burger king obesity case study

National & World Affairs

Where’s the beef.

Lecturer Louis Tompros discusses a recent lawsuit against a fast-food giant and the role class actions play in the U.S. legal system

Is Burger King selling you a Whopper of a tale? A juicy class action lawsuit filed in March 2023 alleges that the fast-food chain’s signature hamburger contains 35% less meat than the company’s ads suggest. On August 23, a federal judge in Florida allowed the lawsuit , Coleman et al v. Burger King Corporation , to move forward based on the company’s in-store marketing and menus. Filled with mouthwatering legal issues, the Burger King case is one of several class action suits filed by the same law firm, including similar cases against Arby’s, McDonald’s, Taco Bell, and Wendy’s, each alleging that the fast-food purveyors falsely represented the size of their meat-based products.

Intellectual property expert  Louis Tompros , a lecturer on law at Harvard and a partner at WilmerHale, says that class action false advertising lawsuits often, but not always, play an important role in compensating consumers and preventing companies from committing further harm. In a recent conversation, Tompros discussed the Burger King lawsuit, how class action lawsuits work, and the legal concept of “puffery” in advertising.

Harvard Law Today: At first glance, what is your impression of the case?

Louis Tompros: It’s a very interesting case and falls into a general category of false advertising class actions. Sometimes, consumer product class action cases serve an important purpose to keep advertising honest. Other times, the cases are a little bit more opportunistic, and have more to do with going after big pockets. This is an interesting one, because it involves advertising that is on the line between a pretty clear factual statement, and something that’s not a factual statement. If what Burger King was doing was falsely stating how many pounds of meat went into each burger, it’d be a straightforward false advertising claim. And you would imagine that Burger King would settle very quickly if the claims were false, or they would fight to the end if, in fact, the claims were true. What makes this interesting is that the claim that Burger King is making in its advertisement is fuzzier as to whether it really is or is not a factual claim. And it’s those kinds of cases, where the advertisement is somewhere between a clear factual claim and pure puffery, where you find some of the most interesting cases.

It reminds me of the Red Bull case from roughly 10 years ago. Red Bull had used the slogan “Red Bull gives you wings,” and a class action was brought against them, saying that people had been drinking Red Bull for a long time and never got actual wings. Ultimately, Red Bull settled that case for a very significant amount of money. That was interesting, as well, because “Red Bull gives you wings” is one of these factual statements that most people would think is a metaphor, and it was therefore on the line between a clearly provable, relevant, factual statement and one that is not so.

HLT: Now that the judge has restricted this to in-store advertising, could Burger King argue that the plaintiffs had already decided to go to and enter the restaurant, so they were clearly planning to make a purchase before they had a chance to be influenced?

Tompros: The plaintiffs will have to convince a jury that they were standing there in the store, they looked at the picture on the menu, and if the picture on the menu had shown the burger with the size of meat that it actually had, they would not have bought that burger. They don’t have to prove that the person would have walked out of the store, only that the person wouldn’t have bought that specific burger. Deciding what the truth is will be up to the jury.

“The plaintiffs will have to convince a jury that they were standing there in the store, they looked at the picture on the menu, and if the picture on the menu had shown the burger with the size of meat that it actually had, they would not have bought that burger.”

HLT: Would it matter if the plaintiffs had purchased the burgers before, and therefore had some foreknowledge of their actual size, regardless of the advertising?

Tompros: There’s a variety of different claims in this lawsuit, the two most prominent being false advertising and breach of contract. For the false advertising claim, it may matter if the customers had previously seen the same picture and bought the burgers, because that would tend to show that they were not deceived in a way that affected their purchasing decision. So, if you’re telling me that this burger that has a certain amount meat, and I buy it, I get the burger, and it has a smaller amount of meat, then I go back and I buy it again and again, by the 10th or 12th time, I know that the picture does not look like what I’m going to get. And so, it’s wrong for me to say that that picture influenced my purchasing decision.

In the contract case, what the plaintiffs will have to show is that the picture operated as an offer, that the offer was a very specific offer of a burger with a particular amount of meat, and that the customer accepted the offer by ordering and paying for it with that picture in front of them. If I were Burger King, and the same customer who saw the same picture bought the burger 10 different times in the past, I would argue that the contract, as informed by the party’s prior performance, did not include this larger amount of meat. So, yes, the fact that somebody bought one of these burgers before having seen the picture and didn’t complain about it may affect the outcome. It’s not dispositive. It just goes to their credibility when now they come in and say they wouldn’t have bought it if they had known that it was going to look like it did.

