When the CEO Becomes the Meme: McDonald’s Viral Burger Video and the Earned Media Lesson It Served Up

In early February 2026, McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski posted a short video to his Instagram account showing himself tasting the chain’s new Big Arch burger. The post sat quietly for weeks. Then the internet found it. As reported by Fast Company, what should have been a routine product promotion went viral for all the wrong reasons: users on X and TikTok mocked Kempczinski’s hesitant bite, his stiff on-camera delivery, and his repeated use of the word “product” to describe what is, at the end of the day, a cheeseburger. A commenter quoted in the article put it plainly—audiences are highly attuned to inauthenticity, and the CEO’s visible discomfort signaled a disconnect from the brand he leads.

Competitors did not miss the opening. As Sherwood News reported, Burger King’s president Tom Curtis responded with a 13-second video of himself enthusiastically chomping a Whopper—sauce on his lips, big grin, zero hesitation. Wendy’s U.S. president followed the next day with his own burger-and-Frosty moment. Within days, all three chains were engaged in a CEO burger-eating competition. The same outlet offered a useful reality check: the actual sales race between the chains is not close. By 2024, the average McDonald’s location was generating more in annual sales than a Burger King and Wendy’s location combined, a gap that has widened steadily since McDonald’s launched its turnaround plan in 2015.

The story has a twist, however. As the Wall Street Journal reported, early sales of the Big Arch beat expectations, and Kempczinski’s social media following grew by 30% in the weeks after the video went viral. McDonald’s itself leaned into the moment, posting a photo of the Big Arch with the self-aware caption “can’t believe this got approved.” Whether accidental or calculated, the cringe video generated an enormous volume of earned media—free impressions, competitor engagement, and product awareness that no paid campaign could have easily manufactured. As one X user observed, even competing fast-food chains were inadvertently amplifying attention to a rival’s new product.

Relevant Chapters in Essentials of Marketing

This story is tailor-made for a discussion of earned media and competitive dynamics. Chapter 16 (Publicity, Earned Media, Owned Media, and Social Media) is the natural home for this case. The video illustrates how owned media—a CEO’s personal Instagram post—can unexpectedly generate massive, earned media through social sharing, customer commentary, and competitor response. It also raises questions about authenticity in brand communication and the management of online buzz. Chapter 3 (competition) connects to the competitive dynamics piece: how firms monitor rivals, how competitors like Burger King seized on McDonald’s stumble as a strategic opening, and what the Sherwood News sales data tells us about durable competitive advantage vs. social media noise. Chapters 13 and 16 fit naturally around promotion objectives and the difference between planned and unplanned promotion, and how a viral moment can both support and undercut a brand’s communication goals. Chapter 8 (Elements of Product Planning for Goods and Services) offers a useful lens on brand equity: specifically, how a CEO’s word choice (“product” instead of “burger”) can create friction with decades of carefully cultivated brand identity.

Class Discussion Ideas

This story is accessible, entertaining, and rich with marketing substance—many students will already have seen the video. The activities and questions below are designed to move the conversation beyond the joke and into substantive analysis of earned media strategy, competitive response, and brand identity.

In-Class Activities

• Earned vs. Owned vs. Paid Media Sort. Share a collection of 10–12 examples from the McDonald’s story (the original Instagram video, competitor reaction videos, news articles, McDonald’s self-aware follow-up post, etc.) and ask student groups to classify each as paid, owned, or earned media. Regroup to discuss which had the most impact and which was planned. This is a concrete way to bring the Chapter 16 media framework to life with real, recent examples.
• Competitive Response Audit. Ask students to map the competitive moves in this story in chronological order: Kempczinski’s original post, the viral spread, Burger King’s response, Wendy’s response, and McDonald’s self-aware reply. In small groups, have them evaluate which company “won” the social media moment—and whether that winner also won in the marketplace. Debrief with the Sherwood News data on relative sales performance. Connects well to Chapter 3.
• Brand Voice Rewrite. Present students with a transcript of Kempczinski’s original video comments. Ask them to rewrite the script so that it authentically represents McDonald’s brand identity. What words would they change? What would they coach differently? This individual or paired activity sharpens thinking about brand equity and promotion objectives (Chapters 8 and 13).

