
Why Your McD's Burger Doesn't Look Like the One in the Ad - cremnob
http://adage.com/article/adages/video-burger-ad/235508/
======
eykanal
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 they use photoshop, so why bother? Show everything and customers
will trust you more.

\- Use social stuff like Twitter to encourage customer feedback. It will
create a positive loop that encourages others to follow and interact with
their main corporate account.

\- Respond before something is actually important. This one isn't showcased so
strongly - this isn't a pressing issue by any measure - but they still took
the time to respond to it and make a brief, informative, and actually engaging
video about it, without some external "we screwed up, sorry" event.
Interacting with customers like this before problems arise is simply awesome.

Well done, McDonalds.

~~~
ryanwhitney
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 question (selling false images, a product made differently) is what
makes this merely a good marketing piece, and not any sort of honest
explanation from McDonalds.

~~~
xenophanes
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, you'll know
they shrink when you cook them.

~~~
iharris
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.

~~~
iharris
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>

------
tptacek
This is clever (if cynical) marketing from McDonalds Canada: take one of the
oldest knocks against large-scale fast food (that's it's marketed dishonestly)
and turn it into a product benefit: "it's ugly because we took the original
product, which is beautiful, and then uglified it to make it taste better".
One thing that makes this piece cynical is that the integrity of fast food
promo graphics is not a new or pressing issue; McDonalds has had many
excellent opportunities to address that critique in the past.

Also, note carefully the details in this piece: it covers "food styling" done
by "WATT" for "McDonalds Canada" and claims that _that particular_ shoot used
only the actual ingredients McDonalds uses in its retail chain.

From what little I know of the "food styling" business (not much, but I've met
people who work in it), it would be an extraordinary claim that McDonalds
adheres to that "only real store-scale ingredients used in promotional
graphics" credo worldwide. But maybe they do?

~~~
raganwald
I understand there are specific laws about what they can and cannot show in a
food ad in Ontario and/or Canada. They can do their own preparation, but I
believe the ingredients must be identical to the ones in the actual product.
So it must be an actual beef patty, and the ketchup and mustard can be
squirted on carefully, but they have to be real ketchup and mustard.

~~~
oz
A well-known food celebrity in Jamaica told me once that most ice-cream ads
actually use mashed potatoes. I didn't know enough to ask her if that was a
local or international practice.

~~~
jellicle
If the food is incidental (just in a TV show or something) it's going to be
faked stuff, sprayed with lacquer, for the lights.

If the food is the product being advertised, it must be real.

There's probably a really interesting product placement grey line where the
advertiser can argue that placement of a beautiful, fake burger in a scene
should not be regulated under the "must be real" guidelines.

------
oz
My own amusing anecdote:

I grew up in rural Jamaica, where there was no fast food, but I came to the
capital city (Kingston) twice per month, where we would always eat at KFC. So
I'd never had a burger before (KFC _dominates_ every fast food chain in
Jamaica).

When I was maybe 12 or 13, we had a class trip to Kingston, and after the
outing, we went to a McDonalds.

So I'm standing in the line, and looking at the ad suspended from the ceiling.
I wondered "how in the world could someone eat something so _big_!" I decided
to order it anyway. You only live once.

Imagine my disappointment when the tiny box came back with an even tinier
burger. I felt cheated, almost to the point of anger.

Anecdotes aside, this is genius marketing by McDonald. No PR-speak, no cover-
up, but rather: "Are the burgers in the ad different from the store? Sure!!!
Come on in, let me show you _everything_. See, we do A, B, and C and that
gives us D!" That deflates any possible anger and makes it look like they have
nothing to hide.

She deserves a raise.

~~~
phene
You had me until "YOLO."

~~~
kcbanner
He said "you only live once", not "YOLO".

------
51Cards
I've never had a huge issue with the difference in appearance. One was
assembled by a stylist, the other by a teenager putting together 200 of them
in a shift. As long as what I asked for is in there, and what I didn't ask for
isn't, and it's generally piled vertically, I'm good. Nice bit of PR on McD's
part though... this is very seldom directly addressed by the food industry.

Now to find lunch...

------
ryanwhitney
It's a great marketing video for McDonalds, but sidesteps the actual question
almost entirely.

They respond to "why do your burgers look different in commercials?" by
answering "here's the process of making a commercial burger."

That doesn't address the fact that a stylist cooked it on a panini grill for
an hour looking the perfect brown, leading to a thicker-width burger which
indeed makes their advertisements a lie.

It doesn't matter if they use the same ingredients or need to show their
pickles and ketchup. They've created an entirely different product for the
advertisement and will continue to sell a lesser product in place of it. The
only honest answer to the original question is the obvious one: because their
normal burgers look like crap.