HLT: The supposed damage in this case for each plaintiff is less than the cost of one burger. Is there a minimum level of damage for which one can file a lawsuit?

Tompros: As a matter of principle, there’s no minimum amount that you can sue somebody for. That’s why we have things like small claims courts. You are allowed to bring a case for a small amount of money. But as a practical matter, it very often isn’t worth it, because the filing fees and the attorney’s fees often dwarf the value of the case. Usually, that means that when we’re talking about small amounts per customer, the case will need to involve a large number of people, which is why this case has been brought as a class action. Under the federal Class Action Fairness Act, most class actions must allege a total amount of harm of more than $5 million across the class. And the plaintiffs in this case did make that allegation. Another requirement is that there must be at least 100 people in the class, which the plaintiffs also allege.

One of the reasons why class actions exist is to address small amounts of harm affecting a large number of people. We want it to be possible to have some legal remedy for those harms. So, we have the class action procedure to allow for that. Just because something is not worth bringing the lawsuit over in an individual case, you don’t want to let somebody get away with doing it thousands and thousands, or even millions of times.

“One of the reasons why class actions exist is to address small amounts of harm affecting a large number of people.”

HLT: One of Burger King’s arguments is that everyone knows that “[f]ood in advertising is and always has been styled to make it look as appetizing as possible.” Where is the line between making a product as attractive as possible and false advertising?

Tompros: There is a concept in false advertising law known as puffery. Puffery is intended to attract more consumers rather than to intentionally deceive them about a fact. And, generally speaking, puffery is fine. Whereas intentional deception about a fact is false advertising and is improper. Let me give you a couple of examples. For decades, cereal companies have made advertisements where they show milk being poured into their cereal. If you actually pour milk into a bowl of cereal and try to film it, it doesn’t look very good because milk is kind of thin and it usually does gross things to the cereal. Those commercials for years have used glue instead of milk because it’s thicker and you get a gorgeous picture. Even in the context of fast food, there are photoshoots of burgers in which each sesame seed is very carefully glued on to the bun in a particular configuration to look very appetizing. And there are chemicals that look like water that are placed on the tomatoes to make them look like they’ve just been washed and are fresh and beautiful. And the cheese is sometimes replaced by icing or putty or something else.

So that kind of puffery has happened all the time. It is well established that it is not generally speaking false advertising, because false advertising has to convey a specific statement of fact. That’s why in the Burger King case, the plaintiffs are not alleging that the burger didn’t look generally like the photo, and they’re not alleging that the burger didn’t look as appetizing as the one in the photo. Both of those claims would have been rejected if Burger King had argued that the photos are just puffery. What the plaintiffs instead allege is a much more specific allegation that the ratio of meat and the size of meat to the rest of the burger was misrepresented. What the plaintiffs claim is that the photo was representing a fact about the size of the patty, and that that fact was false. And that’s the distinction here that matters.

“Puffery is intended to attract more consumers … generally speaking, puffery is fine. Whereas intentional deception about a fact is false advertising and is improper.”

HLT: What role do class action lawsuits play in the U.S. legal system?

Tompros: The fundamental purpose of class actions is to allow for the resolution of harms that happen in small amounts to a large number of people. And there have been some class actions that have been hugely important over the years. For example, the auto industry class actions of the 1970s were instrumental in making automobiles safer. And I think there’s general consensus that that was a good thing. They gave some financial redress to people who had been harmed. But more importantly, they resulted in the manufacture of safer automobiles and the auto industry taking more seriously things like recalls, because they know that they will be liable across the board for problems.

There have also been some class actions that have, in my view, been of somewhat questionable value. And here I think of, for example, the Red Bull class action from 2014, in which Red Bull did indeed change its advertising and no longer says “Red Bull gives you wings.” It’s not clear to me that that provided any real value to society or provided any real value to the consumers that were supposedly deceived. So, class action false advertising lawsuits can have incredibly important impacts on industry, the economy, and consumers. But they can also be a drain. And where you draw the line is the challenge.

HLT: It seems the biggest impact can be changing corporate behavior. What kind of redress do the plaintiffs typically receive?

