ASA Adjudication on McDonalds Restaurants Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for a McDonald's Chicken Snack Wrap, featured a couple sitting in a McDonald's restaurant. The woman was eating a Snack Wrap but was tricked into leaving the table by the man. He then picked up the wrap and began to eat it.

Issue

A viewer believed the Chicken Snack Wrap she bought was significantly smaller than the one shown in the ad. She believed the ad misrepresented the size of the product.

BCAP TV Code

Response

McDonald's said it was their policy when filming or photographing a product always to use exactly the same ingredients that would be used to make the product in one of their restaurants. They said they had staff at the filming to ensure that the Snack Wrap used had the same quality and quantity of ingredients and was representative of those sold in their restaurants. They explained that to ensure the quality and size of the product, their restaurant staff were trained on how to assemble the Snack Wrap, and procedure and training cards were posted next to or near Snack Wrap preparation areas. McDonald's said the tortillas were produced in a food factory and were consistent in terms of diameter and thickness, and were not prone to shrinkage during cooking. They said a normal sized tortilla was used in the ad. They explained that the chicken in the Snack Wrap was made of strips of chicken breast and, unlike minced or chopped chicken, it was not possible to serve identical shapes or sizes just as fish and chip shops did not typically serve identical portions of fish. However, they said a "Quality Cue Card", next to preparation areas, specified minimum and maximum sizes for the chicken strip in order to ensure that customers did not receive a substandard product. McDonald's said the chicken strips used in the ad were mid-specification. They said a sauce dispenser was used for the mayonnaise, thereby ensuring a consistent portion and the lettuce was placed by hand and, like any other catering establishment, relied on the judgement of trained staff when choosing the size and amount. They said only a small amount of mayonnaise and lettuce were shown in the ad, but enough to show that they were present in the Snack Wrap.

McDonald's said, before they approved the finished ad, they made unannounced test purchases at a number of their restaurants to confirm that the Snack Wrap in the ad was representative of the product. They said they had sold several million Snack Wraps and the ASA had only received one complaint. They believed that, although the physical appearance of the product might differ because of the natural characteristics of the chicken strips and staff preparation of the product, rather than a machine, the quantity and quality of the Snack Wrap they typically sold was consistent with what was shown in the ad.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said they were sent product samples to compare the Snack Wraps against the visuals in the ad. They considered the product to be fully representative, both in terms of quantity and quality, to the product on screen.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA understood that it was not possible to produce identical Snack Wraps because they were made on demand in McDonald's restaurants and there was likely to be some minor variation in quantity and quality. We noted however that McDonald's had guidelines and training in place to ensure that the size and ingredients of the Snack Wrap were reasonably consistent throughout their restaurants and the same ingredients and methods were used in producing the Snack Wrap used in the ad. We also noted the checks McDonald's undertook to ensure the product in the ad was representative of those sold in their restaurants.

We considered that, because the Snack Wrap in the ad was made following the same guidelines as those used in the restaurants, it was likely to be a fair representation of the product sold in McDonalds and was unlikely to mislead viewers as to the size of the Snack wrap.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.2 (Implications) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)