Extremely aggressive marketing to children to get them hooked on their cheap unhealthy food, that is designed to be more desireable than nutritious, before they get a chance to make their own good eating habits. Parents can't compete with clowns during cartoons' commercials and totally kick-ass playpens (that I would still play in if they were bigger).
there is nothing evil about marketing to children.
Its sleazy and intrusive. We've banned that sort of market from cigarette companies because their product are unhealthy, and I think the same case could be made against fast food.
Parents still have to make choices, and still have to pay.
A flippant response like that makes it sound like you don't have much experience with children...
McDonalds is easy for the parents too. And kids tend to get what they want. Spoiling their desires with cheap gimmicks like clowns and playpens could be called "evil" when your product is designed to be all taste and no nutrition while min/maxing cost and profit. Certainly, trying to get kids to eat healthier food would be a nobler cause.
The vast majority of food marketed to kids is nothing but sugar.
"you silly silly rabbit, trix are for kids!"
You're arguing "Is" versus "Ought".
and McDonald's is more healthy than a lot of other fast food places. I eat at McDonald's about 1-3 times per week, and over the past 5 months I have lost 40lbs.
cigarette companies marketed to kids? not in your lifetime. maybe in the 1940s.
quote:In 1991, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study showing that by age six nearly as many children could correctly respond that "Joe Camel" was associated with cigarettes as could respond that the Disney Channel logo was associated with Mickey Mouse, and alleged that the "Joe Camel" campaign was targeting children...
Internal documents produced to the court in Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, San Francisco Superior Court No. 959516, demonstrated the industry's interest in targeting children as future smokers. The importance of the youth market was illustrated in a 1974 presentation by RJR's Vice-President of Marketing who explained that the "young adult market . . . represent[s] tomorrow's cigarette business. As this 14-24 age group matures, they will account for a key share of the total cigarette volume - for at least the next 25 years." A 1974 memo by the R. J. Reynolds Research Department points out that capturing the young adult market is vital because "virtually all [smokers] start by the age of 25" and "most smokers begin smoking regularly and select a usual brand at or before the age of 18."
In July 1997, under pressure from the impending Mangini trial, Congress and various public-interest groups, RJR announced it would settle out of court and voluntarily end its Joe Camel campaign. sauce
I think your sort of idea of banning everything that is unhealthy is a dangerous way of thinking.
Nobody's talking about banning everything that is unhealthy. My point was about marketing. Marketing unhealthy and addictive products to children... like McDonald's does.
You're arguing "Is" versus "Ought".
I am not following you?
I'm talking about the way things ought to be (we shouldn't market bad shit to kids) and you're talking about the way things are (bad things are marketed to kids).
Look, it's taking money out of your pocket. It obviously is. I'm not saying it's not worth it - where are you getting that? - but just like how food costs money, sleep costs money because it takes up some of your time. Just like your leisure hours cost you money. I don't understand the problem you have with this. Clearly you're poorer because you sleep instead of taking a second job. Clearly, that's worth it to you. What's the issue?
The issue is calculating the cost of a home cooked meal by considering the drive to the store to be $16/hr.
You need sleep. It's valuable. Why does it surprise you to learn that it has an opportunity cost?
Cause it doesn't
Of course it does. You're saying you've never in your life slept instead of doing something else? You're saying you've never in your life decided to get a good night's sleep instead of getting a second job? You don't know anybody who works 10-12 hour days and only gets 5-6 hours of sleep a night?
I wasn't really following you... and I didn't know "opportunity cost" was an actual economics term (I only studied math and science).
Like I say, sleep is valuable. Why does it surprise you to learn that you pay something for it?
"Pay" is a strage way to say "not earn" but whatever. Everybody has to sleep and is going to sleep, among other things. I don't think you should calculate the value of the time that you spend on doing things your going to do anyways (like going to the store) at the same rate you us for what you earn at your job. Not every hour is worth that same amount, especially the ones that are already accounted for by something else.
I finally got a chance to view that xkdc page you linked to (it wasn't running properly on my work pc), where it shows the McDonalds meal to be $30-something and the home cooked meal to be $40-something. But that's all based on that median US income.
I don't think that's a fair calculation, and I think its kinda what Oni was referring to as "fucking with the numbers". I don't think a general case can be made to say its cheaper to cook at home or its cheaper to get fast food. It all depends on the individuals circumstances and you can make either one cheaper than the other depending on what you buy.
The hours you don't work are the ones that are more valuable to you than $16. The hours you value at less than $16 are the hours you go to work and earn the $16.
