To view the article you need to "sign up" to their site for some bullshit reason. To get your "free" burger you likewise have to shill for the company.
What a world we've created.
What a world we've created.
Not once have they forced me to do anything to recieve it. There are exceptions like alcohol give-aways where they card everyone, but they don't write down names or collect data from that, simply verify for legal reasons. It is always a transaction where they just give you the thing without hesitation.
"...value they generated for you?"
What "value" are they generating? They're asking me to try their product in the hopes that I might like it and buy more of it in the future. They're asking for my time, for my attention, to consider their product.
The value generated here seems quite clear to me though. They're giving food. Food is valuable. The degree of value differs from person to person, but McDonald's is taking a reasonable bet that new versions of one of the world's most popular fast foods is valuable to enough people for their marketing push to yield a positive ROI.
There are also several other types of value generated. They've created a novel experience (hamburgers from an automated vending machine). The excitement gained from observing and trying a novel experience is also valuable.
That's where I disagree. They're marketing. They're giving away samples. McDonald's is not in the business of free food, they're in the business of getting people to pay for food.
If they're trying to test the waters for vending-machine produced food, put a nominal price tag on it. A $2 price-tag signals that they're exploring this as a retail option and giving a friendly discount to early adopters. A "free but let us tweet for you" price-tag signals this was designed by the marketing department as some stunt.
If you like paying for marketing with your own reputation, knock yourself out.
No company, aside from aid organizations, are in the business of giving away free anything.
Your other points are critiques on whether you think their marketing execution will be successful and whether or not the net exchange of value is positive for you.
I'm talking about whether McDonald's is generating value for people by giving them food. They are.
It sounds like for you personally, the cost to obtain that value is too high and your net value is negative. That's okay. That equation balances differently for others, and that's what McDonald's is betting on. It doesn't mean they aren't generating value for some people though.
"Take a selfie with our cam for a free burger!" (* May be used in marketing materials. All shots copyright McDonald's.)
"Give a blood sample for a free burger!" (* Samples may be sold for medical research purposes. Interesting genes found may be patented. Blood sample becomes exclusive property of McDonald's.)
Where do you draw the line? What's too invasive?
This is marketing, it shouldn't demand things from people other than their attention.
Which part of my logic is twisty?
> Where do you draw the line? What's too invasive?
The line is draw by consumers, marketers, consumer protection agencies and the legal system. If marketers are being deceptive, that's a legal and moral issue. Marketers have stepped over the legal line and they've been sued for deceptive marketing practices. Setting aand enforcing a moral line is a whole other discussion :)
In the case of the article, I haven't seen any indication anything deceptive is taking place. The price to receive a big mac seems clear: allow McDonald's to send a tweet. People can either choose to pay that price or not. If that price isn't clear (eg. McDonald's asks for Twitter permission, but doesn't tell you they'll send out a tweet) and McDonald's is being deceptive, then they should be punished by the legal system.
Apple could have done the same thing with an automated vending machine which dispenses new Macbooks to evaluate consumer reactions to the touchbar. You get a new Macbook if you allow Apple to send a tweet out from your account. I'm willing to pay that price. You might not be. You are free to make that choice. If you think Apple's actions are stepping over the line, then you are free to campaign against them to change laws or get them to change their practices so they reflect your definition of the line.
I personally don't agree with your definition of the line, so I don't feel motivated to change the laws to prohibit this behavior.
You're entitled to your opinions though, plus you're free to irritate your friends on Twitter with your free burger spam.