~~~
reledi
> That doesn't address the fact that a stylist cooked it on a panini grill for
> an hour looking the perfect brown, leading to a thicker-width burger which
> indeed makes their advertisements a lie.

The patties are usually undercooked as well for the photo shoots, so the meat
doesn't shrink as much.

~~~
ryanwhitney
Interesting to know, but that doesn't make it any less of a lie to show the
larger patty.

~~~
ccoggins
I would have to disagree. I don't think they ever make claims about the amount
of space the burger takes up. They claim it's a 1/4 lb burger. How thick it is
seems irrelevant as long as they started out with a 1/4 lb of meat.

------
Goladus
I think the cleverest marketing bit from a cynic's perspective was the part
where the hostess, the McDonald's Canada's Director of Marketing, confidently
walks into the bright clean store, orders and obtains the burger from the
pleasant staff, and pulls it out of its box in genuine anticipation and
appears fully prepared to eat it when the camera cuts out.

That's the psychological button-pushing aspect of this video that's hard to
duplicate in normal advertisements. In addition to the value of the realism in
scenario itself, showing a Director of Marketing appear genuinely enthusiastic
about the quality of the product is also a big win.

The rest of it is interesting, not really all that surprising, and undoubtedly
simplified as much to fit into the desired time constraints as much as to
present the issue in as positive a light as possible.

------
DigitalSea
Who cares if this is a PR stunt? It answers the question quite truthfully,
they aren't hiding the fact they have a food stylist who cooks the ingredients
in a different way, tactfully places the meat, condiments and salads for a
good picture. It's a known fact that in every industry involving photography;
clothes, food, beverages, cars, electronic products is altered via Photoshop.
Perfect lighting and a great photographer are about 90% of the work and the
last 10% is usually minor alterations as seen in the video.

Another reason that explains why the burgers look amazing in the advertising
is because the food stylist has access to where ingredients are placed and
what ingredients he uses. In McDonald's stores they just use whatever
ingredients they have on hand and if you've ever worked at McDonald's or know
someone else who has or does, then you'd probably know a lot of their salads
are frozen/refrigerated compared to a food stylist who would have access to
the freshest ingredients that haven't been frozen.

You could quite clearly see the food stylist laying out several pieces of
cheese on a plate, several pickles and carefully placing where the sauces
went. The meat looks bigger because it was lightly seared in a pan and most
likely not ingestible. Everyone knows meat shrinks when you cook it and you
can see the stylist cooking the patty in a pan, and then holding it on a
George Foreman looking grill, making sure it browned evenly.

The bottom line is: nothing ever looks the same as it does in an advertisement
and the fact that people still complain and bring this up amazes me. We live
in a society where nothing we see in magazines, TV, the Internet or newspapers
is real most of the time.

------
ShabbyDoo
I once saw a TV segment showing some starlet being photographed for a print
clothing ad campaign. The stylist used metal clips (the sort one can buy at an
office supply store for holding 50 sheets of paper together) to tighten the
garment around her torso. From the front, the dress looked like it fit her
perfectly. However, the back exposed a bunch of black metal clips holding back
fabric. How does such an ad compare ethically to the specially-made McDonald's
burger? A woman with the same measurements buying that same garment would not
look as good as the starlet being photographed.

~~~
nicholassmith
I do a bit of a photography on the side and know a few working fashion
photographers. Generally when you're supplied clothing from a company it'll
come as a specific size, say size 8. You put out a casting call for a size 8
model that meets your specific requirements, and find that the clothes are too
big for her due to sizing being weird. You then have to style it so it looks
perfect and go from there, it's not so much about fake it to make it look more
perfect (that's what gratuitous liquify is for) but to Get The Job Done.

Someone with the exact same measurements generally has the benefit of being
able to try the different sizes on, photographers often don't unless working
with a company rep on hand, or they've sent multiple sizes which often only
happens at the higher end.

~~~
etruong42
I understand and support these tools and "tricks of the trade" when it comes
to fashion shoots. My understanding and expectation of fashion shoots is to
show what is possible instead of showing what is being sold.

