💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000837.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:39:57.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
US McLibel Support Campaign,
c/o Vermonters Organized for Cleanup, Box 120, E.Calais VT 05640
802-586-9628 dbriars@world.std.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
December 19, 1994
11th, 12th, 13th Weeks Of The Trial
Advertising: The Manipulation Of Children
CONTENTS
Background
John Hawkes, Mcdonalds' Uk Chief Marketing Officer
Their Aim Is 2-8 Year-Olds.
Secret Internal Advertising Manual Revealed
Use Of Disney Toys And Themes
Misleading Ads Forced off the Air
David Green, The Corporation's Senior Vice President Of Marketing
What Mcdonald's Calls Its "Kids Business"
History Of Legal Disputes Over Dishonest Ads
Child Exploiting Ads Banned In Sweden
Mcnutrition: "coca Cola Qualifies As Nutritious"
Kenneth Miles, Chief Executive Of The Incorporated Society Of British Advertisers
The Folly Of Trusting Adv. Regulation To Industry Associations
Juliet Gellatley, For The Defendants, On Advertising
Young Children See Ronald As God
Using Mcdonald's Vouchers From Schools, Doctors, Dentists
Outright Distortion Of Reality
Mcdonald's Reply,
The Story Of How Mcl Coerced The Vegetarian Society To Back Down
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
After several years of pre-trial hearings, the McDonalds libel case against
two environmentalists - who were allegedly involved in distribution in
1989/1990 of the London Greenpeace leaflet "What's Wrong With McDonalds" -
began at the end of June 1994. It is set to run until DECEMBER 1995.
A total of approximately 170 UK and international witnesses will give
evidence in court about the effects of the company's advertising and the
impact of its operating practices and food products on the environment, on
millions of farmed animals, on human health, on the Third World, and on
McDonalds' own staff. They will include environmental and nutritional
experts, trade unionists, McDonald's employees, customers and top
executives.
McDonalds have claimed that wide-ranging criticisms of their operations, in
a leaflet produced by London Greenpeace, have defamed them, so they have
launched this libel action against two people (Dave Morris & Helen Steel)
involved with the group.
Prior to the start of the case, McDonald's issued leaflets nationwide
calling their critics liars. So Helen and Dave themselves took out a
counterclaim for libel against McDonald's which will run concurrently with
McDonald's libel action.
Helen and Dave were denied their right to a jury trial, at McDonalds'
request. And, with no right to Legal Aid in libel cases, they are forced to
conduct their own defense against McDonald's team of top libel lawyers.
The trial is open to members of the press and public (Court 35, Royal
Courts of Justice, The Strand, London WC2) and is set to run until DECEMBER
1995.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
11th, 12th, 13th Weeks Of The Trial Were Taken Up With Witnesses On
Advertising.
John Hawkes, McDonald's UK Chief Marketing Officer
John Hawkes, McDonald's UK Chief Marketing Officer, defended the company's
marketing practices and techniques and how it spends its UK budget of 35
million pounds per year (6% of total income). The purpose of advertising,
he said, is "communication", and "persuasion", to foster "brand awareness"
and "loyalty", in order to increase sales. "You have to keep your name in
front of people's minds. Without advertising", he said, "you might see the
company decline completely". He considered that advertising was "a key
element of free speech in this country".
Their Aim Is 2-8 Year-Olds.
Mr Hawkes said that McDonald's concentrates on TV as "the most powerful
advertising medium". Charts revealed that the company advertised to
children, in particular 2 to 8 year-olds, most weeks of the year. A
compilation of their TV ads was shown. The main techniques were the
promotion of "Happy Meals" with toys, and the use of Ronald McDonald and
happy "McDonaldland" characters based on food items. Mr Hawkes said that
all this was to "entertain" kids and to "make them feel McDonald's is a
fun, colorful place to be, that they would like to go to". He could see "no
ethical problem" with the use of Ronald and other characters.
