McDonald’s Manipulative Use of Toys to Sell Happy Meals: A Huckster in Clown’s Clothing
Posted June 22nd, 2010 by Mike JacobsonDangle a toy in front of a child’s eyes, and you can bet the child will do just about anything to get it. And that’s exactly what McDonald’s (and other restaurants) do, using everything from TV commercials to signs in windows to the Internet in order to get kids to pester their parents to take them to the restaurant.
It used to be that parents warned kids to run away from strangers offering candy, but companies have made an end run by laundering their perfidy through electronic media. Now kids absorb countless commercials touting premiums based on their favorite characters—Shrek, Batman, Barbie, Beanie Babies, et cetera—and, surprise, surprise, ask their parents to take them to McDonald’s. Consumer-marketing guru Adam Hanft said, “Happy Meals proved that you could actually ‘brand’ a meal and make children harass their parents for it.”
The Federal Trade Commission has reported that fast-food companies—with McDonald’s by far in the lead—spent $360 million in 2006 on toys to market children’s meals. In the same year, fast food restaurants sold more than 1.2 billion children’s meals with toys to children ages 12 and under, accounting for 20 percent of all child traffic at those restaurants. It should be no surprise that companies employ the practice—it works.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has long opposed the deceptive marketing of unhealthy foods to children. That’s why in 1978 we petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to set limits on the nutritional quality of foods marketed to kids.
In 1978 America was at the brink of the obesity epidemic that has seen rates of overweight and obesity in children triple. Factors ranging from video games to less PE in schools contributed to the epidemic, but one indisputable, major factor is the increased ubiquity of inexpensive, high-calorie foods.
McDonald’s is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, marketers of food to children. According to the Associated Press, in 2003 sales of Happy Meals amounted to $3.4 billion and made up about 20 percent of McDonald’s overall sales. McDonald’s has pledged to advertise only those child-oriented Happy Meals that meet its nutrition standards, but that pledge fails to address the insidious use of toys.
Restaurant meals that include toys are coming under increasing attack. In March 2008 Consumers International, a global alliance of 220 organizations, and the International Obesity Task Force called for bans on the “inclusion of free gifts, toys or collectable items, which appeal to children to promote unhealthy foods.” Months later, the city council of Liverpool, England, considered such a ban. One council member charged that, “By offering these toys, they are preying on the needs and desires of children in order to cash-in on the sale of junk food.” And recently, Santa Clara County, California, became the first jurisdiction to ban the inclusion of toys in unhealthy restaurant meals.
This week, CSPI has upped the ante by threatening to sue McDonald’s unless the company agrees to stop using toys to beguile young children. CSPI contends that tempting-kids-with-toys is unfair and deceptive—both to kids who don’t understand the concept of marketing and to parents who have to put up with their pestering offspring.
Adding to the perniciousness of tempting kids with toys is the use of promotions that have kids coming back to “collect them all.” Most notable in that category was McDonald’s offering of 101 different dogs in a promotion linked to the movie “101 Dalmatians.”
To make matters worse, the nutritional quality of Happy Meals ranges from mediocre to miserable. Notwithstanding all of McDonald’s protestations that its products are healthful, every single one of the 24 Happy Meal configurations on McDonald’s Web site is not what the doctor ordered. Every meal is too high in calories—that is, it provides more than a third of an average child’s recommended 1,300 calories per day, with the most caloric meals providing half the calories. Meals that include soft drinks both accustom kids to drinking soft drinks with their meals and provide about twice as much sugar as the U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends that kids consume in a whole day. And Happy Meals with cheeseburgers provide about three-fourths of a day’s worth of sodium, which can increase blood pressure even in young children.
Furthermore, in a survey of 44 McDonald’s outlets around the country, we found that the default side item in Happy Meals was usually French fries, not the healthier Apple Dippers. That is, in response to a customer’s request for a hamburger Happy Meal, over 90 percent of the clerks did not ask which side dish the customer wanted, but automatically provided fries.
McDonald’s former Chief Marketing Officer Mary Dillon said that their clever advertising “shows that something like a Happy Meal at McDonald’s can make everything better.” “Everything,” though, should not be construed to include the child’s health.
But concern about the marketing of Happy Meals goes beyond nutrition. The very practice of using toys to get kids to pester their parents to buy a food—junky or nutritious—is unconscionable. Listen to how marketing experts view marketing to kids.
A General Mills official explained his company’s philosophy: “When it comes to targeting kid consumers, we….believe in getting them early and having them for life.”
