McDonalds just doesn’t seem to get it. In the UK, specifically London (and possibly elsewhere) they’ve just given all their “restaurants” a facelift, changing the colour and material from tacky red and yellow to what looks like green wood. Yes, they do look nicer - they don’t give you quite the cornea pain they used to. But the fact is that consumers are starting to realise (I hope) that the quality of the food is pretty far below decent.

Please, McDonalds, please improve the actual meals as well. It’s badly needed, and I think we’ve got to a point where people are willing to pay a little bit more for it (see: Nandos).

This Guardian article from the beginning of July this year mentions the redesign. Fact is, I’ve only seen it happening round where I live in the last week or so. I haven’t been in for a nice long time, so Marianne Barriaux can probably describe the interior better than I can…

A dark green or black facade replaces the trademark bright red and yellow one, armchairs, low-hung trendy lights, quirky designs and different types of seating areas are all an attempt to attract a more discerning customer.

The image is from Knebworth Chap (website) on Flickr, under a creative commons attribution license. That branch of McDonalds is in King’s Cross.

Comments

By Farhan Mannan on 29 October 2007 at 22:49:

Any info on how successful this is? On a related note, to paraphrase from The History Boys,

You can’t polish a turd!

By Michael Henley on 30 October 2007 at 23:59:

Sorry so you want McDonalds to serve good food? You do know what McDo is don’t you?… It is one step below the school’s custard, with anti-taste ™ “Absorbs taste right out of your mouth”. Fantastic for midnight when slightly inebriated and starving, and it fills a niche, but don’t expect there to be ‘good’ food there. That isn’t their market.

By adam2z on 01 November 2007 at 02:05:

mcDonalds has a niche.. a slightly shrinking one (in this country mind you) but still a huge niche.

they also have pret (really) to fill the more upmarket one that you call in nandos for (youre wrong here. mcdonalds and pret are on the go food with optional sit in, nandos is a cheap(ish) real meal.

having written this i realize that michael already made the niche point so i wont go on.

By President Frankenstein on 06 November 2007 at 16:38:

Comparing a resturaunt to a fast-food outlet is pretty retarded.

By alexmuller on 06 November 2007 at 16:47:

I don’t see something like Nandos as a ‘restaurant’ - that’s really where the issue is, classifying all these places to get food.

And to be perfectly honest with you, using the word “retarded” as an insult isn’t great. Please don’t do it.

By adam2z on 07 November 2007 at 23:43:

(1.) Posting anonymous critical comments on someone else’s blog ( especially when you probably know them in reality) is cowardice.

(2.) ‘resturaunt’ is not a word.

(3.) The definition of restaurant is “an establishment where meals are served to customers.” Im 95% sure that fast food outlets serve meals to customers but pray correct me if im wrong.

Citation:

American Psychological Association (APA):

restaurant. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 07, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/restaurant

Comments can be emailed.
I posted this on Monday, October 29, 2007 at 22:20, under Life.