Ah March, that time of year when people put anything and everything into “bracket” form. Last year, So Good brought down the house with our wildly popular Meat Madness tournament. One full month of debates, arguments and voting, leading to some interesting final results, and ultimately, bacon defeating steak to be crowned the greatest meat in the land. We even had some controversy along the way, as Deadspin accused an ESPN reporter of copying the idea of a meat bracket.
Rather than re-hash Meat Madness, this year So Good has returned with an all new competition: The Fast Food Bracket.
The rules are fairly simple. Over the course of the next month, So Good readers will vote, match-up by match-up, to determine what is the best fast food chain in America. When we use the term “fast food”, we are using it loosely. These tournament competitors really fall under the larger umbrella of Quick Service Restaurants, or QSR.
Please weigh in with your predictions, intriguing match-ups and thoughts in the comments!
Here is how the participants and seeding were determined, working off last year’s list of the top 50 QSR chains:
As I sit in my office this morning, it is out there. In the tangible world, a burger exists that is not truly a burger. It is an IMPOSTER. A fink. I am speaking of McDonald’s new-ish Big Mac Wrap.
Take a Big Mac. Remove the buns. Cut the patties in half, sometimes quarters. Wrap up everything else (especially the special sauce, yummo!) in a carb-friendly wrap. And there you have it!
The bastard son of the falafel, the Big Mac Wrap.
The new commercials are out and they are intoxicating. Regular people like you or me are featured, speaking to the Big Mac Wrap as if re-introducing themselves to an old friend. In terms of marketing strategies, this is as safe as they come. Take an established product, deconstruct it, sell it.
It’s a win-win. On the one hand, if people don’t buy it they can simply revert back to ye olde Big Mac. It’s also a win for franchises who don’t have to spend extra money buying new ingredients.
It’s also the laziest freaking deconstruction possible. Put a wrap on something and it is born again!
Yes, according to the nutritional facts this wrap is better for you. You’re still getting absolutely murdered by sodium intake. Also, instead of eating anything else in the burger world, you’re eating a Big Mac that’s been put in a blender.
Taste: Not suprisingly, it tastes like a Big Mac. Yawwwwwwwwn.
Texture: I hate. Eating a Big Mac without a bun is a completely alien experience. I kept finding myself wondering about the bun. Am I really that programmed burger-wise? Does my Giant America Burger Made Proudly By Americans really need that bun?
Cost: Cheaper, but you pay for what you get.
Gimmick Factor: I tried one, so it gets some points here. However, I would really be about this product if they tried to brand it as a McDonald’s Falafel. It would have been such a great stretch…
To keep it short and sweet, if you like Big Macs but hate the buns, try this thing. It truly has no buns.
A few days ago, Consumerist had a blog post showing an interesting map alleging to show the concentration of fast-food burger joints across the U.S.
The Consumerist post is based off an “Infographic of the Day” post from the magazine Fast Company. The map above appears to show a far less dominant market position for McDonald’s than many had assumed. In fact, the blogger for Consumerist notes:
I had always assumed that McDonalds’ hamburger hegemony of the United States, if not the world, was complete. I was wrong. Clearly, I need to leave the Northeast more.
Indeed, the map seems to convey that McDonald’s has extreme concentration in the Northeast, but not many other places of dominance other than a scattering of black dots across the Northwest and upper Midwest.
There’s just one problem: by making the claim that McDonald’s is not as dominant as they thought, and by failing to explain the nature of the map seen above, Consumerist (as well as Fast Company) is essentially misreading and misinterpreting the data by failing to note the map above is labeled McDonald’s vs. Allied Competitors.
So what does “Allied Competitors” mean? It means the total number of stores for McDonald’s top 7 competitors are being added together and compared directly with McDonald’s. So if there is a black dot in the region you are looking at, i.e. the Northeast, than McDonald’s in that region has more locations than its next 7 rivals COMBINED. In any region that is NOT black, the 7 other competitors have more stores than McDonald’s, but only AFTER you combine all their stores into one cumulative number. In these circumstances, a black McDonald’s dot is simply ineligible to appear on the map for that location and the color of the competitor with the most locations in that region is highlighted on the map.
