5 Famous Companies That Get More Hate Than They Deserve
Hate has always been a hot commodity. There's a certain level of popularity that, once reached, all but guarantees that a significant portion of the general public will immediately decry anything else that entity generates for time eternal.
Don't get me wrong -- as a comedy writer, I'm as guilty as anyone else when it comes to instinctively hating something. You have to give the people what they want, and sometimes what they want is just to know that someone out there hates things as much as they do. That said, the jokes I write aren't necessarily a reflection of how I actually feel about something. That's how jokes work. Sometimes you have to say unkind things about stuff you like. We discuss this phenomenon on this week's Unpopular Opinion podcast ...
... where I'm joined by comics Emily Maya Mills and Aaron Covington and my former Cracked co-worker Ian Fortey. Just as it is with the article you're reading right now, we kick things off by talking about one of the most detested franchises in the history of food.
Nothing gets more blame for the obesity epidemic in the United States than fast food, and when it comes to fast food, no brand is hated quite like McDonald's. On the one hand, it makes sense. They practically invented the idea of fast food restaurants, and unlike their competitors, they're so revered by kids that their restaurants (often outfitted with full-on playgrounds) are frequently used to host birthday parties.
This birthday, give your child the gift of diabetes.
Unfortunately for McDonald's, being instantly recognizable and loved by young and old alike means they're usually the first name mentioned when critics of fast food start talking about the disastrous impact it's had on the cholesterol levels and waistlines of this great land and so many others. To some extent, that's totally fair. The road to McDonald's becoming the most hated restaurant of all time is littered with several completely legitimate controversies.
However, being the go-to name to name when talking shit about shitty food has had an interesting side effect. When something needs to change in the fast food industry, McDonald's usually leads the way in making those changes happen. Case in point: Remember when every fast food burger used to be packaged in unwieldy polystyrene containers?
Eat a dick, ozone!
McDonald's certainly wasn't alone in that practice way back in 1987, but it was the only fast food company targeted by environmental groups as part of the "McToxics" campaign, which sought to pressure the burger giant into using less eco-destructive packaging. Guess what? It totally worked! Sure, McDonald's put up a fight, but in the end they relented, and in 1990 they did away with polystyrene packaging altogether. As stated right in the last sentence of this dawn-of-the-Internet-era article about the campaign, other fast food restaurants quickly followed suit.
That's not a minor point, either. Time and again, when widespread problems have been identified in the fast food industry, McDonald's has routinely been called out as if it's the only guilty party and in turn has been the first to take steps toward fixing the problem. Another example of this is the infamous "pink slime" scandal. That's the name given to the disgusting looking "mechanically separated meat" that's long been associated with heart attack-inducing fast food.
Just like mom used to make.
McDonald's is generally one of the first names mentioned once talk turns to this horror show of a product, and back when the scandal first broke, that was completely fair. Of course, that was a really long time ago. As Snopes points out in this article about the controversy, McDonald's actually stopped using mechanically separated meat way back in 2003. If you recall hearing disturbing news stories about it in the days since, it was probably related to ground beef sold in grocery stores.
The kind people tell you to buy instead of wasting your money on fast food.
There are even signs that McDonald's is ready to act on the most recent trend in hating everything Golden Arches-related. For some reason, that McDonald's doesn't pay very well has just recently become a thing that people complain about.
It's a perfectly legitimate gripe, even if it took a few decades too many to happen, and once again McDonald's obviously isn't the only fast food restaurant that's guilty of not paying its workers a living wage. If a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission is any indication, they might be the first to make it right. Under the "Risk to Business" section, the company mentions that protests and social media campaigns drawing attention to employee pay issues pose a significant threat to the bottom line, so much so that raising wages at some point in the future will likely be unavoidable.
Sure, in a perfect world, McDonald's would just make these changes unprovoked, or, even better, just not be awful in the first place. Still, I have to imagine they've got more than enough money to fight their detractors in whatever way they want for as long as they want. Instead of doing that, they've made a habit of capitulating to whatever demands public opinion places on them, and as a result, they've been on the cutting edge of practically every positive development that's come from the fast food industry, no matter how few and far between those may be. They at least deserve some credit for that, right?
