McDonalds Opens Farms to Criticism?

When I read yesterday that McDonalds would be opening up their farms and inviting the general public to "inspect" it, I was in two minds about the outcome. Apparently, McDonalds felt the need to do it to legitimise their sponsorship of the 2012 Olympics. In this article, I am going to consider whether this is a smart idea or whether opening up the farms will backfire spectacularly.

On the face of it, it seems like a great idea to prove to critics that the meat produced for McDonalds is ethical and of the best quality. Proving people wrong and showing the public they have improved their standards can only be a good thing, and the fact that they are inviting the public to see it for themselves is an even stronger message. The voice of the people verifying the quality of the farms would prove invaluable from a PR perspective - it is the best form of third-party endorsement to have your customers behind you.

There are a couple of things that worry me though. The success of the campaign is based entirely on whether the public believe it. McDonalds could very easily only open the farms which are exemplary and insist the rest are of the same standard. This doubt could affect visitors overall opinion, even if they find their visit satisfying.

The thing I think may put a spanner in the works is the fact that visitors will not be allowed to visit the farms which provide chickens to McDonalds. The reason given in the Evening Standard (18 May) is that McDonalds buys their chicken meat from "cheaper foreign suppliers." After finishing the article, my thoughts were "It's great that we get to see the cows but what about the chickens?!" Not being allowed to see the chickens raises niggling doubts in my mind because it seems the most likely place where the conditions are less than satisfactory. "Cheap foreign suppliers doesn't exactly sound great either.

McDonalds ethical credentials becomes very difficult when they try to "hide" one of their production lines. I don't think I need to say that animal rights campaigners are likely to jump on anything from McDonalds that is less than legitimate. The group has a very strong voice and and is known to be able to derail the best campaigns with claims of foul play. Either McDonalds should reveal everything or it should not have endeavoured on the campaign in the first place. Omitting certain facts which may be damaging while heavily publicising the positive aspects puts McDonalds in a very risky position, and is in my opinion, a major flaw in their plans. 

I love McDonalds and I am not ashamed to say that this campaign is not going to affect how many times I visit. I am already a regular! I have to say that the campaign appears to have little point to it and leaves McDonalds vulnerable. I'm not sure the outcomes are going to be positive and instead of resulting in supportive coverage, it may well provoke journalists to question just where their chicken nuggets originate.