Tag Archives: McDonald’s

Worth a Visit? McDonald’s, specifically for the Filet-O-Fish Sandwich.

 

I’d never tried the Filet-O-Fish. I just didn’t come from that school of dietary thought. But after positive reviews from my Facebook glide (flying high on Filet-O-Fish. Seriously, a bunch of flying fishes are called a glide), I knew I had to be one of the grouper. As is sometimes my duty, I will answer your burning questions about the Filet-O-Fish Sandwich. Most importantly, does it make McDonald’s, worth a visit?

are you into fish as a consumable?

Sure you are. And why not? There are lots of reasons to eat fish. It’s considered healthier than land meat. It’s full of Omega 3s, which are supposed to be good even if you don’t actually know that much about the dietary value of fish. Maybe you’ve given up “meat” for the liturgical practice of Lent to secure passage into the afterlife, which sounds bulletproof. Maybe you’re against the way the fast-food industrial complex treats animals but you’re still into convenience and a fish is more like an alien anyway. Maybe you just enjoy the the mouthfeel of a flaky Alaskan Pollock crumbling so gently that you can chew it with your tongue.

In any of the cases, YOU SHOULD VISIT McDonald’s for a Filet-O-Fish Sandwich.

But maybe you’re not into fish. I mean, pollution is a real problem and a lot of that ends up in the water, and I’m sure McDonald’s is getting a fresh catch from the open seas. Are Alaskan Pollock from the open seas? Look, you don’t know that much about fish, we’ve covered that, but they’re kind of icky, and you’re not into them as a consumable.

You WILL NOT VISIT FOR THE FILET-O-FISH SANDWICH. Get the McNuggets because they seem safer. 

Are you a millennial, a generation that, when surveyed, ranked mcdonald’s as their least favorite restaurant and probably (but not definitely) backed that ranking with an editorial stance on mcdonald’s that mostly trashes it as a gross slaughter house of unclean garbage food?

You are (likely).

Don’t compromise your beliefs. It is NOT WORTH VISITING.

Are you a millennial that, despite what you’ve said in surveys, are still part of a generation that visits mcdonald’s more than any other restaurant in america.

Duh. It’s America, so you’re never further than 107 miles from a McDonalds in the continental 48. It’s basically impossible to not go to McDonald’s.

Perception is reality. YOU’VE ALREADY VISITED, but you do it by yourself and don’t tell anyone.

Did you enjoy these sweet tidbits about millennials that were torn directly from this author’s “I swear one day it will be out and available for purchase” book Cheeto Dust….And other blood on millennial hands?

If so, keep an eye out. I’ll buy you a Filet-O-Fish Sandwich at McDonalds while watching you read and react to every detail, waiting patiently until you’re in between bites and have dabbed the pickled relish mayo from your lips so you can answer questions I have like, “Did you read the footnote too?”

C’mon. A free Filet-O-Fish with a potential author of something you might possibly enjoy maybe? YOU HAVE TO VISIT!

did I say pickled relish mayo? that sounds like an interesting topping that might be worth visiting for.

I did say that, because that’s what I thought it was, but it’s actually a custom tartar sauce. Blend mayonnaise, 2 tablespoons relish, capers, 1 tablespoon chopped onion, parsley, and sugar in a blender until smooth. Stir remaining relish and onion into the blended mixture.

You still want to try that, but you’re not exactly rushing to the nearest McDonald’s, no matter how conveniently they’ve placed it near your home, work, gym, and directly next door to your favorite boozery (or dispensery in certain more understanding states). Now that you’re thinking about it, you could really just tack a Filet-O-Fish onto an order anytime you stop by McDonald’s, because no matter what diet of the month your doing, you’ll stop by there eventually. Even if you tell yourself you’re just getting that $1 large Coca-Cola because it’s better there than anywhere else, you’ll probably be a little hungry too, and it’s not like anyone’s going to know you ordered yourself a frankly overpriced fish sandwich for $3.79. $3.79!? That is pretty steep considering it only comes with a half slice of cheese, a Filet-O-Fish tradition that somehow honors the original recipe invented by Lou Groen in 1962 because his Cincinnati, OH franchise served a large Roman Catholic consumer base that didn’t eat meat on Fridays. You really wish you didn’t know that bit about Cincinnati because you never considered that the town to take seafood tips from. Is fish really not meat? Catholics do have a pretty great history of over-indulgence though, and isn’t overpaying for something, just because you want to and can, a little bit what American individualism is all about? You don’t need to be reminded that $3.79 could feed a kid in a third world country for a week. You already knew that. Besides, after the sales tax, you’ll drop the extra three pennies in that little Ronald McDonald donation bin they put beneath all the drive-thru windows. Unless you pay with a card, in which case, hey, you did your best. McDonald’s gave $34 million to charity in 2011, and even if that is only 0.08 percent of their $5.5 billion net revenue and way less than similar companies like Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken, it’s still not nothing. You have to figure they don’t waste the other half of that slice of cheese either. YOU’RE STILL GOING TO VISIT. It’s a free country. 

is the filet-o-fish sandwich from mcdonald’s actually worth a visit?