Is NASCAR a company? Sort of! "Governing body" is probably a better term for what they do. International Speedway Corporation is a company, though, and a publicly traded one, no less. They derive 90 percent of their revenue from NASCAR-sanctioned events, so, you know, good enough. It's less of an issue than it might seem, because in this case, unlike the previous entry, what I'm defending here is the product the company in question produces.
Now, let's get an important announcement out of the way: I do not watch NASCAR. I don't watch it, I don't enjoy it, and I really don't care if any of what I write here changes anyone's opinion on the sport.
Stock image of a hipster!
It's important that I make that distinction, because admitting that you watch NASCAR is a social transgression on par with saying you watch Fox News or drink Budweiser. In other words, it's perfectly fine with at least half the country. Unfortunately, none of those people live where I do, so it's important that I make my allegiances perfectly clear when discussing a topic of this nature.
With that out of the way, I'd like to add that I've always found it a little silly when people write NASCAR off as "just turning left" and nothing more.
Stereotypes hurt everyone.
For starters, even if they are just turning left, they're still doing so in a manner that lies outside the driving capabilities of the average person. They're moving at speeds of more than 200 mph, all while driving in precariously close proximity to each other. Motor vehicle accidents are one of the leading causes of death in the United States, and that's without all of the extra fate-tempting that happens on a NASCAR racetrack. Put almost anyone who laughs off the sport as nothing but a series of unskilled driving maneuvers in that same situation and they will die.
Beyond that, it's more than a little ironic that the sport people most associate with dullards and boredom is also the one that requires the most intelligence. Even the most intricate of ball-based sports, like my beloved American football, is mostly just a matter of memorization. Every move every person on the field makes has been scripted in advance; their only job is to know where they're supposed to go when each individual play is called. Only when those plans break down do players have to start improvising and acting on instinct.
Now think about what goes into keeping a NASCAR production on the track. I mentioned the drivers and the danger they deal with, but that's just the beginning of the story. Those cars they drive are being put through the most extreme driving conditions imaginable. That every single one of them doesn't break down 30 minutes into any race is nothing short of a marvel of modern engineering.
As is this.
Just to make sure, I did mention the ever-present threat of death as well, right? It's worth mentioning again, because even with something that ominous in a driver's face the whole time, they still have to make snap decisions and judgments about all sorts of mechanical and tactical maneuvers, all in an effort to gain the advantage needed to win the race. Sometimes that advantage amounts to mere fractions of a second.
Again, I'm not saying I enjoy NASCAR, and I really can't defend the idea of watching it. No matter how much effort goes into bringing that sport to life, it's still only fun to me when someone crashes, and damn if it isn't morbid tuning into something simply because you're hoping to catch a glimpse of someone possibly dying. If cars are your thing, though (and if you're in the South, the area most associated with fast car fandom, they probably are), I totally get why you'd be into NASCAR.
Depending on where you live, there's a good chance you've never even heard of Uber. If that's the case, here's a link to their website. If you're pressed for research time and for ...
... some ...
... reason ...
... the scrolling set of pictures on the website doesn't make it clear, Uber is basically an app that connects people who need rides with people willing to drive them around. It's typically faster and cheaper than a traditional taxi, and because the fare and tip get charged to the payment method you have on file, there's no exchange of cash involved.
Say goodbye to talking to this guy ever again!
If that all sounds pretty great, that's because for the most part it is. Still, there has to be a reason why they're on this list, and it certainly isn't because a higher-up at the company also happened to give me my first job running a comedy website (true). Rather, Uber makes this list because of something called surge pricing.
A few lines back, I mentioned that using Uber is "typically faster and cheaper than a traditional taxi." The "faster" part pretty much always applies unless you're literally standing in front of a cab stand. Unfortunately, that's exactly why the "cheaper" half of that endorsement doesn't always apply. Basically, Uber ensures that there are always available drivers by significantly raising their rates at times when demand for rides is expected to be at its highest. Those inflated rates, of course, mean the drivers are making way more money at that time, thus giving them an incentive to work when they usually wouldn't.
Which would be always if booze just paid for itself.
