Taste Tests versus Brand Strength

Burger King has stooped to the "Whoppervirgin" campaign. They hunt down individuals in backwater countries who have never tasted either Whoppers or Big Macs and then run a taste test (I don't know where they get the burgers -- are they reheated from stores in a civilized country?).

To no one's surprise, the Whopper wins, hands down (it is their commercial after all). Nevermind these folks have no idea what a hamburger is (and in some cases what a cow is) and therefore have no baseline of "good" burger and "bad" burger. The whopper may taste more like the locusts they're used to eating and therefore get the thumbs up. Who knows?

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. The Taste Test is the last resort of an inferior brand--note I'm not saying inferior product, just inferior brand. If Micky D's and the Burger Sovereign were to build stores in the third-world country, Ronald would take the cake regardless of which tastes better.

McDonalds, like Coca-Cola, crafted a bulletproof brand. The experience was what Ray Kroc sold, not hamburgers. Ronald, the Hamburgler, Grimace, the Golden Arches and primary colors have greater family appeal. Burger King perfected their charbroiled burger and gave their brand second banana. When they tried to change it and brought on the creepy king, they were stuck with a brand that doesn't resonate. McDonald's is about "us" and Burger King is about "them."

Catch the distinction.