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.

  • Lasherz12@lemmy.world
    21·
    4 hours ago

    I’m not sure why the scrutiny. The McDonalds he visited was owned as a franchisee. This is true of 95% of McDonalds. The franchise is effectively letting them use their name so long as they pay them for every stage of their operations (royalty on sales, franchise starting fee, equipment manufactured under McDonalds is the only approved equipment, and profit on food product being sold in bulk to the restaurant). McDonalds is evil, but it’s not because they endorse Trump, it’s mostly because they’re a leech company who wants to distance themselves from risk by contracting out over 95% of their revenue streams labor.

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgOPEnglish
      4·
      4 hours ago

      As far as the politicizing goes, it’s mostly because most people don’t know what you just said. They see “McDonalds” and don’t think of local franchises; they think Big McD (corporate/the whole company).

      I think the other point of controversy is that franchises typically aren’t allowed to sub-lease, so to speak, the name/brand. They represent corporate, basically, and anything they’d do that may harm the reputation would not be viewed favorably by the higher ups. I’m not clear on the franchise agreements, but it wouldn’t be out of the question for those to be revoked / refused to renew if a particular location was causing headaches for the main brand.