San Fran bans Happy Meal Toys

Jason P

That is just mean. I understand the food is bad for you but do they think this will have any affect except make McD's more noisy since kids cannot be occupied by a $0.25 toy?

And by the way, there is still the five-story indoor amusement park issue to deal with. As a kid, I remember wedging myself into a steel Hamburgler tower that had about 2'-0" of clearance in freezing cold weather . . . and I loved it and couldn't wait to go back and do it again. I would have given all my allowance money to run around on the current setups as a kid.

If I was a kid, the playground would be the main draw. The toys are almost secondary now that kids have ipods and portable nintendos with them. Back in the day, getting a mini Stomper truck was about as good as it got.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101103/hl_nm/us_mcdonalds_toys

eyedclaar

Must be the Republicans first step to get us back to a more wholesome America. I mean, those San Franciscoites always seemed a little too "happy", if you know what I mean. I think a more serious meal is in order....

Jeanwah

The toys are junk. I have a 7 year old and even she think that the toys are worthless. If your child needs a toy with her burger and fries, keep a god toy in the car. I've always thought those toys were worthless plastic trash, not to mention meant to be thrown away. They weren't always crap; remember the character drinking glasses in the 70s and 80s? Now, those were worth keeping and collecting. But the fast-food places don't have quality anything anymore.

Shawshank

Regardless of their quality, to ban them is idiotic. It's the stupid parents making their kids fat, because they're too damn lazy to make a decent meal at home. Once again the government feels they have to legislate proper parenting.

wolfamongwolves

I'm not one who usually agrees with banning things over allowing people to make a free and informed choice, but to be honest, Happy Meal toys are one of the most transparently cynical and exploitative marketing ploys I've ever heard of. They exist for the sole purpose of undermining informed rational choice by appealing to children's instictive acquisitiveness. Yes, of course there is an element of parental responsibility involved, but, Shawshank, it's utterly short-sighted to say they're the only ones to blame. McD's marketing execs are more than well aware that no child is going to understand when Mommy or Daddy try to explain that the toy is just bait to shift product.

There's not a damn bit of difference between Ronald McDonald and the Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

Oh and let's not forget...

McDonald's Happy Meals - Made for Kids by Kids
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Disney/Labor.html

Kel Varnsen

I am not sure how this going to change anything really. For kids who want McDonalds if the parents couldn't say no before are they going to say no now? And are that many kids going to be able to think about it and say, without the free toy mom I don't want a Happy Meal, lets go home so I can have a salad.

Plus really all the law says is that that they can't give away the toys. What is to stop McDonalds from selling the toys at a discount? I mean they already sell the toys now to anyone who walks in, what is to stop them from selling the toys at regular price to anyone, and then selling them for a quarter to anyone who buys a happy meal.

Plus a lot of those toys are actually kind of cool. The McDonalds Lego Batman ones are awesome, there were also some Simpsons figures that KFC put out a few years ago that were really cool too.

Shawshank

wolfamongwolves wrote:

I'm not one who usually agrees with banning things over allowing people to make a free and informed choice, but to be honest, Happy Meal toys are one of the most transparently cynical and exploitative marketing ploys I've ever heard of. They exist for the sole purpose of undermining informed rational choice by appealing to children's instictive acquisitiveness. Yes, of course there is an element of parental responsibility involved, but, Shawshank, it's utterly short-sighted to say they're the only ones to blame. McD's marketing execs are more than well aware that no child is going to understand when Mommy or Daddy try to explain that the toy is just bait to shift product.

There is an element of parental responsibility? Is this a joke? It's 1,000% parental responsibility, I don't care if they are giving that crap food away for free. Again, this is the problem in so many avenues of life these days, it's always someone else's fault. I have yet to see Ronald or Grimmace force me and my family into a McDonalds. The times we have eaten there (which rarely exceeds once a year) has been based on a choice I or my wife made at the time. For every 1 time we've gone there's probably been 100 times we've told our kids we aren't going, no matter how much they wanted whatever Happy Meal toy was there at the time. We didn't have to explain product movement to them, or bait tactics. We acted as responsible parents for the good of our kids, regardless of whatever marketing ploy was being used.

cincybearcat

You have to be kidding.