However, I find the practice misleading in catalogs and in-store displays. The
expectation in catalogs is to present the wares the seller is advertising.
Using clips and pins misrepresents the product.

I really appreciate transparency and clarity in _exactly_ how a garment is
cut. Some sellers accomplish this wonderfully. One such seller is Mr. Porter.
On their online catalog, you can see that some garments do not fit perfectly
on the model because that is simply how the garment naturally hangs without
clips/pin/tailoring. They also give the model's measurements so that you can
compare your sizes to the models and a size chart. This has been enough for me
to accurately judge how a garment will fit me even without trying it on!
(Example: <http://www.mrporter.com/product/301852> , select "Size & Fit").
Another website that does this is Amazon's myhabit.com

I don't mind GQ using clips and pins. GQ is presenting what is possible. A
store, on the other hand, should show what they are trying to sell, and I
believe using clips misrepresents their wares by obscuring the exact nature of
their wares: sizing, cut, how it hangs, what would have to be tailored, etc.

------
raganwald
Direct Youtube link:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSd0keSj2W8>

------
ff0066mote
Ever been to Japan? The burgers and fries at McDonalds there are not lukewarm
or squished like you get here in America, rather they're hot, toasted, and all
puffed up.

They're also more expensive.

~~~
kalleboo
Damn, now I'm really in the mood for some Mos Burger. Fast food that looks
exactly like their pictures.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalleboo/5997808382/lightbox/>

~~~
aapl
This also applies to Freshness Burger and Kua'Aina. I don't understand how the
Japanese can pull it off but Americans and Finns can't.

------
larrik
I happen to know that in the USA, they can (and presumably, do) use plastic
replicas for their photography.

(My wife saw the ones Dairy Queen used while she worked there. She says they
look amazingly real, even up close)

~~~
ars
And I happen to know that they can't. It's illegal.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4138305>

~~~
Evbn
Tons of restaurants have actual fake plastic food on display. The advertising
rules apply to TV and billboards, not store images.

------
gouranga
to be honest in the UK at least they look pretty similar although usually
assembled slightly wonky.

Still taste as good as they look in the ads though.

Despite all the bad press, McDonalds is great (well I like them anyway).

------
evan_
Did I just hear a photographer say that photographs are one-dimensional?

~~~
anusinha
The area in which you can show the condiments/additions of the sandwich is
(approximately) one dimensional. It is defined by the line between the patty
and the bun, which is fairly thin. There is really only one degree of freedom
in placing food there.

------
soldermont001
On a hot summer day I ordered an ice cream cone at a random McDonald's in
Vienna, and when it didn't look as enticing as the picture, I expressed a
child like disappointment. They immediately took it back and made me another
one that looked like the picture. That made it taste even better.

On the other hand, also in Vienna, in winter I ordered a bagel and asked if
they could toast it for me. The lady responded in a strong Russian accent "Das
ist ein kalt produkt!" No amount of persuasion or rationalizing could get her
to put the f'ing bagel in the f'ing toaster right behind her. ;-)

------
mkramlich
Anecdotal but related: over the last few years I've noticed a trend where I've
been appreciating Chipotle more and more, and liking McDonald's less and less.
At Chipotle's I can count on getting healthy fresh natural-tasting food fast,
clean tables, and lots of good looking women among fellow customers. At
McDonald's I increasingly experienced unhealthy stale, artificial/chemical-
tasting food (sometimes fast, sometimes slow), with dirty tables, dirty drink
stand areas, dirty bathrooms, sometimes no mirrors, flies common, and lots of
fat or ugly women, and slobs of all genders/ages in general. And the price of
a meal is roughly the same, order of magnitude-wise. And because of the indoor
playground, more frequent cases of kid's screaming or being obnoxious --
though it sometimes happens at Chipotle too, just not as much. Oh and the
music would be better at Chipotle too.

So it really became a no-brainer for me which to choose whenever I needed a
fast meal and didn't want to make something. Chipotle isn't perfect (I've
identified about 4 things they could do better, in my book) but they've come
closer to perfect, in the fast food space, than any other business I've seen.
I'm glad McDonald's is (hopefully) losing in the marketplace and on Wall
Street, and Chipotle the opposite. It (should be) all about the customer and
the end-user experience, and this should be reflected in revenue and stock
price trends, in a fair system.

I've never expected their burgers to match their ads, but I do expect them to
taste good, and not provide a disgusting dining room experience. Life's too
short for otherwise.

