This morning I made a reference on Twitter to the new children's hospital in Manchester being newly named, the 'Ronald McDonald Building'. I'd been told about this last week by someone who was extremely angry about the use of McDonalds, as a brand, being associated with the city's children's hospital. At the time, I too was annoyed about this. Yesterday I was driving past Manchester Children's Hospital, and indeed noticed the big sign on the new hospital building, stating Ronald McDonald did indeed have a new residence in Manchester.
From having a moan about this online today, I received a variety responses. One of which was from someone who has (today, in fact) volunteered some of their time to work at this facility. As I've gone about my day, it's been brought to my attention the nature of the 'Ronald McDonald House'. It is in fact a free-to-use hotel for parents whose kids are ill/bed-bound in the hospital (which is rather confusing when driving past the new hospital, as 'Ronald McDonald House' is the only visible signage from Hathersage St, which is why you can assume people will jump to their own conclusions, like myself). The very nature of a building of this kind within the premises of a kids hospital is fantastic! I say this as someone who has had to unfortunately watch one of their parents endure many a night sleeping uncomfortably on the floor of children's wards around Greater Manchester, due to me having a sibling with a severe, physical disability. So, as you can imagine, I am all for parents being able to potentially (I say potentially, as I don't know how easy it is to apply for such accommodation in an emergency situation) have a bed to sleep in if their child is receiving urgent hospital treatment.
The problem arises for me with the particular brand association of fast food (or junk food, for anyone born pre-1990-ish!) with health; Ronald McDonald/McDonalds meets Manchester Children's Hospital. UK readers will most probably remember Jamie Oliver's recent-ish TV series about improving hospital food, which was a follow on (from what I recall, I'm not a regular TV viewer) from improving school dinners, both of which I am absolutely for, it's high time both were sorted out for the better. The premise of the program, much like Gordan Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares (for US readers), is to drastically improve the quality of the food being served to persons hospital bound, persons in day care and hospital staff, by not using cheap processed products, and utilising fresh, (which generally speaking equals) healthier ingredients, in a nutshell. So, Jamie Oliver and Fresh One Productions were commissioned to make a four episode-long TV series, in which heathy eating for children was the central message (or 'angle', as TV people would prefer) for the audience, in this case I'd imagine, one largely made up of school children/young people and parents.
On the one hand you have the overwhelmingly positive; a healthy living-promoting television series (which is worth remembering, was not Government funded or publicly funded, as it was a non-BBC series), and on the other hand you have the overwhelmingly negative; the worlds largest fast food conglomerate, McDonalds, sponsoring accommodation facilities in children's hospitals. From what I have gathered from Twitter today, it is not just myself, or indeed those around me, that find the reality of this situation completely, and utterly ridiculous, there's an overwhelming majority of people who find this completely juxtaposed health message to young people, ludicrous; 'eat less processed food, more fruit and vegetables, and do some exercise', with, 'McDonalds are nice, kind people, who help you out in a time of crisis... by the way, we also make lovely burgers/fries/milkshakes/fizzy drinks'. In terms of sending the right lifestyle message to children, surely this is why the phrase, '1 step forward, 2 steps backwards', was created?
(I could go on about the final point made above considerably more, and the personal associations/lasting memories parents and kids will make from, for example; kids growing up without ever eating a vegetable, then overnight being forced to eat broccoli by a suddenly over-worried parent who watched Jamie's 'School Dinners' program, or got a letter home from the school nurse informing them their child is obese... in comparison with the warm, comforting feeling one may get from knowing that McDonalds helped you, or someone you know, out at a time you/they needed it most... you see where we could go from here...)
Getting back to the original point of me writing this post, ultimately, I couldn't be more for free accommodation for parents who have severely ill children at UK hospitals, and I appreciate that providing such accommodation will not even remotely have made it on to any Government to-do list during this term, given the current financial situation the country is in, etc, and it IS much needed in the UK, but allowing McDonalds to be the corporate sponsor of this project, branding Ronald McDonald and the association of McDonalds as a 'restaurant' and a socially responsible brand in children's hospitals, is in my book, utterly irresponsible of whoever agreed the decision, and fundamentally wrong.
I'm conscious that there are people out there/online/who read the red tops who will jump to the defence of McDonalds, and shout from the rooftops that what they're doing is for the greater good of British children's health, and how can I take such a withering tone when it comes to such important matters, etc, but ultimately for me, in the sponsoring of facilities in and around any hospital, it is what it is; a huge PR campaign/branding exercise, disguised in the form of CSR - Corporate Social Responsibility (a conglomerate spreading their supposed attitudes, values and beliefs on society, so we're convinced that they're indeed, wonderful).
If CSR isn't something you're super-familair with (I wasn't until 1-2 years ago), I'd certainly recommend Richard Branson's latest book, 'Screw Business As Usual', to anyone interested in reading more about it. It's an eye-opener into how conglomerates are having to change their tune when it comes to being (semi-forced) into being socially responsible. Unfortunately big business is exactly that, and no matter how much campaigning against the type of ventures McDonalds may continue to do with the UK's hospitals, the Government can't afford these projects, and the conglomerates know it, so ultimately they will happen, and they will (as with all these things) bring some good into the world, but also spur the cycle of (what I ultimately see as) negative CSR. Those who already feel positive about consuming such brands like McDonalds/Shell/Coca Cola/BP will only continue to feel righteous about their support of such products, and those who are against them, for now, will get steamrollered.
Good times.
Mike HF
