What You See Isn't What You Get

A clever blogger posted some images of fast food items, contrasting them with pictures of the actual items that he purchased at the same restaurants. To him, it was largely an exercise in photography, attempting to shoot the items from the same angles and the same lighting as it was depicted in marketing materials, but the contrast is interesting ...

	Here is the advertising shot from Macdonald's own web site, the idealized vision of what the Big Mac ought to be. I don't think anyone, anywhere, ever has been served a Big Mac that looked at all like this. It's not permissible by law (anymore) to use mock-food for the item being advertised, so this is likely a real burger, very carefully assembled, and likely what the corporate office really wants its franchisees to offer customers.
	Here is a depiction of what "Dario D" posted as the burger he actually got. This is snagged from his blog, "Aphalia" - it's worth visiting to see what he got from other restaurants as well, as the Big Mac is far from the worst example Dario shows, but I figured it would be the easiest to find additional images of this particular item on Flickr.
	To make sure that Dario was being honest about the actual offerings, and not going out of his way to mash the burger and make it appear unattractive, I grabbed five photos from Flickr. This first snap comes from OPBuzz on Flickr. It's not as lopsided, shows a bit more vegetation, but is generally more attractive than Dario's example.
	Another Flickr example, from "The Food Pornographer," seems about the same: less lopsided, and showing a little more greenery. If anything, this example suggests that Dario at least attempted to straighten up the burger he used.
	From scotttdd2 on Flickr, this is probably the worst of the lot. To be fair, the photographer mentioned it was in an overseas location (Egypt, I think), but even so, it's reasonable to expect that if a brand sells franchises in remote locations, they accept the responsibility of preserving the same quality.
	Another example, from seattlekenny on Flickr, shows a bit more beef and a lot less vegetation. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but neither is it quite what is depicted.
	Fianlly, markthedoc on Flickr captured what might be considered the closest of these examples to the idealized Big Mac.

The most likely question this raises is: how does Mcdonald's get away with serving a product that is so far removed from the one depicted in its advertising? And the most likely answer is: because the customer will accept it.

Technically, the customer is getting the product that they have been promised - the burg served has all the components shown (two all-beef patties, "special" sauce, lettuce, cheese, and so on) in roughly the same proportions as promised by the photograph and the flavor and nutritional value (such as they are) of the product are the same if it's assembled with care or slopped together. Laugh about it, complain about it, but when you unwrap your order to find a big sloppy mess, you eat it - and in the end, that's proof of acceptance.

It would be highly unlikely that the practice of showing one thing and selling another would be acceptable for any other class of product. If car dealers widely sold vehicles that were smashed and dented, with scratched paint and torn upholstery, consumers likely wouldn't stand for it. Technically, the seller would still be delivering an engine, four wheels, and a chassis - just as the lopsided and wilted burgers shown above technically have all the ingredients promised to the buyer, albeit in various quantities and states of disarray.

But there seems to be a lower standard for food products in general. In spite of Ray Croc's best efforts to make his burgers standardized and precise as any factory product, the quality and freshness of food ingredients varies greatly, and even if a franchisee took great pains to attempt to offer the ideal version offered in advertising, he likely could not do so.

And in fairness, I don't sense they have the same problem with their other offerings - fries, McNuggets, and even the shorter sandwiches are generally well-executed, but the Big Mac is just a sloppy pile of food that defies conformity. Considered that way, its rebellious and individualistic nature seems almost endearing, in theory at least.

On the other hand, I have to wonder if what I'm seeing here really is the best they can do - and while I'd like to think you could find a Big Mac "in the wild" that more closely resembled the version depicted in advertising, I also think that if such a product existed, someone might have captured a photo.