A new tool for parents?

Medpage Today: Picky Eater? Try Serving the Carrots in a McDonald's Bag

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

they had to do a study to figure this out?

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

If it's not environmental destruction or war that's threatening the human race, it's the insidious evil of Marketing...

Well yes, they probably had to do the study, not to figure it out but to measure the effect and show that it exists. It can be important to have scientific studies of things, even if they appear obvious, just to refute people when they say stupid things. For example I can remember tabacco companies claiming in all aparent seriousness that their advertising didn't encourage anyone to take up smoking.

Honestly, I think blaming marketing for peoples preference of "fast, conveniant, and fatty" over "good, healthy food" is a cop out; right up there with blaming television or video games for a criminal act.

It's just funny that, at least here in the states, people proudly proclaim how they are individuals and make their own choices, yet then they say "anything bad i do, it's 'caus someone else made me do it!".

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Companies spend billions on advertising each year. Politicians spend vast amounts of money on advertising, too.* If advertising had no effect, they wouldn't bother to advertise.

*I'm just thankful that most others don't take the negative approach to advertising used by so many politicians. Imagine airline advertising where one company belittled another with such claims as "Don't fly United! They crash more than anyone!" I wonder if so many Americans no longer bother to vote because they've been turned off by the negative advertising.

As for serving carrots in McDonald's bags, thanks for the tip. Two of my grandchildren are moving here this week. That trick may come in handy.

Well, the headline was seductive, but the study showed that kids preferred "McDonald's-brand" carrots over regular carrots by just a few percent. And, if they disliked carrots, their preference for ones they think came from McDonald's doesn't seem like it's going to help a lot.

But, hey, worth a try! If they don't like them, maybe it will turn them off McDonald's. That could be a good thing.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

It may be a cop out. But; the simple fact that so much money is spent on the the hype and marketing proves that it is a part of the equation.

I prefer to blame education and parenting.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Kids don't like McDonald's because of advertising; they like it because it tastes good to them. But give them something that tastes bad to them and associate it with McDonald's, and the old connection in their minds between McDonald's and good flavor might linger at first but won't last long.

I'm wondering about the "unbranded packaging". Is that "generic" packaging, dull and uninteresting? My kids ate restaurant food out of everything from frisbees to tonka trucks, and of course it tasted better.

Why didn't the effect hold for hamburgers?

I think the usan government needs to throw more money at these fine researchers.

Additionally, how many parent's do you know that treat McD's like a "treat" or reward...i.e., "If you kids are good while we're at the doctor's office, I'll take you to McD's afterwards."

So is it suprising that kids think they're getting something special when it comes from a McD's bag? Remember, we're no different than Pavlov's dogs. :-P

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

But, hey, worth a try! If they don't like them, maybe it will turn them off McDonald's. That could be a good thing.

Hmmm, I see the potential for McDonald's cabbage, McDonald's cauliflower, McDonald's broccoli, etc. The kids are 1 and 3 years old. Either they'll end up liking vegatables or hating McDonald's. Works for me in either case!

The video I saw just had the food items on a plate, wrapped in paper, one with small, multiple, probably-single-color logo printing on it, the other blank. (There's obviously room to explore here, with other vendors, or fictional logos.) Oh, the video might have been a wholly fabricated journalist's version, but they also interviewed a Stanford University participant in the study, and it looked like the video came from an actual site of the experiment, with real kids, so it was likely from the experiment, or a reasonable recreation aided by the participant.

Oh, and I might hedge on my carrot comment above, regarding percentages. The first story I read only gave the logo'd carrot preference number at, maybe, 54. I was thinking that would only give a small edge to the logo, but I neglected the responses that could have been: no difference. I just heard that the un-logo'd carrot preference number was more like 30 percent. So, maybe the logos make some significant difference in vegetable-appreciation -- if you can get the vegetables into the kid.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...