Tompros: Class actions are often primarily about changing company behavior and creating a disincentive because of the need to pay out money when companies to engage in misleading or unsafe behavior. The named plaintiffs in class actions usually get somewhat better compensation as a result of being the named plaintiffs, as compared to unnamed individual class members. And so there is some advantage to those plaintiffs to being involved. Although many named plaintiffs want to be involved in class actions just to do the right thing and hold the defendant accountable. And, of course, as part of class action settlements or resolutions, there are almost always significant attorney’s fees involved. So, there’s a real incentive for class action law firms to bring consumer class actions because they are very well compensated, as they clearly should be in the cases that are meritorious and societally beneficial. But that also leaves room for, to put it bluntly, shenanigans, including overly aggressive class action lawsuits that don’t have a lot of merit and are driven by the lawyers and their desire for the fees rather than by a real, meritorious effort to hold a company accountable for harmful conduct. There are some class action cases where the lawyers probably were undercompensated for the amount of good that they were able to do based on the impact that the case had. But there are some where the case was really driven by the lawyers’ fees and were settled because the defendants would rather get rid of the litigation than spend more on their own attorneys’ fees defending against it.

HLT: On that note, do you think it is a coincidence that this lawsuit is being spearheaded by the same firm which is also involved in lawsuits against McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Wendy’s, and Arby’s, all alleging that the amount of meat in their food items is less than pictured in those companies’ ads?

Tompros: There are firms that specialize in class actions and they very much do drive the identification of potential class action plaintiffs and the filing of those suits. And they’re usually pretty forthright about it and advertise themselves. You may have seen late night TV ads that say, “Were you injured after taking X medication? If so, please call this firm.” The firms behind those ads are often looking for named plaintiffs for class action litigation. Usually, the law firms will identify what they perceive as a problem, and then hunt for people who have the receipts to be able to show that they were injured. So, it’s not surprising to me that the same firm has brought multiple cases of this nature against multiple different defendants. I’d be surprised if they hadn’t, quite honestly, because it takes a lot of expertise and a lot of experience to be able to bring these kinds of class actions.

Want to stay up to date with Harvard Law Today? Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Modal Gallery

Gallery block modal gallery.

Fast Food and Obesity: A Study in a Local McDonald’s

How the fast food revolution established obesity as a primary concern in america., by iliana nguyen | staff writer | sq vol. 9 (2011-2012).

After smoking, obesity is the leading cause of mortality in the United States. This does not come as a surprise since obesity rates are higher than ever, with a staggering 33.8% of adults who are obese. Obesity statistics for children living in the U.S. are alarming as well, with approximately 17% (or 12.5 million) of children and adolescents ages 2 to 19 years characterized as obese. Obesity is determined through BMI (body mass index), a number that is calculated based on a person’s weight and height.

Childhood obesity is a serious issue because children who are obese are predisposed to have many health problems and diseases in their childhood and adulthood. Although many factors can contribute to obesity, the underlying cause of excessive weight gain is an imbalance of energy. This occurs when more calories are taken in through diet than expended through energy-consuming activities.

Kerri N. Boutelle, Ph.D., an Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, conducted a study to evaluate the nutritional quality of fast food purchased for children as well as the reasons for dining at the fast food restaurant.

Dr. Boutelle, who studies childhood obesity and nutrition, explains why she chose to concentrate on youth, stating, “One out of every three children is either overweight or obese. We focus on children because the majority of overweight children will become overweight adults, and we have an opportunity to intervene with children earlier.”

This is the first study published to evaluate the purchasing patterns of fast food for youth. Dr. Boutelle explains, “We were interested in studying fast food purchasing for families because it influences how children eat. We believe that educating parents may influence how they feed their children.”

The number of meals eaten away from home is believed to contribute to extra calorie consumption. Overweight children and adolescents consume more foods away from home compared to other children. Due to its low nutritional value, cheap cost, and large portion size, fast food and consequent consumption habits has been considered one of the factors contributing to the obesity epidemic. Since its introduction to the United States, fast food has risen in popularity to become a prominent role-player in the everyday diet of children. According to studies, about 30% of children report consuming fast food on a typical day.

Over the course of six weeks, 544 families were surveyed during lunch time at the McDonald’s located in the Rady’s Children Hospital in San Diego, California. Researchers approached families with children who looked between the ages of 2 and 18 years.

