Should McDonald's Give Away Books in Happy Meals?
Saturday, January 12, 2013 According to End Child Poverty, one third of children in the UK are living in poverty. According to the National Literary Trust, one third of children in the UK do not own a book and half of children don't enjoy reading.
Those are disturbing statistics.
McDonald's to the rescue?
The Telegraph reported that in the UK, McDonald's will be giving away books with Happy Meals instead of those crappy plastic toys that have been filling landfills for decades.
The book giveaway will start today with a five-week promotion offering a series of non-fiction books from DK Books’s Amazing World series, including Stars and Planets, Big Cats and Oceans. By the end of 2014, the fast-food retailer will have handed out at least 15m fiction and non-fiction books to Happy Meal eaters.
Fifteen million books. Wow. That is a lot of books. Crunching the population numbers, there are probably less than 7.5 million children in the UK that are of "Happy Meal" age, so that equals two books per child on average. Considering that not everyone goes to McDonald's (some are too poor, some are too rich, some choose not to go there), the children who do go to McDonald's with their family will have a decent start to a home library through their fast food purchases.
The National Literary Trust thinks it is a positive thing. In the Telegraph, Jonathan Douglas, director of the National Literary Trust said:
Initiatives like McDonald’s Happy Readers campaign play an important role in getting more books into the hands of children, and inspiring families to read together as a fun and interactive pastime.
He also noted the link between book ownership and success in life, which is certainly an important factor. Increased literacy has the potential to decrease poverty. That is certainly a positive outcome.
But is it a good thing?
I'm a big fan of the separation of church and state, both literally and figuratively. I think tying the achievement of literacy goals to fast food consumption can impair the country's ability to meet certain health and nutrition goals.
Books are better than plastic toys, for sure. At the end of the day, however, it is still a marketing ploy aimed at getting more families and more children into McDonald's.According to Corporate Accountability International, up to 40% of McDonald's advertising expenditures are aimed at children and the American Academy of Pediatrics calls that advertising "inherently deceptive".
If McDonald's was truly interested in literacy, they could skip the gimmicks and the marketing and donate a percentage of their proceeds to the National Literary Trust to have them distribute books to families in need through schools, public health systems, community-based organizations or other groups that work with low income families.
What do you think? Is tying literacy to fast food consumption a positive thing or a negative thing?
Image credit: puuikibeach on flickr
Reader Comments (39)
Tying fast food consumption to anything good is misleading. However, if a Big Mac and fries is your thing, then a book is better than a plastic fantastic.
It's always a marketing ploy and about money. Best thing if one doesn't agree is not to eat there.
I agree that connecting McD's food with literacy isn't great but I'd much rather see books instead of crappy plastic toys that are just part of another commercial tie-in to get kids familiar with whatever trademarked character du jour they're peddling. I do worry about which books they'd include here. Would they be something I'd buy my kid or would they be Dora or Disney branded junk?
I think it depends entirely on the books. Lisa C makes a very good point, and I would guess that McDonalds is going to use the books as a further branding or tie-in marketing effort.
If they gain the rights to childrens' literature classics and give those out, I think that is a terrific idea. I doubt that will happen, though - because half of what pushes food sales to the unreasonable mark is that kids have been conditioned to WANT the latest brand tie-in toy, and are willing to eat McDonalds food just to get it.
The first books they are giving out are from DK books and are non-fiction science books.
I don't mind marketing ploys, I'm in marketing myself. But I would much prefer them to donate $$ or books directly, and really separate the two. Don't pretend this is the best way to increase literacy - giving away books instead of toys in awesome in my book (pun intended), although I can hear the complaints of the parents and children now (same who insist they have to bring donuts as soccer snacks or they will get a bad rap and kids will refuse their snacks). I have a number of friends who's job or volunteering involve getting more books to children, and not one involves food.
I have a slightly different McView. First, I worked at McDonalds from 1991-1994 and my husband worked there from 1989-1996 and it paid for my high school graduation cap and gown, much of my college eduction (we're American), and our rent/necessities, but barely. Obviously, my husband and I met at McDonalds. I knew many single mothers who made ends meet managing shifts at McDonalds.
