FULL DISCLOSURE: I understand how it looks when I begin to write about the kinds and quality of food that American's eat. One only has to look through the pages of this site to understand that I can make some terrible (yet immensely delicious) food choices from time to time. However in the end, they are exactly that. They are my choices.
The posts that appear in this site are not really an accurate reflection of how my family eats from day to day. We make an effort to limit how much meat we consume - opting for dishes that are based in vegetarian cooking most nights of the week. We try to grow our own food during the summer. We shop organic and the edges of the supermarket when we can, putting our money where our beliefs are because we are lucky enough to be able to. We quietly donate to Slow Food and have our obligatory copies of "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" on our shelves. We share what we've learned, what we've read and what we are eating with others, but in the end our choices are for us, not for everyone.
Because we have been a bit outside of the target market for food marketing for some time, I've become sensitive to the instances when my individual food choices are explicitly being appealed to. I am not naive enough to think that America's developing "real food" movement will somehow escape being taken over in part by the large corporations that dominate our food landscape. After all, its in the interest of these companies to keep us bellying up to the counter and ordering their food. These companies have changed in the past to survive and they will change again should a critical mass vote with their feet and wallets for a better set of choices. In fact, we might be seeing that very thing happen right now.
There is a reason why Chipotle Mexican Grill has been marching across the country opening up shops in its wake, they are meeting a growing demand for food that not only tastes good, but food that has a sense of social conscious. This is not to suggest that the food at Chipotle is any better for you -- their gigantic foil wrapped burritos can come close to 1000 calories per serving. However in a world of limited real food choices they have created a business model that makes it easier for me to chose them over their competition.
As a company Chipotle is not perfect or without its critics, however on the whole it its attempting to address how a growing population wants to eat and has internalized the basics of that desire into its culture. This attention to detail goes beyond the dressing of a plate to actively participating in how its meat is raised and sourced and how its buildings are constructed -- the goal being to reduce the overall impact that fast and convenience foods place on our environment. It would appear that the idea of "real and sustainable food" is in the corporate DNA of Chipotle. If they can turn a profit in the process so much the better.
It would seem that its easier to look at the market and design a business to meet a growing need than to implement change into an existing structure. This is especially true when many of the issues associated with that existing business model are caused by a dominate position in the market. It would be hard to argue for a system of factory farming and feed lots if there was not massive demand for cheap products by multinational fast food companies and the millions who rely upon them for a large share of their daily calories. The machine that feeds into this maw has been invested in, built up and improved over time to be lethally efficient and profitable, thereby making actual change that much harder.
If a business model is built on top of these ideas (efficiency, convenience and perceived affordability) how is it changed and adapted to an evolving demographic without tearing down a corporate structure or venturing out to build a net new one? It would seem small incremental changes over time and the age old tactic of co-opting a message is the answer.
Case in point -- a new line of salads from Wendy's which are "real" and designed to appeal to "foodies" and "people who care about ingredients and what they eat." On the surface this is an example of extending an existing marketing campaign, where the term "real" is assigned to their existing product offerings to differentiate themselves from their competition and counter the McDonald's "What We Are Made Of" strategy. These marketing concepts exist because of the growing consensus that the products served at fast food counters are not real food -- they are foodlike things designed by food scientists, psychologists and test groups to appeal to our base instincts -- namely the consumption of massive quantities of fat, salt and the sweetness that is sugar.
The Wendy's/Arby's Group recently announced that they "teamed up with salad dressing maker Marzetti's to create new flavors such as avocado ranch and pomegranate vinaigrette. It's using multiple types of greens beyond iceberg lettuce, such as spinach, red and green chard, and red and green romaine. Wendy's signature chili is an ingredient in the Baja salad, which features Hass avocados and pico de gallo."
Obviously these new choices sound great and are a step away from the double and triple stacked burgers they are known for. However, according to Wendy's, while these new salads are "real", they may not be real good for you compared to their normal menu when you look at their 580-730 calories, massive doses of salt and up to 33 grams of fat per serving.
I will readily admit that the Big Bacon Classic (long since removed from the Wendy's menu and replaced by the entertainingly named "Baconator") just may be my favorite fast food burger ever - so what's my beef with Wendy's? Truth be told it's not with the welcome menu changes but its the words that Wendy's chooses to use. Words like "foodie" and "real food". These are words that have a lifestyle and culture associated with them. In many ways they evolved in direct opposition to the concept of fast food, yet here they are being used in support of it.
By assigning the term "real food" to their new line of salads, is it suggested that the rest of the Wendy's menu is the opposite of "real food"? While it can be argued that they are just words, to the market Wendy's is targeting the idea of "foodies" and "real food" suggests more than a salad mix or new dressings. When used by Wendy's, the idea of "real food" creates more questions for the educated diner than actually describing what they are serving. It is empty marketing gibberish.
Matching "real food" within the context of the Wendy's menu means going beyond adding kale and avocado to a salad. It means establishing a connection between food, plate and person. It requires on some level that the real person eating this real food understands where it came from and how it was grown. It shows a respect for your customer to explain why you are using terms that have a specific meaning to them. Using these terms as a marketing ploy comes off more like an attempt to turn yet another market upside down so as to shake a few more dollars out of its untapped pockets.
Sadly Wendy's had a real chance to differentiate itself from its competition by assuming the mantle of "real food". While it may not have solved the problem of cheap calories and factory farming in the United States with its new salads, it could have taken a step towards addressing it. It is that component of "real food" that seems to be missing from its marketing materials and investor relations propaganda. As I searched for information to counter this thought it dawned on me -- why would Wendy's attempt to change a system that has been so successful for so long? Its just not in their best interests after billions spent on science, technology and marketing. Better to bend the market to you, no? Or maybe its as simple as its not yet in their best interests as long as enough of us continue to not vote with our feet and wallets -- bringing us back to the choices we make.
Yes, it is a fine thing to have additional choices at Wendy's as we all would do well to choose a salad over a burger from time to time. I can find no fault in catering to changing tastes and the idea that eating healthy is a good thing to do. I can't even bring myself to find fault in the basic pursuit of profit. No, I worry that instead of changing a culture created of its own doing it seems more expedient to glom onto a phrase and dilute it until it is all but meaningless to the vast majority of people.
With the progress made towards true and real food over the last decade, it seems more important than ever to protect and fight back when these simple things, these words are at risk of being marginalized and homogenized just as they are taking hold in public discourse.
Just another something to think about the next time you are trying to chose what to have for lunch.
