McBrainwashing? Not So McFast…
A recent study from the Prevention Research Center at the Yale University School of Medicine found that most 3- to 5-year olds who taste-tested a variety of foods preferred the ones that came in a McDonald’s wrapper. Even though the foods were exactly the same. And that included non-McDonald’s foods like carrots, too.
Dr. David Katz, the director of the center, declared, “this study demonstrates simply and elegantly that advertising literally brainwashes young children into a baseless preference for certain food products.”
Well, hardly “baseless.” Clearly this is a gentleman who knows much about nutrition and very little about of branding and even less regarding the genesis of the word. Originally it stood for a real brand. On cattle. And the irony is that it was intended to “differentiate” one ranch’s cattle from another. Cattle may be cattle, but the cattle buyers in Kansas City and St. Louis knew that one ranch fed, watered and cared for their stock better than another. They looked for that stock’s brand, often paying 20% more for one versus others. Ultimately they (the cattle) all got turned into steaks. Or in McDonald’s case, hamburger.
The fact that young children today are highly influenced by branding, is (or should be) a given. And while the fact that advertising and branding has the ability to engage and differentiate may have surprised the folks at the Prevention Research Center, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to marketing and communication practitioners. Nor should the fact that the McDonald’s logo actually means something to children (and adults as well) and adds some flavor to the perception of the product.
A number of years ago, my firm Brand Keys did a study of the power of logos. The research found that the McDonalds “golden arches” logo – on its own and absent of any elegant brainwashing – made nearly a 20% contribution to engagement, loyalty and sales. Other brand logos (and their percentage of effective differentiation and engagement) included Apple (33%), Polo (26%), CBS and Nike (each 25%) and Starbucks (24%). And whether you call it a brand or logo or icon or avatar, if it’s a swoosh on your feet, fruit on your desk or wrapping around your burger, the visual manifestation of a brand can materially influence public perception – even if that “public” is only 3 to 5 years old! If you’ve done it correctly, of course. There was a time when things did go better with Coke.
But to call this “brainwashing” is misleading. The powerful effects of today’s media ecology where, to quote Marshall McLuhan, “various media end up arranged so that they help each other, won’t cancel each other out, and buttress one another,” cannot be denied. Technological change and the proliferation of more and more communication touch points increase the complexity of the modern marketplace even for children. And, increasing levels of visual and brand literacy among younger (and younger) children are all aspects of marketing and communication that must be factored into the brand effects equation, whether you are wrapping hamburgers or selling chocolate frosted sugar bomb cereals.
Today’s children are born hot-wired into the Internet and are cocooned by marketing and advertising, some intentional and some peripheral. And the reality is that virtually every brand has some level of promotion aimed at one segment or another, including children. And, the question of healthy eating habits notwithstanding, if you factor in another reality that giving kids a taste for high-fat/high-salt foods and snacks early in life helps to set their taste preferences and expectations, you have a brand association situation worthy of Pavlov.
Why beat up McDonalds because they’ve done their branding consistently and effectively? The result? Nine out of 10 children know Ronald McDonald. Among kids worldwide only Santa Claus is better known — because he gives away toys, one of which might actually be a McDonald’s Barbie (seriously). The only real surprise is that Dr. Katz seems surprised/outraged at the results of his study.
But here’s something that might brighten Dr. Katz’s day. Not everyone is doing as well as McDonald’s. In another Brand Keys study of 1,847 brands in 75 product and service categories, only 21% of the products and services showed any real levels of brand differentiation, and that’s down nearly 10% from 2003 when we did the original benchmark wave. Consumers are aware of the other brands, of course, but the brands are neither known for anything in particular, nor do they generate high levels of differentiated consumer preference. Maybe Yale’s Prevention Research Center should have tried wrapping the foods in paper with those logos!
So, with lack of differentiation alive and growing among U.S. brands, I close with a final thought: successful branding imbues a product with special values, and is (or should be) the goal of any product or service that aspires to be a brand. Otherwise you’re a category placeholder, or worse, a commodity.
But not McDonald’s!
Robert Passikoff, Ph.D. is founder & president of New York-based marketing firm Brand Keys.