Lucy Hughes, of Initiative Media World Wide and author of the Nag Factor study, said: “It’s a game. If we could develop a creative … 30-second commercial that encourages the child to whine or show some sort of importance in it that the child understands and is able to reiterate to the parents, then we’re successful.”
However, Michael Brody, a psychiatrist who chairs the television and media committee of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, has no tolerance for those predatory marketing practices: “These marketers are very similar to pedophiles. They are child experts. If you’re going to be a pedophile or a child marketer, you have to know about children, and what children are going to want.”
McDonald’s claims to be “proud of our long heritage of responsible communication with our customers, especially children.” And its Happy Meals Web site says: “You want the very best for your kids, and so do we.” That’s McNonsense. McDonald’s wants your money—and it’ll manipulate your kids any which way to get it.



18 Comments
June 26, 2010 at 12:46 pm by rachelNovel idea: You can ask for the meal without a toy. Consumers do have many choices. either dont buy at that store/restaurant if you dont support what they do, or find other ways to do things Your Way. We have power as individuals and as consumers in many ways. we are not powerless, and we do not need Organizations to stand up and represent all of us, as if we are one voice- everyone should have the right to make our own decisions, stand up for your own family and do things that work the best for you. I think it is each family’s right to decide if they want the toy or they dont. Dont insist that companies not include toys, it is their choice to offer it and it is our choice whether to take what they offer, cater it to our wants/desires, or turn it down altogether.
[Reply]
Anita Reply:
June 28th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
@rachel- Thanks for sharing your comment.
[Reply]
I think everybody needs to learn to live in this consumerist society, but it is up to parents to guide their children before they are old enough to understand the manipulations, which are everywhere.
I can’t say I took a strong stand on McDonald’s toys. My kids have had their share of Happy Meals. I have eaten Happy Meals myself in pursuit of mini-Beanie Babies, the last part of Captain Hook’s ship, and a particularly intricate village from a re-release of “The Jungle Book” movie (I think). We all enjoyed the food, I must say, but the toy was often a major incentive.
You could get me going about bullying, about the sexual messages kids get at too early an age, about a number of other issues, but I can’t get excited about the fast food/toy connection.
Incidentally, neither of my children, ages 22 and 12, go to McDonald’s much anymore, because they understand they need to eat healthier. Or maybe because they don’t care about the toys anymore.
[Reply]
Anita Reply:
June 23rd, 2010 at 8:06 pm
@Delia- So interesting to hear about the issues that are important to you! Thank you for sharing those. And thanks for your thoughts on this one.
[Reply]
Jerimee Reply:
June 24th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
@Anita, thanks for all you do to make this a wonderful and powerful blog!
[Reply]
I could go both ways on this. I remember what fun my kids had with toys from Happy Meals, and also from the Burger King kids meals, and even from KFC (I think), when they offered Pokemon beanies. I won’t say how old they were when they wanted the beanies, either; that definitely was aimed at older kids.
From an ethical perspective, though, the fastfood places have been over the top with advertising and promotions, and getting small children to identify their brand of preference. Research has shown that children identify fast food logos and signage by the time they are three. Is this cultural literacy, or merely hoggishness on the part of the companies, who want cradle to grave “brand” loyalty? Can’t you see McDonalds infant formula, with the traditional characters on the cans? So, yes, my kids loved Happy Meals, and no, they’re not healthy, and I wish I had known how unhealthy they were THEN.
So, I vote a big NO for the toys, and I’m looking forward to seeing how this plays out. This is the ultimate result of advertising know-how based on years of research. Get children to nag their parents for a particular fast food because of toys? Brilliant. Is it legal? We’ll see.
[Reply]
Anita Reply:
June 23rd, 2010 at 7:07 pm
@Helen- Great comment. Thanks for sharing your memories about your kids playing with the toys, and your perspective on the toys these days.
[Reply]
Michael Jacobson Reply:
June 25th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
@Helen,
Thanks for your comment. We’re hoping that McDonald’s will negotiate and mitigate the need to go to court. It’s been interesting to talk to both parents who hate that companies are going around their backs to tempt their kids with little toys…and also to parents who say that it’s all up to parents, and that companies should be allowed to do whatever they want, including aiming slick marketing at 4-year-olds.
[Reply]
its stupid to say that parents have to buy it to get their kids to stop pestering them. parents can say no and mean it. they dont have to give in to what their children want, just cuz they want to keep their kids quiet.
