Monday Rant: McDonald’s
Apparently, McDonald’s missed the memo: McCain/Palin lost; anti-intellectualism and nonidiomatic grammar as “real America” are dead. You’d think a company that massive would understand that the world has changed.
I’m talking about the newest line of McDonald’s commercials, promoting their coffee drinks. For anyone who hasn’t seen them, they go like this: Two friends are having coffee in a coffee house. The scene is set with all the indicators of what McDonald’s apparently perceives as “elite”: jazz music, turtleneck sweaters, wire-framed eyeglasses, “sophisticated” reading material. One friend dismissively asks the other, “Have you heard McDonald’s is now offering coffee drinks?” His tone is snooty, but he glances at his friend, testing the waters. Suddenly, the floodgates open. Both friends joyfully admit they love McDonald’s, hate sitting in snobby coffee houses, hate turtlenecks, hate their wire-framed glasses, and absolutely love football. In a sister commercial with two women, the women announce how much they love reading gossip magazines and hate listening to jazz. Thanks to McDonald’s, they’re now free to enjoy their coffee with “none of the attitude” that had been forced on them by, presumably, Starbucks and other such stores.
These commercials are ridiculous on so many levels. First, it seems so very early-1990s to view a Starbucks as a snobby, elite, “attitude-ful” place; the image of the coffee shop as the haunt of skinny undergraduate philosophers and poet-types dressed in black turtlenecks was out of date by the time I graduated from college. Furthermore, Starbucks is now so definitely not elite that the company is suffering; its brand has been woefully diluted, and shops are closing right and left in an effort to return some stature to the “Starbucks experience.” A coffee drink is no longer a signifier of stature and class. These commercials are about 10-15 years out of date.
That’s my first beef. My second beef is the commercials’ reliance on the Palin-esque tactics that proved so unpopular during this election—i.e., “elitism” (whatever that means—apparently jazz, turtlenecks, and books) is something to be dismissed, while low-brow populism (apparently gossip magazines, football, and t-shirts) are to be embraced as somehow morally superior, more “real.” Turtlenecks and jazz are in one realm of America; mass-market trappings are in the other. The fact that McDonald’s seeks to align itself with what it categorizes as low-brow (and the fact that it categorizes these particular things as low-brow at all) suggests that it has not been keeping very careful track of the mood of this country. Playing to the lowest common denominator didn’t work in this election, and, in fact, the attempt was a total sham—it’s hard to make a case for “real” America when you’re wearing designer eyeglasses and a suit from Saks.
Why on earth is McDonald’s trying to sustain the culture war? And why is it doing it so ineffectively? My head spins when I try to make sense of their central conceit—basically, that liking football and enjoying a latte are incompatible, unless that latte comes from McDonald’s. It makes no sense. No sense whatsoever.
If I want a latte, it’s because I want a latte. My coffee drinks, wherever they come from, are neither a way for me to gain status nor a way for me to repudiate “elitism.” They’re just…caffeine; they taste good; and sometimes I need a place to read or rest. The real differentiator here—and one that seems like a much mightier advertising message in these troubled economic times—is that a coffee drink from McDonald’s is cheaper than one from someplace else. On this point, and only this, do these commercials come anywhere close to being effective: cheap is in, pricey is out. To say even one iota more about what a McDonald’s coffee drink represents is just ridiculous.
I’m talking about the newest line of McDonald’s commercials, promoting their coffee drinks. For anyone who hasn’t seen them, they go like this: Two friends are having coffee in a coffee house. The scene is set with all the indicators of what McDonald’s apparently perceives as “elite”: jazz music, turtleneck sweaters, wire-framed eyeglasses, “sophisticated” reading material. One friend dismissively asks the other, “Have you heard McDonald’s is now offering coffee drinks?” His tone is snooty, but he glances at his friend, testing the waters. Suddenly, the floodgates open. Both friends joyfully admit they love McDonald’s, hate sitting in snobby coffee houses, hate turtlenecks, hate their wire-framed glasses, and absolutely love football. In a sister commercial with two women, the women announce how much they love reading gossip magazines and hate listening to jazz. Thanks to McDonald’s, they’re now free to enjoy their coffee with “none of the attitude” that had been forced on them by, presumably, Starbucks and other such stores.
These commercials are ridiculous on so many levels. First, it seems so very early-1990s to view a Starbucks as a snobby, elite, “attitude-ful” place; the image of the coffee shop as the haunt of skinny undergraduate philosophers and poet-types dressed in black turtlenecks was out of date by the time I graduated from college. Furthermore, Starbucks is now so definitely not elite that the company is suffering; its brand has been woefully diluted, and shops are closing right and left in an effort to return some stature to the “Starbucks experience.” A coffee drink is no longer a signifier of stature and class. These commercials are about 10-15 years out of date.
That’s my first beef. My second beef is the commercials’ reliance on the Palin-esque tactics that proved so unpopular during this election—i.e., “elitism” (whatever that means—apparently jazz, turtlenecks, and books) is something to be dismissed, while low-brow populism (apparently gossip magazines, football, and t-shirts) are to be embraced as somehow morally superior, more “real.” Turtlenecks and jazz are in one realm of America; mass-market trappings are in the other. The fact that McDonald’s seeks to align itself with what it categorizes as low-brow (and the fact that it categorizes these particular things as low-brow at all) suggests that it has not been keeping very careful track of the mood of this country. Playing to the lowest common denominator didn’t work in this election, and, in fact, the attempt was a total sham—it’s hard to make a case for “real” America when you’re wearing designer eyeglasses and a suit from Saks.
Why on earth is McDonald’s trying to sustain the culture war? And why is it doing it so ineffectively? My head spins when I try to make sense of their central conceit—basically, that liking football and enjoying a latte are incompatible, unless that latte comes from McDonald’s. It makes no sense. No sense whatsoever.
If I want a latte, it’s because I want a latte. My coffee drinks, wherever they come from, are neither a way for me to gain status nor a way for me to repudiate “elitism.” They’re just…caffeine; they taste good; and sometimes I need a place to read or rest. The real differentiator here—and one that seems like a much mightier advertising message in these troubled economic times—is that a coffee drink from McDonald’s is cheaper than one from someplace else. On this point, and only this, do these commercials come anywhere close to being effective: cheap is in, pricey is out. To say even one iota more about what a McDonald’s coffee drink represents is just ridiculous.
Comments