The cinema success of the documentary Super Size Me has pushed McDonald's bosses into damage-control mode, writes Angus Kidman.

Published in The Bulletin, June 23 2004

One of the more memorable elements of Super Size Me, Morgan Spurlock's hit documentary in which he consumes nothing but McDonald's food and drink for 30 days, is the fast-food giant's persistent refusal to grant him an interview and give its side of the story. While McDonald's has been engaged in a PR counter-attack of sorts since the movie's launch – including the elimination of the super-size option from its American stores – it still hasn't engaged directly with Spurlock in the United States.

McDonald's Australia has taken a slightly blunter approach. When Spurlock ventured Down Under on a promotional tour in May, the PR team from Maccas were following close behind, ringing radio stations who had interviewed him and demanding a right of reply.

But it might be too late. The film is already one of the highest grossing documentaries in Australian cinema history, collecting $1.1m at the box office in its first fortnight. Sniffing a trend, the Labor Party has begun talking up plans to ban fast-food companies from advertising during children's TV shows.

Nonetheless, McDonald's Australia CEO, Guy Russo, has maintained the rage, launching print, TV and web campaigns to counter what he dismissively refers to as "That Movie". Russo's biggest gripe is that many of the menu options offered by Oz McDonald's differ from their American counterparts.

A particular point of sensitivity is Spurlock's claim that McDonald's salads contain more fat than a Big Mac. This is true for the American market but, having invested considerable sums in launching a low-fat Salads Plus option, McDonald's Australia doesn't want to lose its grip on the dietary high ground, especially as the global operation has taken up the Salads Plus model for use in Europe.

McDonald's reported Australian profits for 2003 were $127m. Last week's advertising blitz reflects the company's historical urge to counter bad PR, a point underlined by the £10m ($26.8m) spent suing two impoverished London environmental activists in the 1997 "McLibel" case. The latest campaign has included expensive multi-page advertisements in glossy weekly magazines designed to counter some of the more notorious McDonald's myths.

The company's local web site even includes a copy of an email that Spurlock sent to McDonald's while seeking an interview, in which he says he believes that "McDonald's is committed to the healthy future of America".

Both camps are still a super size away from agreement. "He's deliberately having all the large meals and soda and fries and the quarter-pounder three times a day and that's not right," Russo told one newspaper. However, according to the movie, Spurlock would only take the super-size option when asked and had to eat every item on the menu at least once over the 30-day period.

Russo was unavailable to speak to The Bulletin -- a company spokeswoman cited "tuckshop duties". But it is believed the campaign followed a sales dip that McDonald's research linked directly to the movie's release. The research also found that customers equated the company's initial silence as an implicit endorsement of the movie's content.

It may only be a matter of time before McDonald's US pounces, given that franchisees across the world appear reluctant to stay silent. Spurlock points out in his web diary that, on a recent trip to Switzerland, the local McDonald's CEO actually showed up in the middle of an interview.

He concludes: "It's amazing how no one would talk to me while I was making the film but, now that it's going global, they're crawling out of the woodwork!"