“CSPI contends that tempting-kids-with-toys is unfair and deceptive—both to kids who don’t understand the concept of marketing and to parents who have to put up with their pestering offspring.”
[Reply]
Anita Reply:
June 23rd, 2010 at 7:09 pm
@rachel and @Jazmyn – Yep, some other moms on our Facebook page said the same thing about saying “no” and holding the line in the face of blatant marketing (or, as CPSI says, tempting).
[Reply]
Michael Jacobson Reply:
June 25th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@rachel,
Yes, parents bear the ultimate responsibility, but don’t you think companies have some responsibility, too, and that it might not be appropriate for them to aim their marketing muscle at toddlers?! Parents are only human, and many just give in because they’re worrying about other things. Eliminating the toys would eliminate one small intrusion of companies into families’ lives.
[Reply]
Hello.
I allow my children the treat of McDonald’s once a month.
Commercials are trying to “trick” us yes, but part of being a parent is using the word “NO” and putting up with a tantrum or two!
Let them give away all the toys they want, it is a nice bonus when the boys get they’re treat ONCE A MONTH!
In my opinion, if you don’t want to put up with kids pestering you…DON’T HAVE THEM! It all comes with the role of being a parent.
Also, a psychiatrist who works with kids has to know about children and what children want…..
However, I do agree with the “collect them all” part of this article, treats are ok in moderation…not to go back and “collect them all”
[Reply]
Michael Jacobson Reply:
June 25th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
@Jazmyn Hallman,
I’m glad you at least agree about the “collect the whole series.” Perhaps the most egregious example of that strategy was McDonald’s use of “101 Dalmations” to offer at least 102 different toys (all the dogs plus Cruella De Vil)!
But we and many parents prefer that companies not dangle toys in front of their kids to get them to pester their parents to buy foods of mediocre nutritional quality.
[Reply]
Everyone is going nuts over this and people, this isn’t ANYTHING new. Do you NOT remember being kids? Everywhere you turned you were shown how fun it is to get a happy meal. How cool you’d be if you had a nintendo. What about these new shoes? and on and on
And its NOT just television but EVERYWHERE and unless you completely rewrite the laws of free enterprise and make EVERYTHING government regulated (which we’re well on our way to doing). This will continue to go on and on for as long as our country draws breath.
Now the CSPI comes and is telling YOU that you are all stupid parents who either A: don’t realize that giving your child 20 happy meals in a month is going to cause some problems or B: Too weak to resist your kids persistent I WANTS (And god I did that a lot when I was a kid).
So they’re going to do it for you by punishing a company for trying to sell A HAPPY MEAL. And worse, you have the top officials comparing this company to pedophiles. The company that brings you a charity such as the Ronald McDonald house that is being compared to a group of sickos that want to rob your child of their innocence.
Sounds like some advertising to me trying to get me to buy into their BS.
Put YOUR money and resources into creating a education and awareness system that MAKES SENSE instead of tying up our courts and not going after the root of the issue and wasting MINE!
[Reply]
Michael Jacobson Reply:
June 25th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
@Andy Pech,
We’re not saying that parents are stupid or incapable of saying “no” to their kids. We’re saying that companies are violating state laws against unfair and misleading advertising. I’m actually surprised that some people think it’s perfectly appropriate for huge companies to hire the cleverest advertising agencies to get kids to pester their parents to buy fast-food meals. Marketing experts actually talk about the “nag factor” and “pester power.” They know that parents are human and will give in to their kids and buy Happy Meals.
[Reply]
This is a huge part of why I don’t allow commercial television of any sort in my house. My four-year-old already knows that commercials are trying to trick us into spending money on something we don’t need. If she were bombarded with ads for junk food and toys, my life as a parent would be miserable, and that’s just how the purveyors of this crap want it.
Whether we’re talking about food from McDonalds, or jewelry made with toxic heavy metals, or plastic toys, or overly sexualized clothing, the method is the same: use carefully crafted marketing techniques to influence susceptible and easily influenced children into becoming shills for products that damage them.
[Reply]
Anita Reply:
June 23rd, 2010 at 7:13 pm
@Elena- Thanks for sharing your comments and your parenting strategy of no tv!
[Reply]
Michael Jacobson Reply:
June 25th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
@Elena Perez,
Yes, the best solution is to keep kids away from commercial TV…and get them interested in all sorts of more interesting, valuable activities.
[Reply]
Leave a Comment