Burger King faces legal claim over size of Whopper
www.bbc.co.uk
The fast food giant is accused of making the burger appear larger on menus than it actually is.
  •  Pons_Aelius   ( @Pons_Aelius@kbin.social ) 
    91•1 year ago

    When I buy a new car, the car is the same as the one in the posters and built by the same people.

    A team of food stylists spent at least 30 minutes to create the perfect whopper for the add image and were paid 100 times more than an actual fast food employee to do so.

    Why that is allowed to represent something made in 30 seconds by someone on shit wages is beyond me.

      •  Pons_Aelius   ( @Pons_Aelius@kbin.social ) 
        25•1 year ago

        I used to work in product photography. That is not true or legal here in Aus. The only thing they are allowed to use in the picture are ingredients used in store.

        I cannot speak to the laws in other markets but that is not the case everywhere.

        Of course they will go through hundreds of buns to find the perfect one etc, so it is still incredibly wasteful.

          •  TheChefSLC   ( @TheChefSLC@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
            2•1 year ago

            While it doesn’t have to be “food”, it does have to be edible in the US…

            But that aside, burger king used to be good. It used to be decent sized and was almost worth the cost. Now on the other hand, it is so tiny and doesn’t feel remotely worth the price.

            In my area, they just closed about 5 locations this year, and to be honest, I am only sad about the few people losing their job at these locations.

            Burger King has gone so far down hill since 2020.

        •  Kelsenellenelvial   ( @Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca ) 
          8•1 year ago

          Even in places where they have to use the actual ingredients, there’s a lot of tricks to making it look different in photos. That burger might only be partially cooked to reduce shrinkage, then the burger and bun are frozen so they hold shape for the photo. Vegetables carefully picked out and arranged, tomato/pickles blotted dry, and the sauce applied with an eye dropper to provide visual balance after the rest of the burger is stacked.

          I will say from my experience, that tends to apply to advertising photography for large franchises. If we’re taking about food photography associated with a high profile event or restaurant where food is actually served, there’s minimal difference between the photo plate and what’s actually served. Sometimes the photo plate is just one picked out while producing the ones being served, sometimes it’s the first/last plate and a person takes a minute to pick out the best looking of ingredients from the same container that was used to serve the rest. Sometimes it’s just an extra minute arranging the plate nicely compared to the last 150 that were done quickly to keep up with service. Often the photographer then gets to eat the plate they’ve just photographed.

    •  masterspace   ( @masterspace@lemmy.ca ) English
      23•1 year ago

      Advertising is scum and I don’t understand why we allow it all.

      It does not help the economy to distract consumers all day as much as possible, all it does is let companies compete on the basis of who can spend the most on advertising or who can hire the most manipulative advertisers rather than who can make the best product.

    •  Ricaz   ( @Ricaz@lemmy.ml ) 
      15•1 year ago

      It should simply be considered false advertisement.

      You can probably legally require your money back, saying it looks nothing like the photos, but that’s not enough imo

    •  theplanlessman   ( @theplanlessman@feddit.uk ) English
      1•1 year ago

      Fun fact, most car advertising uses a computer generated car. Photoreal cars bave been achievable for years now and it just makes sense for them to do it as they can keep it looking flawless throughout the ad. There’s even a “mocap” car with an adjustable body to match the length/width etc. of the car it’s supposed to be that they can just pin the model to.