Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is clever (if cynical) marketing from McDonalds Canada: take one of the oldest knocks against large-scale fast food (that's it's marketed dishonestly) and turn it into a product benefit: "it's ugly because we took the original product, which is beautiful, and then uglified it to make it taste better". One thing that makes this piece cynical is that the integrity of fast food promo graphics is not a new or pressing issue; McDonalds has had many excellent opportunities to address that critique in the past.

Also, note carefully the details in this piece: it covers "food styling" done by "WATT" for "McDonalds Canada" and claims that that particular shoot used only the actual ingredients McDonalds uses in its retail chain.

From what little I know of the "food styling" business (not much, but I've met people who work in it), it would be an extraordinary claim that McDonalds adheres to that "only real store-scale ingredients used in promotional graphics" credo worldwide. But maybe they do?

I understand there are specific laws about what they can and cannot show in a food ad in Ontario and/or Canada. They can do their own preparation, but I believe the ingredients must be identical to the ones in the actual product. So it must be an actual beef patty, and the ketchup and mustard can be squirted on carefully, but they have to be real ketchup and mustard.

I saw a food photographer explain that for soup they used to put marbles in the can to push up the meat/vegetables and they aren't allowed to do that any more. But they can (and do) pick through cans to find the biggest and best pieces since it's stuff that was actually in the can. It's an interesting exercise in dancing just on this side of the line.

A well-known food celebrity in Jamaica told me once that most ice-cream ads actually use mashed potatoes. I didn't know enough to ask her if that was a local or international practice.

If the food is incidental (just in a TV show or something) it's going to be faked stuff, sprayed with lacquer, for the lights.

If the food is the product being advertised, it must be real.

There's probably a really interesting product placement grey line where the advertiser can argue that placement of a beautiful, fake burger in a scene should not be regulated under the "must be real" guidelines.

They also use plastic ice cubes so you have time to setup a shot and there is a whole market in plastic food, see this ad studio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKC6j7pW6T0

But there is a difference between just food in a photo-shoot where you can use anything and a shot of the actual product in an ad which must obey certain rules in most countries

Same in europe - the advertising standards agencies are very strict that it must be the exact product.

There is a famous case of an ad for Martini where, because of the rules, it had to be the real product that the actors were drinking!

Which lead to a catch-22 after a few takes - the more mistakes they made, the more they had to drink and the more mistakes they made.....

Found them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PirMZGL-0mQ

Leonard Rossiter is a famous British actor but had a reputation for being difficult to work with and a real perfectionist.

Joan Collins said in an interview that he kept messing up the take after each drink and she wasn't sure if he was doing it deliberately - but they ended up very drunk at the end.

Even if they use ingredients from a single store it'll look 1000 times better in the picture.

The photog gets to choose the best bun out of hundreds, the best tomatoes, greenest lettuce. In the end photograph, the bun will look perfect and fluffy, the tomato sparkles, and the meat seems fresher than a live cow. Plus they may or may not, but there are "tricks" to simulate things like fake steam coming out of food, spraying glicerin or corn syrup to make it look moist(looks like water droplets), or simply cold food photographs better. On top of all that, good lighting does wonders as well.

In the US, they have to by law... if the photo is advertising an actual product. For instance, they could garnish the photo with a basket of fresh tomatoes, a head of lettuce, a friendly cow, etc. and that would be okay... as long as the actual product being sold is made using the as-sold ingredients.

This law came about in, hm, the 60s? after the first wave of outrage over things like ice cream in advertisements being made out of textured lard, or whatever.

Is that actually the law? If you're referring to the FTC Act, I don't see the bright-line about using actual ingredients; the law says you can't make "deceptive" statements in advertising, and the FTC clarifies "deceptive" in a policy statement as (paraphrased) "a false statement about a material fact of the product that would mislead consumers into taking an action they wouldn't if the statement were known to be false".

So, showing a 3/4 pound hamburger in an ad for 99 cent cheeseburgers would be material, but using colored caulk instead of mustard probably wouldn't be.

From here (http://insite.artinstitutes.edu/food-stylists-blend-technica...):

"The food stylist’s magic tricks face regulation from the Federal Trade Commission and its truth in advertising laws. That Crisco-powdered sugar mix can substitute for ice cream if it’s representing a generic dessert on a menu, Allaben says, but not if it’s hawking a brand name like Ben & Jerry’s."

And here (http://www.cskern.com/blog/entryid/11):

"The truth is most of what you see in food photographs is real. FTC laws state that whatever you’re selling with a photo must be real in the image. To use a familiar example, if you’re selling corn flakes the flakes must be real. But then it gets interesting. You can use white glue instead of milk in your bowl of flakes because you’re not selling the milk, only the corn flakes."

So, the product being sold must be real as-it-is-sold (albeit much more carefully styled, generally). The incidentals can be embellished. A McD's quarter-pounder is a single product, and so presumably must be made with its actual ingredients in ads.

Not to be argumentative, let's stipulate that those two blog posts are true in spirit, but can anyone find the actual law or FTC policy statement that says "generic ice cream can be styled out of Crisco but Ben & Jerry's has to be real"?

Also: McDonalds Canada specifically said, in this video, that they were not embellishing the incidentals; it was exactly the same buns, exactly the same pickles, just arranged differently.

I'm not a lawyer, or even an armchair lawyer, so I don't know where to look to find the applicable laws. However, there are plenty of cites from industry people saying the same thing. I assume they have to be familiar with the law that regulates what they do.

