McDonald's tells U.S. restaurants it's not a 'political brand' after Trump visit
www.cnbc.com
McDonald's said it is not endorsing a presidential candidate after Trump's visit to one of its restaurants.

Cross-posted from “Too Bad, So Sad, Too Late - McDonald’s tells U.S. restaurants it’s not a ‘political brand’ after Trump visit” by @JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee in !news@beehaw.org

Excerpt:

Though President Donald Trump visited a Pennsylvania McDonald’s location on Sunday, the fast-food giant is trying to stay neutral in the presidential race.

“As we’ve seen, our brand has been a fixture of conversation in this election cycle. While we’ve not sought this, it’s a testament to how much McDonald’s resonates with so many Americans. McDonald’s does not endorse candidates for elected office and that remains true in this race for the next President,” the company said in an internal message viewed by CNBC and confirmed by a source familiar with the matter.

I haven’t eaten at a McDonalds since before covid, and I don’t really miss it.

  • The Pantser@lemmy.world
    2212·
    2 months ago

    Nope the corporate had to have been fully aware since there was a joke on SNL about his visit happening the next day. It was in the news that it was gonna happen and McDonald’s did nothing to stop it.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      299·
      2 months ago

      since there was a joke on SNL about his visit happening the next day

      It was in the news

      I think you’re confused.

      Because I said they likely found out when everyone else did…

      And you replied saying they found out…

      When everyone else did?

      McDonald’s did nothing to stop it.

      Then there’s the part where I’d still need to explain how franchising works

      • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
        1·
        2 months ago

        McD’s might be unique in this regard, but they actually own the land the building is on for most franchises. So they’d have the authority to deny if they wanted to (at least in the standard agreement in the US).

        This was well explained in the biopic, The Founder https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4276820/

        Sadly, it makes sense that corporate would not deny it in this case - the store was going to be closed so there was no impact on business (as compared to the store being closed for a more typical reason), and they’d probably fear the public relations backlash after seeing “McD refuses to allow store to be borrowed by GOP/MAGA campaign”

      • houndeyes@toast.oooEnglish
        65·
        2 months ago

        Then there’s the part where I’d still need to explain how franchising works

        Hah! I love how palpable you made your exasperation!

    • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
      162·
      2 months ago

      McDonalds is a franchise, local owners are separate entities from the franchise “parent”.

      Plus, McDonalds is a huge company. They probably couldn’t move their massive legal machinery to respond in time to stop it. Even if they could they would probably have had to know which franchisee was doing it ahead of time, and also have to find something in the franchise agreement specifically they were violating.

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      4·
      2 months ago

      If they had done something to stop it, they would have been sued by the franchise owner who did nothing to violate the franchise agreement.

      Which is interesting, because usually corporate has all the power in franchise agreements.