The families were asked to present their receipts and to complete a short survey after purchasing their food. Families were asked questions to explain their purchases: who each item was for, if items were shared, sizes ordered (small, medium, large), whether drinks were diet or regular, the type of combination meal purchased, if condiments were added, and lastly, if there were any changes made to their order. The age and gender of the person for whom the item was purchased as well as the reasons for dining at the McDonald’s were inquired about.

Answer choices included: convenience, cheap, adults liked the food, children liked the food, a reward for a hospital visit, hungry with no other options, kids wanted the toy, and that it is a usual place for lunch.

To analyze the data, children were divided into three groups based on their ages: 2 to 5 years old, 6 to 11 years old, and 12 to 18 years old. Researchers then determined the nutritional content of the meals purchased for the different age groups as well as how the meals relate to daily nutrition requirements.

On average, these meals contained a calorie count of 646 to 811 calories, which is 36% to 51% of the recommended daily calorie intake for youth. The children’s meals were found to be extremely high in sodium, with 866 to 1100 mg of sodium consumed per child.

Most popular foods purchased for youth were French fries, soda, chicken nuggets, cheeseburgers, and hamburgers. A Happy Meal was purchased by a little more than half (53%) of the 490 youth. While McDonald’s does offer healthier options such as apple dippers, these choices were found to be less popular. The fruit and yogurt parfait, a heart-friendly option, demonstrated to be very unpopular, only purchased by 1.4% of the families. The top reasons for dining at McDonald’s were convenience and that the children enjoyed the food. About 50% of the families used fast food to reward their children for visiting the hospital. Surprisingly, 72% of adults reported that they liked eating the fast food.

Even though this study was conducted at one fast food location, Dr. Boutelle states, “I don’t think the results would have changed in other locations. What may have changed is what kinds of families participated in the study. We had a wide range of families in this study, so I think it applies to a wide variety of families.”

Significance

Childhood obesity is a life threatening condition because it significantly increases the chances of developing many health problems such as type 2 diabetes, stroke, heart attack, hypertension (high blood pressure), and various cancers. Childhood obesity may also lead to social, behavioral, and emotional problems. Obese children may suffer from low self-esteem, depression, and difficulty interacting with peers.

Not only do children need to be aware of what they put in their mouths, but college students need to maintain healthy food habits as well. Dr. Boutelle explains, “College students are at an increased risk for weight gain because it is the first time they are on their own and they get to make all the decisions regarding their food intake. There are many cues in the college environment to overeat, and it is very important for college students to understand the impact of calories from fast food or other sources on their weight.”

Many college students are no stranger to the dreaded “freshman fifteen” pounds gained during their first year of college from unhealthy eating habits. College students are free to eat whenever and whatever they want, even if this means devouring a tub of Ben & Jerry’s on a stressful day.

Also, a majority of college campuses are located near or contain a fast food restaurant where students can buy food at a low cost. Many of these fast food chains are open during late hours, which is perfect for the student that has a midnight craving. Fast food is also ideal for the penny pinching college student who is always on the go–quick food at an affordable cost.

However, college students need to be conscious of what they are putting in their mouths; what is best for their wallet is not necessary the best for their health, especially if it is a Big Mac which is high in sodium, high in calories, and has a low nutritional value. According to a study published in Pediatrics Journal, youth who consume fast food on a typical day consumed greater amounts of saturated fat, sodium, carbohydrate, and sugars and less dietary fiber than those who do not eat fast food.

Consuming fast food also reduces the amount of healthy food options eaten. Children who consume fast food tend to consume more sugar beverages and less milk, as well as fewer fruits and vegetables containing starch. Fruits and non-starchy vegetables are an important part of the daily diet because they contain low energy density and high fiber content, which may protect against excess weight gain. Fiber also plays a major factor in regulating digestion as well as preventing heart disease and colon cancer.

Consuming more than the recommended amount of sodium results in elevated blood pressure, which can increase the risk of many health problems. Blood pressure is the pressure of blood exerted against the walls of the arteries as the heart pumps blood. When the body ingests sodium, this raises osmolarity (the measure of the amount of solutes in a solution) because the concentration of sodium has increased while the volume of fluid in the body remains the same. Vasopressin is secreted, which causes the kidneys to absorb water and increases the blood volume. This causes an increase in blood pressure since the heart has to work harder to push the increased blood volume throughout the body. High blood pressure results in the heart exerting a greater pressure upon the arteries, causing them to stretch and expand to allow blood to flow easier. Overstretching creates weak spots in the artery walls, causing them to become more prone to ruptures, which may possibly lead to a stroke or an aneurysm.