~~~
knz
McDonalds was a major investor in Chipotle from 1998 until 2006. If I recall
correctly, Steve Ells (the founder of Chipotle) has said that this was one of
the major reasons for the success of Chipotle.

Personally I think the fact that Chipotle produce the food in front of you
also contributes to the sense that it’s fresher than other fast food
alternatives.

------
fossley
It used to be annoying that the food looks so different, but after that video
... I feel better ... and hungry. Some good communication there from the
McMarketing Department

------
Kliment
Direct link without blogspam <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSd0keSj2W8>

------
wildmXranat
Extremely demanding schedule of lately has forced me to sacrifice on the
quality of my daily food intake, where I snack occasionally on fast food items
so here are my thoughts:

Biggest issue with fast food is sort of linked to the "uglification for the
sake of taste", but let's get one thing straight: fast food quality and taste
is damn bad. So that excuse is out the window. I've tried everything on McD's
menu including their newer 'bistro' or whatever sandwiches and all of them
left me wondering WTF is wrong with this food.

The biggest offender of this is, and I truly mean it - Tim Hortons. Ever since
about two years ago or so, their food became garbage. They too have the pretty
moving adverts in-store on their LCDs, but I'll be damned if I buy another
item from that chain.

Lesson learned: make and pack my own food as much as possible.

~~~
pimeys
I don't even understand why people in USA go to McDonalds etc. I mean, if you
want good burgers, USA is the paradise for them. E.g. while visiting Berkeley,
one random burger joint called Bongo Burger was better than any burger I've
eaten in Europe.

I don't know how is it in smaller cities, but I would guess an American should
know what's a good burger and what's complete rubbish.

~~~
verisimilidude
To add insult to injury, there's a McDonald's within a few blocks of Bongo
Burger (at Center St.) that's enormous and always packed. I'm not sure if we
see this behavior because Americans are addicted to empty calories, or just
don't want to venture outside their (dis)comfort zone to try something new, or
what. It's sad.

~~~
jff
If I walk into a McDonald's, I know that $5 will get me a cheeseburger, some
fries, and a drink. I know what it'll taste like, and I know the food will be
ready in about 2 minutes. I'm sure Bongo Burger is amazing, and now that I've
heard of it I'll have to try it next time I'm in Berkeley. But for all I know,
a Bongo Burger might cost $10 and have a half-hour wait before they get my
order cooked; that's not always what I'm looking for, and _that's perfectly
fine_.

~~~
pimeys
Actually a menu with bacon burger, drink and fries was something between $6-$7
and ready in 5-10 minutes.

I also experienced some great burgers in New York, ones with truffles and Kobe
meat. They were already pretty expensive, but also tasted amazing.

~~~
verisimilidude
And there you go.

I work with several people who go to McDonald's three days a week. They refuse
to try anything different even when they definitely have the time (fixed lunch
hour) and money ($1 extra?) and encouragement (happy coworkers) to shop
around.

When you're far from home, short on time/money, and looking for something
familiar, then sure, I get it. But sometimes, people are just lazy. Everybody
certainly has their reasons. Those reasons aren't always good.

------
aguynamedben
Photos of ad vs. reality for fast food...
[http://www.alphaila.com/articles/failure/fast-food-false-
adv...](http://www.alphaila.com/articles/failure/fast-food-false-advertising-
vs-reality/)

------
modernerd
"Food stylists" have a fascinating but somewhat tedious job. I have watched
one insert a cocktail stick into thousands of flakes of individual oatmeal in
order to "plump them up" for a video shoot.

Food in commercials is treated like an actor. It is styled, staged, and post-
produced to show it at its best. Food stylists are just as talented as
traditional cosmetic artists, but few people seem to know they exist. It was
good to see McDonald's revealing a little of their work here.

------
bluishgreen
My 3 year old nephew sometimes slips, falls down and cries. His parents wiggle
a colorful toy sometimes and he forgets he fell down, forgets he is still
hurting and runs behind the toy.

This ad reminds me of the toy. Fast food is bad. I am not interested in the
question to start with, so I won't bother with the given answer. thank you
very much.

That said, sadly this is a good ad campaign, because sadly most of us most of
the time are attracted to colorful toys.

