 |
| Source: umich.edu |
The similarities between Cracker Jack and McDonald's are easy to find. Perhaps the early success of Cracker Jack motivated important business decisions for the McDonald's company. McDonald's, too, started as a creation of two brothers, Richard and Maurice, in 1940, though it was businessman extraordinaire Ray Kroc who would take the company to international fame.
Besides a startling lack of nutritional value, the easiest comparison between Cracker Jack and any McDonald's item is the price. When bought in bulk, one pack of Cracker Jack costs a mere $0.39. Similarly, McDonald's boasts its famous Dollar Menu, where a customer can buy a complete meal for just $3. Another similarity comes in publicity. We have all heard, "Take Me Out to the Ballgame", in which one line proclaims, "Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack!" McDonald's, too, pays millions for shoutouts in popular music, most commonly mentions of their famous Big Mac. The resemblances in advertising don't stop there. Cracker Jack and McDonald's both target their ads at children, a fact many critics are appalled by, as they use friendly mascots like Sailor Jack with dog Bingo and Ronald McDonald. Cracker Jack's most famous trademark in its earlier days was the small prize included in each package. Sounds like McDonald's Happy Meal, you may think. Perhaps the most terrifying publicity stunt of all, Cracker Jack and McDonald's try to market themselves as healthy brands for the athlete. One's immediate connection with Cracker Jack is baseball. McDonald's commercials feature fit young adults playing a multitude of sports. Herein lies the big problem.
 |
| Source: reddit.com |
In a love affair of over a century with junk food, Americans have achieved shockingly poor health. Over a third of Americans are obese. The heads of corporations like McDonald's and Frito-Lay (the current owner of Cracker Jack) know this. But they don't care. Geoffrey Bible, former CEO of the company that manufactures Lunchables, had only this to say: "People could point to these things and say, 'They've got too much sugar, they've got too much salt.' Well, that's what the consumer wants, and we're not putting a gun to their head to eat it. That's what they want."
Jessa, your post really caught my eye because of its well written connection between historical and modern junk food that we can all relate to. I had no idea that McDonalds was so closely linked to the first junk food created. It just goes to show that any place throughout history has a pattern. History repeats itself in all sorts of strange ways.
ReplyDeleteI find it so funny that Geoffrey Bible said "we're not putting a gun to their head to eat it." As you've stated, fast food companies pay for tons of endorsements in everything from popular songs to children's toys. It's not exactly like they are just sitting back and letting customers come to them.
ReplyDeleteI personally have more trust in the consumer. If one is to trust Plato when he says that any action taken by a person was of his/her own will (excepting reflexes, but those people don't use those to make their decisions), then one must conclude that when a person decides to buy something it was of his/her own will. Advertising, to me, seems to be no more than information. No matter how manipulative, advertising is still simply information for the consumer. If they decide to act on the advertisement, even despite manipulation, they are still doing what they want to do, they are still doing it of their own free will, and therefore I see nothing wrong with what is done by fast food companies. They are simply fulfilling the demands of the market. Of course the only exception to the flawless power of the market is coercion, the use of force, the idea of holding a gun to someone's head. Since the fast food companies are not doing that, I have no problem with what they are doing, and I furthermore think that Geoffrey Bible's statement makes a lot of sense.
DeleteJust as a side note because I left it out:
DeleteThere are two reasons for why it is good to fulfill the wants of people (as in, the want for fast food, which we already established was an actual want). The first is that good is defined by that very idea. What is good if not serving the wants of the people? The second reason is that there are no other possible definitions of good. No other definition can establish a clear bright-line for determining good, but moreover, I personally don't trust any entity (as in the government) to decide what is good and what is not, considering that good is a subjective calculation. I don't even trust democracy to determine that, for intrinsic within it is the tyranny of the majority.
Very interesting post and comments. I'll sidestep the question about the tyranny of the majority by simply saying that one of the things I love about the study of history is that we can get from a candy for kids to ethics, Greek philosophy and so many other important issues. Well done all!
ReplyDelete