"So, the question of whether or not McDonald's can handle the truth instead becomes what they will do with that truth."

And that is the point. When we receive feedback, do we listen and then politely put it on a shelf. Or do we listen and then think about it and then recognize the good feedback and use it to make us better.

Way to tie it up at the end. Great job Andrea.

"(As an aside - it might also be a good public relations move for McDonald's to share how they went about selecting the six "Moms' Quality Correspondents" out of that field of 4,000...)"

Thanks, Andrea. I'm amazed 4,000 would apply (as the article states these were applicants - wow!). But just how rigorous was the screening process...besides being a mom and visiting mcD's X number of times monthly, what else does one need to qualify? Interested is all.

While this is for feedback, not to make the McMomma's bloggers, I wonder why McD's isn't diving in and lettting them live blog (especially after that qualifying process). It just comes across as too controlling. I'm sure they'll post some negative feedback (otherwise they'd be blasted) but it makes you wonder just how much. And while these McMomma's are allowed to blog elsewhere, if they did have negative feedback would they feel comfortable...after being one of the lucky 6...to post on it? Just not sure if the rule of reciprocity plays a part here.

I wrote a piece on McD's but focused more on their 'healthy' branding as of late: http://www.ck-blog.com/cks_blog/2007/06/whats_so_great_.html

I'd love to know what the applicants and official "6" think of the healthy branding, as well, CK. And, yes - Lewis.. I need to try to remember to check back into this in 3-6 months (marking my calendar now), so I can get a look at what the six moms are saying and if McD's is still posting it all. These sorts of things tend to fade into the sunset, don't they...

McDonald's earlier forays into blogging have been pretty big failures.

Their corporate social responsibility blog, Open for Discussion, http://csr.blogs.mcdonalds.com/ was initially not open for discussion because it didn't allow comments, positive or negative. Now it takes comments but few of its bland, PR-like posts attract more than one or two.

And remember the McDonald's Fake French Fry Blog http://tinyurl.com/2x44w8, which now leads to a soft-porn site http://lincolnfry.typepad.com/blog/. Hello McDonald's - don't let your URLs expire because that's what always happens to them when you do.

So hopefully they've learned that bloggers, and, of course, any McD customers who check out the blog will see through fakery very quickly.

BL: It's actually not a blog, FYI. From the article:

From USA Today: "The women will be journaling — not blogging — says Starmann, meaning consumer responses to their comments will not be posted on the site. But the six mothers are free to respond to consumers or to post comments on other blogs, she says. They also will appear in videos at www.mcdonaldsmom.com."

Interesting too, are the moms dieticians? They cannot really speak to "health" just "fresh and clean". Smart move, McD's. Be an even smarter one is not to engage in the health discussion since fat is their core competency (just provide salad options and clearly state fat content...the rest is up to parents). Hold the discussions on what you do for communities (sponsor little leagues, build playgrounds) and your charity (they were actually a trailblazer here).

Oh, and please don't hold "transparent" efforts only to not launch a blog ;-(.

I'll be interested in what McDs does with the information as well. I have a hard time seeing how it will "get out the word" about McDonalds...unless the women journal (and post on others' blogs) a lot. Do they have an incentive for doing so? What is their stake in all of this?

Per Cam's good question of: "I'll be interested in what McDs does with the information as well. I have a hard time seeing how it will "get out the word" about McDonalds...unless the women journal (and post on others' blogs) a lot. Do they have an incentive for doing so? What is their stake in all of this?"

Cam, I would think these are women who see this as an opportunity to maybe make a difference--or maybe they like the spotlight. Could be myriad reasons and maybe they'll explain in the videos.

I just hope that they make it VERY clear that these women--unless they're dieticians--can't speak to how "healthy" McD's is or not (or then they'll do damage, I fear). They can speak to how the food is prepared and how clean the environment is...which leads to ask how 'controlled' this study is. Not knocking McD's, just asking some objective questions and raising the concern over women talking health of the food items, ya know?

Well, what it seems McD's is doing with the information is holding it close to its chest.
I think we all think this transparent attempt is not so transparent and a little cynical. But lets no forget who this is really targeted at. Moms. Moms who take there children to McD's. Not traditionally the most cynical of customers. And like you pointed out, Andrea, Women are still surprised and delighted to be asked for their input.

Andrea - Thanks for your perspective on our McMoms test. As a Consumer Insight Manager for McDonald's, I am constantly interested in learning how we create trust in the minds of the consumer. While certainly not perfect, I think the McMoms project is a step in the right direction. Many moms (and other consumers) think that we use fillers for our beef, that our eggs are fake and in general that our food is not "real". The facts are that McDonald's serves 100% pure beef, Grade A eggs, fruit, vegetables and milk from many of the same trusted brands consumers purchase at the grocery store - Dannon, Kraft, Nestle, Tyson, Dasani, Newsman's Own and many others. McDonald's has an unrivaled, global track record on food quality and safety that extends from the farm to our front counters. Hopefully these McMoms and other moms from around the world will see that we care about our customers and the communities where we work and live.

Thanks for participating, Todd, and yes - the McMoms effort is certainly a step in the right direction. Marketers and marketing writers can be cynical, of course, but I know, from studying women as consumers for all these years: they appreciate being asked and can be astounded/delighted to see even a little progress or evidence that a brand is taking their input into consideration. McDonalds is indeed taking a risk in hosting such a "conversation" - hopefully, it will inspire a lot more discussion among unofficial McMom moms (say that three times fast) for even richer insight.

I agree, thanks for stopping by Todd. It's a very good sign that McDonalds is listening, and that act alone helps build that trust with your customers.