Second, I have spent at least three full months of my life at Ronald McDonald Houses in two states and have friends whose children died in hospitals in their arms while there things waited hopefully at Ronald McDonald Houses in MO, OH, CA, PA and CO just off the top of my head. Honestly, I'd rather McDonalds not give one less penny to the Ronald McDonald House Charities and just give books in Happy Meals instead.
I know it's highly fashionable to paint McDonald's as the be-all end-all global villain. I won't throw stones I do the same thing about Wal-Mart, but for some highly personal and some social-responsibility reasons. The point is, many McDonalds are locally owned franchise operations, and the one up the street from us has donated to my charity that I chair without question or hesitation. Anyway, I must be getting old because for me to defend McDonalds in any way is entirely out of character with my more rebellious youthful incarnation. Still, the reality is IF they can provide those books to children who wouldn't get them any other way, then can we focus on bigger issues like why people are living in such poverty of either mind or funds that their kids don't have a single book to begin with?
I don't mind that its a marketing ploy because they are, after all, a business. They are going to do whatever thy can to get people to come and buy crappy food from them instead of buying crappy food from Burger King. That's all it is. Is a book better then a toy? It makes no difference to them really. They just want to make a profit. They figure they will try something different. I find all of the "healthy" eating at McDonald's commercials to be dumb - nobody falls for that. Sure, they re healthier then they used to be (kinda sorta I guess but really something that unhealthy can never been healthier) with the apples and smaller fries and stuff but they are not healthy. It is a parent's job not the TV commercial's job to teach a child about healthy eating.
So, for my money I say it's no difference. It does "promote literacy" - my kids would absolutely as me to read to them. Then and there at McDonald's. Is it the "best way" to promote literacy? No but McDonald's doesn't actually care one way or the other - they jut want to sell hamburgers (or chicken nuggets or whatever). I don't see any harm in the books - just a gouge rent promotion.
It seems not fair to me to say that the good thing they are doing isn't as good as something else..so it's wrong. They COULD donate to another cause, but they don't have to do anything. Some children who wouldn't otherwise will get a book. Their gross food is a separate issue.
I don't know that it is always a separate issue. If a mom thinks that she could either (1) stay home, feed her kids rice and beans, but not get them a book or (2) go to McD's, let them have burgers and fries and sugary drinks, and they get a book, then she might be more inclined to go to McD's than to stay home because there is an added benefit. If the way to get books for your kids is to feed them unhealthy food, that puts low income parents in a tough spot.
I see your point, but I don't think an occasional trip for fast food is that horrendous. If there was reason to believe this hypothetical mom took her kids there regularly just for the books, it would be awful, but I think it much more likely she's taking them there for some other reason. I know this won't persuade anyone, my little comment, but I think the toys were much more likely to draw people in. Those bookless kids almost certainly have toys.
They already did this in Australia a while back - my kids went to a birthday party at Maccers (which is what we call it here) about 18 months ago, I think it was, and came back with little books
about penguins from the DK Science range. The books are really good, and as far as I could tell,
not obviously tied into any promotion.
I feel ambivalent about it, to be honest. Like a few people have said upthread, I much prefer the idea of a book to the plastic rubbish toys they usually have in happy meals. My kids are allowed to have Maccers with their grandparents when they go there in school holidays (it's part of the "what happens at Grandmas, stays at Grandmas" clause!) and I loathe the plastic crap they come home with, not least because it breaks in five seconds and leads to tears.
That said, I can see the concern about tying literacy support to fast food - and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that either. It's a dilemma.
My son's teacher (he's seven and in Year 2 here in the UK) said with great certainty that any reading is better than no reading. She said that if all my son wanted to read was comic books, then I was to procure all the suitable comics I could and give him free access to them. At his age (certainly the age that Happy Meals are aimed at), it's all about putting the letters together to make words, and then forming a good comprehension of what those words mean, so it doesn't matter *what* he is reading as long as he's reading. :)
As someone who spent some time in a Ronald McDonald House when my son was in paediatric intensive care following a near-fatal accident - I totally agree. Sure, McDonald's is problematic, but they also do some amazing stuff. Without the RMH I would have been trying to sleep over twenty miles from my son, wondering if tonight would be the night he would die.
This will catch families that would already be eating there otherwise. I would not expect it to get extra families through the door - or even expect that those who did think it the only option would be eating "worse" by going.
(Reminder, McDs in the UK is not the same McDs served in the US, so if we are talking about McDs vs packet curry flavour noodles from the supermarket we are not talking about an automatic win for the noodles.)
The alternative would NOT be to stay home and eat rice and beans if they couldn't otherwise afford books, though. That's a misunderstanding of fundamental thinking about food by families in this situation. *My* family (UK, living in poverty) spend substantial money on books and eat rice and beans. A family who actually believed their only way to get books was through McDs would have the alternative of staying home eating packet Mac and Cheese - or would possibly already be buying 50p supermarket books and picking up cheaper packet food.
I agree that I'd like the two to be separate. Tying literacy support for a child directly to the fast food consumption of that child is problematic, in my opinion. Donating a percentage of proceeds of all sales (not just sales that help instill a lifetime addiction to their food) to literacy programs for children in need (whether or not they purchased McD's food) would be preferable.
I agree with both of you that Ronald McDonald House is a positive program. They don't just help the families who purchase their food, they help the families that are most in need. That is the way that it should be.
I've written about the "it's a parent's job" mantra before on my blog in a post called: Parents vs. Junk Food: Who Is To Blame? http://www.phdinparenting.com/2011/12/07/parents-vs-junk-food-who-is-to-blame/
It is more complex than just putting the entire responsibility on the shoulders of the parents.
I agree with you...McDonalds is trying to stay in business as well as respond to the issues that parents and people in general have with corporate contradictions ....in this case serving quasi healthy foods and marketing to children while on the other hand funding Ronald McDonald houses. In the end we all have to make choices...the good ones, the bad ones and the ugly ones.
I live in Corporate McDonald land...the suburbs of Chicago and I do patronize McDonalds...I appreciate what they are doing for Ronald McDonald Houses since I work at a hospital that has one and it serves an absolutely necessary need...but I am always looking out for the health of my family when it comes to what they eat and I must say we make our choices accordingly when we visit McDonalds and we teach our kids to do the same.
This is somehow reassuring and troubling at the same time. I definitely agree that books are a step in the right direction, but I also agree that tying literacy to the consumption of fast food isn't necessarily a great idea.
I mean, many people who are educated choose not to eat at places like McD's because of their horrendous corporate policy, disgusting food and general lack of caring about anything except the bottom dollar. On the other hand, many poor people (educated or not) eat there because it's all they can afford. And if these poor people can afford food (as much as McD's can be called food) and get these books their kids who wouldn't have access to books otherwise, that does seem like something of a positive.
I agree with Sarah Clark ... they will catch the people who already eat there and those kids will receive books. In my mind, they are not going to attract new families to McDs because you happen to get a book and not a toy.
It's the (ingenious) marketing platform they've developed of a "Happy Meal" - as a child, it feels so special to get that box, just for you. And if books are attached with that "happy/special" feeling, well, hey, why not? It reminds me of the change they've made to Happy Meals here in Canada, where the fries are now a smaller portion and there is a yogurt that's been added in. My son did notice the difference (he loves McD's fries) but he still likes Happy Meals because it's the special box just for him. Damn, even I like that special box. Sometimes I order a Happy Meal for myself!
Those stats in the intro are really hard for me to imagine. A child's book can cost as little as $1. Clearly the parent/guardian does not value books and is therefore not bringing them into the home as a result (as opposed to not being able to afford them). So it's a far more complex issue than just dollars and cents. Including books in a Happy Meal will be far more powerful and effective for literacy rates (tying that already powerful "Happy Meal/special" feeling to books) than cutting a cheque to the National Literacy Fund.
I can understand your feeling of unease. But sometimes, the end justifies the means, IMO.
There is certainly a point to be made about all of the stuf out there and fighting THE ENTIRE WORLD (and it sure feels that way sometimes) but I'm not sure it pertains to a McDonald's promo. It's cheaper to just buy the darn book and feed your kid at home (assuming you are going to eat along with them). I admit we let our kids eat at McDonald's. mostly because they think its fun. They know its not healthy and that we don't eat there regularly because of it. As a parent I'm comfortable with that. I'm comfortable with McDonald's, who is a business and therefor out to make a profit, marketing their items. They market to children and adults. Because they want us to buy their product. Period. I just don't think it's that big of a deal.
Oh and the end of my last comment was supposed to say - just a different promotion. That's what I get for commenting from my phone.
Not sure, but I'd be willing to wager that DK and McDonald's just struck some kind of agreement. That's it. Just cross marketing. The products don't really matter. They're books this time but if the books don't bring in the sales then the books won't last and it'll be a transformer. If the books bring in lots of sales -- either though parents wanting the book or the kids wanting the book -- then there will be more books. Totally different motivation than wanting to encourage literacy.
Interestingly, this is almost exactly the scheme proposed tongue-in-cheek by Alfie Kohn when he criticised 'free pizza with every book you read' schemes as being likely to put children off reading due to the effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Kohn suggested that what we should actually be doing is offering a free book with every pizza you eat, thus giving children the message that eating pizza is the thing undesirable enough to require a bribe in order to do it and books are the cool thing you get as a reward. ;-)
Of course, it's unlikely that it actually would have that effect. Still, I can't see a problem with it. I would be very surprised if there were that many people choosing to go out and buy a junk food meal just so that they can get a book - especially when you take into account that buying McDonald's meals for the children in a typical-sized family probably adds up to more than just buying them a book directly. Also, there probably aren't going to be that many different books on offer, so, even if it does influence some people to eat there a few times and get the books, I can't see that happening often enough for any individual for it to ruin their health. I think this scheme is likely to be a good thing overall, and very unlikely to be a bad one.
I don't think this will *lure in* new people. I think this will get books into the hands of kids who are already eating there. That's a good thing.
When my son (now 8) was about 2-3 years old, General Mills ran a campaign in which they gave a free picture book in some boxes of cereal. I don't recall whether they were also donating to any literacy campaign, or not. The books were more like pamphlets--heavy paper cover, bound with staples, small size--but each contained the full text and illustrations of the original book, and some of them were pretty good, such as The Tiny Seed by Eric Carle which is still a favorite of my son's.
I didn't change any of my buying habits to get these books. We got them only when the jumbo box of plain unsweetened Cheerios was on sale and we had a coupon. We didn't eat more cereal to get more books, buy unhealthy cereals we otherwise wouldn't have eaten, or buy GM over another brand of oaty-O's because of the books. They were just a nice bonus.
I think this is a fine way of getting more children's books into circulation among the class of families who need them most. I doubt they will appeal to these families more than toys did. Environmentally speaking, the manufacture and disposal of a small paperback book is no worse than that of a cheap plastic toy, but the book CAN be recycled whereas most toys can't.
Yes, it would be better for literacy to donate books directly to poor children rather than give them with purchase of a product, but I think this is a pretty reasonable campaign. What's most important to me is that it improves on what McDonald's has been doing. Books are more literacy-boosting than toys, and the books they're using so far sound educational rather than thinly disguised ads for cheezy character merchandise, as many Happy Meal toys have been.
I haven't eaten at McDonald's in about 10 years, and my child has never had a Happy Meal. That isn't going to change because of this campaign, even if it's extended to the U.S., because we don't eat scary meat and they STILL don't have veggie burgers, so even when we have to eat fast food like at highway rest stops, we choose something else.
I'm not a marketing expert, and certainly McDonald's has hired plenty, but I'd be surprised if many people got their kids a Happy Meal just to get a book. Why not just buy them a book right? I'd tend to agree with the commenters who said the people this is targeting are the people who are eating there anyways. Any book for a kid is a good thing!
Also, I do give Mcdonald's at least some credit for trying to add a few healthier options lately. Again, possibly a marketing gimmick, but every little thing counts.
Oh, I still have some of those books too!
First of all, let me say, it is mind-boggling to me the statistic that 1/3 of kids in the UK do not own a book. In the U.S. books are available at thrift stores, library sales and on sale in regular shops for such cheap prices—often a dollar or less. It's not about the money, apparently.
My child has never set foot in a McDonalds—we're not the demographic. But, people of all economic brackets do go there in the U.S. and so I think it's a fine idea to give away books with happy meals if it will get a book into the hands of a kid who otherwise would not have it (again, quite unimaginable to me, even given poverty),
I won't question the motives of the company. We all know companies like to make a profit and there's nothing wrong with that. A company can both make a profit, sell crappy food AND do a nice thing of giving out books. Not ideal, not for me, but it's an improvement.
Sadly, I don't think the low income parents who choose not to buy their kids books (see earlier comments about used books, sale books, etc. children's book being not that much $$$) are as thoughtful as you're giving them credit for. The low income mom who stays home and makes rice and beans probably already is resourceful/thoughtful enough to get some cheap books into her kids' hands.
This is a really interesting post - thanks. I agree with the majority who say that books are at least better than plastic tat. Kids are never going to ask for a McDonalds so that they can get a book, so although, yes, it's a marketing ploy, it really only works on the adult in that capacity. If kids ask to go and you take them, at least they might read a book in the car on the way home!
I believe that Chic-fil-A already "gives out" books with their kids meals. Is this only happening in the UK or is McDonald's doing this worldwide? I like the Biscuit, Berenstain Bear, and some of the other books we've gotten at Chic-fil-A on the road better than the plastic in the McKids meals - which we usually have to ask for the under 3 toy, since we have both a 1 and 3 yr old. We only frequent the fast food joints when on long road trips. I think it's a great start for the kids that don't have a home library. Fortunately my kids love to read and have a great collection of books, as well as love going to the library to read.
I don't take my kids to McDonald's, but their grandparents do, and I'd rather have books coming into my home than plastic toys. So, on a purely sailfish level, I like it.
Having said that, yes, it's a marketing ploy. It's kind of like branding children's TV as 'educational'. It feels like just another way to overcome parental objections and build positive brand associations.
They did it here in germany, and I totally loved it. I mean, it is my fault as a parent that I am not prepared enough or whatever to bypass the big M. Sometimes I just don't. Plus, I am one of these really weird people who actually like the food. I know, shame on me ;) I do cook healthy most of the times.
Whatever, my kids were fighting (!) for the books. It was high quality books, soft cover with only a little M on them saying that they were from them. It is so much better than a sponge bob water pistol or crap like that!
I still don't HAVE to go to them. I choose to ;)
I don't know exactly what it is, but I'm having trouble even wrapping my head around this question. It's kinda how-many-angels-on-a-head-of-a-pin-like. I mean, should Happy Meals exist? should McDonald's even exist? I'm not trying to be weird, really.
Let's say that the answer is No, McDonald's should not give away books in Happy Meals. What should we do: a letter campaign asking them to knock if off with the books? PSAs imploring parents not to fall for the book trap?
Yes, no-strings-attached book donations would be better, but given that McDonald's exists and that Happy Meals exist and that they're going to include some kind of non-food treat, then yes, I'm quite okay with the non-food treat being a book.
Karen:
There are campaigns to get rid of Happy Meals (i.e. the tying of a toy or other reward to an unhealthy meal).
That aside, this post was just intended as a discussion piece. I saw a lot of people congratulating McDonald's for putting books in the Happy Meals and saying how great it was. I don't think it is that black and white and thought it was worth talking about. That's all.
I agree with Anji. I have always read a lot of books, and when I was younger i read anything and everything. I think that is the best way to inspire true joy in reading. It allowes the child to discover himself/herself what they actually like the most.
It's hard to take McDonald's seriously when they're also peddling garbage. I've found numerous small businesses that sell a socially conscious product while also promoting literacy. www.TwirlyGirlShop.com is one of them. They sell a girls dresses that encourage individuality and empowerment, while also giving away a free podcast of original short stories. It's a little easier to believe them than some giant corporation.
It's even more mind boggling if you consider the (UK) government run schemes that give free books to children at various stages of development through health visitors (which everyone has free access to, just try stopping them!). We have had the books at 6mths, 12mths, 3 and 4 years. There's also free local libraries where books can be borrowed at no cost and no late fees for children under 5! So just because a child doesn't *own* a book of their own, doesn't mean they don't have access to limitless books... *if* that's something they choose to do. And I think therein lies the problem...