Edit: If they do ever bag on you, though...ask how they make the chili.
Any questionable patty from the grill goes in a unrefrigerated pan, all day long. Then, they mix in the beans/sauce and freeze it for 30 plus days. It's a notable exception to their militant "never frozen", "fresh", schtick. Odd, since the burgers are actually done well, and are fresh.
This at least is just them being on social media. The article is about brands soliciting folks online in a clearly automated way with basically no personality.
It's not questionable patties, it's ones which did not get used in time for a burger. Cooked a little too long, that probably makes them better for chili, not worse. And they are put in a warming drawer, which is a lot different than an 'unrefrigerated pan'. Also, they freeze the meat for up to 7 days, not 30+.
Honestly, that sounds perfectly fine. The best ground beef has been thoroughly browned, that's probably why people think their chili tastes so good.
You're probably right, it varies by franchise. I can only speak to the processes of the ones near me. My little brother used to work there and my dad is a big fan of the chili so this topic has come up.
I don't know why this would gross anyone out. It's an excellent use of meat that would otherwise be thrown out. And their chili is pretty decent on a cold day.
At Chic Fil A, they scrape off the breading from unused filets and chop it into chicken salad. When I worked there back in high school, no employee dared to eat that chicken salad.
I thought it was hilarious they were paying Zuck to show me dishwasher soap and basketball ads when I didn't own a dishwasher and don't care about sports. Then I quit, because facebook is evil garbage which wastes my time.
When you choose to call out a person/company (good or bad) in an electronic public square, I think it's fair for other people/companies to jump into the conversation if they so choose.
> When you choose to call out a person/company (good or bad) in an electronic public square, I think it's fair for other people/companies to jump into the conversation if they so choose.
It's also tacky and annoying. None of the intended participants in the conversation want that, and that kind of behavior is either going push the conversation onto private channels or motivate blocking.
A lot of people value an audience of "real people like me, minus the corporate hustlers and corporate ad-bots." It's unfortunate that are current society lets the latter swoop in an choke to death all kinds of good things.
The problem is, the only way this product could exist would be if people paid for it. I can't see that happening. People expect almost everything online to be free now, but most don't understand what they're actually paying is their privacy.
You could still support such a product with ads. The only difference from Twitter is that corporate/marketing accounts would be forbidden from contacting users unsolicited.
Further: what about if I'd paid tens of thousands of dollars for a magic hearing aid that could pick out conversations in said Starbucks in which I have a potential business opportunity?
What if you were having that conversation so loudly that people inside and outside the Starbucks could hear you and when you mentioned a brand's name, they were immediately notified and your conversation was permanently associated with their brand? I mean you literally see this phenomenon in public where people converse too loudly in public and strangers then do end up overhearing and feeling, rightly or not, that they can jump in because a conversation that loud is simply too inviting.
No, that would probably irritate people, which is why people are gnashing their teeth at the thought of Whatsapp having ads. Having companies invade private conversations isn't just creepy, it's infuriating.
Your analogy doesn't fit to twitter though because this guy isn't having a private conversation; he's broadcasting his opinions publicly to the world. Imagine someone with a megaphone in an outdoor mall shouting about how shitty a company is. People would probably love the idea of a rival from another company engaging with that guy and saying "yeah, they suck, that's why I started this company, check us out." I doubt many people would find it creepy.
Twitter is public. There is the expectation (and intent) that anything you tweet can be replied to by someone else. In a coffee shop, there is no such expectation or intent.
I've tried to get two competing companies to reply in the same thread multiple times. Pretty funny when it does happen and usually problems get solved very quickly. Most recently I had an issue with Tmobile and simply tagging Verizon two really got the ball rolling with Tmobile support.
I honestly don't understand complaints like this. When you post something on the internet (on a service that has a documented, public API!) anyone can see it, by definition. Twitter isn't your local pub - it's a public forum visited by millions of people daily. If you don't want those people reading and reacting to the things you write, don't write them on Twitter!