Also, congestive heart failure occurs when the heart muscle becomes worn out from working too hard to pump blood and, as a result, can no longer efficiently pump blood. Fast foods are high in cholesterol as well. Atherosclerosis occurs when the coronary arteries become harder and thicker from a buildup of plaque and cholesterol. This buildup causes blood flow to become severely reduced or completely cut off. If portions of plaque disperse into the bloodstream, oxygen transport to the brain and heart can be disrupted, potentially resulting in a stroke or heart attack. Trans-fats escalate the risk of developing heart disease by increasing LDL cholesterol while lowering HDL cholesterol levels. LDL, known as “bad cholesterol,” is responsible for plaque build-up in arteries. HDL cholesterol, or “good cholesterol,” travels through the bloodstream and removes LDL.

Eating large portions of energy-dense foods also play a factor in the obesity epidemic. Fast food restaurants are notorious for their “value meals,” which offers large portions at a low price. “Supersizing” is a widespread practice at many restaurants, which offers more food, such as a drink and a side dish, for a small additional cost. Recent studies have shown that greater portion size leads to greater intake and extra calories. When watching television or driving down the road, it is quite common to see some sort of advertisement or reference for a popular fast food chain. The fast food industry markets to children in hopes of fostering a fast food habit that will continue into adulthood. Therefore, it is important to realize the impact that fast food has on the daily diet of youth and its involvement in the obesity epidemic. However, does this mean that we should give up on eating at fast food joints entirely? Absolutely not. While hamburgers and chicken nuggets are tempting, some fast food restaurants do offer health conscious items such as the fruit and yogurt parfait or apple dippers. It is critical to keep in mind that moderation and variety are key for a balanced diet. According to the late Dr. Paul Saltman, “What makes food good or bad for you is volume, balance, and interaction. What you eat matters less than how much you eat, when you eat it, and what other foods you’re also eating.”

WRITTEN BY ILIANA NGUYEN. Iliana Nguyen is a Biochemistry and Cell Biology major from John Muir College. She will graduate in 2013.

• Boutelle, K., Email Correspondence, 1, Nov. 2011
• Boutelle, PhD, Kerri N., Hanaah Fannin, BS, Ron S. New eld, MD, and Lisa Harnack PhD. “Nutritional Quality of Lunch Meal Purchased for Children at a Fast-Food Restaurant.” Childhood Obesity 7.4 (2011): 316-21. Print. Bowman, PhD, Shanthy A., Steven L. Gortmaker, PhD, Cara B. Ebbeling, PhD, Mark A. Pereira, PhD, and David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD. “Effects of Fast-Food Consumption on Energy Intake and Diet Quality Among Children in a National Household Survey.” Pediatrics 113.1 (2044): 112-18. Print.
• Gifford Sawyer, Michael, Taylor Harchak, Melissa Wake, and John Lynch. “Four Year Prospective Study of BMI and Mental Health Problems in Young Children.” Pediatrics 128.4 (2011): 677-84. Print.
• Rolls, PhD, Barbara J. “ The Supersizing of America Portion Size and the Obesity Epidemic.” Nutrition Today 38.2 (2003): 42-53. Print.
• Saltman, Paul, Joel Gurin, and Ira Mothner.  The University of California San Diego Nutrition Book. Boston: Little, Brown, 1993. Print.
• Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation: the Dark Side of the All-American Meal. Boston: Houghton Mi in, 2001. Print.
• Silverthorn, Ph.D, Dee Unglaub. Human Physiology. 4th ed. San Francisco: Pearon Benjamin Cummings, 2009. Print.
• www.heart.org. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. < http://www.heart.org >.

Thanks for the terrific article

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• About / Contact
• Privacy Policy
• Alphabetical List of Companies
• Business Analysis Topics

Burger King PESTEL/PESTLE Analysis & Recommendations

Burger King strives to be the top player in the quick-service restaurant industry. To do so, the company must strategically address the main issues highlighted in this PESTEL/PESTLE analysis. The PESTEL analysis framework identifies the most significant factors in the firm’s remote or macro-environment. In Burger King’s case, these external factors include the influences of governmental and nongovernmental organizations, as well as trends or changes in technologies, among others. Effectiveness in addressing issues raised in this PESTEL analysis helps optimize Burger King’s global business performance in the long-term.