So let me emphasize that again: the most predominant competitor is highlighted EVEN IF THAT COMPETITOR HAS FEWER STORES IN THE REGION THAN MCDONALD’S.
What is a more interesting question is WHY did Consumerist and Fast Company both highlight this map? The original blog that posted this visualization, WeatherSealed, provided the map you see above as somewhat of an after-thought, imagining it as a Star Wars-esque “rebel alliance” of McDonald’s competitors who are able to “beat” McDonald’s only by collectively banding together. In fact, WeatherSealed led off their original blog post with a map that is a much more accurate representation of just how much McDonald’s dominates vs. other fast food joints on a per-location basis:
Here we see some sheer dominance of Texas and Oklahoma by Sonic, a smattering of Burger King & Dairy Queen clusters in the Upper Midwest/Plain States, some Jack-in-the-Box love for So-Cal and Arizona and some Wendy’s strength in the Appalachian belt. But the blasting of black across the rest of the United States outside of these clusters makes clear the control McDonald’s wields over the U.S. market based on the number-of-locations metric.
So why did Consumerist and Fast Company highlight the other map? Because it’s prettier? Has more psychedelic colors? Conveys the more interesting (although completely inaccurate) point that McDonald’s might not be as dominant as people thought? Either way, Consumerist and Fast Company appear to have done a disservice to their readers by not better explaining the context of the map they were highlighting and/or noting the more relevant map of the two.
….well, assuming you think a one dollar bill qualifies as “cold, hard cash.”
The Maryland/DC based burrito joint California Tortilla will be placing hundreds of $1 bills around the DC area on Thursday, March 11th with messages attached to them promoting its $5 “Fiesta Combo.” To raise awareness of this promotion, California Tortilla is apparently going all out by: A) e-mailing me, and B) releasing the following YouTube video, which clearly must have gone the way of Avatar and run way, way over budget:
The promotion has shades of the Burger King “lost wallet” promotion, although those wallets contained anywhere from $1 to $100 as well as some “cool” paraphernalia like a drivers license for The King. While finding a dollar with a note about a deal at California Tortilla might cause a few people to mention it to friends, I am a bit skeptical about something this small scale to generate enough word-of-mouth buzz to have a substantial impact.
What do people think? Will this promotion generate any buzz, or is this So Good post the last we’ll hear of it online?
The hot dogindustry was placed under the spotlight this past Monday when the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended that hot dog makers change the shape of the tubular food item in order to be less of a choking hazard for kids. The recommendation also targeted “hard candy, whole grapes, raw carrots, peanut butter, chewing gum, marshmallows, peanuts/nuts, popcorn and sausages.”
Now, I am as much against kids choking to death as the next guy, but come on – tube-shaped foods are popular because mouths are round and they are easier to eat. Round peg, meet round hole. Hot dogs, brats, sausages, subs (grinders to the NE crowd), burritos, enchiladas, popsicles, etc. are all cylindrical, and mighty tasty. Should they be redesigned because they are a potentially dangerous? – No. OK, so kids eat hot dogs more than the other foods – solution: either don’t buy hot dogs for kids (also preventing childhood obesity – a plus), or cut them up! Problem solved. The same thinking applies to all the other foods that the AAP is warning people against. Let’s all use a little common sense here so that we don’t have to enjoy government-mandated hot dog shakes at the next ball game (extra kraut in mine).
Speaking of the ball game, choking is not the only danger posed by wieners, as seen at a Kansas City Royals game last season here.
As usual this time of year, people love to get all bent out of shape about the content of Super Bowl commercials. With Tim Tebow on one side, and ManCrunch on the other, folks get all high and mighty about the content of some ads, when of course we all know about the many ads for booze, ED, and other miscellaneous crapola featuring scantily-clad woman. Hypocrite much? [I like to create my own syntax.] That said, thanks to Huffington Post, I recently came across a bunch of ads (mostly beer-related) that were not allow to air. Would they pass the smell test now?
Banned Bud Light ad:
Banned Rolling Rock ad:
Here’s one that should have been banned, for totally seperate reasons:
Wavy Lay’s:
Finally, here is a list of advertisers who are approved heading into Sunday’s big game. Hopefully there are some good ones in there.
