McDonald's-R. B. Drumheller

Review: Today I visited the McDonalds and ordered the 2-egg-mcmuffin special value meal. The poster on the wall clearly showed that you would get a glass of OJ, 2 egg-mcmuffins, and hashed browns for $5 (small size). The counter clerk said that I couldn't get the OJ for $5. I pointed to the picture. She indicated that the picture had "confused" a lot of people.Since McDonalds knew about the "confusion" and failed to take the sign down, I can only conclude it was falsely advertising. For some time now, if you order by a meal number, McDonalds "assumes" you want the midsize and without asking charge you for that. But this latest problem is just over the top.Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Other (requires explanation)

A written apology and a cessation of the false advertising.

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates that the business has not responded to you directly. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

At this time, I have not been contacted by McDonald's-R. B. Drumheller regarding complaint ID [redacted].

Regards,

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: While the manager apologizes for a delayed response, there is no apology to me for the confusion and embarrassment caused by the misleading advertizing. Instead of taking responsibility for the store and the poster in the store, the blame is assigned to McDonald's advertizing and I'm invited to contact them. I'm also told that written signs are there to tell me that the advertized price covers coffee, not OJ. So, the customer is supposed to figure out that the written words elsewhere dominates what the picture says. Really?

To me, a "better business" would acknowledge that the picture is misleading, that McDonald's advertizing would be contacted to correct it, and that it was sorry for my bad experience.

Regards,

Consumer

Response:

In your email to me, there were no additional points by you for me to respond to. My latest thoughts are still as follows [repeat]:

I

am rejecting this response because: While the manager apologizes for a

delayed response, there is no apology to me for the confusion and

embarrassment caused by the misleading advertizing. Instead of taking

responsibility for the store and the poster in the store, the blame is

assigned to McDonald's advertizing and I'm invited to contact them. I'm

also told that written signs are there to tell me that the advertized

price covers coffee, not OJ. So, the customer is supposed to figure out

that the written words elsewhere dominates what the picture says.

Really?

To me, a "better business" would acknowledge that the

picture is misleading, that McDonald's advertizing would be contacted to

correct it, and that it was sorry for my bad experience.

Today I visited the McDonalds and ordered the 2-egg-mcmuffin special value meal. The poster on the wall clearly showed that you would get a glass of OJ, 2 egg-mcmuffins, and hashed browns for $5 (small size). The counter clerk said that I couldn't get the OJ for $5. I pointed to the picture. She indicated that the picture had "confused" a lot of people.Since McDonalds knew about the "confusion" and failed to take the sign down, I can only conclude it was falsely advertising. For some time now, if you order by a meal number, McDonalds "assumes" you want the midsize and without asking charge you for that. But this latest problem is just over the top.