Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Rick Bayless and Burger King - Part 3


mtdew
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm saying that every scrap of evidence we have before us leads leads one inevitably to the reasonable conclusions that A) Bayless knew exactly what he was getting himself into, as indeed would most anyone having far less depth of media and publicity experience than he; and B) his after the fact explanations are disingenuous and not to be taken at face value, especially given his thorough and amply demonstrated knowledge in all the areas relevant to the transaction.

Well, I understand that you think that.

But you might very well be wrong.

And we will never know since we can't get into Bayless' mind on this!

I'm willing to say that Bayless was misguided in this situation.

Going where you're going Sam puts you out on a pretty small limb.

Lots of folks--you & me included--make errors due to misguidedness. There's nothing in Bayless history, at least as far as I'm aware, to attribute the type of intentions to him that you wish to attribute.

I'm a bit confused as to why you wish to play judge & jury on this. It's not a legal issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew, at some point you just see enough evidence that you can no longer believe someone's explanation at face value

At one point one might say: "Hey, maybe that actor was just misguided when he did those 'low tar' cigarette ads. Maybe he really does think that even lower tar is a 'step in the right direction,' and he just made a mistake." But, at another point one has to say, "Wait a minute... this isn't just an actor we're talking about. This is a guy who doesn't allow smoking in his movies. This is a guy who has read all the research on tobacco-related cancer. This guy has been speaking out against the evils of the tobacco industry. This guy has been involved in media, and he knows how brand avertising works. This guy knew what he was getting himself into."

That is the point I have reached with Bayless. I'm not attributing any intentions to Bayless. There are any number of motivations he could have had for doing it. I'm just saying that I don't believe his half-baked after-the-fact explanations. What I attribute to Bayless is saying "yes" to a big wad of money from a company that he knew stood for everything his expressed core values stand against. That fact seems inescapable to me. I'm not saying that other people don't do the same thing every day. I'm not saying you or I wouldn't do the same damn thing. But, by God, I am not going to pretend it's something else just because I think Bayless is a good guy who has done some things for food -- both of which are things I think.

As I have said before, Bayless worked hard to put himself in the public eye as the embodiment of a certain set of principles. Bayless isn't stupid or naive, and I refuse to accept that he didn't understand something we all appear to grasp with ease. He did something that any person in his position with his experience and knowledge would understand went against those principles. The piper is being paid in the appropriate currency: public perception.

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew, at some point you just see enough evidence that you can no longer believe someone's explanation at face value.

Again, I understand what you're saying.

My point is that at face-value Bayless was misguided.

Going further than that verges on jadedness.

I don't see any reason for any for us to be jaded on this issue.

If we judged ourselves as harshly as Bayless has been judged on this thread, I doubt any of us could hold our heads up in any fashion.

In other words, I'm offering that we can agree that Bayless--in this situation--was misguided. Any more than that is unnecessarily unkind. Why bother going there? Going further than misguidedness achieves what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that Bayless' expertise and experience greatly lowers the "misguided" threshold. If RJ Reynolds paid me to do an advertisement for a 'step in the right direction low tar cigarette' -- that would be me being misguided. If, on the other hand, RJ Reynolds paid a tobacco industry critic and antismoking campaigner to do the same advertisement -- well, that crosses the line from "misguided" into something more.

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lads, this ain't gonna get settled here.

It's fine to argue a point of logic. But we are getting on shaky ground when the argument consists of arguing about each other's intentions and "the point" of us even debating things here. We are not here to have a "meta-discussion" of that nature.

Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that Bayless' expertise and experience greatly lowers the "misguided" threshold. If RJ Reynolds paid me to do an advertisement for a 'step in the right direction low tar cigarette' -- that would be me being misguided. If, on the other hand, RJ Reynolds paid a tobacco industry critic and antismoking campaigner to do the same advertisement -- well, that crosses the line from "misguided" into something more.

Well, we agree that he made a mistake.

I'll stick with that area of agreement.

And, what the hell, we're approaching some holidays that seem to me to focus on peace & other silly stuff like that.

So, goodwill to Rick Bayless, even after his error.

And, goodwill, peace, happy holidays, etc. to you, Sam. Truly.

Now I'm off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lads, this ain't gonna get settled here.

It's fine to argue a point of logic. But we are getting on shaky ground when the argument consists of arguing about each other's intentions and "the point" of us even debating things here. We are not here to have a "meta-discussion" of that nature.

Thanks, Jon.

Peace your way, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lads, this ain't gonna get settled here.

It's fine to argue a point of logic.  But we are getting on shaky ground when the argument consists of arguing about each other's intentions and "the point" of us even debating things here.  We are not here to have a "meta-discussion"  of that nature.

Thanks, Jon.

Peace your way, too.

There are a world of things to talk about in this topic other than the question of whether or not we should be talking about it in the first place. Move on.

Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy and slkinsey:

The thing is, these aren't the first of their kind, as you admit, but they also might not be the first of their kind to stay around. The grilled/non-breaded chicken sandwich itself is ubiquitous in fast food as a lighter, healthier alternative to hamburgers and deep-fried chicken sandwiches. The salad is also almost universally available. They even supply low-fat dressing. There's no reason to believe (in fact, it's entirely coutner-intuitive unless you can show it's an actual loss leader, not just analogous to a loss leader) that BK wouldn't keep this sandwich forever if it made them money, brought in new customers, stole customers away from other fast food and burger places. As I've said, we've seen the rolls, eg, at sub fast food improve dramatically over the last 10 years. With success, BK could start a trend where at least all higher-end sandwiches in BK, McD's, and other larger chains were freshly-baked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fear finished from frozen = faux fresh, friend.

"I've caught you Richardson, stuffing spit-backs in your vile maw. 'Let tomorrow's omelets go empty,' is that your fucking attitude?" -E. B. Farnum

"Behold, I teach you the ubermunch. The ubermunch is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the ubermunch shall be the meaning of the earth!" -Fritzy N.

"It's okay to like celery more than yogurt, but it's not okay to think that batter is yogurt."

Serving fine and fresh gratuitous comments since Oct 5 2001, 09:53 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to defend this particular practice, but isn't it the case that a lot of reputable restaurants do a lot of similar stuff--mostly cooking something and then shoving it under a salamander to finish it when ordered?

Indeed, a lot of good home cooks freeze their dough. The real issue is the quality of the dough, isn't it?

Arthur Johnson, aka "fresco"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At one point one might say: "Hey, maybe that actor was just misguided when he did those 'low tar' cigarette ads.  Maybe he really does think that even lower tar is a 'step in the right direction,' and he just made a mistake."  But, at another point one has to say, "Wait a minute... this isn't just an actor we're talking about.  This is a guy who doesn't allow smoking in his movies.  This is a guy who has read all the research on tobacco-related cancer.  This guy has been speaking out against the evils of the tobacco industry.  This guy has been involved in media, and he knows how brand avertising works.  This guy knew what he was getting himself into."

I used to enjoy the occasional appearance of the analogy police on this site.

Robert Buxbaum

WorldTable

Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.

My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Egullet, and Tony in particular, got some press in the Miami Herald, on Sunday

''In one stroke, he's negated everything he's ever said, everything he ever claimed to stand for,'' wrote Bourdain.

In a later e-mail to The Washington Post Food section, Bourdain explained that he doesn't object per se to a chef endorsing a product.

''The idea that a chef has sold out if he decides to sell Rockports or a line of kitchen appliances seems unreasonable. We don't hold actors or even politicians to such standards,'' Bourdain wrote. But, 'endorsing a product that encapsulates everything you've spoken against invites criticism and ridicule. Chef `BK' [burger King] Bayless has made his own sodden bed.''

Full Story, December 7

woodburner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else find it disturbing that it takes Burger King, by my quick count, 55 ingredients to make the CHICKEN!?!?!?!

LOL, this is a science project, not food. :blink:

=R=

I didn't intend to imply, by posting those lists, that I think there's anything so terrible about putting 55 ingredients in something. Those long ingredients lists tend to look worse than they are. A lot of the ingredients come down to being useful ways to maintain consistency of product: if there's not enough fat, you add some, or whatever. A lot of those things are often just fancy words for salt and sugar and shortening. Don't let the technical terms freak you out too much. Unless you're one of those people who belongs to groups like Chefs Collaborative, where the mission specifically opposes the ingredients that are commonplace in mass-market foods. Hey, wait a second . . .

:laugh: you are quick mr. Fat Guy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Off topic slightly, but just saw Mario Batali in a Cling-Wrap commercial. It's a little cringe-inducing, but he hasn't sold-out his chef's reputation.

"If it's me and your granny on bongos, then it's a Fall gig'' -- Mark E. Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off topic slightly, but just saw Mario Batali in a Cling-Wrap commercial. It's a little cringe-inducing, but he hasn't sold-out his chef's reputation.

For a brief and horrifying moment, I was envisioning "Cling Wrap" as a line of clothing.

I'm still shaking my brain out. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when does being a chef mean that you cannot advertise and make money endorsing a product.

I think that some people on this site are a little full of themselves and if offered a buttload of cash to do a commercial, would jump on the chance in a second.

Who cares that this guy endorses a sandwich. IT IS JUST A DAMN SANDWICH, DON'T EAT IT IF YOU DON"T LIKE IT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when does being a chef mean that you cannot advertise and make money endorsing a product.

I think that some people on this site are a little full of themselves and if offered a buttload of cash to do a commercial, would jump on the chance in a second.

Who cares that this guy endorses a sandwich. IT IS JUST A DAMN SANDWICH, DON'T EAT IT IF YOU DON"T LIKE IT.

the point isn't that he's endorsing a product, it's the product that he is endorsing and how it compares with the "platform" he ahas espoused throughout his career.

it's kinda like if dr atkins was alive and he did a pillsbury doughboy commercial.

or the head honcho of PETA doing an advert for perdue chicken whilst wearing a floor length furcoat, all cuz the money is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...