Why restaurant meals don't look like the ads | Hacker News Reader

Why restaurant meals don't look like the ads

cnbc.com

11 pointscodegeek11 comments

I don't call "restaurant" a place where you eat sandwiches. Cultural point, I guess.

(Only responding because you were downvoted.) I also would not generally call "fast food" "restaurants". When I read the title, I was thinking "huh, what ads? ones at the restaurant itself? the ludicrous websites restaurants tend to? but aren't those usually only showing shots of the interior and not the food?" and then I realized "oh, they mean fast food". I certainly eat at places like Subway and Taco Bell all too often, but it sounds wrong to me (in the cultural linguistic context that I have) to then say "I went to a restaurant today", I'd have to say "I got fast food" or something.

You might have been downvoted by others, but you're right in that it _is_ a cultural point. A burger, for example, does not count as proper meal for most people above 45 in my home country (Central/Eastern Europe). And for them, a proper meal must start with a soup. :)

For me, restaurant is a place where food is important.

Colloquially if most people eat there, you have to ask a server for a bag its a restaurant, if its normal or at least not noteworthy to walk out (or drive thru) with a bag of food its a store. One is primarily a place to eat, and they also happen to sell food. The other is a place to get food, although you can often sit there and eat.

Internally if its a franchise most call it a store (Hi we're store #35135 and our computer is broken ...). My source is my sister who worked a long time ago at McD. So the first "site" museum is called store number 1, her job title eventually was "store manager", their annual economic results are reported as "same store sales" etc.

"You think models wake up looking like that every day? They have a lot of people making sure they look as good as they can—same thing with food,"

Except that when you see a model, what's being sold to you is the outfit the model is wearing, not the model itself.

Yes, but arguably. The model gives you a vision of "I could look like that if I wore what they're wearing." It is a weird metaphor for fast food regardless.

> what's being sold to you is the outfit the model is wearing,

The outfits are pinned and pegged and folded and tucked before photographs are taken.

For the most part, restaurant meals do look like the ads, or even better than the ads. This does not apply to fast food stores like McDonalds, Wendys, Subway, etc.

Fast food stores don't build their reputation around how their food looks because their food is prepared as take-out from the start. It comes in a box or wrapped up in foil or paper. The fast food store doesn't care about how it looks, but they do care about the speed in which it is prepared, paid for - and how fast they can get that customer out the door and replaced with another.

The store bought items look surprisingly close to the ads. The food ads appear, relatively less modified than say the female on the cover of every fashion mag.

Its not just the food. For an equally good time compare the employees and customers in the advertisements with actual employees and actual customers.

For some retail establishments like Walmart this can be highly contrasting. Olive Garden and Applebees are strangely honest.

Another big difference is how they cook the patties. They only brown a frozen patty. This is why it look thicker. When you cook the patty it looses fat and juices. This makes it look thin.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com