What a bunch of righteous f-wads. Same people that want the government out of marriage (and I agree with them), now want to regulate what a business can sell or give away when all of the products are legal. F-off you douchebags.

UpSideDown

Shawshank wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

I'm not one who usually agrees with banning things over allowing people to make a free and informed choice, but to be honest, Happy Meal toys are one of the most transparently cynical and exploitative marketing ploys I've ever heard of. They exist for the sole purpose of undermining informed rational choice by appealing to children's instictive acquisitiveness. Yes, of course there is an element of parental responsibility involved, but, Shawshank, it's utterly short-sighted to say they're the only ones to blame. McD's marketing execs are more than well aware that no child is going to understand when Mommy or Daddy try to explain that the toy is just bait to shift product.

There is an element of parental responsibility? Is this a joke? It's 1,000% parental responsibility, I don't care if they are giving that crap food away for free. Again, this is the problem in so many avenues of life these days, it's always someone else's fault. I have yet to see Ronald or Grimmace force me and my family into a McDonalds. The times we have eaten there (which rarely exceeds once a year) has been based on a choice I or my wife made at the time. For every 1 time we've gone there's probably been 100 times we've told our kids we aren't going, no matter how much they wanted whatever Happy Meal toy was there at the time. We didn't have to explain product movement to them, or bait tactics. We acted as responsible parents for the good of our kids, regardless of whatever marketing ploy was being used.

I agree with your response 100%.....

Its a happy meal people......

wolfamongwolves

Shawshank wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

I'm not one who usually agrees with banning things over allowing people to make a free and informed choice, but to be honest, Happy Meal toys are one of the most transparently cynical and exploitative marketing ploys I've ever heard of. They exist for the sole purpose of undermining informed rational choice by appealing to children's instictive acquisitiveness. Yes, of course there is an element of parental responsibility involved, but, Shawshank, it's utterly short-sighted to say they're the only ones to blame. McD's marketing execs are more than well aware that no child is going to understand when Mommy or Daddy try to explain that the toy is just bait to shift product.

There is an element of parental responsibility? Is this a joke? It's 1,000% parental responsibility, I don't care if they are giving that crap food away for free. Again, this is the problem in so many avenues of life these days, it's always someone else's fault. I have yet to see Ronald or Grimmace force me and my family into a McDonalds. The times we have eaten there (which rarely exceeds once a year) has been based on a choice I or my wife made at the time. For every 1 time we've gone there's probably been 100 times we've told our kids we aren't going, no matter how much they wanted whatever Happy Meal toy was there at the time. We didn't have to explain product movement to them, or bait tactics. We acted as responsible parents for the good of our kids, regardless of whatever marketing ploy was being used.

Fair enough - I'm not saying by any means that everybody responds the same way. By by the same token, one example does not refute an argument. Do you think your kids will never go to McDonald's themselves? I never said anything about "forcing", but if you don't believe advertising works, doesn't manipulate the choices you make, then you're a marketer's dream. There's a reason it's a multi-billion-dollar industry. There's a reason advertising is everywhere. It works. Happy Meal toys are not there as a nice present from the friendly clown. They are there to make kids want a Happy Meal. Advertisers and marketers bear responsibility too. So no, it's not a joke.

Shawshank

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Fair enough - I'm not saying by any means that everybody responds the same way. By by the same token, one example does not refute an argument. Do you think your kids will never go to McDonald's themselves? I never said anything about "forcing", but if you don't believe advertising works, doesn't manipulate the choices you make, then you're a marketer's dream. There's a reason it's a multi-billion-dollar industry. There's a reason advertising is everywhere. It works. Happy Meal toys are not there as a nice present from the friendly clown. They are there to make kids want a Happy Meal. Advertisers and marketers bear responsibility too. So no, it's not a joke.

A very very big part of one of my businesses is geared strictly around marketing, so I'm well versed in the industry. I'm not really sure where I implied that advertising doesn't have a profound effect on the choices people are faced with, and let's make that part crystal clear, it only broadens the choices people have, it doesn't control them. The heart of my argument is, Happy Meal toys are not causing the epidemic of childhood obesity, it's the parents buying their kids Happy Meals (coupled with a very sedentary life).

If they want to have an impact on the overall health of our society, the government would actually ban the cattle feed lots, and those concentration camps that they raise our chicken in. It starts with the quality of the food, not the toys that accompany it, but that's for another topic.

Electric_Delta

It would be nice to see society at large (no pun intended) make a shift to smarter lifestyle choices. Until society SLOWS DOWN and food becomes less industrialized, that probably won't be the case.

I'm not convinced government is the answer. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

wolfamongwolves

Shawshank wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Fair enough - I'm not saying by any means that everybody responds the same way. By by the same token, one example does not refute an argument. Do you think your kids will never go to McDonald's themselves? I never said anything about "forcing", but if you don't believe advertising works, doesn't manipulate the choices you make, then you're a marketer's dream. There's a reason it's a multi-billion-dollar industry. There's a reason advertising is everywhere. It works. Happy Meal toys are not there as a nice present from the friendly clown. They are there to make kids want a Happy Meal. Advertisers and marketers bear responsibility too. So no, it's not a joke.

A very very big part of one of my businesses is geared strictly around marketing, so I'm well versed in the industry. I'm not really sure where I implied that advertising doesn't have a profound effect on the choices people are faced with, and let's make that part crystal clear, it only broadens the choices people have, it doesn't control them. The heart of my argument is, Happy Meal toys are not causing the epidemic of childhood obesity, it's the parents buying their kids Happy Meals (coupled with a very sedentary life).

If they want to have an impact on the overall health of our society, the government would actually ban the cattle feed lots, and those concentration camps that they raise our chicken in. It starts with the quality of the food, not the toys that accompany it, but that's for another topic.

You seem to be extrapolating a hell of a lot from what I said. I said nothing about Happy Meal toys causing childhood obesity. Nor did I use the word "control" (which would undermine my argument that there is a measure of parental responsibility). But I find it surprising (though maybe I shouldn't...) that someone so familiar with the advertising industry does not see the strong causal relationship between what, and how, it promotes commodities and why people buy what they do. To say advertising "only broadens the choices people have" I think is quite extraordinarily naive. Advertising is far, far more than a conduit of information about available products. Control is too strong a word, yes, but advertising is, rather blatantly, about manipulating people's choice, cajoling them (in almost every case through biased and selective, often deliberately misleading, information). And Happy Meal toys, I believe, are about as flagrant a proponent of that manipulation as you can get.

For the record, I agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph. But that's not what government are interested in having an impact on...

catefrances

Jeanwah wrote:

The toys are junk. I have a 7 year old and even she think that the toys are worthless. If your child needs a toy with her burger and fries, keep a god toy in the car. I've always thought those toys were worthless plastic trash, not to mention meant to be thrown away. They weren't always crap; remember the character drinking glasses in the 70s and 80s? Now, those were worth keeping and collecting. But the fast-food places don't have quality anything anymore.

whats a god toy and do they come with special godlike powers???

wolfamongwolves

This is a real McDonald's ad from India.

I can't be the only one to find it deeply unsettling...





"If you hook them young, then you have them for life"

UpSideDown

wolfamongwolves wrote:

This is a real McDonald's ad from India.

I can't be the only one to find it deeply unsettling...





"If you hook them young, then you have them for life"

Creepy.

Shawshank

wolfamongwolves wrote:

You seem to be extrapolating a hell of a lot from what I said. I said nothing about Happy Meal toys causing childhood obesity. Nor did I use the word "control" (which would undermine my argument that there is a measure of parental responsibility). But I find it surprising (though maybe I shouldn't...) that someone so familiar with the advertising industry does not see the strong causal relationship between what, and how, it promotes commodities and why people buy what they do. To say advertising "only broadens the choices people have" I think is quite extraordinarily naive. Advertising is far, far more than a conduit of information about available products. Control is too strong a word, yes, but advertising is, rather blatantly, about manipulating people's choice, cajoling them (in almost every case through biased and selective, often deliberately misleading, information). And Happy Meal toys, I believe, are about as flagrant a proponent of that manipulation as you can get.

For the record, I agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph. But that's not what government are interested in having an impact on...

In regard to what I said about obesity, I was referring to what the article stated:

Fifteen percent of American children are overweight or obese -- which puts them at risk of developing heart disease, diabetes and cancer, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In some states, the childhood obesity rate is over 30 percent.

I think we just have to agree to somewhat disagree on this. It's my opinion that even without the toys, this intervention is not going to do anything to resolve the problem this regulation is trying to fix. It still comes down to the parents making a choice based on their personal convenience.

wolfamongwolves

Shawshank wrote:

I think we just have to agree to somewhat disagree on this. It's my opinion that even without the toys, this intervention is not going to do anything to resolve the problem this regulation is trying to fix. It still comes down to the parents making a choice based on their personal convenience.

I actually agree with this! Though I do still believe that the toys are part of a wider marketing strategy to appeal to reach past parents' rationality and appeal directly to kids' instincts, and that it works.

Still, I've made my case, you've made yours, and that's all there can be to it. Agree to somewhat disagree it is, then...

Dirtie_Frank

eyedclaar wrote:

Must be the Republicans first step to get us back to a more wholesome America. I mean, those San Franciscoites always seemed a little too "happy", if you know what I mean. I think a more serious meal is in order....

Yeah the GOP in San Fran :roll:

WaveCameCrashin

This is just stupid. It lies on the parents to decide whether or not their kid gets a happy meal or even eats at Micky D's. When was the last time you saw a kid on a tricycle going through the drive through ? I mean what's next ? Blooming idiot already wants to regulate salt in NY. http://gawker.com/5365900/bloomberg-to- ... ll-my-salt


Here are some other laws in S.F.

No plastic bags in large chain retail stores

No bottled water bought/sold on city property

No smoking in any building or in an outside patio area. clove cigarettes are not permitted to even be sold

No. baby animals. it’s illegal to sell baby chickens ducks or rabbits

No. segways on sidewalks or bike paths because they are thought to promote laziness

No soda and juice drinks with no real fruit juice can not be sold on city property

unsung

cincybearcat wrote:

You have to be kidding.

What a bunch of righteous f-wads. Same people that want the government out of marriage (and I agree with them), now want to regulate what a business can sell or give away when all of the products are legal. F-off you douchebags.

Exactly. The government needs to stay out of private lives.

Franny

wolfamongwolves wrote:

This is a real McDonald's ad from India.

I can't be the only one to find it deeply unsettling...





"If you hook them young, then you have them for life"

No you're not the only one......clowns are freakin scary. :shock:

This is what they grow up to be......

TriumphantAngel

boycott mcdonalds.

Pepe Silvia

prfctlefts wrote:

This is just stupid. It lies on the parents to decide whether or not their kid gets a happy meal or even eats at Micky D's. When was the last time you saw a kid on a tricycle going through the drive through ? I mean what's next ? Blooming idiot already wants to regulate salt in NY. http://gawker.com/5365900/bloomberg-to- ... ll-my-salt


Here are some other laws in S.F.

No plastic bags in large chain retail stores

No bottled water bought/sold on city property

No smoking in any building or in an outside patio area. clove cigarettes are not permitted to even be sold

No. baby animals. it’s illegal to sell baby chickens ducks or rabbits

No. segways on sidewalks or bike paths because they are thought to promote laziness

No soda and juice drinks with no real fruit juice can not be sold on city property

who cares if they don't want segways on bike paths??

they also have a different minimum wage that increased with inflation and is a few bucks more than the rest of the country....i'd take that over not getting a plastic bag or having someone on a segway on a bike path or sidewalk

also as for kids on tricycles at fast food places....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOi-FuHl-kk

gimmesometruth27

how about segways being unsafe for those WALKING on the trails????


there is always some excuse or some accusation bound to make those that are trying to live a healthy lifestye look like they are the ones being irrational... :roll:

canoegirl

Daniel McDonald Medicine Man on a route to Canada via the underground railroad for slaves NY ROCKS

wolfamongwolves

prfctlefts wrote:

This is just stupid. It lies on the parents to decide whether or not their kid gets a happy meal or even eats at Micky D's. When was the last time you saw a kid on a tricycle going through the drive through ? I mean what's next ? Blooming idiot already wants to regulate salt in NY. http://gawker.com/5365900/bloomberg-to- ... ll-my-salt

Here are some other laws in S.F.

No plastic bags in large chain retail stores
No bottled water bought/sold on city property
No smoking in any building or in an outside patio area. clove cigarettes are not permitted to even be sold
No. baby animals. it’s illegal to sell baby chickens ducks or rabbits
No. segways on sidewalks or bike paths because they are thought to promote laziness
No soda and juice drinks with no real fruit juice can not be sold on city property

unsung wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

You have to be kidding.