What kind of price increases are we talking? Well, this story about the practice says a ride that normally runs $13 shot up to $47 in the early morning hours of New Year's Eve, when catching a cab is always next to impossible. Unsurprisingly, this has led to all sorts of outrage over the company "taking advantage of customers" when they're most in need of rides.
This protest brought to you by Concerned Cabbies for No Rides Instead of Expensive Rides.
You don't have to think too hard to understand why (in what is apparently the first instance in recorded history) the customer is totally wrong here. For starters, if paying an extra $30 to not have to drunken drive your way home on New Year's Eve is too rich for your blood alcohol content, you probably can't afford to spend bar money getting hammered in the first place. Keep your regrets to a minimum next holiday season by staying home.
Beyond that, Uber makes getting that ride possible in the same way Walgreens makes it possible to buy a power strip and a pack of batteries on Christmas Day.
Tip: Walgreens brand pseudoephedrine makes a great last-second gift for the meth cooker in your life.
They pay people more money for doing the same work they always do on days when people don't typically want to work. The only difference is that, whereas Walgreens either swallows the cost of those extra wages or makes up for them by charging 10 cents more for lawn chairs in July or some shit, Uber makes the customer pay the difference. Is that fair to the customer? That's the wrong question. Instead of worrying about fair, worry about the alternative, which in this case is not being able to find a ride at all. The prices go up when demand for rides goes up. If Uber wasn't paying every person with a fuel-efficient vehicle in Los Angeles good money to drive people around during the very worst driving hours imaginable, there just wouldn't be any rides available for a lot of people, no matter the price.
That's exactly how American tourists get kidnapped overseas.
People who complain about surge pricing would call a regular cab if paying extra wasn't still the best option. Complaining about Uber always having rides available, albeit sometimes at a higher price, is like getting mad at UPS for offering a variety of shipping options and charging different prices for all of them. Of course it costs more money to ship something overnight, where part of the trip is almost guaranteed to happen via plane, than to ship something that will arrive in seven business days via truck. No matter how radical Uber's practices may seem, paying a premium for additional convenience is just how things work. Instead of complaining, be happy you can afford that shit.
Besides, there are alternatives on the way! Uber has a new competitor called Lyft that's been using the surge-pricing scandal as an easy means to insert themselves as the "good guy" in the unregulated-taxi-ride-via-smartphone-app industry. Nothing in life is perfect, though, and Lyft is no exception. Sure, they're a less "evil" alternative to Uber, but they also make their drivers put a fucking pink mustache on the front of their vehicles.
Welcome to California.
I'd rather goddamn walk.
Man, you guys really hate UGG boots, huh? I suppose I could get behind it if they generated all that hate on moral grounds, because they're basically like wearing a skinned sheep on your feet. That's not the case, though. If I'm reading the litany of completely reasonable websites dedicated solely to complaining about UGGs and the women (and sometimes men) who wear them correctly, the main gripes boil down to things like "they're ugly" and that women wear them with shorts or when it's not cold out, as displayed here by Jessica Simpson and her adorable dog.
All of this would still be fine if disagreements over fashion and aesthetics were all that's at work here, but that's definitely not the case. Here's a fun experiment: Pull up this website about hating Crocs and this website about hating UGGs.
The fanny pack of footwear.
The rest is really simple: Just go through both sites for as long as time permits and make note of any use of the word "slut." Actually, I'll save you some trouble with the UGGs site. By some strange twist of Tumblr magic, you can actually scroll all the way to the end of that site without so much as clicking over to a new page. I'm not sure I scrolled all the way to the end, but I made it a fair distance. Here's what I came up with when I searched for the aforementioned slur:
Lots of sluts on this site!
I made it through all seven pages of the Crocs site without finding a single reference to the people who wear them having loose morals. If I had to guess, I'd say that's because footwear is a really poor indicator of that kind of thing. We can know without a shadow of a doubt that people who wear Crocs lack fashion sense, but whether they fuck for sport will likely remain a mystery if you're basing your judgment on shoes and nothing else.
For some reason, though, we apparently have no problem making the connection between wearing high-top slippers and being a whore (that word showed up six times, for the record). How does that happen? Easy! Genuine UGGs are expensive as fuck, probably because, as mentioned before, making them requires killing an entire sheep.
