I disagree, however, over the implication that the black background makes the other map misleading. If the black appearing within the borders of the U.S. is the “background” color, then how can one even tell which parts of it are representations of McDonald’s density vs. just empty space that is filled in? I believe to suggest that is an inaccurate portrayal of what the map shows.

I interpreted that map differently (and I believe, correctly) – any regions on that map which are colored black, even if they are remote, unpopulated regions, are areas where the CLOSEST fast food location to that point is a McDonald’s – which would actually seem to jive perfectly with your analysis that they “cover the country in a loose but consistent density.” This is why I felt that if you had highlighted the black map it would have meshed much better with the written analysis you provided.

Why do market research yourself when McD can do it for you!?

[[[Outside of a powerbase in the Northeast, they cover the country in a loose but consistent density. The other chains are playing a different game, trying to become so common in certain regions that they seem unavoidable. (The one thing missing in the graph is other types of fastfood chains--Subway being the most glaring omission.)

And that, you could argue, is an indicator of relative brand strength: McDonald's doesn't have to have four stores in a single block, because people will come to the one that they do have. Everyone else has to shout a lot louder to compensate.]]]

Which is essentially the opposite position than the one you attribute to our post.

Moreover, we should the other map simply because it’s more accurate. The black of the other map happens to be THE BACKGROUND COLOR. It doesn’t show that you can find a McDonald’s every single place in the Northern Hemisphere, from the woods of central Idaho to the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. I didn’t post that version precisely because it’s misleading–it highlights the colorful chains, rather than the McDonald’s locations.