Burger King’s long-term performance partly depends on the company’s success in strategically addressing the issues identified in this PESTEL/PESTLE analysis. The external factors in the remote or macro-environment of the fast-food restaurant industry are significant influences on Burger King’s global business. The realization of strategic goals based on Burger King’s mission statement and vision statement depends on the company’s ability to develop its business operations to match the market factors evaluated in this PESTLE analysis. Also, these goals must align the foodservice company’s core competencies with the opportunities in the industry. The competencies noted in the SWOT analysis of Burger King can support strategies for addressing the industry and market trends considered in this PESTLE analysis.

Political Factors Affecting Burger King’s Business

Political conditions are determinants of business performance. This part of the PESTLE analysis identifies governmental influence on firms’ remote or macro-environment. In Burger King’s case, the following are relevant political factors:

• Governmental support for international business (opportunity)
• Political stability in major foodservice markets (opportunity)
• Governmental support for e-commerce (opportunity)

Many governments support international business. Burger King can take advantage of this condition through further global expansion. Also, the external factor of political stability helps reduce challenges to the company’s growth and expansion in major foodservice markets. In addition, Burger King can improve its e-commerce capabilities. In this part of the PESTEL analysis, the external factors present significant opportunities for Burger King to grow and expand internationally.

Economic Factors Important to Burger King

Economic conditions directly affect Burger King’s remote or macro-environment. This PESTLE analysis outlines the economic changes and trends that influence business performance. The following are economic factors that affect Burger King:

• Expanding international trade agreements (opportunity)
• Economic stability of the U.S. (opportunity)
• High economic growth in developing markets (opportunity)

As countries implement more and expanded international trade agreements, Burger King can grow through global supply chain enhancements, which is an economic opportunity in this PESTLE analysis. Also, U.S. economic stability enables the company to gradually grow in the country. Moreover, Burger King has the opportunity to rapidly grow in developing economies. The economic conditions in this PESTEL analysis show that Burger King must focus on external factors that present opportunities for growth and expansion, especially in developing economies. Burger King’s generic competitive strategy and intensive growth strategies are designed to improve the restaurant chain’s business performance based on such multinational expansion opportunities noted in this PESTEL analysis. However, competitors, such as McDonald’s , Subway , and Wendy’s , as well as coffeehouse chains, like Starbucks , influence the success rate of these strategies regarding what this PESTEL analysis of Burger King identifies as opportunities for fast-food restaurant business growth.

Social/Sociocultural Factors in Burger King’s Business Environment

Burger King accounts for sociocultural influences in its remote/macro-environment. The social trends and changes and their effects on consumers and employees are considered in this part of the PESTLE analysis. Some of the social factors affecting Burger King are as follows:

• Increasing consumer diversity (opportunity)
• Higher health consciousness (threat & opportunity)
• Increasing support for animal rights (threat & opportunity)

The increasing population diversity presents the opportunity for Burger King to innovate and improve its menu to attract consumers of various backgrounds. Higher health consciousness threatens demand for Burger King’s food and beverage products, which are sometimes criticized as unhealthful. However, with the social factors in this PESTEL analysis, the company has the opportunity to improve the healthfulness of its food and drinks. Animal rights advocacy continues to attract attention, threatening demand for the company’s food products. Still, the quick service restaurant chain can implement new supply chain policies to address concerns on animal rights and welfare. These external factors affect consumer decisions and the bargaining power of buyers examined in the Five Forces analysis of Burger King . This part of the PESTEL analysis points to foodservice business growth opportunities despite the threats linked to external factors in the social environment. The strategic alignment of Burger King’s work culture (business culture) with the sociocultural factors in this PESTLE analysis contributes to effectiveness in gaining customers and improving sales revenues.

