating anything. So what was the answer to the original question? Why does the ad burger patty appear thicker and larger? Edit: So many answers talking about how they might make a quarter pound patty look larger. Anyone can do that. I was addressing the fact that the video in no way covers why they look larger in advertisements. Sidestepping the important ques…

From the video: 1) they stack up all pickles/onions/etc in the front for ads. 2) the real burger goes in a box and the steam makes the bun shrink a little Also, they didn't say it but they showed it: The burger is cooked differently for the ad. I got the impression they were just grilling it to make it look good but with minimal cooking (I wonder if it's even safe to eat the ad one). If you've ever cooked a burger, y…

Yeah, there was a kids' documentary made about fast-food photography a few years back. Basically they will just use a skillet to surface cook (brown) the outside of the patty to avoid the shrinkage that occurs when you grill a burger (lots of water and fat drip out and evaporate). This sort of answers the parent's question too. It's definitely not safe to eat.

IIRC, in the Burger King ads they heat thin metal strips and use them to sear lines into the patty, giving the "flame-grilled" illusion without having to cook and shrink the patty.

Re: Why Your McD's Burger Doesn't Look Like the One in the Ad

#73

Post by pilate »

ryanwhitney wrote: post #51
jpxxx wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

McDonald's grills press the meat patties in real-world production. It drives out fluids and the finished product appears smaller than one cooked by different methods.

"We cooked this using a completely different process to make a more appealing image to sell you." Again a good explanation, but it doesn't make it any less of a lie to show a larger patty.

It could very well be the same size patty, just nearly uncooked.

Re: Why Your McD's Burger Doesn't Look Like the One in the Ad

#74

Post by iharris »

iharris wrote: post #72
xenophanes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the video: 1) they stack up all pickles/onions/etc in the front for ads. 2) the real burger goes in a box and the steam makes the bun shrink a little Also, they didn't say it but they showed it: The burger is cooked differently for the ad. I got the impression they were just grilling it to make it look good but with minimal cooking (I wonder if it's even safe to eat the ad one). If you've ever cooked a burger, y…

Yeah, there was a kids' documentary made about fast-food photography a few years back. Basically they will just use a skillet to surface cook (brown) the outside of the patty to avoid the shrinkage that occurs when you grill a burger (lots of water and fat drip out and evaporate). This sort of answers the parent's question too. It's definitely not safe to eat. IIRC, in the Burger King ads they heat thin metal strips…

Actually, here's the children's documentary I mentioned. They also use a couple other sneaky tricks to make the product appear larger without image manipulation software.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUjz_eiIX8k

Re: Why Your McD's Burger Doesn't Look Like the One in the Ad

#75

Post by rprasad »

tptacek wrote: post #17
gilrain wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From here ( http://insite.artinstitutes.edu/food-stylists-blend-technica... ): "The food stylist’s magic tricks face regulation from the Federal Trade Commission and its truth in advertising laws. That Crisco-powdered sugar mix can substitute for ice cream if it’s representing a generic dessert on a menu, Allaben says, but not if it’s hawking a brand name like Ben & Jerry’s." And here ( http://www.cskern.com/blog/ent…

Not to be argumentative, let's stipulate that those two blog posts are true in spirit, but can anyone find the actual law or FTC policy statement that says "generic ice cream can be styled out of Crisco but Ben & Jerry's has to be real"? Also: McDonalds Canada specifically said, in this video, that they were not embellishing the incidentals; it was exactly the same buns, exactly the same pickles, just arranged differ…

See In re Campbell Soup Co., 77 F.T.C. 664 (1970), which sets forth the basic rules.

There are print copies available, but the case generally precedes the digitized archives available with subscriptions to legal research archives (i.e., Lexis/Westlaw). You are free to pay for access to the appropriate database if you actually need to read the case digitally.

Re: Why Your McD's Burger Doesn't Look Like the One in the Ad

#76

Post by rprasad »

For all of you wanting the source of the FTC rules, see In re Campbell Soup Co., 77 F.T.C. 664 (1970), which sets forth the basic rules for advertising foods.

There are print copies available, but the case generally precedes the digitized archives available freely or with subscriptions to legal research archives (i.e., Lexis/Westlaw). You can pay for individual case access if you actually need to read the case digitally. It is not cheap.

Re: Why Your McD's Burger Doesn't Look Like the One in the Ad

#77

Post by xutopia »

eykanal wrote: post #21

I'll disagree slightly with tptacek... this is a genius piece of marketing by McDonalds. It does everything that we routinely see listed on this very site as Best Practices™: - Respond to customer feedback in a friendly and highly transparent manner. - Don't sugarcoat things that "everyone knows but no one admits"; they could have avoided showing the graphic artist photoshopping the burger, but everyone knows that th…

I couldn't agree more. This is the first time I saw a company have some guts.

Re: Why Your McD's Burger Doesn't Look Like the One in the Ad

#78

Post by keypusher »

ryanwhitney wrote: post #26
eykanal wrote: post #21

I'll disagree slightly with tptacek... this is a genius piece of marketing by McDonalds. It does everything that we routinely see listed on this very site as Best Practices™: - Respond to customer feedback in a friendly and highly transparent manner. - Don't sugarcoat things that "everyone knows but no one admits"; they could have avoided showing the graphic artist photoshopping the burger, but everyone knows that th…

You claim they responded transparently and without sugar coating anything. So what was the answer to the original question? Why does the ad burger patty appear thicker and larger? Edit: So many answers talking about how they might make a quarter pound patty look larger. Anyone can do that. I was addressing the fact that the video in no way covers why they look larger in advertisements. Sidestepping the important ques…

Their answer is because the box used to keep the burger warm generates steam which reduces the size of the bun.

Re: Why Your McD's Burger Doesn't Look Like the One in the Ad

#79

Post by ryanwhitney »

pilate wrote: post #73
ryanwhitney wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We cooked this using a completely different process to make a more appealing image to sell you." Again a good explanation, but it doesn't make it any less of a lie to show a larger patty.

It could very well be the same size patty, just nearly uncooked.

Oops—my response was unclear. I should have said "seemingly-larger" patty. My complaint is that they're cooked completely differently, leading to a final image where the patty appears larger than anything you would get from a McDonalds.

Re: Why Your McD's Burger Doesn't Look Like the One in the Ad

#80

Post by rprasad »

tptacek wrote: post #25
gilrain wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer, or even an armchair lawyer, so I don't know where to look to find the applicable laws. However, there are plenty of cites from industry people saying the same thing. I assume they have to be familiar with the law that regulates what they do. And the bun, pickles etc would have to be real by law, is what I'm saying. They're part of a single McD's product being sold by the photo.

The subtext I'm communicating is, "if I was in the food marketing industry, I sure would want to communicate to the world that I was legally obligated to adhere to some strict code of conduct". It's a credibility booster. So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place that says McDonalds must-absolutely-must use real pickles or exactly the re…

In re Campbell Soup Co., 77 F.T.C. 664 (1970).

It took all of 2 minutes to find the case. You have to know where to look.

The case is not available digitally for free or as part of subscriptions to legal research databases to Lexis, Westlaw, etc. It is available digitally if you are willing to pay for individual access to the case; price varies depending on the LRD used.

Note that the FTC has not ever actually issued formal regulations on this topic. This is largely for administrative reasons: if the FTC published formal rules, it would be bound to those rules; with informal rules, it is better able to address ads which are deceptive but otherwise satisfy the letter of the law. (This flexibility is a good thing, otherwise the rules on food advertising alone could fill a small room.)

Post reply on HN