It was really tasty.

IT’S WORTH A VISIT.

Advertisements

“You Call That A Google Search?” – The Real Machine Apocalypse

I recently yelled “YOU CALL THAT A GOOGLE SEARCH!?” in response to my girlfriend’s word selection in an effort to find the mean height of Germany’s soccer team.

Unfortuantely, her search term “is the German soccer team tall” worked like gangbusters! First result had the exact information we were looking for. This leads me to the conclusion that Google is smart. People are idiots and Google has billions of searches to prove it.

In the early days of the Internet, you never saw Google complaining about people not knowing how to search for what they needed. Google just accepted that search terms will suck and it needs to keep on fine tuning that algorithm of theirs so that the dumb masses will just keep coming back. Keep searching. I’m impressed with your mentality, Google. That’s what it takes to be a success in this world. You have to be a realist, entitled to nothing. Read, react, and reap the rich rewards. The irony is this: A person who puts some intellectual specificity into their Googling with an “average height 2014 German National Football Team” search hits everything but the target with the top return. So the smart person will actually need to use dumb searches to find the right information to lean into Google’s mass-pleasing algorithm. Google is just making us all do what they’ve already done, adapt to the dumb masses. Read, react and reap the rewards.

The masses generally aren’t great visionaries. If you patterned your life after the masses, you’re weeknight would consist of eating McDonald’s while you watched Transformers 2 on your overpriced Time Warner Cable television package. You’d make $35K annually, usually have voted for whoever’s President, and you’d think Big Bang Theory is a funny show. The masses is not a person you should want to be. You should want to be more.

Maybe this is how the Machine Apocalypse really happens. It just keeps refining the algorithm, keeps on democratizing humans into a aggregated ball of narcissism that has taught itself how to get what it wants by becoming the same. Run a search, the machine knows you. Run 100 searches, the machine assimilates you. Run 1,000 searches, and you are the machine.

In the end, my girlfriend got what she was looking for. I did not. Maybe she’s smarter than me for adapting to the algorithm faster. Maybe this is my long-winded justification for being a bad Google searcher. I can’t tell you who’s more ultimately right in the end. But I know I don’t want to be like the masses, so I only have one recourse left.

My new home page is Bing.

DR

 

An Airplane in a Vagina. The Downsizing of Corporate Branding

By now you’ve heard. US Airways let out a pornographic pic on their Twitter feed. It was a woman retrofitting the function of a model airplane in (debatably) creative fashion. In other words, she stuck it in her vagina. Who the woman is and how the picture hit the Twitterverse are of little concern to me, and you can go find it on Google easily if you wish. What struck me later—I’d say immediately, but when you’re met by a picture of a dildo-fied airplane in use, thoughtful analysis isn’t a natural response—is that the democratization of information sharing has actually created a meritocracy to corporate branding that we should be thankful for.

Brands used to be big. And technically, by most forms of economic and cultural currency, they still are. For example, Coca-Cola has roughly the same number of Twitter followers (but a lot more money) as Chris Rock. But Brands used to be unknowably big. They were more abstract concepts like the weight of a galaxy or the size of the national debt. Whatever anonymous Don Draper fed you the idea that McDonald’s beats Mom’s cooking in any language was shielded by the time and process of the ancient ad mediums. Everything came out big and slow and crafted, so everything came out planned, double-checked and safe.

I don’t know what it’s like to be in the brainstorming sessions of Wieden + Kennedy’s creative brass, breaking down a marketing mix with the breadth of target countries and the granularity of specified font kerning. But I know how to use a Twitter account. And I know that every company has someone doing that for them. I also know that the chances are good that the person is a sub-30’s hipster who needs to infuse a little sass and personality to give their brand a noteworthy voice in the ongoing B2C conversations. Basically, the daily mouthpiece of a brand’s most volatile interactive platform is just a regular human being. Mistakes happen. Because we are all this person, we can all allow it.

Does this forgive the digital parceling of a particularly intrepid model airplane? Nope. Not by a longshot. The absolute best-case scenario is a hacked account, otherwise someone deserves to be fired. I can’t help but believe that 20 years ago this would have stunted US Airways in a very severe way. Knowing less makes each bit of information more vital to the brand’s consumers. Now we know so much, that we can’t possibly blame the whole company. When I fly to San Diego next month, if US Airways has the best deal, I’ll still fly with them, using this marketing snafu only as an odd conversation piece. The internet has given companies enough rope to hang themselves with, sure. But the declining impact of errors makes me believe that the new rope is too thin to hold a brand’s weight. And unlike that model airplane, US Airways is going to land safely.

It’s a little tight here,
Dusty “Flies Coach” Riedesel