Avoid Dialogue At All Costs

From here:

As it did during "Super Size Me," the marketer told franchisees that its communications will play up the company's menu variety, new products, and community involvement to remind consumers of the chain's more admirable activities.

So in other words, instead of addressing any issues raised by the film and any ensuing discussion, the company plans ahead of time to sit in its ivory tower and keep hammering away with the broadcast mallet.

This is a huge opportunity for McDonald's. I never had any doubt they'd blow it, but a forward-thinking company would welcome the chance to discuss the important issues behind what people eat and the ethics of selling their "food" when it's so unhealthy.

Schlosser nails it:

Mr. Schlosser wants to hear from them. "I hope [McDonald's] engages in a substantive debate about the issues raised by the film and avoid personal attacks on the filmmakers, not to mention the threat of legal action," he said. "They get their point of view across every single day on TV. If they believe in democracy, they should welcome criticism and debate...and not engage in the kind of personal attacks that are attempts to distract people from the really important issues."

Carded

I got carded trying to buy a video game at Best Buy during lunch today. I was buying two games for my PSP and a cordless phone at the time. The counter person insisted that I show my ID. I refused, eventually leaving all my purchases at the counter and leaving the store without buying anything.

First of all, I'm 33 years old. And I probably look older. But that's not the point.

Remember incidents like this the next time some group of concerned parents says "We only want warning labels." Rating systems and warning labels become de facto censorship when retail chains take it upon themselves to refuse to sell video games rated "M" or movies rated "R" or music labeled "Explicit" to minors.

Most of us civil libertarians oppose government regulation of content because we don't want people telling us what we can and can't consume, content-wise. We begrudgingly accept warning labels so that parents can make appropriate choices for their kids. But it becomes censorship when retail chains are forced (or even when they voluntarily agree) to refuse sales to people because the rating system says it's inappropriate. That's the job of a parent, not a retail chain.

Say whatever you want about Best Buy, Wal-Mart or any other chain that caves to the censorship lobby. They're within their rights to do this. But I'm also within my rights to leave my purchases on the counter and refuse to buy when confronted with such situations.

Warning labels are censorship. Period. That's no longer a slippery slope argument. It's a fact. Parents aren't making the decisions here. Retail chains and censors are.

I Want a ClueTrain Stick

Albert Cheng, EVP Digital Media, ABC Television Group is speaking right now at OMMA. You'd think that by now, ABC would get a clue and figure out that there's an interactive component to this newfangled Internet thing. So far, from Cheng's comments, I gather that they want to... * Invest big in content * Build a "marketing platform" * Build "direct relationships," but mostly by using the Internet's pipes to push content.

OMG, he actually believes that ABC's "equity" that has been earned with "consumers" cannot be replaced.

Jeez, he said he also believes that video is the primary driver behind consumers connecting with brands. He uses Sears' online sponsorship of Extreme Makeover:Home Edition as an example, saying that Sears enjoys a halo effect advertising with the show and that association with a show with an "altruistic bent" is beneficial for Sears. Nothing on how conversations about Sears and its products are happening outside the Disney/ABC realm of influence.

Ugh.

Useless Circ

No one ever believes me when I tell them that you can see examples of poor media measurement in your everyday life. Whether you're walking down the street and notice people dumping bundles of publications into dumpsters, or people tuning out to radio or TV shows, you do see this everywhere. For instance, I noticed that when I checked into the Sheraton last night, the little folder they give you with your keycard has the following on it:

I accept delivery of USA Today
If you do not wish to receive this paper, please return it to the front desk for a credit of 75 cents.

So, in other words, the hotel charges you for your newspaper whether you read it or not. What makes me think the publication is counting this toward paid circulation?

So I walked down the hall toward the front desk this morning, noticing that most hotel guests had simply left their paper in front of their door. When I got to the front desk, I plopped my copy down on the desk and told the attendant that I wanted my 75 cents credit for my paper. She looked at me like I had two heads (or, more likely, like I'm the first person to do this). She took the paper, but what are the odds that I get charged for it anyway? I'll check the bill on my way out...