I am wondering why some people think McDonald's was required to take the bait from Burger King's World Peace publicity stunt? I'm not so sure they did the wrong thing- their tone was a obit rude, but I'm not sure I agree with this article otherwise: http://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/burger-king-called-for-a-truce-with-mcdonald-s-and-mcdonald-s-totally-blew-it.html?fb_ref=Default
Hi Doug. I too think McDonald's response may have been a bit sanctimonious. Their dismissal could have been a little bit more light-hearted (It's burgers, not war, after all.) Having said that, I see no reason why a company needs to play along with a blatantly self-interested competitor. The distant number 2 (or is that 3 or 4 or 5?) competitor tries to hitch awareness of their brand to my number 1 brand? Come on. This is totally different from real consumers reaching out to my company. I respond to real people. I treat "brands" differently. They're not real people. And I approach them differently. Last thing: Nobody in my family of five was even aware of this (other than me through posts like this). So, it doesn't strike me as a mistake for McDonald's to not have brought more attention to it.
Add a comment...