At the start of the 2010 Miss America pageant on Saturday, the introduction portion of the show lets contestants come out and give an upbeat intro for their state, which usually consists of something along the lines of “I’m XXXX from the great state of XXXX home of [insert famous food, product, company, celebrity, historical figure, sports team]“ Innocent enough, and a nice way for each contestant to share something their state is famous for.
Miss Michigan, Nicole Blaszczyk, perhaps with consideration for the ailing Michigan economy, decided to highlight a particular Michigan based company: Kellogg’s cereal. While I can’t find the transcript online, and the video clips of the introduction portion on YouTube are mysteriously missing Miss Michigan, to paraphrase she came out and essentially said:
“From the birthplace of breakfast cereal and home of Kellogg’s, did you eat your Wheaties this morning?”
Cute right? And a nice shout-out for Kellogg’s. There’s just one problem: Kellogg’s doesn’t make Wheaties. It’s biggest competitor, General Mills does (which is based in Minnesota). Wheaties is also considered to be huge direct competition for one of Kellogg’s flagship cereals, Corn Flakes. Whoops!
Seems like an innocent mistake, but she probably had weeks to work on that intro. Wouldn’t it have made sense to make sure you were actually citing a Kellogg’s brand cereal in the intro?
Taco Bell has unveiled a new offering which they are calling the “NBA $5 Buck Box.” Someone should explain to Taco Bell that the $ symbol represents the word “dollar” so they don’t need to also include the word “buck” in the name. Think about it, the proper name of this product when said correctly is: “NBA Five Dollar Buck Box.”
Five Dollar Buck. Let me say that again in case you didn’t realize how stupid it sounded the first time: Five Dollar Buck.
Not only is it asinine and repetitive, it just flat out doesn’t make sense. Nice work Taco Bell. Apparently only the best and the brightest make the cut for jobs in Taco Bell’s product naming and copy writing department.
Given the chatter and buzz about an upcoming anti-abortion Super Bowl ad starting Tim Tebow, Upright Citizens Brigade took it upon themselves to imagine what a commercial featuring the University of Florida star hawking Dorito’s might look like.
Update: AgencySpy is reporting that CBS has rejected the ad, and provided the following statement to ManCrunch as a response:
CBS Standards and Practices has reviewed your proposed Super Bowl ad and concluded that the creative is not within the Network’s Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday.
Original Post:
It wouldn’t be Super Bowl season without debate over potentially controversial commercials. While the ad below is not for a food company, but rather for the gay men’s dating site ManCrunch, I thought it worthy of writing about because the pinnacle moment comes when the two featured men in the commercial have their hands brush up against each other while reaching into a bowl of potato chips – leading to an impromptu, but passionate make-out session.
Ah, hook-ups driven by food, you are an o-so-common occurrence. I mean seriously, how many times in your life have you awkwardly brushed hands with a date while reaching into a popcorn bag at a movie? Or accidentally started eating the same piece of spaghetti from opposite ends when sharing a plate of pasta (that happens in real life, not just Lady & The Tramp, right?)
The ad has not yet been formally accepted or rejected, but ManCrunch’s PR agency has informed me that:
the site’s executives now believe CBS is intentionally postponing a final call on whether they will air the ad because they are worried about a backlash from gay and lesbian advocacy groups if they reject it.
It sounds to me like maybe ManCrunch is fishing for a story – if CBS was worried about backlash from gay and lesbian groups, wouldn’t they just accept the ad? If they are considering rejecting it, then they must have some level of concern about “pro-family” or anti-gay groups complaining or criticizing CBS if they were to air it.
So what do you think readers, should CBS reject this ad? Or is it ridiculous that they would even consider doing so?
And what do you think of ManCrunch’s intentions with this ad? Are they seriously interested in forking over the cash for this commercial to air, or are they just trying to stoke some controversy where it doesn’t exist in order to get some “buzz” online?
Apparently, fat, drunk and stupid actually is the way to go through life – at least according to Burger King. BK, the creator of such brilliant concepts as “Singing in the Shower” and “Burger Shots,” today announced that they will start serving beer along with their plethora of food-like products in mid-February at a trial location. This establishment, fashionably dubbed “Whopper Bar,” will be in South Beach, which shouldn’t surprise anyone. If successful, the chain will spread these eateries to other towns featuring elastic-waisted-pants-wearing-tourists, like LA, Vegas and NYC. It clearly is not enough for the chain to fill you up with salt, saturated fat and cholesterol – you have to be boozed up as well. Ahh, the American dream. I can’t wait to place my next drive-though order.