In case you're wondering what $50 bows look like.
Back in the days before you could buy knockoff versions for less than 10 bucks at a Dollar General near you, UGGs were almost exclusively the domain of people with money. Not just people, though. UGGs are favored by women. Attractive women. I mean, that's a huge generalization, obviously. That label can't realistically apply to everyone wearing UGGs. Still, try running the phrase "UGGs with shorts" (a favorite complaint of people who hate them) through your Google box sometime and have a look at the image results.
We can argue about individual photos on that page all we want, but if we're talking averages, it's definitely not the "ugly" girls getting picked on by the Internet for wearing boots in the wrong weather or whatever the hell. That's because the fashion and weather concerns put forth by UGG haters are a smokescreen meant to mask the real issue. People don't hate UGGs because of how they look; people hate UGGs because they represent things they'll never have in their own lives, like money and attractive women, and as everyone knows, when a woman won't give you the time of day, it's because there's something wrong with her.
That's the story of how wearing boots became synonymous with being a slut, I suspect.
Here's a serious question: What the hell has Starbucks ever done to you? Again, I'm seriously asking. Please post your answers in the comment section. I mean, I get it -- they're everywhere, and that's kind of obnoxious -- but there are twice as many Subway restaurants, right? How come no one gives a shit about that? It's not like Starbucks is coming to town and putting all the competition out of business, like Walmart. Even in the smallest of towns, where there's a Starbucks, there's usually a mom-and-pop coffee shop that thrives on nothing more than the business from people who like to rebel against societal expectations about drinking corporate coffee. If anything, the rise of Starbucks, once viewed as the most pretentious of all possible coffee experiences, has opened the floodgates for a brand new crop of even more insufferably pompous shops that make grabbing your morning coffee feel more like a trip to a high-end clothing boutique.
If anyone would know, it's me.
Since we mentioned Walmart, remember all of the drama surrounding how impossible it used to be for their employees to get health care? Starbucks has been giving employees who work just 20 hours per week full health insurance benefits since 1988. No matter your stance on their coffee, it's hard to argue against treating your employees with at least a moderate amount of respect. That's a rarity in the fast food industry.
Oh, but I'm skipping over the biggest atrocity committed by Starbucks. They have the gall to charge insane prices, sometimes as high as $5, for a single cup of coffee. Except that's not really true, is it, coffee fans? If you just order a cup of black coffee at Starbucks, contrary to popular belief, no one will look at you quizzically as if you've just placed the most exotic order ever, and it's not going to set you back a whole lot more than it would if you were shopping at Dunkin' Donuts.
Which you obviously need to be doing, because when are you going to see this at a Starbucks?
If you're buying a slightly fancier blended coffee drink, no matter where you are, then you should expect to be in that five-dollar neighborhood. If I had to guess (and I do, because I hate research), I'd say the reason Starbucks earned the distinction of being the only franchise that gets shit for selling the same overpriced coffee everyone else sells is because they were the first ones to make that particular product into a McDonald's-esque "one on every corner" type of experience.
What about those names they use for the coffee sizes, though? Venti? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Because it's the size of the cup, you see.
Why can't we just say "large"? Well, we can, and maybe that hipster barista (another huge generator of animosity toward Starbucks) will correct you, and maybe she won't. Either way, you just take your coffee and go, you know? There's no reason to be a goddamn Denis Leary about it.
Caption that proves I'm familiar with Bill Hicks!
Sure, Starbucks isn't the greatest coffee in the world, but that's a lot like saying Steel Reserve isn't the greatest beer in the world. What difference does it make if you drink enough of it to give yourself Type 2 diabetes like I totally did a few years ago?
It doesn't matter. At all. If you want coffee, you're going to get it from whatever place happens to be in the vicinity. If it's a Starbucks, you're going to find a reason to complain, because that's what we're supposed to do when a company becomes that huge, even if, at the end of the day, they aren't a whole lot worse than anyone else.
Adam hosts a podcast called Unpopular Opinion that you should listen to on Soundcloud and a live stand-up comedy show of the same name that you should come see sometime if you're in the Los Angeles area. You should also be his friend on Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr.