• http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/story.html

    This is a long read, but I'd never heard about it before. If you have some time to kill, it's worth reading.


    -Activists in the UK print a pamphlet critical of McDonalds.
    -McDonalds threatens to sue them, the same way it sues everyone that criticizes it. But these activists don't give in.
    -Due to the UK's harsh libel laws, which don't guarantee legal representation to the defense and are generally weighted in favor of the claimant, the activists are in deep shit.
    -McDonald's lawyers convince the judge to disband the jury because the issues are too complicated for dumb peasant folk to understand.
    -The trial lasts 2 years, and the Judge eventually finds in favor of McDonalds (though he strikes down parts of their claim.)
    -Public opinion largely favors the defense, though. McDonalds gets a shit load of bad press from the whole debacle.
    -The activists eventually sue the UK itself in the European court, and win.
    Epilogue: McDonalds is still an organization that helps billionaires oppress the poor.

  • Bummer my post didn't show up. Anyway I found it pretty funny I was originally reading this from Tapatalk while engulfing a Maccas brekkie and using their WiFi signal. :lol:

    This text was so interesting I read every little chance I had that friday. It even had spies and twists.

    -McDonald's lawyers convince the judge to disband the jury because the issues are too complicated for dumb peasant folk to understand.

    This one was really surprising.

    This whole thing went on for so many years. I guess thanks to them now we have wraps, salads and other healthier options. They did it because they needed to change their image and regain the preference again.
    The Australia Maccas memo was funny too.

    The double standard with nutrients is quite sad.

    So... I Was reading that Mcdonald's is losing the millennials.

    Quote from http://www.wsj.com/articles/mcdonalds-faces-millennial-challenge-1408928743

    "The millennial generation has a wider range of choices than any generation before them," McDonald's Global Chief Brand Officer Steve Easterbrook said in an interview. "They're promiscuous in their brand loyalty. It makes it harder work for all of us to earn the loyalty of the millennial generation."


  • It's baffling, right? Like, supposedly they disbanded the Jury because the scientific evidence would bee too sciencey for normal folks. Never acknowledging that the Judge, Lawyers, Defendants, Plaintiffs, and everyone involved was almost certainly not a scientist of any type. What makes them better judges of science based testimony than a jury which could very well include an actual scientist. And for serious, that case went on too fucking long. I know this is England, so the US Constitution is meaningless legally. But the ideal of a speedy trial is an important one. It's completely tyrannical to force those poor people to defend themselves for such a significant portion of their lives.

    So... I Was reading that Mcdonald's is losing the millennials.


    That doesn't surprise me. I don't know if I'm too old to be considered a millennial or not, but I've eaten at McDonalds maybe a handful of times in the last 5 years. Their food is generally pretty gross. I really only eat there if it's the only thing available, or if I'm going out with a group and everyone else wants to go there.

    Also, the phrase "Promiscuous in their brand loyalty" makes me laugh. Fuck that noise. Brand loyalty is a ridiculous notion to begin with, the idea that we should somehow feel a sense of obligation to corporations. And their use of the word "promiscuous" makes it sound like a distinctly bad thing. As if we're somehow sinful for not getting married to a single fast food chain.

    I'm really glad someone else enjoyed this as much as I did.

  • Exactly. I don't understand how even the request to get rid of yhe jury on that basis got taken seriously.

    I agree about ghe length as well. Specially when they were denied the apelation to write the vounter document. So when they actually frigging needed the time they didn't get it.

    With the milenials it just shows the big wigs still adhere to their unreal expectations and concepts with their customers.

    I agree with what you say about their quote. It is so mslicious to choose that. Brand loyalty is to be earned. It is no longer a "my parents used to shop here so I'll do the same". There is a lot more choice.

    It even is funnier when you realise they are basically calling whores the potential customers they are trying to "seduce" back. :XD:

  • Brand Loyalty is just such a silly concept in the first place. Why should anyone ever be loyal to a brand? I can see why a person might be loyal to a specific McDonalds employee. Perhaps that employee treated them very well. The customer might want to see that person rewarded for their kindness and good work. I can see why a person might be loyal to a specific McDonalds. Maybe they're friends with the franchise owner, and they want his business to be successful. I can even see why a person might be loyal to a specific McDonalds food. If you really like Big Macs, then you're not going to want to eat them.

    But why would a person ever be loyal to a brand? What about the curvy yellow "M" can possibly earn a person's loyalty? It's a fluid collection of people who may care more or less about your satisfaction. The only reason you might feel any love for a company as a whole is because of marketing. That thing where people are paid a ton of money so they can trick you into spending money by making you feel good about a company and/or product. "Brand Loyalty" is a fancy term that means "Rich people tricking poor people into acting against their own interests."