Rad Omen. Who are they again? I have no idea either. Their Twitter and MySpace accounts are totally inactive, but apparently they are some sort band/group/music collective. Regardless of who the hell they are, their latest video, for their song “Rad Anthem”, directed by Nicholaus Goossen (who was the director of “Grandma’s Boy” and “The Shortcut”) is most definitely a winner. One of the most entertaining videos I’ve seen in a while.
Remember how much people loved the re-imagining of fast food mascots as mafia characters? Well this is even better. Watch as Colonel Sanders, Ronald McDonald, the Jack in the Box Mascot and the BK King party their faces off and paint the town red – drugs, booze and strippers most definitely included. Oh, and keep an eye out for a special cameo by comedian Nick Swardson as – well, I won’t spoil the surprise for you. Check it out:
I stumbled across Yelp several years ago when looking up a restaurant’s address. It seemed interesting enough; a cloying aggregator that collects people’s instant opinions to form an overall one-four star rating system. However, like most things on the internet, reading the actual reviews by customers made me wonder how reliable this service actually is.
Far be it from me to suggest conspiracy theories, but Yelp can be easily manipulated by stores that crave good reviews. This isn’t a new concept, but it still makes me question the motivation of most posters. It’s hard enough to form one’s own opinion on a restaurant’s food, atmosphere and service without secretly wondering if this place has been recommended to you by the restaurant manager posing as Suzie Q.
Ah, and the ranking system. Any time you go from 1-5, one would expect rankings to reflect the following logic when ranking a restaurant:
1: Terrible service, terrible location, food was almost inedible.
2: Food was actually okay, but rest of experience was lacking
3: Everything was mediocre
4: Decent service, food was great
5: Already thinking about returning
I had a LOT of problems writing number 2. Why aren’t there four stars? Let’s look at some reviews and try and determine the metric for a 2 star rating.
“Yeah.. I know I will get crap for this.. and I know it’s a very unChicago thing to say… but I find corn bread crust yucky. I hate cornbread, so don’t make a pizza out of it…The ingredients were fresh and tasty. I also didn’t think that the “large” pizza warranted the large moniker. It was more like a medium. For more than 2 people, I’d definitely recommend more than 1 pizza.”
Laura does not like corn bread crust, so the establishment immediately loses some stars. But is every pizza made with cornbread crust? Also, why apologize for your opinion when writing an opinion-based review? The ingredients were fresh and tasty, but the pies were too small. I’m not sure I get it. Is a two star review always so muddled and confusing? Based on the content of the review, I would’ve given the place a 3-star rating. But let’s see some other 2-star gems. Dave S. similarly complains about the size of Pizano’s pizzas:
“The were probably the smallest and most overpriced large pizzas that I have ever had. They were not even that good. I paid nearly $90 for four pizzas that were supposed to be large but were more like mediums in the real world. Come on with the toppings guys, these pizzas were very, very bare. I was not really impressed with them at all.”
Uh, woof. Notice his comment about “real world medium pizzas.” What does that even really mean? What is the gold standard size-wise for a large pizza? Are we talking deep-dish or thin crust? This is all getting very confusing. Let’s confuse things even more by adding Dave S.’s reasoning behind his two-star rating:
Crust = very good
Toppings = very skimpy
Quick Delivery = Nope, very slow
Friendly Service = “Leave the attitudes at home, I am paying you good money here”
Price = Not worth it at all
So he hates the price, the service, the delivery time and the toppings. And he only likes the crust of the pizza? This looks like a 1-star rating to me.
Also, I’ll also add that the whole, “I’m paying you GOOD MONEY, so ACT like it,” bit. If you write that in a review, you’re asking to be treated like a jerk. Yes, you have paid these people to offer you a service, but don’t act like you paid their future kids college education off. This pizza delivery person is a human being. You tip them 15-20% and shut the door in their faces. What more do you want?
Perhaps Christina S. will be more honest with her ranking?