Technological Factors in Burger King’s Business

Burger King’s business operations rely on technology. In this PESTEL analysis, technologies and related trends are considered in terms of their influence on the remote or macro-environment of the foodservice firm. The following are technological factors affecting Burger King:

• Higher availability of automation technologies (opportunity)
• Higher popularity of mobile technologies for online orders (opportunity)
• Low R&D activity in the quick service restaurant industry (opportunity)

More automation technologies are now available for restaurant businesses. Burger King can apply these technologies to improve operational efficiency. Also, the technological factors in this PESTEL analysis show that the company can tap mobile users to gain a bigger market share. Relative to the low R&D activity in the fast-food restaurant industry, Burger King has the opportunity to boost its R&D investments to improve business performance. This PESTLE analysis of Burger King indicates major technological opportunities for performance improvements based on external factors. These improvements can increase process cost-effectiveness and corresponding profit margins. Technological enhancements can be integrated into Burger King’s operations management to maximize business process performance and take advantage of the growth opportunities noted in this PESTLE analysis.

Ecological/Environmental Factors

The natural environment can impose limits on Burger King’s business. This PESTEL analysis covers the impact of ecological conditions on the remote or macro-environment of foodservice business. In the case of Burger King, the following are notable ecological factors:

• Climate change (threat)
• Emphasis on business sustainability (opportunity)
• Increasing popularity of low-carbon lifestyles (opportunity)

Climate change threatens to reduce the stability of Burger King’s supply chain. However, the fast-food company has the opportunity to improve its sustainability status. Also, Burger King has the opportunity to improve efficiency to attract consumers who advocate low-carbon lifestyles. The external factors in this dimension of the PESTLE analysis guide Burger King’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) and ESG strategy for business efficiency, sustainability, and effective stakeholder management .

Legal Factors

Burger King complies with legal requirements. The effects of legal systems on foodservice firms and their remote or macro-environment are considered in this part of the PESTEL analysis. Some of the legal factors influencing Burger King are as follows:

• Import and export regulation (opportunity)
• Environmental protection laws (opportunity)
• GMO regulation (threat)

Burger King has the opportunity to grow based on import and export regulations that support new international trade agreements. Also, this PESTLE analysis shows that the company can enhance its sustainability performance to exceed expectations and requirements based on environmental protection laws. However, GMO regulations, especially in Europe, limit the performance of Burger King, considering the widespread availability of GMO ingredients used in the industry. This dimension of the PESTLE analysis emphasizes growth and sustainability based on external factors.

Recommendations – Burger King PESTLE/PESTEL Analysis

This PESTEL/PESTLE analysis of Burger King raises various issues, not all of which can be realistically addressed. Still, the company can implement solutions to take advantage of opportunities and protect the business against the threats discussed in this PESTEL analysis. For example, Burger King’s marketing mix (4P) can develop strategies and tactics that include the priorities recommended as follows. With regard to the remote or macro-environment of the fast-food restaurant industry, it is recommended that Burger King prioritize the following concerns:

• Growth and expansion, especially in developing markets
• E-commerce and mobile transactions
• Food and beverage product improvement for health-conscious consumers
• Foodservice business sustainability
• Burger King – Diversity .
• Burger King – Food Quality .
• Jiang, J., Lau, P. W., Li, Y., Gao, D., Chen, L., Chen, M., … & Ma, J. (2023). Association of fast‐food restaurants with overweight and obesity in school‐aged children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Obesity Reviews, 24 (3), e13536.
• Phan, S. (2021). The effect of PESTLE factors on development of e-commerce. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 5 (1), 37-42.
• Restaurant Brands International Inc. – Form 10-K .
• U.S. Department of Agriculture – Economic Research Service – Food Service Industry Market Segments .
• Copyright by Panmore Institute - All rights reserved.
• This article may not be reproduced, distributed, or mirrored without written permission from Panmore Institute and its author/s.
• Educators, Researchers, and Students: You are permitted to quote or paraphrase parts of this article (not the entire article) for educational or research purposes, as long as the article is properly cited and referenced together with its URL/link.

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Burger King: A Case Study

From the book making fast food.

• Ester Reiter
• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Chapters in this book (15)

How Burger King Stole Customers from McDonald’s Using Creative Geo-targeting

Burger king has fewer outlets than its arch rival mcdonald’s but it is using a creative marketing campaign to keep the competition on its toes..

McDonald’s and Burger King are the two largest fast food hamburger chains in the world. With McDonald’s taking the number one slot, one would think Burger King would not be far behind. However, the gap between the two fast food chains is quite stark. According to a study by WPP and Kantar , McDonald’s’ brand value is worth 18 times more than Burger King’s. The former also has a more widespread presence with about twice as many restaurants worldwide.

