Posts Tagged dripping sarcasm

Belly Fat

Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Money and Marketing on March 24th, 2010

Today, the thing I’m noticing is the fetishistic focus on “belly fat.” Setting aside the fundamental ineffectiveness of spot-reduction, it just seems strange that magazines have decided to focus on this one specific body part.

IMAG0098.jpg

Call me a cynic, but if this magazine really is capable of helping me lose belly fat “for good,” it’s going to really screw up editorial guidelines for magazines going forward. What do you want to bet me this very same magazine is going to run a “belly fat” article in the next few months, and it won’t be the same advice given in this one?

IMAG0099.jpg

Wow! Two magazines in one month that can both help me beat belly flab for good! What are the chances?! This one also stands out to me because of the use of the word, “sculpt.” Think for a minute about the implication there. I’m going to treat my body like a piece of stone or wood, from which I will chisel or carve away unwanted pieces to leave something beautiful. Is that the metaphor that you would prefer? Do you want to participate in an ideology that encourages you to see parts of yourself as discardable, and that denies you the status of “sexy” until you have, literally, removed parts of yourself?

IMAG0097.jpg

IMAG0079.jpg

The two above caught my eye because of the violent language. Don’t just lose your belly fat, “BLAST” it. Apologists for fat-hate culture may defend this as just another example of “extreme” language in advertising, but I see it as a reflection of the self-hatred (and associated theme of self-mutilation) that is inherent to these magazines’ attitude towards their readers.

Also, note the hypocrisy in the 2nd magazine cover. Should I eat the huge, buttery stack of, “fluffiest-ever pancakes, three scrumptious ways,” before or after I consume Dr. Oz’s “belly fat-blasting smoothie?”

Share

3 Comments

McDonalds’ “Secret”

Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Food, Money and Marketing on March 6th, 2010

IMGP2797

If I were asked why McDonald’s food tastes so good, I’d say a meticulously-perfected balance of fat, salt, and sugar. Little did I know that the actual answer is far more obvious.

We make it the way you would.

Well, that’s good. I suppose. Although, arguably, the whole reason I’m going out to eat is because you’ll make it better than I would. Or, perhaps you’ll make it worse, but the convenience of having someone else do it will offset that. But okay, bold idea: make it the way I would. I like it.

With 100% beef.

Ok, now here I was surprised, because it hadn’t occurred to me that anything except beef really could go into a hamburger. I mean, I’ve heard about the trace amounts of rat droppings and cockroach parts, but that hardly counts. No McDonalds’ bag has ever said, “Hamburger: Now With Roach Carcass.” Then Issa told me that McDonalds’ hamburger patties actually didn’t used to be 100% beef. They had soy, or something, in them.

So, shocker. The big marketing push for how awesome McDonalds’ burgers are is that they… drum roll… are made from cow. Can you hear the dripping sarcasm? I mean, isn’t that the least we can expect? This is kind of like a dry-cleaner saying, “I did not put any new stains on your clothes. AREN’T I AWESOME!”

Especially since pink slime (ammonia-treated slaughter-house-floor-scrapings) counts as 100% beef. And pink slime is in McDonalds’ hamburgers! Yeah. I have to tell you, every time I make a hamburger, I scrape up some fatty bits from my slaughter house, grind them up, treat them with ammonia, and mix them in with the chuck. Way to “make it the way I would,” McDonalds.

Share

,

4 Comments