McDonald's dilemma (the McCafe problem)

The Issue
Ok, to be utterly fair, it is really my problem. The case is this. Last Sunday, 13th April 2008, at about 2.30pm, I purchased a large Hot Chocolate drink at the McCafe/McDonald's Woodlands Civic Centre outlet. And then I took a seat, just one table, and started reading a Peter Duus' book on Japanese history. About an hour later, I heard a complaint from a mother (with 2 kids I think) waiting for a table. The comment was meant to be heard. Something about how inconsiderate it is to be studying when people are looking for tables to have a meal.

Shortly after that, as expected, the managers on duty represented McDonald's to point out a sign which was put up stating "Please refrain from studying during the following periods:...". And the poster indicated the "period" includes the whole of Saturdays and Sundays.

Now, that is perfectly fine. I admit that I was studying, since I was reading the book because I have to collect data for my history term paper. And the request (or order, depends on how you read it) to refrain from studying is right, since it seems McDonald's is a place to eat. By studying without consuming any meals, I am decreasing the revenue for the firm and preventing it from gaining more by having someone else have a seat and buy something more substantial than my $4.80 cup.

And so what was the solution? Well, I was told that I certainly could retain the seat, just by putting my books away. I could have been bitter, but I conformed, largely because I could do other things. (like write a draft for this blog and analyse the McDonald problem)

The Dilemma
Call me an academic, but I found an interesting viewpoint to the whole problem. It is a matter of structural lag (something I learnt in an introductory course to Sociology). It is a lag between what McDonald's is evolving into and what people think/expect McDonald's to be. Simply put, it is a clash of old and new.

Fundamentally, before McCafe was introduced to the Singapore consumers, McDonald's was a great place for fast food and to meet friends/business contacts. I think I aren't doing the chain any injustice by saying that it was (and still is, to some) simply a place for food. Therefore the moralistic view that one should leave after one is done with his food is pretty understandable, if not justified.

But then came McCafe, selling coffee and other premium drinks. So, without cracking our heads too much, it seems that McCafe is a competitor of Starbucks and Coffeebean and Tea Leaf. And I shall speak for myself as to what the latter companies stand for. They are places to relax ("chill" in colloquial terms), to meet up with friends for long chats, to study (for many secondary to tertiary students), to meet clients and to have a good cup of coffee (or any other "premium" drink). Notice I mentioned the coffee last? Not that it's not important, because I so love the Hot Choc at McCafe and Caramel Macchiato at Starbucks, and Caramel Ice-blended coffee at Coffeebean. But it really is more than the drink. I pay good money not only because those drinks are palatable and desirable, but also because I am paying "rent" for the seat I occupy for the time I spent in the coffee chain. And I wouldn't expect someone to be unhappy that I'm not finishing my drink fast enough or occupying the seat despite not consuming anything substantially.

Although in recent years, the latter companies also advise their customers against studying (especially during peak hours), it is a taken that reading leisurely is certainly not prohibited.

As a new consumer of McCafe, I wonder which attitude should I adopt - "eat and leave" or "stay because you paid 'rent'". I favour the latter, but I decided to consult McCafe on their vision of what sort of business they intend to grow into and the clientèle they target. I thought that would be evident from their slogan. To my great surprise, I only found vague statements like

"Pleasurable coffee moments at McCafé™" and "Premium coffee at great value™"

So that left me utterly confused. I had no clear indication of what McCafe is or wants to become.

The Lesson
Nevertheless, I think the takeaway I got from this incident is this: By introducing McCafe, McDonald's have thrown their consumers into confusion, especially at outlets where the McCafe consumers share the same domain with those of the fast-food McDonald. The expectations and meaning of time spent at McDonald's is very different for these two groups. While the chain has moved on to become a more comprehensive lifestyle brand, certain sections of its consumer base still sees the company as essentially a place to have a quick meal.

And as long as this difference of attitudes is not harmonised or resolved, we will always see McDonald's managers telling people to keep their books.

Limits of conceptual understanding (or concepts, simply)

This idea is far from developed, but I'm just gonna pen (read: type) it down to serve as a foundation for further thought and analysis at a later date.

The (series of) thought is ignited by Miranda's father. He mentioned something like "one can only enjoy a job if one puts aside all thoughts of limitations of the job at hand" which led me to think about the limitless nature of any object. (Now, that's very vague, I'll refine it as we go along.)

This entry is not meant to be some philosophical treatise on what is reality or what limits we face in our human life and experience. The end conclusion should be easily understood and be fully applicable to everyone in whatever they intend to do with their lives.

My thought is this: We resent or cannot accomplish some goal/task/ideal/project successfully because our thought is simply limited to an extremely narrow scope or understanding of what is at hand. That is to say, if I want to achieve good academic results for my final examinations, we tend to be really limited and think of what specific actions should be taken to actualise the final goal of, say, getting straight As for all my modules.

I can see 2 effects from such a limited and focused method of achieving the goal. One is that we get frustrated. Overdoing and focusing on such limited areas and tasks makes our overall mission extremely dry and repetitive. If I'm thinking of getting good grades all day for an entire period of 2 weeks, I'm sure I'll be very irritable during that time. The second is that we neglect other areas/secondary aims which in fact contribute to the achievement of our final mission. Factors such as maintaining our (physical and mental) health, being spiritually balanced, developing motivation and being inspired.

But at an even deeper level, every grand goal we have at every stage in life is never a standalone. No goals are accomplished in isolation. If I may quote a spiritual text, there goes a line that "accomplishing one [aim], one accomplishes all [aims]". Every single goal is meant to be, and supposed to be, a completion of our entire being and purpose for this life. That means in trying to be a top scholar, or develop a kind heart, I am really trying to accomplish a far greater mission - to develop my human potential to the fullest. Personally I also take that to mean to benefit as many as possible.

By maintaining this greater or more expansive view of our personal goals, we are not bounded by things like job scopes, ascribed roles, lists of responsibilities and other means of limitations placed on ourselves. I believe that's where we find real joy in whatever we do. When we truly put down our need to fulfil ourselves and our desires, but instead focus on the much bigger picture of the entire universe and its inhabitants, that is when we find greater motivation and joy to propel ourselves to fully achieve whatever aim we might have.

For this coming week, for my trading, I hope to refocus and build up my approach to the entire exercise. I'll write more on that later.