Now, #McDStories serves as a case study for what not to do when promoting a tweet. So, what can you do to avoid ever causing such a hashtag nightmare for your brand?

1.) Be self-aware. Know your brand. “If your brand is controversial, political, has been getting bad press, has fierce competition, etc., promoting your tweet may not be a good idea,” says one of MarketingProfs own marketing and tweeting stars, Corey O’Loughlin.

“Here’s why: Promoting your tweet puts you on EVERYONE’S radar—not just your fans’ who would normally love to hear from you.” And when you are top of mind for all of Twitter, it is far more likely that you’ll attract attention from haters.

“When u make something w/pride, people can taste it,” – McD potato supplier #McDStories mcd.to/zIlXXu

— McDonald’s (@McDonalds) January 18, 2012

2.) Know why you are promoting your tweet. “What’s your desired outcome?” asks O’Loughlin. “What’s your call to action? What’s the promotion linked to? If you don’t know the answers to these questions, don’t tweet.”

3.) Do a test run. Send the tweet as a NON-promoted tweet to see what reaction it gets. If it’s not positive, why promote it?

4.) Support your tweet. One promoted tweet won’t stand on its own. You need to develop a plan for the promoted tweet. Be sure to support the promoted tweet with other tweets. If you’re promoting the world’s best mocha, also tweet about mochas, recipes, etc. Don’t leave the tweet out in the cold by its lonesome.

5.) Know when to pull the plug. If your promoted item is getting out of hand, pull the plug ASAP and start your damage control. (Reminder: Have a damage-control plan for your social media efforts.) “Hoping it will go away is not an effective social media marketing strategy,” says O’Loughlin.

Wondering about your own Twitter reputation? Check out our free guide, “How to be a Twitter Superfly in 12 Simple Steps.”

Recently, more than 550 very credible health institutions and professionals challenged McDonald’s to stop marketing junk food to kids. Initiated by Corporate Accountability International, full-page ads appeared in several dailies across the country urging people and professionals to sign the open letter and share it with peers.

An American interagency government group has developed standards for marketing food to children to help food companies determine which foods should be marketed as a way to encourage a healthful diet and which foods shouldn’t be marketed to children.

Studies do demonstrate that reducing junk-food marketing to kids could help improve millions of children’s health. But, let’s be honest. Who is responsible here? Ronald, parents, educators, or all of the above?

Personally, I’d like nothing better than to see healthier kids in North America. As a former educator, I’ve seen how vulnerable many kids are to marketing in general. But, why are we penalizing one company? Sure, McDonald’s is the largest in its category, and Ronald McDonald is a widely-recognized figure, but if we target one, we must target all marketers of high-sugar cereals with premiums in the boxes, chocolate syrup that contains high fructose corn syrup, candy bars, sugary drinks, etc.

Nutrition and health education programs are direly needed in public schools. Projects and homework assignments can then engage parents, to enlist their support, and help enlighten them as well. After all, eating habits are modeled by parents.

My kids weren’t allowed to eat junk food during their formative years. That included McDonald’s, other fast-food restaurants, and most highly-processed grocery products. They complained, and I held my ground. Parents have huge influence on their children’s eating habits, especially during the first 8 to 10 years.

As a society, it’s very challenging to balance business success with the best interests of our people. When business thrives, people are employed and can support their families. On the other hand, when our families are in ill health, we all pay the price eventually—in the United States with higher health insurance premiums, and in Canada, with higher taxes to cover universal healthcare.

So, what do YOU think? Should Ronald McDonald retire? Should all food marketers be held accountable for the products that contribute to ill health?

[click for larger size]

A Split Audience

I originally posted this on my site on July 7th and have received over 100,000 hits and had to add bandwidth to support the traffic!
The comments I’ve received split into three camps.

• Group 1 – Those that feel this is the coolest artwork.

• Group 2 – Those that are going to boycott Burger King because they don’t want their children exposed to the inappropriate material. (Most people missed the fact that this is a European campaign and wouldn’t be seen in U.S. locations).
• Group 3 – Those that are slamming Group 2 for being so narrow minded. That they should be boycotting Burger King because of their junk food versus cartoon images.

