Sociopath Community

I don't really agree that the backlash necessarily became a bandwagon. There are plenty of reasonable reasons someone could decide not to get the Big Arch without trying it. It's around 1,020 calories, 25g of saturated fat, and 1,760mg of sodium, it's more expensive than a Big Mac, and it's a substantially larger and richer burger. Someone can reasonably decide that their diet doesn't need something that heavy or that the extra food isn't worth the extra price.

I've also personally had quarter-pounders from McDonald's that were dangerously undercooked, so I don't think concern about the Big Arch's thicker patties is automatically some manufactured criticism either. A thicker patty can reasonably make someone more cautious about how well it's cooked. That doesn't mean every Big Arch is undercooked, but it's a legitimate consideration.

So I think there's a difference between people mindlessly repeating that the burger is bad and people independently deciding that the product isn't appealing to them for perfectly rational reasons. The fact that a lot of people didn't want a very large, expensive, extremely rich burger doesn't by itself demonstrate a bandwagon effect.

On another note, I enjoyed the Taco Bell chicken nuggets and garlic sauce they had for a time. Ironically I'm not a big garlic pasta fan.

Gemini said:

Yes, the backlash over McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski eating the Big Arch burger was a classic internet bandwagon effect. While the initial clip genuinely struck viewers as stiff and awkward—featuring a tiny, overly cautious nibble and the corporate-sounding label "product"—the overwhelming wave of mockery quickly snowballed into a standard social media pile-on.

Anatomy of the Viral Backlash

- The Spark: Kempczinski took a very dainty bite of the massive burger on camera, leading viewers to joke that he looked like a vegetarian trying meat for the first time or a man who had never eaten McDonald’s in his life.

- The Pile-on: The minor awkwardness was rapidly amplified once rival fast-food competitors like Burger King and Wendy's jumped on the bandwagon with spoof videos.

- The Bandwagon Effect: Commenters flooded the posts with hyperbolic reactions, treating a mundane, slightly awkward PR clip as a massive scandal.

 If I were a CEO of a fast food franchise, I'd spoof the video myself too except I'd eat the whole thing. 

.

Personally I do not eat every day, though if I did I can handle 3000 calories a day no problem.

Says here 22g of saturated fat is where the line is drawn, so the 25g wouldn't really impact me all that much. 

And no I wouldn't recommend eating McDonald's all the time, it will kill you.

The product however, is for fast food eaters. If you want to eat healthy, cook, and if you care about your intake don't go to McDonald's at all. 

Of all the horrible fast food chains my personal favorite is the Whopper. At Ronald's hands down the Big Arch. 

This is easily the Bandwagon effect. 

I'm also seeing here, despite the backlash, McDonald's says the Big Arch was a success ( though it's gone ). Maybe the item was meant to be limited considering it's $10 USD, and something the average American't wouldn't be able to afford regularly. 

I know a bandwagon effect when I see one. 

It's not about eating Mcdonald's it's about eating too much saturated fat or sodium. And undercooked ground beef meat is a risk.

That has nothing to do with the "classic internet bandwagon" effect. 

Various McDonalds Menus and regional variants of products, consumables sometimes interplay according to available resources, paradigms overlapping marking points of rupture, points of reconnection. Resources may be thought of as functions, functives, variables The process of construing an adequate consumable for the consumers lies in taking account of this as another paradigmatic  system beyond the system of efficiently industrializing the biological pre-product according to regional stuctures, laws, territories, labor-force (variables). The labor force function maximization practice(s) for efficienty relies on coordinating these paradigms of axes of coordinates. The only determination of the axiomatic value of the variables is that of disappearing or being born, even though it is wrested from infinite speeds accordingly to maintain the paradigm(s). The syntagtic structures of the menu variants can create altering perceptions influencing among the consumers (not to be confused with the consumables) further commits and branches to the menus.

I found the Big Arch to be good. I had like 4 of them in the limited time they were available.