“I picked Pizano’s because it’s close to the Contemporary Art Museum and had a four-star rating. Yelp, you’ve done me wrong…Our deep-dish pizza was thin, watery, and undercooked, and my fettuccine dish was totally unappetizing. The nail in the coffin was the smoking policy, though. No smoking within 15 feet of the bar. Well, my friends, the bar runs along one side of the dining room and the building itself is no more than 20 feet wide. What a joke.”
Alright, now we’re talking! Food that is awful and looks awful! A watery deep-dish pizza is a blasphemous thing indeed, and a critique of the establishment’s smoking policy which is now rendered moot by Illinois’s smoking ban in restaurants and bars helps lower the bar. The location is lauded as well, making this a solid two-star rating.
Using a small sample size has shown us some small truths about Yelp, namely that you can’t really trust a rating. People have different levels of taste and shifting palates, and Phil’s 2 star rating could be Janet’s 5 star meal-gasm.
I plan to further delve into my conspiracy theory that half of every restaurant’s positive reviews are written by employees. If you have any first-hand accounts of any such heinous acts of deception, you can email me at hugedays@gmail.com.
As many of you know, today’s would have been Elvis Presley’s 75th birthday. He left an indelible impression on our culture in many ways; primarily through music, but also with food. I mean, this guy loved to eat – maybe a little too much, actually. That said, when you think Elvis and food, you likely think of his seminal creation: the fried peanut butter, banana (and sometimes bacon) sandwich. I have never had this combination together, but as Elvis knew good food, especially the kind that would literally inflate you as you ate it, we should follow his lead.
Per the NY Times’ Diner’s Journal recipe, we should all go home today and make this sandwich while thinking of The King.
Fried Peanut Butter and Banana Sandwiches
4 tablespoons commercial peanut butter
4 slices white sandwich bread
2 ripe bananas, sliced into thin rounds, approximately half a cup
4 slices bacon (optional, but what would Elvis do?)
3 tablespoons butter
1. If using bacon, fry in a heavy skillet over medium heat until crisp. Remove from pan and drain over paper towel. Wipe out skillet.
2. Spread peanut butter evenly over 2 slices of bread, then pile banana slices over these. Add bacon, if using, then complete sandwiches with remaining slices of bread. Press together gently.
3. Heat butter in skillet over medium heat until it foams, then fry sandwiches, turning once, until golden brown, about 4 minutes total. Serve immediately.
This Australian TV commercial for KFC is officially titled “KFC Cricket Survival Guide.” It features a white Australian cricket fan, who, realizing all the fans around him are black and rooting for the opponent, offers up “a tip when you’re stuck in an awkward situation.” What happens next? He offers the people around him a bucket of fried chicken! See for yourself:
The title this video has been given on YouTube is “Racist KFC Advertisement?” It’s generated a little bit of coverage so far, and most people seem to be suggesting that the ad is, in fact, racist. In the title of its post, BuzzFeed is calling it “racist”, while Make the Logo Bigger asks “Another racist KFC ad?” MediaBistro’s AgencySpy doesn’t use the actual word racist, but the language used in framing up its blog post strongly suggests they feel that way as well.
So is the ad racist? Or is that just the way we American’s view it? That’s what one commenter at Buzzfeed suggests:
I don’t think the stereotype of black people loving fried chicken is popular anywhere but the USA, this ad would be pretty harmless in another country
On AgencySpy, another commentator named “Nancy” seems to agree with this sentiment, noting:
This is only racist when viewed through the prism of americans and their limited view of cultures and the world…..awkward situation is : Cricket World Cup took place in the west indes recently, of course Australian fan, lone among the jubilant west indian fans…tries to make friends …so what he offers chicken…in the west indes, we don’t survive on daily ingest of junk food, it is just eaten during lively, fun times like that
While a commenter named “Juan” adds:
The ad is meant to be satire, not demeaning, it could be misperceived as a racial stereotype, but its not aimed at the super sensitive U.S market with our out of control “political correctness” and our pretense at racial equality
However, in the original blog post, Agency Spy notes the clear racial undertones of a white guy describing himself as being in an “awkward situationjust because he’s stuck in a crowd of happy, cheering black people.” Meanwhile, other commenters call the ad “truly embarassing” and one asks, “Is KFC’s agency headed by Strom Thurmond?”
