There’s unbalanced (“Man, you’re losin’ it.”), there’s ludicrous (“Don’t be ridiculous …”) and there’s Charlie Sheen batshit crazy.
Taco Bell has been exhibiting hints of all of these in recent weeks with its latest ads and campaigns. And the most recent one out this week is truly flummoxing.
First of all – and this is just me talkin’ here – I’m not on board with a strategy where you thank someone for suing you. If Taco Bell was trying to laugh at itself in so doing, it failed. If they were trying to toss a little snark back at the Beasley Allen law firm who sued them, it didn’t hold any water. And if they were trying to draw a line in the sand, well … it’s a pretty lame and unstable line, in my humble opinion.
So the thing to do? How ‘bout blowing $3 million on a stop-the-bleeding Band-Aid® approach, stop-the-bleeding effort? Plus, to sweeten the deal, they’ll toss in an88¢ special. Brilliant!
That’ll work, right?
No … no, it won’t. It’s not going to make a difference … beside blowing $3 million dollars, I mean. I’m in agreement with the article linked above: The loyal customers will keep coming back no matter what. They’re out there and, short of human flesh being added to the burrito mixtures, nothing’s going to hold them back. On the flip side, regardless of any enticement offered, nothing is going to make one whit of difference to the folks who do not currently visit Taco Bell (myself included).
(Caution: The following is not suggested reading for those with weak constitutions. You have been warned.) I discontinued visiting Taco Bell back in the 1990s. Like any full-blooded American, I enjoy a soft, downy fuzz just as much as the next person … but that doesn’t translate to the food I eat. On two separate occasions, and in two different states, I was a personal witness to identical situations which cured me from ever stepping into a Taco Bell again. Hairy cheese. Once in California, once in Utah, I ordered selections containing cheese which had fine, flocculent wisps I knew shouldn’t be there.
1970s Soul Train singers should be sporting hairy afros. Russian wrestlers should be hairy. Lhasa apsos should be hairy. The cheese on my take out order? It shouldn’t be hairy.
But enough of my personal nit-picking. Onward …
The question is this: What is it, exactly, Taco Bell is trying to accomplish with their marketing strategy? We’re talkin’ $3 million smackeroonees, folks … $3 million bucks down the drain. That’s a lot of enchiritos right there! Again, the article notes they could better serve themselves with listing the prime ingredients of their beef mixtures within their stores rather than flinging fist-fulls of moolah to the wind. Right? Just who in the hell has been behind Taco Bell’s recent head-scratching campaigns, anyway?
And then … it dawned on me. I had the answer. And everything made perfect sense:
Charlie Sheen.
Charlie Sheen is their new campaign specialist.
Well, no wonder …
Clacked by Michael Noble 
on Mar 01, 2011 @ 15:10 EST5EDT
Clearly Taco Bell is healing at a rate your unevolved mind cannot process… and it also explains why when I eat there I stop pretending that I’m not a b*tching rock star!
*POST AUTHOR*
. . . . .
… or it could just be the “hairy cheese” *cough, cough* messing with your mind as it winds its way through your bloodstream causing arterial hairballs, Teresa.
I thought their “4 times the steak” specials were born out of the lawsuit, which wasn’t a bad idea, even if it didn’t address the taco meat at all.
Ewwwwwwwwww I’d prefer the batshit burger over at Bob’s!
That Yahoo article is puzzling, because Taco Bell has always been upfront about their beef, and in the full page ad they stated explicitly that their beef mixture is 88% beef and 12% filler and then they described the filler. It’s here: https://eater.com/uploads/taco-bell-thanks-for-suing-us.png
As far as their campaign… I think the main problem is that most people are sheep. I know of people who have eaten McDonald’s food for years and yet, when someone told them that “McDonald’s beef has so much preservatives in it that it doesn’t rot,” rather than do research, they just blindly believed it and stopped eating it and then told all of their friends how bad it was for them. The only thing that eventually brought some of those friends back to McDonald’s was that the Dollar Menu was so unbelievably affordable for a person who doesn’t know how to cook.
So in that kind of climate: sure, I think the ad, coupled with the 88 cent deal (which I guess is for the 88% beef) might not be such a bad idea. I’m not a Taco Bell fanatic, but I remembered some pleasant experiences there, so I’m probably going to take advantage.
The bigger question in my mind is why this ever became a big deal to begin with? Like if it was 70% beef and 15% bread crumbs and 15% spices… as long as it wasn’t poison or chemicals and as long as it tasted good, what makes this actionable? Just curious.
*POST AUTHOR*
. . . . .
Sebastian: Did you read the article that’s linked?
I quote: “The Alabama law firm that filed the lawsuit last month in California has said its testing showed the filling was made of only 35 percent beef and therefore couldn’t be called “beef.” Taco Bell has repeatedly said the claim is false.”
I read the article, but I’m confused as to what you are trying to tell me with that quote?
Oh, nvm I get it.
But it still doesn’t really address my question. I’ll give an example: years ago, McDonald’s Chicken Nuggets were made with some amount, greater than half, of chicken and the rest was made up of various forms of fish as well as beef fat. Let that settle in for a sec: their Chicken nuggets had Beef, Fish and Chicken in them. They were delicious. Then the lawsuit. Then the change to 100% breast meat chicken. It hasn’t tasted anywhere near as good since. In that case, just like the Taco Bell one, what was accomplished? It wasn’t that they were misleading vegetarians. It wasn’t that they were adding chemicals. And the end result sucked. As a consumer who has eaten nuggets, that lawsuit kind of worked against my interests. Similarly, if the current Taco mixture tastes good, and doesn’t contain anything harmful, I wonder what the “damage” is that the lawsuit is trying to collect on?
hello – the commercial stated that it is “88 percent PREMIUM ground beef.” define “premium” in commercial beef markets, please? it sounds no different than 75/85/90 percent LEAN ground beef. What’s in the other percentage, mr. butcher? hooves, ass, lips, hot dog stuffing rejects?
at least Taco Bell explains that the 12 percent is SIGNATURE RECIPE, a recipe we can find on their website. They even do the math for us:
“We sell more than 2 billion tacos every year, so it’s important our Seasoned Beef consistently maintains the proper standard of quality for every customer. In case you’re curious, here’s our not-so-secret recipe. We start with USDA-inspected quality beef (88%). Then add water to keep it juicy and moist (3%). Mix in Mexican spices and flavors, including salt, chili pepper, onion powder, tomato powder, sugar, garlic powder, and cocoa powder (4%). Combine a little oats, caramelized sugar, yeast, citric acid, and other ingredients that contribute to the flavor, moisture, consistency, and quality of our seasoned beef (5%).”
i LOVED those oaty goodness hamburgers in high school! You know they were mostly cereal – gateway food for Taco Bell.
i’m not a superdefender of Taco Bell but come on people – even dear old grandma dropped food on the floor and put it back in the pan/pot when we weren’t looking.
Sebastien – Taco Bell is divesting and the gubmint is trying to falsely deflate the selling price by slandering their product.
back, and to the left.
what? You got something against bonus penicillin in your fast food inspired by Mexifaux? After all, it’ll protect you from any nasty bits that happen to be in your meat-like taco filling.