~~~
mjballs
sometimes, in a pinch, i use mcdonalds to hit my proteins/carbs/fats macros
and calorie count because these stats are so well published (i even have my
favorite quarter pounder minus dressing combo with milk and a healthy side
memorized!). it does have its place with people on a sensible diet

------
spython
Oh I like the "sloppy" feel of this video - showing other members of the film
crew in the background, microphone in the car and careless camera movements.
While those are normally errors that are easy to avoid, in this case it
communicates a live, not staged feel, and by extension - honesty. Pretty well
engineered, though the excessive color grading diminishes the effect a bit.

------
arthurbrown
This is a segment from an Australian show (The Gruen Transfer) going over the
same question without the transparent Maccas bias. The entire clip from the
beginning is worth a watch and talks about the value of relentless
advertising.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WUhrIOqdCs#t=3m45s>

------
javert
Seriously? This is just another advertisement!

------
FaceKicker
Domino's put out a similar video a couple years ago:
[http://shine.yahoo.com/shine-food/dominos-gives-us-a-
glimpse...](http://shine.yahoo.com/shine-food/dominos-gives-us-a-glimpse-into-
the-world-of-food-styling-1956155.html) (sorry, would have linked directly to
the video but it doesn't seem to be allowed)

~~~
ars
Someone copied it: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m63gE5eySkU>

Search for "Domino's Pulling the Cheese".

------
UTHorsey
I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but they didn't fully cook
the burger. They just browned the sides for the photos, which gives it a much
fuller look. Sure they may use the same ingredients, but the burger in the
photo shoot will surely make you sick.

------
JBiserkov
I'm unable to open the video, but from the comments it seems like "McDonald's
are cheating in their video (Adobe Premiere and non-software stuff) about how
they are cheating in their print ads (Adobe Photoshop and non-software stuff)"

Cheat-ception!

------
mark_story
I like that the video was filmed on Dundas west + Roncesvalles in toronto.
McDonald's is one of the few fast food joints around there surrounded by an
amazing selection of much nicer eats.

------
grandalf
It makes me sort of wonder why they don't just own the appearance of the
squished, lopsided version customers end up purchasing. I mean, it still looks
pretty tasty.

------
kaybe
"403 Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /article/adages/video-burger-ad/235508/ on
this server.

Apache Server at adage.com Port 80"

Apparently goes for the whole site. :(

------
flannell
I hope they don't do a follow up video for the beef! I'd hate to know what's
in it.

~~~
planetguy
I have bad news for you: it's made from the corpses of dead cows.

------
ctdonath
It's the same reason your Victoria's Secret's ... well, I'll just stop there.

------
kaonashi
tl;dw

They lie.

------
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.

------
igorgue
Most people think that the burgers that we see in the ads are just made with
different ingredients, that's why they're bigger and more good looking.

She made that really clear, they use the same ingredients in both burgers. The
only difference is appearance not taste.

------
mrose
This is standard advertising practice across many industries and not unique to
McDonald's. Examples include food (both restaurants and specific products like
breakfast cereal), cosmetics, health products, even real estate. McDonald's
really does push it very far though, in terms of disparity between the imagery
and the actual product.

I suppose it falls under the "fake it till you make it" category of business
practices.

------
idleloops
Hottie shows manufactured burger.

------
Codhisattva
Has HN jumped the shark? #cantbelievethisisatthetop

~~~
kevinh
Content like this has reached the top from time to time for at least as long
as I've been frequenting this site (about three years).

It's amusing to note that these comments generally come from people with new
accounts. It's so prevalent, in fact, that the guidelines specifically state
"If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying
that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)".

~~~
Codhisattva
Well I didn't make any comparisons like that. Instead I implied an assumption
about Hacker News that it's about news that interests hackers (in the lose
sense of tech focused people). McD doesn't fit into that assumption. So ...
something's gotta change (i.e. the assumption).

------
calydon
If they cheat this much, it's basically lying. I mean, I don't care. Lie to
me. It's better than the truth, frankly. I haven't eaten at McDonald's in
years and this is just one of 100 reasons why.

However when she says 'we use the exact same ingredients they use in the
store' that's a blatant lie. For one thing all McDonald's stores use slightly
different ingredients (whatever can be bought at best market prices) and they
definitely could never produce a cosmetically perfect burger using stock
ingredients.

In addition, she doesn't tell you about all the non-food items that are used
to make this look so good - hairspray for gloss, polymerized rubber for
filling, etc.

I will add, gratuitously, the money McD's is paying looks good on her.