Haven’t heard of this commercial yet? Well lest you think this is going unnoticed, it’s the #18 most viewed video this month for the Australian version of YouTube and has received over 2,300 comments.
What do you think So Good readers? Racist? Unfortunate idea for an ad? Misinterpreted by American’s?
Earlier this month, the United Kingdom division of Burger King put up a new page on its website called “Singing in the Shower”, featuring a “Shower Babe” who you could view live each morning singing a song while lathering up and showering in a bikini.
In case you miss it live, the site lets you replay the footage of that day’s shower song so there is incentive to check back each day. The site also lets users help decide what song she will sing the next morning, and which bikini she will wear (see burger themed bikini above and fried egg themed bikini below).
In a time where you get used to seeing nothing but ultra skinny supermodels in ads, it is interesting to note that the woman they selected for this, while certainly attractive, falls more into the average-build, girl next door kind of look, rather than the “oh my god I’m looking at a supermodel showering” kind of look. Oh, and one other thing, those of you that saw the site can confirm: her singing is TERRIBLE. I mean really not good at all. There will be no Britain’s Got Talent auditions for this young lady.
Now I’m certainly not the first one to report on this, as Mashable, BrandChannel and AdRants all posted about it in mid-December. What is interesting, however, is that no one seems to have realized that this promotion/webpage was gone almost as soon as it appeared. Fast Food Maven posted about the Shower Babe on December 26th, inviting her readers to watch the Shower Babe and share their thoughts – apparently totally unaware that by Wednesday, December 23rd, the site wasn’t even live anymore, and the previous ShowerCam URL re-directed people to a new page devoted to the Whopper and promoting the fact that at Burger King “Taste is King.”
So what’s up with the idea to promote Burger King through a girl singing in the shower? While Burger King has not been afraid to release some highly questionable and offensive sexually laced ads in the past, featuring a woman showering, live on camera, may be a new low (high?) for Burger King’s advertising strategy. Initially, a BK spokesperson defended the website, noting:
“Our research showed that breakfast is a male-centric audience for Burger King; it doesn’t resonate as well with women – we are targeting the people who are buying breakfast.”
Oh. Wait. You are promoting Burger King Breakfast???? I didn’t realize that, I was too distracted WATCHING A WOMAN SHOWERING. Breakfast. Right. That makes sense, because you shower in the morning, then head out to get a BK breakfast sandwich. It all makes sense now. Uh, yeah.
Now your typical guy will probably be pathetically lured into this, because c’mon, we’re guys and we’re weak. We’ll watch live based on the .ooooo1% chance that something will go wrong and her bikini will accidentally burst off, exposing the BK Shower Babe for all the world to see. Sorry kiddos, but there is definitely no nudity, these videos are about as CLEAN as it gets (Haha! See what I did there? Clean? Huh? Clean? Get it? Cause it’s a shower? Comedy GOLD).
The question to ask now is not what possessed Burger King to launch this website, but rather why did they take it down in basically two weeks time? Now I’m sure the official BK company line is that they always planned for this to be a quick promotion and it ran its course…blah, blah, blah. Bullshit. If the site was getting flooded with millions of visitors and drawing favorable coverage left and right, they would have definitely kept the site running. Furthermore, even if they only contracted the woman to do two weeks worth of showers (wow, it feels dirty just writing that…haha! get it? dirty?) wouldn’t they re-hire her for additional weeks if it proved to be a viral hit? Or even if the promotion had run its course, why not leave the site up for people to watch the old videos rather than essentially hiding its existence behind a re-direct to a new “Taste is King” promotion?
My guess? Burger King saw the consumer, online and press reaction to this and decided to pull the plug prematurely. While Burger King doesn’t shy away from controversial advertising that gets people talking, this campaign had a notably stalker-esque and creepy feel to it. For a company that already centers so much of its marketing around a creepy, stalkerish mascot, it may have decided, in retrospect, that allowing its customers to watch a woman showering was just one small, creepy step away from drilling a Porky’s style peep-hole in a woman’s locker room so that Burger King consumers online could feast their eyes on a bevy of Burger Shots.
I don’t expect Burger King to admit this of course, but that’s my theory.
"So Good has the lowdown on anything that’s happening in the world of food media. He’s the guy who broke the LeBron James/Papa Johns scandal." - Endless Simmer
