The price of food has risen substantially in the decade following the Great Recession. The price is growing faster than many other commodity sectors that influence inflation, meanwhile worker's wages remain low and the cost of living is far outpacing raises across many different job classifications. Fast food companies have been struggling to keep prices low amid the rising costs, and to varying degrees of success. In this essay, two ads are looked at, one by McDonald's and one by Burger King. Bundling extra discounted foods together in order to create a cheap meal for the customer is now the new trend, and is starting to slowly replace the value menu, long a favorite for the person on a budget. Each food company is doing what it can to keep the price to at least appear low.
While both ads address the need to provide cheap meal options during the bad economy, The McDonald’s ad focuses more on bundling a couple of snack choices together at about the same price they were originally and does so through honest but questionable advertising choices, while Burger King seems more concerned with providing a value meal option that is about half the price of what it would be originally, though not having any different bundling options. Burger King’s ad features a lot of the standard successful advertising that would be expected from a company that is excited about their new offering.
McDonald's is presenting the McPick 2 for $2 deal, and offers 4 options for the deal, the McDouble with one slice of cheese, a McChicken Sandwich, a McValue Fry, and/or the new mozzarella sticks. The Burger King 5 for $4 does not offer switching items out for new ones, but includes a bacon and cheese single whopper, 4-piece chicken tender, a small fry, a cookie and a soft drink. The McDonald's ad has a black background featuring four wooden slabs with each product on top of the slab, with none of the products featured as the centerpiece. The price is off to the side, and could be easily missed. The Burger King ad offers a white background, with the whopper prominently centered, as well as the price. Neither can be missed. The smaller the value, the further off to the side the item goes.
Also of importance is the actual dollar value being offered between the two ads. The McDonald's ad features the new mozzarella sticks, long a favorite in American cuisine. This is, once again, a new item, so no baseline value can be established. Apart from the McDouble, which started out at a dollar, then moved up to an average price of $1.19 across the country, the other two items are the exact same price as they were before. This makes the total added value to these items add up to $.19. Looking at the Burger King value deal, 4 of the items were previously on the value menu at $1 average per item. The cookie was originally 2 for $1, and a single bacon cheese whopper usually retailed at $2.49. The sum added value is therefore $1.99. Then, when taking into account that each item is being sold for $.80, adding $1 of value. Apples to apples, McDonald's new campaign provides $.19 of value, while Burger king provides $2.99 of added value. These numbers speak for themselves, Burger King is offering a much greater discount then McDonald's.
The appearance of the ad is just as important as anything else when comparing ads, because, the more effective the marketing, the better a deal will do, sometimes even disregarding the actual value being considered. As mentioned before, McDonald's has a dark background, the price is in the upper left corner of the ad, and none of the items are really centered. This makes sense, because the more the price is centered, the more obvious it becomes that there really is not any added value. There is not really a key item that is really driving extra value into the meal s there is with Burger King.
What is rather surprising is the depiction of each item. It is extremely realistic and what you are mostly to find when ordering at a McDonald's that is busy and may overlook details. The fry cartridge is only about half full, with only two full layers of fries. The mozzarella sticks may be a popular item, but this ad does little to help. It shows only three mozzarella sticks, one broken apart to depict that it is actually cheese in the middle. The ramekin of marinara sauce is almost as big as the sticks themselves and finally the buns are smashed into the meat themselves with lettuce falling out of the chicken sandwich and pickles placed haphazardly on a McDouble that has cheese which seems to not quite be melted yet. Still, there is something to be said for honesty. Everybody knows what to expect when they go through a McDonald's line, and the results are rarely picture perfect.
A full contrast is offered by Burger King as it attempts to be picture perfect, with the whopper being centered and sharing a third of the ad space with the equally centered price. The consumer can see the char on the burger, a perfectly melted slice of cheese, what appears to be two layers of Bacon, the pickles being overcome by ketchup and mayonnaise. It looks delicious and easy to eat. One criticism here is that anyone who has indulged in a whopper knows that the sauces become more viscous and the burger, though delightful, is quite messy. The fries are full and abundant, something that is fairly accurate. This is almost guaranteed because of the size and shape of the container. The cookie looks great, but it also seems like an afterthought, paling in comparison to the neighboring burger, Chicken tenders are chicken tenders, there's not much that can be done for display, though it seems there could have been a way to make them seem bigger. Finally, if only drinks still came in those glasses. Still, the promise of free refills makes the value of having a drink in the meal an incredible and well-thought out value.
