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

Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 137 posts

Re: Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For

#121

Post by leto »

fastball wrote: post #90
jodrellblank wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What definition? Why not? Unkindness and cruelty still exist if they are built into systems, don't they?

Well, we seem to be talking about kindness in regards to how it makes you feel. Kindness does not work if it is forced. You can force people to do "kind" things, but that won't make them happy. Likewise, when we have unkindness built into systems, it doesn't necessarily make people feel bad, because they're being forced to do it (or at least, not as bad).

Yes. I think the key here is that it probably makes us happier to see two choices and choose the kinder, rather than simply living in a kindness-enforced society. At least for me, I derive a lot of happiness simply from my sense of agency, and choosing to be an agent of good will is powerful.

Re: Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For

#122

Post by pjbrunet »

npc wrote: post #108
protomyth wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the leanings of the NYT, I cannot imagine a feel good article about Chick-Fil-A will ever appear in their pages because of money. They have refused advertising several times because it doesn't jive with their editorial policy. [edit] also see Natsu's comment for an additional thought against it being an ad for Chick-Fil-A.

You can't believe it would happen for money, but you'd believe it'd happen for free? Anyway, PR is far more complex and subtle than "I give money, you write article". Someone posted a pg essay below that might be instructive. As to why I think this might (I make no claims to certainty) be a PR-influenced article: 1. Chick-fil-a is mentioned in the first paragraph, no other restaraunt is mentioned until the fourth. 2.…

You so desperately want this to be a nefarious PR job.

Why was Chick-fil-a mentioned first? (Puts on Sherlock Holmes cap.)

1. Maybe the writer was fishing for pageviews?

2. Maybe the writer wanted an eye-catching lead? Aggregators pick up the first sentence.

3. Is it a coincidence this is trending on a Sunday after millions of Christians just ate Chick-fil-a after church? How many priests/pastors injected this story into the sermon today? How many Christian moms did a "share by email" on this? A ton!

4. Sometimes these stories take months to write. Maybe the writer first discovered the phenomena via a Chick-fil-a related conversation.

5. A good article must have quotes. It's possible the Chick-fil-a quote came first which got the always-difficult first paragraph rolling.

6. Maybe this was an underhanded jab at Chick-fil-a patrons. "See, it's not just chicken-eating Christians that are generous." NYT's political slant is no secret.

7. Maybe the writer just likes the chicken? Is that so far-fetched? LOL.

Those are just as plausible, if not more plausible, in my opinion.

Re: Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For

#123

Post by gdubs »

dictum wrote: post #80
bsenftner wrote: post #45

I suspect a carefully coordinated PR campaign for Chick-fil-A, as I've noticed uncharacteristically, frequent positive references to them in unrelated news items lately. I consume a lot of news, and noticing "fake" planted positive references in tangentially related articles is par for the course for any company that stepped in deep shit like they did. I suspect at least one of these positive comments here to be a pl…

pg wrote about the art of carefully disguised PR campaigns: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

He also mentioned that they were never able to crack the New York Times :)

That was, however, some time ago.

Re: Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For

#124

Post by justhw »

nmcfarl wrote: post #95
_red wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite right. In fact the opposite works - and its known as the Ben Franklin Effect ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Franklin_effect ). The idea is that if I ask a favor of you (to loan me a book, in Ben's case) - you are more likely to become friendly to me in the future. Its a curious extension of what you mentioned above, by asking you for a favor - which you then grant - you gain a sort of psychological 'credit'…

I use this occasionally for social, not professional, purposes and it seems to work quite well. It’s sometimes a bit tricky to think up a favor the right size for the state of your relationship, but still useful enough to be real. Fake favors don’t work (and are frankly just weird).

Can you give me an example of a fake favor?

Re: Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For

#125

Post by patrickg_zill »

pjbrunet wrote: post #122
npc wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't believe it would happen for money, but you'd believe it'd happen for free? Anyway, PR is far more complex and subtle than "I give money, you write article". Someone posted a pg essay below that might be instructive. As to why I think this might (I make no claims to certainty) be a PR-influenced article: 1. Chick-fil-a is mentioned in the first paragraph, no other restaraunt is mentioned until the fourth. 2.…

You so desperately want this to be a nefarious PR job. Why was Chick-fil-a mentioned first? (Puts on Sherlock Holmes cap.) 1. Maybe the writer was fishing for pageviews? 2. Maybe the writer wanted an eye-catching lead? Aggregators pick up the first sentence. 3. Is it a coincidence this is trending on a Sunday after millions of Christians just ate Chick-fil-a after church? How many priests/pastors injected this story…

Chick-fil-a is closed on Sundays. all Sundays. every Sunday.