I wouldn't sacrifice a night's sleep for less than $30/hr. But I don't have an opportunity to make $30 an hour, or any money at all, in the middle of the night while I'd be sleeping. So how much would you say I should value that time?
To tie this into the topic, once I figure out how to assess this cost of time, I'll look into ways that people might be stealing from me with it.
Well, you can (and do) certainly say that this particular hour in your life is worth X dollars to spend it one way, or Y dollars to spend it another. Time is money.
Explicitly, not so much.
Oh, yeah. So, the "opportunity cost" of doing something is...
I read the wiki page.
I don't think this is strange or alien to you. Surely once in your life you considered staying home from work to play video games, but then it dawned on you - you're liable to make about $60-120 for a day of work, and playing video games wouldn't be worth being $60 poorer. So you went to work. Hell, I've made the same calculation. Some days I decided that, no, kicking back for a day was worth being $60 poorer than I otherwise would have been.
As an actual example of me doing this: In addition to my sick time at work, we have incentive time. If you go a whole quarter without calling in sick, then you get a free bonus day. There's been days where I was sick and maybe should call in, but I hadn't taken a sick day that quarter yet so to me, this one sick day was actually going to cost me two days off so I went ahead an went in to work. (good incentive, eh?)
Well, I think it should be calculated at the job you could plausibly get during that time.
I don't, because people are going to be going to the store anyways. That time is already accounted for as "going to the store" time, so its not accurate to factor in 2 hours at $16/hr to the cost of making a home cooked meal. Like if you stop at fast food on the way home from work, you were driving home from work anyways so adding in that time into the cost of the meal isn't accurate either.
For the most part, most people work jobs where they can get a few extra hours if they want, so it's plausible to suggest that most of the time they're spending to do something else could be spent doing more hours at their job.
To add another level of complication: I'm on a salary and I'm exempt from overtime. I get the exact same amount every week and I can't change that.
I don't think either of us are "right" or "wrong." Our time has different value to each of us.
My problem was with the claim that a home cooked meal cost more than fast food. I don't think that's generally true.
You just told me that sleep is worth $30 an hour or more to you. How can you therefore think sleep has no value?
Because I, personally, cannot make any more money during that time so I don't feel like I'm losing anything by spending it sleeping.
I still do not think they were targeting children. I went to the real source and read the document in its context, rather than the chopped up version on wikipedia.
Now would be the time to quote the relevant material that shows that they were not marketing to children. But even then, can we really trust the accused here? Of course they, themselves, are going to claim that they weren't doing anything wrong.
They wanted to increase their sales among high-school students, teens and young adults (aged 14-24),
14 year olds are children.
but saying they marketed to children is a little silly. I don't care if a 6 year old knows who Joe Camel is or not, that is not marketing to children.
What would you prefer to call "provinding product information and a positive product image to children through an appealing cartoon character" if not "marketing"?
what kind of addiction?
Sugary and salty foods lead themselves to be desired over more healthy alternatives. Its not like heroin tho.
Making you hamburgers seem cool to kids and them loading them up with all flavor and no nutrition as cheaply as possible is not an honorable approach.
I live in a nation where you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I know you are from the People's Republic of Illinois and concepts like that are difficult to comprehend.
You implied you had read something that suggested they weren't targeting children... and we're not in court. I realize readin' these letter-symbols and followin' a discussion can be hard.
I consider Mammals of breeding age to no longer be children. At what age do sexually mature mammals cease to be adolescents?
I don't care to quibble over whether or not a 14 year should be considered a child.
Ronald McDonald exists for children.
you probably do not own any makeup, or perfume. yet if you went to Macy's to buy some for a female, I bet you know of a couple brands. Is it because those brands were marketed to you? or is it because they have been around for a long time and you recognize the brand, the name?
The fact that a child knows about a product does not imply that it has been directly marketed to them, that's true. That's why you need to consider the other important part I posted where they go on to admit marketing to children. The fact that the children know the brand supports the position that they have been marketed to, but does not prove it.
But, brands that are for women most definately do market to the men because they know the men will be buying thier products for the women in their life.
i disagree. hamburgers are not healthy food. there is no honor in selling the fatty portion of oxen period. it shouldn't ought to be either, because its not healthy food. now if there goal was to take healthy food and make it unhealthy on purpose then you may have a point.
Even if its common knowledge that your product isn't healthy to begin with, I still don't see any merit in promoting it to children to hook them while they're young so you can have life-long loyalty. Its sleazy.