Hacker News Reader

Comment by npc | Hacker News Reader

It's not that he doesn't believe this happens, but rather that the presence of a story about it in NYT where chick-fil-a is mentioned directly in the first paragraph is not an accidental matter. Chick-fil-a being the main restaurant talked about in a feel good article like this is great PR for them, discounting the possibility of it having been arranged deliberately just because the op was overly cynical is a bit petulant. PR is almost never about making things up, but rather the timing and the tone and the things mentioned in the periphery of the story. PR firms know that a straight-up story on how chick-fil-a is great is not likely to do much for them with world-weary americans, but a feel good story about people helping each other (which may very well have happened) with chick-fil-a strategically placed just in the background is great.

View on HN

Given the leanings of the NYT, I cannot imagine a feel good article about Chick-Fil-A will ever appear in their pages because of money. They have refused advertising several times because it doesn't jive with their editorial policy.

[edit] also see Natsu's comment for an additional thought against it being an ad for Chick-Fil-A.

You can't believe it would happen for money, but you'd believe it'd happen for free? Anyway, PR is far more complex and subtle than "I give money, you write article". Someone posted a pg essay below that might be instructive.

As to why I think this might (I make no claims to certainty) be a PR-influenced article:

1. Chick-fil-a is mentioned in the first paragraph, no other restaraunt is mentioned until the fourth.

2. The first 3 paragraphs are a visceral imagining of what it would be like to be part of a "pay-it-forward" chain at a chick-fil-a specifically, complete with giggling cashier. Other restaurants are mentioned only in an detached and objective manner.

3. There's a direct quote in paragraph 5 from the chick-fil-a "director of hospitality", the only other quote from a restaurant owner is from a smaller local shop 3 or 4 paragraphs down. The chick-fil-a representative’s quote is a comment on the value and reasoning behind pay-it-forward, the other's is simply a factual one about a lady at his store that does it.

4. Getting a bit more abstract here, but this is exactly the kind of ideal that chick-fil-a probably wants to be associated with, "good-old down home people helping each other out small town america &c.". Note the jab at starbucks at the end?

5. Like op said, chick-fil-a took a bit of a beating in the press awhile ago. People might not remember what happened exactly, but they probably came away with a slightly worse impression of chick-fil-a. If PR was involved in this article then it's probably to try and repair that damage.

indeed. journalists: even good ones, are under pressure for time and stories, and will often take excellent copy from a crafty PR verbatim. Such is capitalism.

You so desperately want this to be a nefarious PR job.

Why was Chick-fil-a mentioned first? (Puts on Sherlock Holmes cap.)

1. Maybe the writer was fishing for pageviews?

2. Maybe the writer wanted an eye-catching lead? Aggregators pick up the first sentence.

3. Is it a coincidence this is trending on a Sunday after millions of Christians just ate Chick-fil-a after church? How many priests/pastors injected this story into the sermon today? How many Christian moms did a "share by email" on this? A ton!

4. Sometimes these stories take months to write. Maybe the writer first discovered the phenomena via a Chick-fil-a related conversation.

5. A good article must have quotes. It's possible the Chick-fil-a quote came first which got the always-difficult first paragraph rolling.

6. Maybe this was an underhanded jab at Chick-fil-a patrons. "See, it's not just chicken-eating Christians that are generous." NYT's political slant is no secret.

7. Maybe the writer just likes the chicken? Is that so far-fetched? LOL.

Those are just as plausible, if not more plausible, in my opinion.

Chick-fil-a is closed on Sundays. all Sundays. every Sunday.

Chick-fil-a is actually closed on Sunday :)

>You so desperately want this to be a nefarious PR job. And you seem to desperately want me to be some bitter chick-fil-a hater. IF chick-fil-a was involved in the writing of this piece then it's nothing more than what hundreds of other companies do everyday, PR involvement is an integral part of the modern press. I may not like it but I would not call it "nefarious". I'm not commenting because I have a hate-on for chick-fil-a but because there seems to be a lot of wilful ignorance here on just how much the media we consume is manipulated by PR.

On to your points:

1. I don't really see why chick-fil-a would get more pageviews than another restaurant so I'll skip this.

2. Of course the writer wants an effective opening, but the "you're part of a pay-it-forward line" fantasy could have easily been written at a generic restaurant.

3. Other people have said it but chick-fil-a is closed on sundays. Also I don't really get what this has to do with how and why the author wrote the story.

4. I'm pretty sure a fluff piece on people paying for each other's fast food didn't take a month to write. And I think the author probably did discover the phenomenon after a chick-fil-a related conversation, one with a chick-fil-a sponsored PR representative.

5. It's impossible to say assuredly whether any article was PR influenced but that quote seemed awfully convenient.

6. You seem to be very concerned with christianity when no-one else has mentioned it, least of all the article. I would not personally assume that chick-fil-a patrons are particularly christian, it seems strange to me that this is immediately the thing you jump to. Same thing goes with the source's political leanings, I don't consider fast food to be a political matter and I don't think NYT or chick-fil-a do either.

7. Sure, but if that's the case it's interesting that most of the other restaurants mentioned are coffee shops and a bagel cafe (which aren't really chick-fil-a competitiors) rather than popeyes or mary brown's.

so in conclusion:

1. I'm right

2. You seem to weirdly have tied up a fast-food restaurant into some christian right wing identity you hold and it's preventing you from acknowledging the very really possibility of PR manipulation in an NYT fluff piece.

I won't respond to all of that but I think we can both agree the business of news is interesting. Also I'm fascinated by the PR world and no, I don't have much experience in that area. My perspective is more pageviews & software oriented. How the New York Times operates, how the editors make decisions, it would be fun to be a fly on the wall there. I bet they're ripping out their hair trying to keep up with the pace of the Internet.

Anyway, you made me look it up because I wasn't sure exactly what happened. As far as I can tell, this is what started the Chick-fil-a controversy. I believe this is the full text - http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271

In particular, near the end of the interview:

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

Which I suppose is why you think they need ongoing PR help in the New York Times. My first wife, we won't talk about her! LOL.

It's not indeed (protomyth below) a matter of journalist or NYT deliberately giving column advertising to this company, but more the PR-fu of getting them to mention them anyway by feeding them the story in the right way, knowing that the journos will want to feel independent and objective. Clever PR people, upright journalists...

(I couldn't see a reply button on your comment just now, and now I see there is one. weird)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com