- cross-posted to:
- news@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- news@beehaw.org
Cross-posted from āToo Bad, So Sad, Too Late - McDonaldās tells U.S. restaurants itās not a āpolitical brandā after Trump visitā by @JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee in !news@beehaw.org
Excerpt:
Though President Donald Trump visited a Pennsylvania McDonaldās location on Sunday, the fast-food giant is trying to stay neutral in the presidential race.
āAs weāve seen, our brand has been a fixture of conversation in this election cycle. While weāve not sought this, itās a testament to how much McDonaldās resonates with so many Americans. McDonaldās 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 havenāt eaten at a McDonalds since before covid, and I donāt really miss it.
Iām 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 itās not because they endorse Trump, itās mostly because theyāre a leech company who wants to distance themselves from risk by contracting out over 95% of their revenue streams labor.
As far as the politicizing goes, itās mostly because most people donāt know what you just said. They see āMcDonaldsā and donāt think of local franchises; they think Big McD (corporate/the whole company).
I think the other point of controversy is that franchises typically arenāt allowed to sub-lease, so to speak, the name/brand. They represent corporate, basically, and anything theyād do that may harm the reputation would not be viewed favorably by the higher ups. Iām not clear on the franchise agreements, but it wouldnāt be out of the question for those to be revoked / refused to renew if a particular location was causing headaches for the main brand.