The only similarity between these two ads is that they both feature fast food. Otherwise, the differences are figuratively night and day, starting with the background color. McDonald's risks being very accurate in their portrayal of the food they offer. There is something to be said for the for the "no frills" campaign they are offering. Unfortunately, it is also indicative of very little added value, with the exception of a new item. Burger King takes the more traditional route, featuring a meal that will probably, as a matter of fact, make one full. The risk here is that a meal looking this perfect is rarely what comes out of the kitchen, so placing unrealistic pictures of the food may be something that consumers have grown used to and are tired of. That being said, it was a great choice to place the whopper prominently below the price. Anybody who sees this ad, and who eats at Burger King, will know that this actually an incredible value.
An overall analysis can be made between the two contrasting value deals at each McDonald's item by item. It was a tremendously bad call for McDonald's to feature a burger that was already cheap to begin with. They've actually walked back this campaign, going for a McPick 2 for $5, a deal that Burger King has been offering for a full decade. A whopper with bacon and cheese will always overpower a small McDouble. It is interesting that a double burger can actually have less protein than a single burger patty from Burger King. Because this was a misstep on the part of McDonald's, it's almost to the benefit of the company that the burger is blended into the rest of the ad, with the meat being almost the same color as the background.
A highlight of the McDonald's ad that probably wins between the two is offering the McChicken. Though there is a price difference here of $.20, it looks bigger than the 4-piece chicken tenders offered by Burger King. The staple of the dollar menu is probably one of the tastier options that McDonald's has, and it was smart to include this. Seeing two buns in the ad is an advantage to McDonald's over Burger King. Adding to the McDonald's advantage is a new item. In terms of value items, the McDonald's list has remained stagnant for years. A new item is absolutely welcome.
Looking further into the ads, the rest of the advantages are all in the favor of Burger King. In the McDonald's ad, they would have been better off just listing that fries are an option. The part of the ad featuring the fries looks pathetic, like a half-eaten bag of fries. There's no way around it, especially when one looks at the two pictures of fries from each ad side by side. The burger king container is so full of fries it can stand up on its own. McDonald's also missed a gigantic opportunity by not offering a drink with the deal. They could have even added an extra fifty cents to the meal, and everybody would have benefitted. The average small drink, both soda, and cup, usually costs less than a penny to the company. By charging 50 cents, they could have made that much extra money at almost a 100 percent profit margin.
When considering the McDonald's ads, it comes down to this: you only get to pick two, unless the person pays up an extra two dollars. When a person looks at the burger King ad, they know they are getting everything they see for one low and uncomplicated price. It will be very interesting to see how this BK ad campaign evolves over time, as the value being offered seems unsustainable. McDonald's is going thru a branding crisis right now. They are struggling to stay innovative, and it is costing the company a lot of money. This ad will probably not help them. It is too soon to tell, that the 2 for $5 is unlikely to succeed either, as it is too little, too late, especially when places like Burger King have the same offer, and are rated as being the tastier option. There have been rumors of the company filing for financial help, and even bankruptcy. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen, but considering the advertising, and the complete lack of added value to their new options, it seems credible. At least they now offer all day breakfast, too. This has probably put them back in on a slightly better trajectory. They are doing this at the risk of becoming a breakfast-only restaurant, which may not be such a bad thing.
Though it is not technically a competition, if it were, Burger King would have won this round. McDonald’s deciding on a couple options for snack bundles, as the original claim referred to, may prove to be a big mistake when people notice they are paying the exact same base price for the bundles they have selected. Burger King has taken the risk of adding a lot of extra value, but without adding a bundling feel to their product. The fact that Burger King is actually offering a full meal in their deal is what materially puts them over the edge, and they also have proven to have superior marketing by virtue of centering the better price and the main attraction of the meal.
Works (Ads) Cited
Burger King. "5 for $4." Burger King. 2016. web. 29 Mar. 2016.
Picture:
McDonald's. "McPIck 2 for $2." McDonalds. 2016. web. 29 Mar. 2016.
Picture:
