• OpenStars@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I wonder how da fuq did McDonalds think that this is okay?

    Setting aside all considerations of ethics or morality, from a pure greed standpoint even a very naive person could realize that if you squeeze the sheeple too much they may choose to go elsewhere rather than continue to rely on you for easy comfort food.

    Do they think they have a monopoly on the market? Even just from the fast-food burger places that were included in this graphic, there are multiple cheaper options - Burger King and Wendy’s - plus Arby’s & Taco Bell and Chick-fil-a are somewhat similar.

    Do they think that people will suddenly not care about where their money is going? That strategy tends to work when you squeeze (bleed) them slowly, but this kind of a sudden spike carries the risk of waking them up to how much eating there is costing them - and once they are gone, it would be very hard to attract them back.

    So this strategy even looks to be detrimental to the company of McDonalds, even if good for the short-term stockholders & CEO before they jump elsewhere.

    • BezzelBob@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      If I had to guess it would be for 2 reasons, humans don’t like change so people that frequently go to McD will still go, and that all humans need food and a bonus of less people know how to cook

      It’s a scary thing to think these companies can just get away with shit like this but at the end of the day until we as a society boycott them - and I mean a legit boycott, not some 3 day reddit boycott - they’ll find any excuse to fuck us for profit