Secret Internal Advertising Manual Revealed
Extracts from the corporation's official and confidential "Operations
Manual" were read out giving a more accurate insight into the company's
strategy: "Children are often the key decision-makers concerning where a
family goes to eat". Offering toys is "one of the best things..to make them
loyal supporters". Birthday parties are "an important way to generate added
sales and profits". Ronald McDonald "is a strong marketing tool". "Ronald
loves McDonald's and McDonald's food. And so do children, because they love
Ronald. Remember, children exert a phenomenal influence when it comes to
restaurant selection. This means that you should do everything you can to
appeal to children's love for Ronald and McDonald's."
The company's ads, Mr Hawkes admitted, create "an image in the child's
mind" to get them "to encourage their parents to bring them into
McDonald's". He hoped that teaching them McDonald's songs would "keep the
memory of McDonald's at the forefront of their minds so they can again ask
their parents if they can come to McDonald's". The company didn't target 8
to 15 year-olds so much, Mr Hawkes said. "At that age they do not pester
their parents to go to McDonald's. It does not work in the same way". "They
are not as brand loyal"as the 2 to 8 year-olds".
He stated that when McDonald's was launched in a new region or country
(this included Scotland a few years ago), the company would at first
advertise exclusively to children. He said "one of the tactics is to reach
families through children".
Use Of Disney Toys And Themes
The company also uses promotions as a cheap form of publicity - Mr Hawkes
recognized McDonald's were "riding on the back of Disney's popularity" by
using Lion King toys in their stores. Furthermore, during the World Cup the
company had run an advertising campaign showing a boy practicing football.
Mr Hawkes said the company was trying to associate McDonald's with the
World Cup and sport and agreed this was to associate McDonald's with
fitness and vigor, and to make people think "our food is healthy".
Misleading Ads Forced off
Mr Hawkes accepted that the Advertising Standards Authority had forced
McDonald's to withdraw two of their newspaper ads: one in 1990 for
misleading the public into believing the company used fewer additives in
their food than are in fact used, and the second in 1991 for making
misleading claims about the recyclability of their packaging when they were
not engaged in recycling it themselves.
During 1991, worried that customers were visiting less frequently, the
company conducted a survey. This revealed that such customers characterized
the company as being "loud, brash, American, successful, complacent,
uncaring, insensitive, disciplinarian, insincere, suspicious, arrogant".
He referred to charts that indicated 8% of people who ate out did so at
burger places - 70% of whom went to McDonald's. The heaviest users of
McDonald's are 16 to 24 year-olds who also eat a lot of other fast food.
The company claims to support official " Health of the Nation" dietary
initiatives to improve the population's health but, when questioned, Mr
Hawkes admitted this had had no effect on their marketing department.
David Green, the Corporation's Senior Vice President of Marketing
David Green, the Corporation's Senior Vice President of Marketing came from
the USA - his evidence lasted 4 days. McDonald's Annual Report records that
the company is the largest food service organization in the world, and in
1993 worldwide expenditure for advertising and promotions totalled $1.4
billion, about 6% of sales. Mr Green said $870m was spent annually in the
USA alone. He agreed they had pioneered "unusual" marketing methods which
had been "copied by others".
Mr Green said that both adults and children would see several McDonald's
advertisements a week. He agreed that young children of "Ronald age" of 0-8
years were "impressionable", but he defended the targeting of "Ronald age"
kids and said Ronald was a "friend". (The company employed 100-200 Ronalds
for local performances and events). He was asked: "do friends usually
promote multinational corporations and sell their products?". He replied:
"I'm not sure how I can react to that". Adverts directed at older kids
("tweens" aged 9-16 years) aimed to "make sure they feel that McDonald's
understands them". A video compilation of McDonald's US children's ads was
shown featuring "Happy Meals" free toys promotions, Ronald McDonald and the
"McDonaldland" characters. The company's "Hamburger Patch" portrayed happy
burgers growing on plants. (Mr Green said that the truth, i.e.
slaughterhouses, "would not be very appetizing").
What McDonald's calls its "Kids Business"
The Defendants referred to the company's confidential "Operations Manual"
which detailed the real purpose of using their clown (see Hawkes). It
described their overall relations with children as their "kids business"
and referred to their annual distribution of 28 million free company
magazines to kids, stating "they go into homes as a constant reminder of
McDonald's".