And the bun, pickles etc would have to be real by law, is what I'm saying. They're part of a single McD's product being sold by the photo.

The subtext I'm communicating is, "if I was in the food marketing industry, I sure would want to communicate to the world that I was legally obligated to adhere to some strict code of conduct". It's a credibility booster.

So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place that says McDonalds must-absolutely-must use real pickles or exactly the real McNugget coating, no spraypaint allowed, in its food shoots.

I think we've already shot to shit the verity of these photos when we observe that they're browning the burgers on a panini press and then saying "this food is ugly because if it looked like the ad, it would taste like shit". Well, you can say the same thing about overcooked protein as you can about a can of shellac, can't you?

"So I'm going a step further and seeing if anyone can use an advanced legal tool like Google or Wikipedia to find the place"

I tried that, of course, and didn't find a proper law reference in the amount of time I dedicated to the task. I'll have leave it up to you to satisfy your curiosity from here. Please do post if/when you find it!

It get's back to case law. But false advertising is a

'means of advertisement other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect; and in determining whether an advertisement is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual.

The net result of this basically means if your selling a burger, you must show a picture of a burger using the materials you use to make a burger. But, you don't need to use the same methods.

In re Campbell Soup Co., 77 F.T.C. 664 (1970).

It took all of 2 minutes to find the case. You have to know where to look.

The case is not available digitally for free or as part of subscriptions to legal research databases to Lexis, Westlaw, etc. It is available digitally if you are willing to pay for individual access to the case; price varies depending on the LRD used.

Note that the FTC has not ever actually issued formal regulations on this topic. This is largely for administrative reasons: if the FTC published formal rules, it would be bound to those rules; with informal rules, it is better able to address ads which are deceptive but otherwise satisfy the letter of the law. (This flexibility is a good thing, otherwise the rules on food advertising alone could fill a small room.)

That probably supports tptacek's contention (apologies if not your contention) that actual, specific rules do not really exist?

Correct. The "rules" are just guideposts. Campbell is essentially the FTC saying what a company should do in order to avoid an enforcement action (for food ads). You don't need to follow the rules set forth in Campbell, but then you run the risk that if your ad is even the slightest bit deceptive the FTC will come calling with a fine.

See In re Campbell Soup Co., 77 F.T.C. 664 (1970), which sets forth the basic rules.

There are print copies available, but the case generally precedes the digitized archives available with subscriptions to legal research archives (i.e., Lexis/Westlaw). You are free to pay for access to the appropriate database if you actually need to read the case digitally.

Neat! How'd you find it? Do you have any idea what it says? I'd love to know what the basic rules are.

I typed in "food styling" and FTC into Google, and it was in every result on the first page. (I was not using personalized search but I do have cookies enabled, so your results may vary.) If you do not want to pay for the digital copy (I think it is $10 on Lexis for the case, not including search charges), you can go to your local bar association law library. Larger law libraries may have a copy of appropriate FTC rulings. Alternatively, a law school library will have a paperpound copy (but may charge non-students and non-alumni for entry).

In a nutshell, in Campbell, the company used marbles to stand-in for peas and other various vegetable ingredients. Someone complained that the ads were deceptive. The FTC pursued an enforcement action against the company. In its ruling, the FTC noted that a food product (and any ingredients) advertised must actually be the food product sold. Otherwise, the ad is deceptive.

The application to burger commercials: The advertised product must be an actual sample of the sold product. All of the ingredients in the sold product must be in the advertised product.

The ruling is not explicitly limited to the food products being advertised and sold, however it does not address any other ingredients except for those advertised and sold. Consequently, if a foodstuff is not part of the final sold product, the advertisement can use a stand-in. Consequently, the milk in cereal commercials can be glue (or paint), while the cereal in milk commercials can be plastic.

Really? I distinctly remember Jon Stossel having a news show in the 90s in which he showed how TV cereal commercials use glue as the milk

Because they're not selling milk. The cereal has to be genuine.

I was always under the impression that most food photography was not just using different ingredients, but that they were actually using inedible materials (paint, glue, clay, etc.) on/for the food in the pictures.

I'm trying to reconcile this (which I've heard before) with what other people are saying about advertising laws, and I've got two hypotheses.

1. Not all food photography is advertising. For example, food magazines: They're not actually selling what's on the cover. They're well within their rights that the covershoot consists entirely of wax models of tomatoes rather than real tomatoes[1]. The same would apply to the Food or Recipes sections in generic lifestyle magazines.

2. The things that are "not the food itself" is interpreted very broadly. As others have noted, you can use white glue for milk if you're hawking cereal. If you're selling tomatoes, you can probably still dip them in wax varnish to make them shine, and add "water" drops made of epoxy to sexy them up[2].

[1] That is to say, "real" wax models, not Roma tomatoes.

[2] I mean "sexy" literally. It's called "food porn" for a reason. The photographic techniques and cinematographic styles are apparently very similar.

Likewise, and from talking to food stylists, not just from reading about it. Again: totally possible McD doesn't do that anywhere.

It's not like this is the first time McDonald's has openly addressed this either. I remember seeing a bit on this process with cooperation from the company when I was a kid (say 20 years ago). The technique hasn't changed at all (it's basically the same clip really, less photoshop more hand touchup in the old school one being the prime differences)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com