There are a few of you marketers who have commented on my original question… is this tactic appropriate for brand Burger King?
The artwork is part of a series called Veg City supported with an on-line virtual city. In addition to the Airport tray liner other executions include: (click titles to go to view larger images)

Red Light District

Sniper

and two seasonal versions:
New Year’s Eve

Halloween

If you guessed Chinese or Japanese restaurant – sorry! Thank you for playing.
Nope, believe it or not, I’m in McDonald’s in Hacienda Heights, California; just one of several restaurants in the chain who are rethinking brick and mortar experience and putting the Chinese art of Feng Shui in practice. You can read about this here.
I understand they’ve even adjusted door placement to block out evil spirits! I wonder what magic they can do to block the artery clogging fat and cholesterol found in their food? Sadly, until that happens, even comfy leather seating, outlets and wireless cannot draw me in.
Nevertheless, this is interesting reinvention. In the day of third-place behavior, it will be interesting to see how approaches like this drive customer affinity (and revenue) in the future.

What do you think about the idea? If you could re-architect your local Micky D’s – what would you do, and why?
I think my version would be “Whole Donald’s” – a Whole Foods version of McDonald’s, complete with healthy food served in green packaging, recycled bamboo flooring, leather seating, natural light, sounds of nature and light acoustic music…maybe some real plants and trees. Top it off with cubby like seating areas (womb rooms) for working and free wireless and I’M LOVIN’ IT!

In anticipation of the backlash, McDonald’s promised to reduce the amount of money it spends on advertising to kids, and this MSNBC article says, “The study will likely stir more debate over the movement to restrict ads to kids.” [emphasis mine].
First of all, that extraneous details influence our perception is nothing new. The authors of Made to Stick cited a study conducted in 1986 that demonstrated how irrelevant details can make ideas appear more credible. At a wine-tasting gala in Germany back in 1991, our host explained that the reason a yellow tablecloth was used was because it gave customers the sense that the chardonnay tasted better.
Second, and most important, when are we going to stop looking to government to fix our inability to say “no” to our kids? I really don’t care how much money McDonald’s spends on advertising to children, because three things are true:

1. One Big Mac or Happy Meal, when consumed properly, is not going to kill me or my kids;
2. Thus, marketing them is not an inherently immoral act; and
3. I can always say “No” to prevent excess.

Coincidentally, my son asked me just this weekend if he could have McDonald’s (or Chick-fil-A, Wendy’s, or Whataburger) for dinner, and I simply said we wouldn’t. We had good, healthy food waiting for us at home, and there was simply no reason to buy and eat fast food, no matter how tasty it might have seemed to either of us at that time.
Note to parents: It wasn’t difficult.
I understand that a diet consisting solely of Big Macs and Happy Meals is a sure path to obesity, and I understand that obesity is a serious problem. But I don’t know of any advertising that advocates obesity. Ads, as they should, advocate the consumption or use of a product or service. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don’t, but in the end, there is no mystery about what we’re getting when we buy fast food. It is our responsibility to make sound decisions concerning our own diets and lives, and the diets and lives of our children.
When we ask Congress or any other regulatory agency to interfere, we are admitting the people do not have the capacity to make sound decisions about their own lives (We rarely, if ever, apply the same logic to ourselves — It’s always the “other people” who have the problem and thus must be governed by outside sources). This creates an interesting paradox, since those same people who can’t make sound decisions when confronted with a convincing ad are responsible for electing members of Congress, who appoint the regulatory authorities to which we must answer.
How can we claim the capacity to make decisions about our laws and representatives while at the same time claim that we don’t have the capacity to make good decisions about how we react to advertising? If we cannot resist the temptation to eat fatty foods (or say “No” to our children) because the advertising makes it too appealing, we cannot logically claim that we have the discernment to preserve the very liberty that puts the reins of power within our reach.
I do believe companies have a responsibility to not only create products and services that are not innately harmful, but also to market them ethically. But at some point all of us, as consumers and as citizens, have to take responsibility to govern our own decisions. The implications of behaving otherwise go far beyond how we market Big Macs, Happy Meals, or anything else.
It means we can’t be trusted with anything at all.

Founder and Chairman Howard Schultz and his management team truly made their coffee shops America’s Third Place. Yet, in spite of Starbucks’ volume and rapid expansion, the company’s competitors have not remained idle.
In a Business Week article recently, Archrivals Storm Starbucks, author Aaron Pressman points to McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts and Canadian brand Tim Horton’s as the three chief competitors that are making inroads on Starbucks’ business.

