I saw this at a McDonalds restaurant beside the napkin dispenser the other day. I found it interesting that my first reaction to the message was cynical. I shouldn’t have been surprised by that at all, I suppose, since my default response to almost everything is cynical. “Oh yes, McDonalds cares so bloody much for the environment (eye roll)!
Yes, I eat too much fast food. A few years ago they installed new dispensers requiring you to have a multi-tool and be McGyver to extract any more that 2 napkins at a time. I remember being cynical then too. Not just because I’m messy with ketchup and need more napkins that I should, but because it just seemed like McDonalds was tightening up on even the cheapest of things. I understood that scale of course. 31,000 restaurants use an awful lot of napkins, and people always help themselves to far more than they need. That’s a lot of pennies being thrown out every day that could be better spent on figuring out ways to get us to eat even more of their food.
The napkin jail cell didn’t do the trick, and now they have resorted to asking us to use just one serviette with our Big Mac. Of course, no one is going to do that, but I’ll tell you this; it was the first time I was actually conscious of how many I took, and that’s got to count for something. Surely this will serve to further reduce the amount of paper the chain will have to buy, and that will certainly mean they have more money to invest elsewhere. Good for them, their little cost reduction exercise will work, and they can fool us into thinking they are environmental angels. Crafty buggers!
Does it matter though? They are reducing costs, and it is reducing production and waste. Those are very good things, and I wish more major chains would focus on these reductions that benefit themselves as well as the environment. Small, easy steps in the right direction will prepare them to make the tougher ones later on. The only losers here are the napkin manufacturers and suppliers, but frankly, that is their problem to worry about.
I saw this at a McDonalds restaurant beside the napkin dispenser the other day. ?I found it interesting that my first reaction to the message was cynical. ?I shouldn’t have been surprised by that at all, I suppose, since my default response to almost everything is cynical. “Oh yes, McDonalds cares so bloody much for the environment (eye roll)!
Yes, I eat too much fast food. ?A few years ago they installed new dispensers requiring you to have a multi-tool and be McGyver to extract any more that 2 napkins at a time. ?I remember being cynical then too. Not just because I’m messy with ketchup and need more napkins that I should, but because it just seemed like McDonalds was tightening up on even the cheapest of things. ?I understood that scale of course. 31,000 restaurants use an awful lot of napkins, and people always help themselves to far more than they need. ?That’s a lot of pennies being thrown out every day that could be better spent on figuring out ways to get us to eat even more of their food.
The napkin jail cell didn’t do the trick, and now they have resorted to asking us to use just one serviette with our Big Mac. Of course, no one is going to do that, but I’ll tell you this; it was the first time I was actually conscious of how many I took, and that’s got to count for something. ?Surely this will serve to further reduce the amount of paper the chain will have to buy, and that will certainly mean they have more money to invest elsewhere. ?Good for them, their little cost reduction exercise will work, and they can fool us into thinking they are environmental angels. ?Crafty buggers!
Does it matter though? They are reducing costs, and it is reducing production and waste. Those are very good things, and I wish more major chains would focus on these reductions that benefit themselves as well as the environment. ?Small, easy steps in the right direction will prepare them to make the tougher ones later on. ?The only losers here are the napkin manufacturers and suppliers, but frankly, that is their problem to worry