Misplaced Activism denies us Toys

Sure, kids love toys. Sure, they either buy or prompt the buy of a McDonald's happy meal because of the toy. But is that reason enough to sue McDonald's?

After all, despite what the Centre for Science in the Public Interest says about McDonald's unfairly influencing kids or even us, we still have it in us to NOT buy. For example, don't take your kids to a mall with McDonald's. Or if you go, don't go into McDonald's store despite the kids insisting.

Its asinine for anyone to go after McDonald's because they give kids toys with their meals. For a moment, lets assume the toys are stopped, will kids stop eating burgers and fries? Tell you what, what will happen is, the burger chomping ain't gonna stop. Plus this time around you would have lost out on a toy, with no decrease in prices.

Centers like the Center for Science in the Public interest do us consumers who want the toy a disservice by going after McDonald's so irresponsible consumers who can't control their binge eating benefit. How fair is that? I've said this before, am saying it gain. The responsibility of consumption lies with consumers. The best way to show your displeasure at a firm's marketing tactic is by not responding to it. If all consumers were to do that, give it some time, the tactic will be yanked from consumer space by the firm concerned.

If a toy as a sales ploy works, its because consumers take it to. Willingly or unwillingly. Either way, its the consumer who responds. Taking to task a toy peddler for what consumers do isn't fair. In fact I'd say its misplaced activism.


Popular Posts