McDonaldā€™s tells U.S. restaurants itā€™s not a ā€˜political brandā€™ after Trump visit - eviltoast

Cross-posted from ā€œToo Bad, So Sad, Too Late - McDonaldā€™s tells U.S. restaurants itā€™s not a ā€˜political brandā€™ after Trump visitā€ by @JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee in !news@beehaw.org


Excerpt:

Though President Donald Trump visited a Pennsylvania McDonaldā€™s location on Sunday, the fast-food giant is trying to stay neutral in the presidential race.

ā€œAs weā€™ve seen, our brand has been a fixture of conversation in this election cycle. While weā€™ve not sought this, itā€™s a testament to how much McDonaldā€™s resonates with so many Americans. McDonaldā€™s does not endorse candidates for elected office and that remains true in this race for the next President,ā€ the company said in an internal message viewed by CNBC and confirmed by a source familiar with the matter.


I havenā€™t eaten at a McDonalds since before covid, and I donā€™t really miss it.

  • Lasherz12@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    6 days ago

    Iā€™m not sure why the scrutiny. The McDonalds he visited was owned as a franchisee. This is true of 95% of McDonalds. The franchise is effectively letting them use their name so long as they pay them for every stage of their operations (royalty on sales, franchise starting fee, equipment manufactured under McDonalds is the only approved equipment, and profit on food product being sold in bulk to the restaurant). McDonalds is evil, but itā€™s not because they endorse Trump, itā€™s mostly because theyā€™re a leech company who wants to distance themselves from risk by contracting out over 95% of their revenue streams labor.

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      Ā·
      6 days ago

      As far as the politicizing goes, itā€™s mostly because most people donā€™t know what you just said. They see ā€œMcDonaldsā€ and donā€™t think of local franchises; they think Big McD (corporate/the whole company).

      I think the other point of controversy is that franchises typically arenā€™t allowed to sub-lease, so to speak, the name/brand. They represent corporate, basically, and anything theyā€™d do that may harm the reputation would not be viewed favorably by the higher ups. Iā€™m not clear on the franchise agreements, but it wouldnā€™t be out of the question for those to be revoked / refused to renew if a particular location was causing headaches for the main brand.