What a bunch of righteous f-wads. Same people that want the government out of marriage (and I agree with them), now want to regulate what a business can sell or give away when all of the products are legal. F-off you douchebags.

Exactly. The government needs to stay out of private lives.

Y'know, unless you all try to back up your arguments, rather than just saying "that's stoopid cos it is", you're not that likely to convince anyone of anything.

for the record, prfctlefts, where I come from we've also taken action on plastic bags - you now have to buy them, and people generally don't, they just bring their own - and it has resulted in a massive reduction in litter and plastic in landfills, which is welcomed by pretty mucheveryone. The tax on the bags is ringfenced for use by the environment ministry in clean-up projects. So... what's stupid about that?

We've also banned smoking in pubs, and though admittedly many people don't like the inconvenience of having to step outside for a smoke, the reduction in air pollution in the pubs is massive, which is a huge boon to those who have to work in pubs, with bar staff showing 80% reductions in the amount of benzine, carbon monoxide and cotinine in their bodies and an increase in pulmonary health. Do you think they think it's stupid?

mikepegg44

eyedclaar wrote:

Must be the Republicans first step to get us back to a more wholesome America. I mean, those San Franciscoites always seemed a little too "happy", if you know what I mean. I think a more serious meal is in order....

the republicans took over government in San Francisco?

that is a much bigger story than this happy meal law, which is ridiculous. TELL YOUR KIDS NO

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

how about segways being unsafe for those WALKING on the trails????


there is always some excuse or some accusation bound to make those that are trying to live a healthy lifestye look like they are the ones being irrational... :roll:

How so?

No one is regulating that you must go to McD and get a Happy Meal. What's irrational is stupid law, and many others that just happen to be coming out of that great state of California. When's the next big one so we can dump it off into the ocean?

cincybearcat

wolfamongwolves wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

This is just stupid. It lies on the parents to decide whether or not their kid gets a happy meal or even eats at Micky D's. When was the last time you saw a kid on a tricycle going through the drive through ? I mean what's next ? Blooming idiot already wants to regulate salt in NY. http://gawker.com/5365900/bloomberg-to- ... ll-my-salt

Here are some other laws in S.F.

No plastic bags in large chain retail stores
No bottled water bought/sold on city property
No smoking in any building or in an outside patio area. clove cigarettes are not permitted to even be sold
No. baby animals. it’s illegal to sell baby chickens ducks or rabbits
No. segways on sidewalks or bike paths because they are thought to promote laziness
No soda and juice drinks with no real fruit juice can not be sold on city property

unsung wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

You have to be kidding.

What a bunch of righteous f-wads. Same people that want the government out of marriage (and I agree with them), now want to regulate what a business can sell or give away when all of the products are legal. F-off you douchebags.

Exactly. The government needs to stay out of private lives.

Y'know, unless you all try to back up your arguments, rather than just saying "that's stoopid cos it is", you're not that likely to convince anyone of anything.

for the record, prfctlefts, where I come from we've also taken action on plastic bags - you now have to buy them, and people generally don't, they just bring their own - and it has resulted in a massive reduction in litter and plastic in landfills, which is welcomed by pretty mucheveryone. The tax on the bags is ringfenced for use by the environment ministry in clean-up projects. So... what's stupid about that?

We've also banned smoking in pubs, and though admittedly many people don't like the inconvenience of having to step outside for a smoke, the reduction in air pollution in the pubs is massive, which is a huge boon to those who have to work in pubs, with bar staff showing 80% reductions in the amount of benzine, carbon monoxide and cotinine in their bodies and an increase in pulmonary health. Do you think they think it's stupid?

You don't really have to back up the government regulating personal choice that doesn't effect anyone else...it's a pretty easy argument unless you are a righteous asshole like those in San Fran.

eyedclaar

mikepegg44 wrote:

eyedclaar wrote:

Must be the Republicans first step to get us back to a more wholesome America. I mean, those San Franciscoites always seemed a little too "happy", if you know what I mean. I think a more serious meal is in order....

the republicans took over government in San Francisco?

So, that makes at least two folks who can't recognize an obvious joke. Yes, the R government took over in San Francisco. You didn't get the memo?