Does this job have a McFuture?
The fast food chain McDonald’s is pushing to change the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) definition of “McJob”, claiming that the term – established in the English language – is insulting to the thousands of staff working in the service sector, according to a story by Guardian consumer affairs correspondent, Rebecca Smithers.
The company is seeking to alter the dictionary definition as “an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, especially one created by the expansion of the service sector”, claiming that it represents an outdated view of work in the fast food industry.
A public petition is also being launched today on behalf of McDonald’s 67,000 British employees and their colleagues in the UK service sector.
The OED’s definitions reflect how our culture interprets and understands words and phrases, and they’ve pretty much captured the essence of McJob, imho. So the OED has done its job.
On the surface, McDonalds attempt to influence the OED’s editorial process by putting the might of its corporate marketing operations behind the initiative might seem futile or arrogant at best in the face of the OED’s long standing reputation as the last word on words. Surely they should be focusing on changing people’s attitudes, not on changing dictionary definitions?
But stand back and you have to admire what’s going on. Successful staff recruitment and retention are crucial to the restaurant chain’s business success. So McDonalds wants to create a national debate about the job opportunities in the service sector, defend its reputation as an employer and, by going to bat to defend the honour of team members, the company is enhancing employee relationships too.
Clever. Making an institution such as the OED the object of its campaign catapults the issue onto the page and generates discussion of the issues. Even if the OED doesn’t give in, this is successful PR.
Filed under: public relations
Subscribe to our feed
Subscribe by Email
This is quite an interesting strategy since it isn’t new. McD started it in the US initially and it was reported here again at the start of the year. But rather than leaving it with achieving a bit of coverage, McD does seem to be committed to changing perceptions about jobs with the company and as you indicate, the definition is a good hook. However, they must know that the reality needs to be strong enough to counter the perception. If jobs at McD reflect the derogatory definition, then the campaign could backfire in reconfirming stereotypes. If there is robust evidence that they offer meaningful work and careers, then it could successfully address perceptions.
We talked about this in a class with undergraduate PR students – those with experience outside the UK were a bit bemused as in Sweden and other countries, a job with McD isn’t seen in the same chavvy light as in here.
Agreed! They must be above reproach in the essentials before going into a campaign like this. But you know, I always give candidates a second look if they have experience in one of the fast food chains. I think they have a good handle on process and customer service.
It is certainly brave and a positive step. That said I would not want to try and sell it. I wonder if they have employees that do not eat any of their product?