|Ah cats. I reckon they will be the next big thing.|
Pic from LotsofHumor.com
I've also read a number of opinions that range from 'McDonald's made a mistake' to ' Burger King trolled Macca's' to even 'This was stolen from a student portfolio.'
I can't comment on the last one, but I definitely can on the first two.
For me it boils down to this: Burger King, whether deliberately or not, put McDonald's into a situation that they could not win.
If McDonald's had agreed and gone ahead with the idea, Burger King would have taken the vast majority of the plaudits as the ones who instigated and drove the idea. This meant that whatever McDonald's did, Burger King would have been the main beneficiary - so it's hardly surprising they looked to shut it down as quickly as possible.
Now that's not to say that Macca's couldn't have worded their letter in a much better and less condescending way. For example, by agreeing to work together next year, or by making a donation to the Peace movement in lieu of action. But the fact remains that the closing P.S. salvo of Macca's reply was spot on. 'A simple call would do next time."
|Stop! Stop! He's already dead...|
That sentence calls out the Burger King ad for what it was, an ad. Yes it was hoping to team them up for a great idea, but it was done in a way that would have ensured it was only on their terms. If BK truly wanted to do something awesome in a team on Peace Day, then they would have discussed it fairly and evenly behind this scenes. A peaceful (marketing) Coup d'état is still a military manoeuvre, it is not a truce.
A great idea, which was let down by the execution on both sides. It ended up trying too hard to be a marketing execution, not an idea execution.