And yeah, brands aren't people. But guess what? Brands are made out of people, and those people have just as much a right to be on Twitter as you do!
There are lots of forms of electronic communication that are non-public. If you don't want people reading what you say, use those.
Isn't this actually a damning indictment of how normal humans expect social networks to work, versus how they actually do?
You don't expect big corporations to have spies listening to every conversation in a random party in your local park, but you don't mind other people joining in, it's kinda the point.
People think of social media as a big party of real people, not as a massive corporate espionage listening to every conversation for certain trigger words so they can slimely sidle up, butt into the conversation and try and sell you something.
If your feed is public, then it’s less like a party than standing at speaker’s corner in Hyde Park with a megaphone. And yeah, some of the folks in the crowd are corporate shills yelling ads back at you.
You're missing the point, that's not how 99% of normal people think it works, consciously or subconsciously, it's regardless of how it actually does.
People expect Facebook and Twitter to be local, and forget, because that's how human society works, but not computers.
Whether it's a couple of friends joking about defacing Marilyn Monroe's grave (with no real intention) or someone moaning about their internet, they don't expect to be watched by tens of thousands of corporations and hundreds of governments.
I think the creepy part here is that many people are using Twitter simply to express their in-the-moment state of mind. Okay, maybe you let one of these marketing tweets slide and don't think twice on it.
But what if you start getting 10 of these 'offers' per every tweet you send? That sounds like terrible user experience and something Twitter would need to address internally.
In marketing circles, this is an encouraged marketing technique to generate more sales/leads. I know a lot of hosting companies who employ similar tactics.
A bit - but it’s less creepy than just a regular instagram ad targeted at me for whatever reason. If I see an ad for something I googled, shopped for or commented - that’s 10x as creepy as being pinged by a bot or human in a conversation I initiated myself.
I think people on Twitter with a public profile, of all people, know and understand how public their tweets are. It doesn't change the fact that these kinds of advertisements are annoying though and that they're within their rights to complain about it.
Is it fair game? Maybe. Does that mean I should just accept it? Hell no.
It would be more authentic if the person sending the Tweet from Sky could actually sign you up to the service. In reality they are probably just passing you straight into the normal systems and couldn't don't anything if you had issues.
All social media support from big companies tends to feel like that. Social media people who don't have access to accounts or no nothing about the product and are essentially a thin wrapper to forward your query on.
The T-Mobile social media support, as a counterexample, has full access to all account systems, never has to transfer you, and is way easier than the regular support.
I would only post something like this to social media if I wanted some sort of reaction. I'd expect Virgin Media to send a bot reply before some other company though. I think this form of customer service is far more frustrating than some other brand trying to capitalize on it. That's the only thing that seems surprising about this, where is VM in this chain??? Kudos to SkyUK for stepping in where there is a clear gap in customer service + therefore a market opportunity.
I have to admit that this is one of the forms of advertising I like the most: Very on topic and something I might actually want. Provided, of course, they can actually provide a better service.
EVERY communication from a company that isn’t “thank you for your business” or “invoice attached” is creepy. We need to return to a strict relationship. And I want to have more control: I want key exchange, where once I’ve paid I can revoke your ability to reach me so I never hear from you again unless I want to reach you again.
Company communications out of the blue come off as having an extremely exaggerated sense of self-importance. I have a hard enough time keeping up with friends and other desirable contacts on a regular basis, yet your stupid company thinks I want to see your weekly E-mail spams or “notifications” (read: ads) every day on my phone? (And we all know they’d send you “notifications” every 5 minutes if the damn platform didn’t step in to prevent it.)
As many have pointed out before, this is straightforward with email. My communication with Amazon goes to amazon.com@accounts.mydomain.com, and I can stop listening on that socket whenever I like.
This is much harder on social media because (1) you don't control the platform and (2) there's often an emphasis on linking in-platform identities to who we are in the real world. The strategy of social media is to get you into a relationship where they hold all the power.