Re: Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For

#126

Post by stevesearer »

pjbrunet wrote: post #122
npc wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't believe it would happen for money, but you'd believe it'd happen for free? Anyway, PR is far more complex and subtle than "I give money, you write article". Someone posted a pg essay below that might be instructive. As to why I think this might (I make no claims to certainty) be a PR-influenced article: 1. Chick-fil-a is mentioned in the first paragraph, no other restaraunt is mentioned until the fourth. 2.…

You so desperately want this to be a nefarious PR job. Why was Chick-fil-a mentioned first? (Puts on Sherlock Holmes cap.) 1. Maybe the writer was fishing for pageviews? 2. Maybe the writer wanted an eye-catching lead? Aggregators pick up the first sentence. 3. Is it a coincidence this is trending on a Sunday after millions of Christians just ate Chick-fil-a after church? How many priests/pastors injected this story…

Chick-fil-a is actually closed on Sunday :)

Re: Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For

#127

Post by nmcfarl »

justhw wrote: post #124
nmcfarl wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use this occasionally for social, not professional, purposes and it seems to work quite well. It’s sometimes a bit tricky to think up a favor the right size for the state of your relationship, but still useful enough to be real. Fake favors don’t work (and are frankly just weird).

Can you give me an example of a fake favor?

Asking for the loan of book you'd won't be reading.

Things like that read false, and mess things up. It needs to be something that actually helps you out, to give the right social signals.

Re: Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For

#128

Post by dwaltrip »

hxa7241 wrote: post #30

This is quite pointless because it essentially cancels out. To get a cooperative structure you have to give away surplus -- that is, people with more have to give it to people with less. Yes, redistribution ! That seems a dirty idea in a substantial part of USA politics. So 'pay it forward' chains are a peculiar thing: they summon the feeling of cooperation, in an acceptable way, without actually being effectively co…

If everyone's day was brightened, then that seems pretty damn effective to me.

Re: Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For

#129

Post by npc »

pjbrunet wrote: post #122
npc wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't believe it would happen for money, but you'd believe it'd happen for free? Anyway, PR is far more complex and subtle than "I give money, you write article". Someone posted a pg essay below that might be instructive. As to why I think this might (I make no claims to certainty) be a PR-influenced article: 1. Chick-fil-a is mentioned in the first paragraph, no other restaraunt is mentioned until the fourth. 2.…

You so desperately want this to be a nefarious PR job. Why was Chick-fil-a mentioned first? (Puts on Sherlock Holmes cap.) 1. Maybe the writer was fishing for pageviews? 2. Maybe the writer wanted an eye-catching lead? Aggregators pick up the first sentence. 3. Is it a coincidence this is trending on a Sunday after millions of Christians just ate Chick-fil-a after church? How many priests/pastors injected this story…

>You so desperately want this to be a nefarious PR job. And you seem to desperately want me to be some bitter chick-fil-a hater. IF chick-fil-a was involved in the writing of this piece then it's nothing more than what hundreds of other companies do everyday, PR involvement is an integral part of the modern press. I may not like it but I would not call it "nefarious". I'm not commenting because I have a hate-on for chick-fil-a but because there seems to be a lot of wilful ignorance here on just how much the media we consume is manipulated by PR.

On to your points:

1. I don't really see why chick-fil-a would get more pageviews than another restaurant so I'll skip this.

2. Of course the writer wants an effective opening, but the "you're part of a pay-it-forward line" fantasy could have easily been written at a generic restaurant.

3. Other people have said it but chick-fil-a is closed on sundays. Also I don't really get what this has to do with how and why the author wrote the story.

4. I'm pretty sure a fluff piece on people paying for each other's fast food didn't take a month to write. And I think the author probably did discover the phenomenon after a chick-fil-a related conversation, one with a chick-fil-a sponsored PR representative.

5. It's impossible to say assuredly whether any article was PR influenced but that quote seemed awfully convenient.

6. You seem to be very concerned with christianity when no-one else has mentioned it, least of all the article. I would not personally assume that chick-fil-a patrons are particularly christian, it seems strange to me that this is immediately the thing you jump to. Same thing goes with the source's political leanings, I don't consider fast food to be a political matter and I don't think NYT or chick-fil-a do either.

7. Sure, but if that's the case it's interesting that most of the other restaurants mentioned are coffee shops and a bagel cafe (which aren't really chick-fil-a competitiors) rather than popeyes or mary brown's.

so in conclusion:

1. I'm right

2. You seem to weirdly have tied up a fast-food restaurant into some christian right wing identity you hold and it's preventing you from acknowledging the very really possibility of PR manipulation in an NYT fluff piece.

Re: Ma’am, Your Burger Has Been Paid For

#130

Post by pbhjpbhj »

renang wrote: post #54

And what is the point exactly? What good does to pay a meal for a person that could very much be paying their own meal? They can pay hundreds of dollars for a car, tens of dollars for a full tank of gasoline, yet they can't pay for a 4 dollars Big Mac? If I had no money the last place for spending it would be on a fast-food place. There is much more you can do with 4 dollars. You can get better and healthier food. So…

>They can pay hundreds of dollars for a car, tens of dollars for a full tank of gasoline, yet they can't pay for a 4 dollars Big Mac? //

I've been in this situation. We need a car for work and so the outlay on the car and the gas is required if we want to earn money with the car. We can't however afford to eat at McDo' so you wouldn't find us in the line [also I disprove of drive-through].

Post reply on HN