McDonald's internal code for their ads states that an aim is to make people
feel "a warm empathy towards the commercial" and therefore, he agreed,
"feel an empathy towards the company". He denied this was "manipulating
people's emotions". He also denied " brainwashing children with Ronald
McDonald" or having a "hidden agenda" in the use of Ronald. However, he
recognized that McDonald's "could change people's eating habits" and that
children were "virgin ground as far as marketing is concerned".
He agreed that community and charitable activity was "a benefit to the
company" and "good business" which gained "free publicity", and he
explained how "educational" promotions in schools "generate better
feelings" towards McDonald's and lead to more "patronage".
History Of Legal Disputes Over Dishonest Ads
Mr Green was questioned about some controversies and run-ins with critics
or the authorities over advertising campaigns which had been called
"deceptive': Chicken McNuggets ads (1985), a national nutrition week (1993)
toy called "Slugger" promoting meat for strength, and their "McLean Deluxe"
burger advertised as "91% fat free". He defended their national ads
campaign in 1987 which he agreed had been set up to "neutralize the junk
food misconceptions about McDonald's good food". He said the company knew
this would be a "controversial issue" - indeed, 3 Attorneys General
demanded the campaign be withdrawn as "deceptive" and an attempt to "pull
the wool over the public's eyes" as their food was "on the whole, not
nutritious". Mr Green said he could not remember the company ever having
withdrawn any ads due to criticism from public bodies. McDonald's felt
"there should not be censorship of advertising", he said. However, he
remembered that they dropped an ad unfavorably portraying a car wash- they
had received a complaint from the Car Wash Association (a trade body).
Child Exploiting Ads Banned In Sweden
He claimed to be unaware of bans limiting the use of Ronald McDonald in
Sweden, on an ad in Finland which "exploited the loneliness of a child", on
an ad in Denmark which used toys to promote their "Happy Meals", or of
controversies surrounding Ronald McDonald appearances at kindergartens in
Germany, Happy Meal promotions in South Korea, and of the targeting of kids
in Japan to help establish beef as a popular food. He was also unaware of a
ban in Australia on a McDonald's ad which described their packaging (made
with HCFCs) as "ozone friendly". He claimed the company took official
criticism "seriously" but conceded that they had "no system" of spreading
details of such criticisms throughout the company.
McDonald's Annual Report identifies "any establishment serving or selling
food as competition" - Mr Green agreed that the company aims to create new
markets wherever possible, for example in hospitals and schools. Half of
those who eat out in America do s o at fast food stores, a third of whom
eat at burger joints (and 40% of these eat at McDonald's).
Mcnutrition: "Coca Cola Qualifies As Nutritious"
An internal memo indicated that McDonald's had been worried about
"constant nutrition attacks" on the company. Mr Green asserted that the
company cared about public health, and stated: "McDonald's food is
nutritious" and "healthy" - when asked what the company meant by
"nutritious" he said: "provides nutrients and can be a part of a healthy
balanced diet". He admitted this could also apply to "a packet of sweets".
When asked if Coca Cola could be described as "nutritious" he replied that
it was "providing water, and I think that is part of a balanced diet". He
agreed that by his definition Coke was nutritious. The Defendants put to
him the Food and Drug Administration's recent official definition of a
"healthy" food - "low in fat..ch olesterol and sodium, and a good source of
one or more of 6 important nutrients" - which would soon apply to
advertising as well as labelling.
Mr Green stated that they didn't propose that people could sensibly eat
McDonald's food "as part of a diet composed largely of that kind of food".
He said 85-95% of Americans visit McDonald's, although a quarter of their
customers ('heavy users') made 75% of all visits. 11% of visits were from
"Super Heavy Users", who ate there 4 or more times per week. Mr Green said
their marketing strategy was to target heavy users to increase their
frequency of visits.
Mr Green denied there was a "huge credibility gap" between the reality of
McDonald's food and the way they portrayed it.