Thank you! I am glad to know that I am not the only one who feels like that. Maybe I am not a weird and ungrateful person just because it seriously creeps me out when companies like Revolut wish me happy birthday?
92 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 157 ms ] threadUsed to be, but now I got used to it
https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/1...
https://cdn.funpic.us/wendys_tweets_are_great-47-242772.jpg
Edit: If they do ever bag on you, though...ask how they make the chili.
Any questionable patty from the grill goes in a unrefrigerated pan, all day long. Then, they mix in the beans/sauce and freeze it for 30 plus days. It's a notable exception to their militant "never frozen", "fresh", schtick. Odd, since the burgers are actually done well, and are fresh.
It is a fine line between being charming and creepy. The person who made the tweets in the article isn't even trying.
Honestly, that sounds perfectly fine. The best ground beef has been thoroughly browned, that's probably why people think their chili tastes so good.
If it was unhealthy, people would be getting sick from eating Wendy's chilli all the time, but obviously they are not.
We should be encouraging more companies to reduce their waste, but you're on a weird hate crusade instead.
It is, likely, different across franchises.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/finger-food/
It's also tacky and annoying. None of the intended participants in the conversation want that, and that kind of behavior is either going push the conversation onto private channels or motivate blocking.
A lot of people value an audience of "real people like me, minus the corporate hustlers and corporate ad-bots." It's unfortunate that are current society lets the latter swoop in an choke to death all kinds of good things.
Your analogy doesn't fit to twitter though because this guy isn't having a private conversation; he's broadcasting his opinions publicly to the world. Imagine someone with a megaphone in an outdoor mall shouting about how shitty a company is. People would probably love the idea of a rival from another company engaging with that guy and saying "yeah, they suck, that's why I started this company, check us out." I doubt many people would find it creepy.
What's creepy is when an employee acts like they have no autonomy or personality beyond the brand.
And yeah, brands aren't people. But guess what? Brands are made out of people, and those people have just as much a right to be on Twitter as you do!
There are lots of forms of electronic communication that are non-public. If you don't want people reading what you say, use those.
/rant
You don't expect big corporations to have spies listening to every conversation in a random party in your local park, but you don't mind other people joining in, it's kinda the point.
People think of social media as a big party of real people, not as a massive corporate espionage listening to every conversation for certain trigger words so they can slimely sidle up, butt into the conversation and try and sell you something.
People expect Facebook and Twitter to be local, and forget, because that's how human society works, but not computers.
Whether it's a couple of friends joking about defacing Marilyn Monroe's grave (with no real intention) or someone moaning about their internet, they don't expect to be watched by tens of thousands of corporations and hundreds of governments.
F@ck brands, and all who sail in them.
But what if you start getting 10 of these 'offers' per every tweet you send? That sounds like terrible user experience and something Twitter would need to address internally.
In marketing circles, this is an encouraged marketing technique to generate more sales/leads. I know a lot of hosting companies who employ similar tactics.
"Sky Media sucks? Move to Virgin Media and we'll give you 6 months free if you tweet that you did."
I could see that being a more effective strategy.
Twitter allows for the mass importation of block lists.
Is there an active project to create a master list of corporate accounts to block?
[0] https://www.adweek.com/digital/twitter-users-are-blocking-hu...
Is it fair game? Maybe. Does that mean I should just accept it? Hell no.
All social media support from big companies tends to feel like that. Social media people who don't have access to accounts or no nothing about the product and are essentially a thin wrapper to forward your query on.
Company communications out of the blue come off as having an extremely exaggerated sense of self-importance. I have a hard enough time keeping up with friends and other desirable contacts on a regular basis, yet your stupid company thinks I want to see your weekly E-mail spams or “notifications” (read: ads) every day on my phone? (And we all know they’d send you “notifications” every 5 minutes if the damn platform didn’t step in to prevent it.)
This is much harder on social media because (1) you don't control the platform and (2) there's often an emphasis on linking in-platform identities to who we are in the real world. The strategy of social media is to get you into a relationship where they hold all the power.