Brands play catch-up at McDonald’s
Before we talk about McDonald’s, we have to talk about motives.
Businesses typically operate by managing two complementary motives: the brand motive, and the profit motive. The two run parallel. They form the track that leads a company to its destination.
The brand motive is to do things right for customers. The profit motive is to charge what you can. Good companies align the two, through thick and thin, across changing market landscapes.
Once in a while, though, a company’s brand motive and its profit motive can get out of whack. That apparently happened at McDonald’s, which is now being sued for allegedly not informing customers that wheat and dairy products are added to French fries. The suit claims the ingredients may be harmful to persons who are glucose intolerant or lactose intolerant.
McDonald’s, of course, is no HO gauge outfit. They serve 50 million meals a day, in 120 countries. On that scale, keeping things aligned isn’t easy.
But it has to be done. We’re talking people, not patties. Or, you could look at it this way:
- Brand motive = serving people
- Profit motive = serving patties
At McDonald’s, the brand motive might have said to the profit motive, “Dude, listen up! Taking an extra step to take care of customers will pay dividends far in excess of any negative fallout from ingredient purists. Ingredient purists don’t eat at McDonalds’s–or any other fast-food joint–anyway.”
Bottom line: customers eat burgers by the billions, but they also crave honesty. They respect you when you serve it.
Maybe we’ll see the issue discussed in McDonald’s new blog.
McDonald’s current ingredient listing.