Of the three Starbucks competitors discussed in the article, McDonald’s is surprisingly cited as the most viable threat. McDonald’s has acknowledged that its breakfast business has surged, and the company credited its new coffee line–Newman’s Organic Coffee–as the chief reason for this. The article also reports that “Mickey D’s java won a Consumer Reports blind taste test against Starbucks and other brands in February”.
Regardless, Starbucks has always had competition–to a lesser or greater degree–in all of its markets. The question is: how will a great company rise to meet these challenges? For some time now, there has been a sniff of brewing problems along with wonderful coffee in the Starbuckian atmosphere. . .
Here are the signs of trouble, according to BW:
* 2007 is shaping up to be Starbucks’ third straight year of declining growth.
* Second quarter: Starbucks reported U.S. stores’ foot traffic failed to grow for the first time in company history.
* Starbucks stock has dropped almost 30% since late last fall.
* The company propped up earnings-per-share growth by buying back 18 million shares of stock, to the tune of about $600 million in the first six months of the year.
* Michael Casey, Starbucks CFO, stated that the company is finding it “very challenging in the current environment” to meet its earnings forecast in 2007.
* Starbucks CFO has also said the company has reduced its ambitious new store opening plan to about 1,700 new locations for the next few years.
* Wall Street has reacted to Starbucks’ challenges: Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank upgraded McDonald’s ratings, while downgrading Starbucks. “The coffeehouse icon is facing a new world order”, according to a report filed by Deutsche Bank’s beverage analysts.
* Mutual fund investors have been unloading Starbucks shares, including Fidelity Contrafund and American Funds Growth Fund of America, which have both been strong performing growth funds.
So what does this all translate to? The largest, most solid companies experience their share of ups and downs, missteps and increased competition. But the truly great companies–with the truly great brands–find a way to overcome their difficulties and reposition themselves with an even stronger brand in the marketplace.
Can Starbucks overcome their present challenges and regroup? You bet. Will they? It’s up to Mr. Schultz and company. “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.”

First of all, they definitely get points for taking the risk, especially since as Schmeltzer points out in the article, the fast food giant claims it will post, unedited (!) the blog posts/journals of the six women they selected (from a group of 4,000 applicants). In addition to simply writing about their own personal experiences with the McDonald’s in their towns, these women will actually work in one of the restaurants, tour a hamburger plant, and visit a supplier’s apple orchard.
Wow. Talk about getting the inside scoop on Fast Food Nation! It could be very revealing in both positive and negative ways and McDonald’s, apparently, is willing to take that risk. They will post the women’s journals beginning this Wednesday, June 20th.
From the marketing to women perspective:
1) Women are still surprised and delighted to be asked for their input – in just about any industry.
2) Women appreciate such attempts at transparency, but still may be a little cynical. In this case, the moms will/should be looking to see if the company really holds to its vow to reveal all – good and bad.
3) By going grassroots – getting it right from the mouths/typing fingers of a small group of core customers – McDonald’s will likely discover little details of customer experience that may not have otherwise filtered up through traditional focus groups or huge quantitative studies.
4) Whether this effort “succeeds” or not (and how will they measure that?), McDonald’s will definitely end up with a much better understanding of how the minds of their mom-customers work, what language they use when they are talking about providing meals for their families, and how they can work to be more relevant in the daily, more health-aware lives of today’s women, in general.
I look forward to checking out the journals and seeing how long this effort is maintained by the brand. (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…)
So, the question of whether or not McDonald’s can handle the truth instead becomes what they will do with that truth.

The ad in question depicts an executive woman who says: “A high school kid takes a job at McDonald’s.” The woman then turns into her former teen-aged self and back to her adult incarnation again, with the voice-over: “Karen King, President, McDonald’s USA East Division.” Implication: How rewarding that entry level job at McDonald’s can be for employees who apply themselves with pride and have what it takes to build a career at McDonald’s.
What’s interesting here is that McDonald’s has decided to put the whole issue of marketing itself and the “rewarding and fun” aspects of its jobs to entry level employees in the hands of its marketing department–rather than Human Resources. And apparently, a number of other companies have taken this route, as well.
The article quotes Richard Floersch, McDonald’s chief HR executive as saying that “building an ‘employment brand’ is absolutely critical.” It is felt that speaking to employees about career opportunities and spreading a positive image about the McDonald’s brand are great pluses. The payoff? More employee pride, less turnover, and gasp–better customer service are the desired goals.
Will that happen? The Business Week article cites that this marketing method has met with success at Yum! Brands’ Taco Bell and KFC divisions, dramatically slowing down its turnover rates.
* What do you think of retailers and hospitality brands potential for success if they market themselves better to their own employees in an effort to do more substantive work at team building?
* Do you think it will work?
* Will they be able to retain employees longer, and turn more of them onto a long-term career path with their companies?
We’d like to hear from you.