Kenneth Miles, Chief Executive Of The Incorporated Society Of British
Advertisers
Kenneth Miles, Chief Executive of the Incorporated Society of British
Advertisers, a trade association which promoted the interests of its
commercial members, including McDonald's, gave evidence about the purpose
of advertising, McDonald's use of it, and the remit of advertising
regulatory bodies.
Mr Miles said that he had watched McDonald's advertisements and could see
nothing wrong with them. In his view, they complied with the Independent
Television Commission (ITC) regulations. He admitted, however, that many of
the ITC regulations were open to interpretation. He said that ITC codes
forbade advertisers from "encouraging children to nag their parents", but
he admitted that the effect of adverts "in life" was just that.
The ITC codes also stated that adverts should not "take advantage of
children's natural credulity or sense of loyalty". The Defendants referred
Mr Miles to a passage in the company's Operations Manual (see evidence of J
Hawkes), which reads "Ronald loves McDonald's and McDonald's food, and so
do children because they love Ronald....you should do everything you can to
appeal to children's love of Ronald and McDonald's". Mr Miles was asked if
he thought the company was saying they should appeal to children' s love
for and loyalty to a character to get them to buy the food. He replied "I
think they are saying something like that...but what they do in internal
company documents...is a different matter" to their advertising. He said
that in Sweden, the use of cartoon characters in advertising was
restricted, and some countries banned the use of toys in promotions.
He agreed that the fast food industry is a growing part of the "eating out"
market , and collectively makes up "a very substantial portion of food
advertising". Advertising was, he claimed, "a relatively small influence"
on people's food choices, but he later admitted that one particular ad for
milk had increased milk consumption amongst children "quite substantially
in the weeks after".
The Folly Of Trusting Adv. Regulation To Industry Associations
He agreed with the "Health Of the Nation" recommendations that
advertisers should be "developing marketing practices more conducive to
healthy food choices", and "giving the public information which encourages
healthy eating ". As a result of these recommendations, the ITC was now
examining its Codes of Practice for TV food ads. The ITC had received
representations from various consumer and health organizations (including
the National Food Alliance) which wanted restrictions on food advertising
to children, some calling for outright bans on advertising fatty and sugary
foods to children (as with cigarettes and alcohol). This was opposed by the
advertising and food industry, who argued that there was insufficient
evidence that advertising had a significant effect on food type choices.
Mr Miles said he would associate himself with the industry position.
The new ITC proposals were now circulating. They recommended that
advertising "should not undermine progress towards national dietary
improvement by misleading, or confusing consumers, or by setting bad
examples, particularly to children", and suggesting regulations against
encouragement of "excessive consumption of any food", eating practices
detrimental to dental hygiene, and against generalized health claims "for
goodness or wholesomeness" not backed up by medical evidence.
He agreed that McDonald's ads were "portraying their food as attractive,
desirable and healthy". He disagreed that "the portrayal of food as
entertainment...that gives not nourishment but gratification, is a serious
nutritional problem in this country".
Juliet Gellatley, For The Defendants, On Advertising
Juliet Gellatley, former Director of Youth Education and Campaigns of the
Vegetarian Society, currently Director of VIVA (an educational charity),
gave evidence for the Defense about the effects on young people of
McDonald's advertising. As Director for Youth Education she gave talks to
about 30,000 children of all ages at 500 classroom debates, and also to
thousands of adults as well on vegetarianism and related issues.
Following the talks children discussed changing their diets. On many
occasions, of those interested in "going vegetarian". Some felt they
couldn't because they would be the "odd one out" or "be laughed at" if they
couldn't go to McDonald's. They often said this was "because of the hype"
and when questioned further they talked about McDonald's advertisements
which they had seen. She stated she had been surprised that "McDonald's was
the only burger chain specifically mentioned" in any of the talks, and that
it came up "so often".
Young Children See Ronald As God
The younger kids "kept mentioning...Ronald McDonald" who they "obviously
looked up to" as "just a pure and positive and fun character and something
quite real to them". In fact, "almost some kind of a mini-god". "The thing
that worried me greatly was", she said, "these younger children seem to
think it did not matter how much of McDonald's products they ate, and that
was...healthy and that was good, because Ronald McDonald told them that was
so".
