CAMPAIGN 55

May 23: "Responding to a shareholder's question about the faltering promotion, Mr. Quinlan [the company's chairman and chief executive officer] said," Everything is going to be just fine in McDonaldland.'"

Ads are pulled, top brass fired and way too many official statements are issued as McDonald's is forced to admit defeat in their ill-fated Campaign 55. Campaign 55, whereby with the purchase of any drink and fries a hamburger could be had for 55 cents, was meant to celebrate the 1955 birth of McDonald's but instead became a celebrated disaster.

May 9: "Big Price Cut at McDonald's Seems a McFlop... Since it reduced the price of its flagship burger to 55 cents... sales actually fell.... Franchisees say consumers were confused by the rule that french fries and a soft drink must be purchased to qualify for the cheaper sandwich."

From mid-April through late August, the most diverse news sources spent untold efforts covering the faltering Campaign 55. Tiny articles and in-depth analyses appeared in the local and national news papers alike. But the Wall Street Journal reported all the minute developments with an unsurpassed diligence, covering the saga with nearly the same level of maudlin bafflement which so characterized the Jon Benet reporting. For over two months during the heat of the controversy, the Journal seemed to have at least one article per week on the tragic tale. The conclusion reached, over and over again, by both journalists and McDonald's sources was that the campaign was too confusing.

May 20: "McDonald's Corp., facing what some franchisees characterize as a confusing and disappointing promotion of the chain's 55-cent sandwich specials, plans to beef up advertising to clarify the pitch.... 'They're trying to address the problem of people not knowing if they're getting a deal,' one Colorado franchisee said yesterday. 'It's very confusing.'"

I'll tell you what's confusing. What's confusing is that a product involving no less than five components (not including the sesame seeds) one of which being *meat* could possibly cost less than a cup of coffee. I mean, here's a product which used to be part of a living, breathing creature whose very hide might be a couch right now and you're paying less for it than you pay for a Super sized serving of shredded potato. It makes no inherent sense that something as innately dull and boring as a potato, or something as synthetically freaky as a super sized diet soda could possible cost more than part of a cow. Vegetarian concerns aside, cows are big. Cows are expensive. Cows are, I don't know, holy in India.

Let's think about production costs here. For purposes of demonstration we'll just ignore the other components of the hamburger and focus on the all-beef patty. "All-beef" equals all-cow. Cows are living creatures. You have to feed them grains and other snacks. You have to clean up after them. They wander around and you have to make sure they don't escape. In short, cows require supplies, maintenance and security. Very costly. In contrast, let us examine the main ingredient of french fries (which, again for discussion purposes, we will pretend is not the grease): Potatoes. Potatoes do not wander around, do not require snacks, and do not need cleaning up after because they live in the ground -- a situation from which they are not likely to escape. In short, potatoes require absolutely nothing in the way of maintenance that mother nature herself isn't already offering up for free. Somehow McDonald's managed to turn the costly cow into a less expensive snack than their dirt cheap potato. Like most of America I may be bad at math but it doesn't take a genius to see that something is horribly wrong.

Date: Friday, May 30, 1997 12:51PM
From: Heidi Pollock
Subject: Notes from the Campaign 55 Trail

THERE IS ANOTHER ARTICLE ON THE STUPID MCDONALD'S "CAMPAIGN 55" IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TODAY!!!!!

Apparently, the entire Campaign 55 notion (hatched in the feverish mind of some advertising lab rat in North Dakota who is hopefully undergoing some painful surgical process in punishment for torturing an entire nation, innocent or not) is a result of the fact that McDonald's was founded in 1955.

You know, I am usually able to come up with an explanation for stuff like this, a nice conspiracy theory type theory. But I swear these incessant Campaign 55 ads have me completely baffled. Sure, McDonald's is a major player and a significant indicator of various cultural, um, well, you know, traits but it's not exactly a major market indicator of shit. well. maybe it is a market indicator of shit.

Anyway, just to keep you up to date, the latest development in Campaign 55 (oh, which, by the way did I mention this? is a year long campaign. me, I think I'll start keeping a count of how many articles the WSJ publishes) is that if you don't get your order within 55 seconds (of paying) you will receive a free sandwich or coupon.

Except that the franchise owners voted against it so that's not going to happen. (Good thing McDonald's brilliant marketing department polled their franchise owners before cropping millions into TV commercials, eh?)

Instead of a meaningfully, concrete campaign they are now going to simply "promote fast drive-through service" which is supposed to establish "a positive differentiation from competitors." Yeah. Right. McDonald's, The Fast fast-food chain. Viva la difference.

Today's riveting and oh-so-critical "news" article ends with a final paragraph on everybody's favorite topic: The confusing and unsuccessful 55 cent campaign. "McDonald's also is looking for ways to prop up its 55-cent pricing strategy.... Marketing Senior Vice President Brad Ball suggested selling pies, cookies and ice-cream cones at 55 cents, as well as a ham-and-cheese sandwich not now on the menu."

(am I driving you people crazy yet?)

xo H

June 4: "Seeking to mollify [customer] concerns, Senior Vice President Richard G. Starmann yesterday said in a statement that 'value is much more than price, and Campaign 55 is much more than a price promotion. It's a focus on the entire McDonald's experience.'"

What neither The Wall Street Journal nor McDonald's were prepared to acknowledge was that Campaign 55 failed not because the American public was "confused" but because the American public is rightly leery of consuming a meat product which seems of such low caliber that it is less expensive than an hour of metered street parking. What the public knows is that it is simply not natural for a Big Mac to cost less than a large fries. Cows require far more in the way of supplies, maintenance and security than do potatoes and therefore cows, and the Big Macs they turn into, should reflect those costs. It comes as a surprise, but the public may not be as stupid as they seem.

August 20: "McDonald's executives promised that advertisements from the company's new advertising agency would be 'noticeably different.' The company hopes to break free of the widespread use of discounts to attract customers."

This piece originally appeared in the Winter/Spring 1998 issue of h2so4.