The rivalry, spanning six plus decades, has produced some of the best advertising wars in history. Burger King, although it is at a disadvantage on paper, has taken an aggressive approach in its marketing campaigns – many a time taking head-on jabs at McDonald’s. In recent years, with the help of geo-targeting technology, Burger King has figured out a way to use McDonald’s extensive outlets to its own benefit.

Escape the Clown Campaign

In 2019, upon the release of the American horror movie ‘It Chapter Two’, Burger King Germany launched a geo-targeted campaign called Escape the Clown. Parodying the evil character in the ‘It’ movie, the campaign urged McDonald’s customers to escape the chain’s clown mascot, Ronald McDonald. And this was done while customers were inside McDonald’s premises.

Here’s how geo-targeting played a key role:

• First, Burger King placed a hidden augmented reality ad on the ‘It Chapter Two’ article in McDonald's movie magazine that was available in all the restaurants in Germany.
• After that, Burger King set up location ad targeting on Facebook and Instagram, targeting people inside McDonald’s restaurants. The customers received a message to download Burger King’s mobile app and to look for the ‘It Chapter Two’ article in the McDonald’s magazine.
• Once customers scanned the article with the Burger King app, an ‘Escape the Clown’ button appeared on their mobile screens. The button launched an augmented reality red balloon – another reference to ‘It’ movie – and a coupon for a one-cent Whopper, the signature burger at Burger King.

The marketing campaign did not end there:

• Customers who wanted to avail the coupon were given a countdown to run to the nearest Burger King. Geo-location technology was used to determine the quickest route to the nearest Burger King restaurant via the app. As the coupon was only valid for a limited time, many customers went running out of McDonald’s, ‘escaping the clown’ and taking shelter at Burger King instead!

The Whopper Detour Campaign

Earlier, in 2018, Burger King USA set up a mobile geo-fencing push notification targeting people within 600 feet of McDonald’s locations. Assuming they were in the mood for a burger, the notification urged the potential customers to download the Burger King app and avail of a Whopper for only one cent. Customers placed their order via the app and were directed to the nearest Burger King outlet to collect their food.

Existing Burger King customers who wanted to avail of the one-cent Whopper merely needed to drive towards a McDonald’s. The offer was unlocked within 600 feet of the destination, where they could place their orders via the app. The app then guided the customers to the nearest Burger King restaurant. Hence, the campaign was called the Whopper Detour.

While steering customers away from McDonald’s, the objective of the Whopper Detour campaign was also to promote the newly-redesigned Burger King mobile app with pre-order function. About 1.5 million downloads of the app took place during the 9 days of the campaign.

Using McDonald’s as a Delivery Hotspot

In its latest effort to target McDonald’s customers, Burger King Finland has placed out-of-home (OOH) advertisements right in front of McDonald’s restaurants all over Helsinki. The advertisements offered free delivery for all orders made near McDonald’s locations. The 3-day promotion is in partnership with a local food-delivery service named Wolt.

Although it does not use geo-targeting technology, the campaign proves that OOH advertising can work hand-in-hand with mobile apps to reach targeted consumers. It is also a way to compete with McDonald’s, which has far more outlets around the city compared to Burger King.

Mobile-first Strategy

Having always come second to McDonald’s, Burger King employs out-of-the-box marketing strategies that are not only bold but also trendy and fun in order not to fall too behind its competitor. Most of Burger King’s campaigns focus on driving app downloads and increasing digital engagements with customers. The brilliant use of mobile technology, facilitated by location tracking, geo-targeting and dynamic media placements has resulted in positive customer conversion and retention for the burger chain.

More Prime Read

Los angeles county expands agreement with pictometry for aerial imagery, kingdom of bahrain ministry of electricity and water adopts info water suite, leica geosystems geospatial imaging india pvt. ltd. opening, leica geosystems releases leica fieldpro v2.1: measure once, model on site, deliver efficiently.

The relaunched Version 2.1 of Leica fieldPro features several improvements of well-known functionalities and a new interface between CADWorx fieldPipe and Leica CloudWorx for AutoCAD.

Barrier1 Systems partners with Cepton to deploy state-of-the-art Lidar-based security and safety systems for global customers

Cepton, a leading provider of intelligent, lidar-based solutions, today announced a partnership with top perimeter security solutions provider, Barrier1 Systems. Using Cepton’s Helius™ Smart Lidar System, Barrier1 Systems is adding new

© Geospatial Media and Communications. All Rights Reserved.​

Product details