Using McDonald's Vouchers From Schools, Doctors, Dentists
Ms Gellatley also identified McDonald's sponsorship - using vouchers etc.
given out to children by schools, dentists, and doctors as "rewards" - as
being "just an advertising gimmick...to get them to be loyal to
McDonald's". Rather than seeing junk food endorsed, "they should be
actively discouraged from eating it". The company was even associated with
children's hospitals. Sponsorship was a particular problem which apparently
sanctioned McDonald's and helped children to feel not "normal" if they did
not want to go there. All this had "influenced them to see McDonald's...as
a part of their life". The majority "did not question" this - "they just
took it as fact, really". The children were being "conned".
Ms Gellatley stated that McDonald's claim that they don't exploit children
because "children are never encouraged to ask their parents to bring them
to McDonald's" was "farcical". "Clearly the main purpose of advertising
aimed at 2 to 8 year-olds is precisely to encourage children to ask their
parents to take them to McDonald's, otherwise what would be the point in
advertising directly to such young children". How could young children, she
said, "differentiate between what is real and what is not", "what is good
for them and what is bad", and "between being sold to and not being sold
to". "I think McDonald's play on that as much as they possibly can...this
is what I mean by exploiting children." "They just think it is information"
and "fun"
Many of the adults she had talked with had also mentioned the influence
their children had in getting them to take them to what they termed "a junk
food place like McDonald's", which advertising had succeeded in portraying
as a "treat". "A lot of parents think their children eat too much junk
food", she said.
Outright Distortion Of Reality
Younger children are "not aware that the products come from once living
creatures". A "false view" was given by ads such as "dancing Nuggets that
sing happy songs" and that are "happy to be eaten" etc., "without giving
them any real information or facts a bout what those products are". In
reality, of course, they are "broiler chickens who are very intensively
farmed". But "Ronald McDonald is like a Father Christmas figure to
them...he certainly wouldn't factory farm chickens or slit the throats of
cows" nor cause children "any ill-health". Other food suppliers, she
pointed out, did the same.
She emphasized that it was the "pressure from advertising and
sponsorship...and the hype" which led to children wanting to visit
McDonald's so often. No other burger chain "seems to figure in their
psyche".
McDonald's Reply,
McDonald's Counsel, Richard Rampton QC, failed to challenge her evidence.
Instead, he showed a Vegetarian Society 20 min video used in some of Ms
Gellatley's talks - an educational film about the effects of the meat
industry on human health, the environment, world hunger and on animals. In
the whole film, only two words alluded to McDonald's products but Mr
Rampton therefore reasoned it was "principally aimed at McDonald's". She
replied, "no, of course it was not". It was to show the children "the
reality of meat production and what is going on in the world".
The Story Of How Mcl Coerced The Vegetarian Society To Back Down
He asked her about McDonald's solicitors forcing her, on behalf of the
Vegetarian Society, to apologize for an interview with singer Morrissey in
their youth magazine linking McDonald's and rainforest destruction. She
said "we published the apology because there was not the money to fight the
case". She still believed McDonald's in the USA had used beef from ex-
rainforest land. The Defendants asked her how she'd feel "if it was found
out that McDonald's had lied to...the Vegetarian Society, in order to get
an apology, about their non-use of ex-rainforest land". She replied
"deceived...and I would want to redress the situation". She agreed it would
"reflect on the quality of information from the company in general".
"In my view", she said, "McDonald's are involved in producing meat in such
a huge quantity that they are involved...in killing millions and millions
of animals, and all the environmental devastation which goes with that. And
also...it is a junk food". "I am putting the other side of the story, which
is very rarely put to people because we do not have the money that
McDonald's have."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All quotes are taken directly from the court transcripts. For further
details about any of the above, contact the McLibel Support Campaign.
Campaign Statement:
The McLibel Support Campaign was set up to generate solidarity and
financial backing for the McLibel Defendants, who are not themselves
responsible for Campaign publicity. The Campaign is also supportive of, but
independent from, general, worldwide, grassroots anti-McDonalds activities
and protests.