Different Perspectives

In an effort to examine corporate blogs, it might be interesting to approach it from two different perspectives: the profit corporation versus the non-profit corporation. And, I thought, who could be more different in those two worlds than McDonald’s and PETA?

McDonald’s
Who doesn’t know McDonald’s? The Golden Arches. Big Mac and fries.

The purpose of their site as it appears in their masthead is to address:

Corporate social responsibility through the eyes of Vice President, Bob Langert, and the other people at McDonald's who work on corporate responsibility issues that matter. Get personal perspectives on the issues, hear open assessments of the challenges we face, and engage in civil dialogue with the people behind the programs at the Golden Arches.

The site is officially called “McDonald’s Corporate Responsibility Blog”. They discuss topics such as lifestyle, diversity, and the environment. Text is the primary element on the page. Very few graphics and very little white space exist. It appears that McDonald’s is targeting a more mature, relatively well-educated audience interested in the “moral fiber” of McDonald’s.

Their website is a touchy-feely place that attempts to connect with the reader through posts that are longer than a product promotion but not too long to lose a reader’s interest. They seem to top out at nine short paragraphs. They invite comments through a link at the bottom of each post to further engage their reader.

The posts I read did come from a personal perspective as they state in their introduction, always with a draw back to the corporate. Building a sense of community seems to be the motivation. And, if you’re part of the community, it’s hard to criticize the community. Many of the blogs were delicately defending McDonald’s actions or inactions. The attempt appears to be to make McDonald’s look like the “good guy” or, at the very least, “the not-as-bad-as-we’re-made-out-to-be guy”.

PETA
PETA is a little less known. The acronym stands for “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals”. They are a non-profit corporation which promotes animal rights and, in direct contrast to McDonald’s, a vegan diet.

Their site doesn’t provide a mission statement but, after reading a few posts, it’s clear. They aren’t trying to make the reader feel good. They’re trying to excite the reader to indignation or action.

The site is called “The PETA Files”, a name that brings to mind investigations and criminal activity. The posts address various issues related to animal cruelty, abuse, or exploitation. The site relies on a combination of short articles and brightly colored text scattered throughout with photographs of animals and celebrities. Their audience is generally young and interested in what’s hip and exciting.

The language is direct, at times confrontational or sarcastic. They don’t mince words or shy away from profanity. The posts are short with few exceeding four short paragraphs. As on the McDonald’s site, readers are invited to comment using a link.

The posts are issue focused; there are no personal stories. Many of the posts are a combination of reporting and commentary. The focus on celebrities, the long list of “friends”, and the invitations to post on personal networking sites like Facebook appeal to their audience’s desire to be part of the in-crowd. PETA’s blog is an in-your-face account of their accomplishments and the wrongdoing of others.

The Bottom Line

McDonald’s and PETA are using their blogs for very different purposes in support of their own causes. McDonald’s wants to make you feel good about their organization so you’ll want to do business with them. PETA wants to make you feel bad about those they feel are guilty of animal abuse so you will join them and take action. McDonald’s might delicately tell you that PETA’s vehemence is misplaced and point to any steps where McDonald's has contributed to animal welfare. PETA’s blog will tell you in no uncertain terms to let McDonald’s know exactly what they can do with their “Golden Arches”.