Discussion Questions (with Answer Ideas)

1. What is earned media, and how does this case illustrate the difference between earned, owned, and paid media? (Chapter 16)
   • Answer: Earned media refers to coverage or attention a brand receives without paying for it—through social sharing, press coverage, or word of mouth. In this case, Kempczinski’s Instagram video is owned media (content the company controls and publishes). The viral spread of mockery across X and TikTok, the competitor response videos, and the news articles from Fast Company, Sherwood News, and the Wall Street Journal are all earned media—attention McDonald’s neither paid for nor fully planned. This case illustrates that owned media can trigger earned media in either a favorable or damaging direction, and that brands have limited control once content moves into the social ecosystem.
2. Why did McDonald’s CEO’s use of the word “product” become such a lightning rod for criticism? What does this tell us about brand equity and brand identity? (Chapter 8)
   • Answer: Brand equity is the value built through consumer associations, emotions, and experiences accumulated over time. McDonald’s has spent decades cultivating an emotional connection with consumers rooted in comfort, familiarity, and fun. When a CEO refers to a hamburger as a “product,” it signals detachment from that emotional identity and reads as clinical and corporate. As the Fast Company article noted, a PR expert observed that the language “clashed with the emotional equity McDonald’s has spent decades building.” It is a vivid illustration of how even small word choices in promotional content can reinforce or quietly undercut a brand’s positioning.
3. How did Burger King turn McDonald’s stumble into a competitive opportunity? Is this an example of smart competitive strategy, or simply opportunism? (Chapter 3)
   • Answer: Burger King’s rapid response—a 13-second video of its president enthusiastically eating a Whopper—demonstrates effective competitive monitoring and the ability to execute quickly when a window opens. Chapter 3’s treatment of the competitive environment emphasizes the importance of tracking rivals and adapting strategy in real time. Whether this is “smart” or merely opportunistic depends on execution: the Burger King video worked because it was authentic and timely, not just reactive. The Wall Street Journal noted that a Burger King spokeswoman acknowledged “the timing may seem quick,” framing it as part of the chain’s ongoing promotional efforts rather than a calculated ambush.
4. The Big Arch ended up beating early sales expectations. Does that mean the viral video was a success? How should marketers evaluate the outcomes of unplanned viral moments? (Chapters 13 and 16)
   • Answer: This is a genuinely difficult evaluative question, and students should be pushed to resist a simple yes or no. The video generated massive earned media, product awareness, and measurable sales lift. But the brand’s image for leadership authenticity may have taken a short-term hit. Marketers need to distinguish between promotion objectives (what were we trying to accomplish?) and outcomes (what actually happened?). A favorable result does not automatically validate the strategy that produced it. Students should consider what metrics they would use to evaluate both short- and long-term impact before concluding the video was a win.
5. What does the competitive sales data in the Sherwood News article tell us about McDonald’s strategic position in the quick-service restaurant market? Does social media performance reflect real competitive advantage? (Chapter 3)
   • Answer: The Sherwood News data shows that McDonald’s dominance has grown steadily since 2015, when its turnaround plan—menu simplification, all-day breakfast, digital investment, and loyalty programs—began widening the gap with rivals. By 2024, the average McDonald’s location generated more in annual sales than a Burger King and Wendy’s location combined. This context is valuable for students who might overweight the social media narrative. Sustained strategic investment in operations, digital infrastructure, and product development appears to drive competitive advantage far more than any single viral moment, even one that generates millions of impressions.
6. How might McDonald’s have better prepared its CEO for this kind of social media promotion? What role does authenticity play in brand communication? (Chapters 13 and 16)
   • Answer: Effective promotion requires alignment between the messenger, the message, and the brand’s identity. Coaching on brand language (using “burger” instead of “product”), encouraging a more relaxed on-camera presence, and pre-testing the video with a small audience before posting could all have reduced the risk. More broadly, authenticity in brand communication means the spokesperson—even a CEO—must credibly embody the brand’s values. The Fast Company article made this point directly: audiences are highly attuned to spotting inauthenticity, and in the age of social media, even a low-stakes Instagram post can become a reputational flashpoint.
7. McDonald’s responded to its own viral moment with a self-aware caption: “can’t believe this got approved.” Was this a smart move? What are the risks and benefits of brands ‘laughing at themselves on social media? (Chapter 16)
   • Answer: The self-aware follow-up is an example of a brand using earned media dynamics to its own advantage—acknowledging the joke and redirecting attention back to the product rather than fighting the narrative. Benefits include appearing relatable, humanizing the brand, and extending the conversation in a more favorable direction. Risks include reinforcing the original negative narrative or looking desperate if the tone is misjudged. This tactic works best when a brand has enough equity and strong underlying business performance to absorb the self-deprecation. A struggling brand attempting the same move could easily appear to be making light of a genuine problem.
8. Is there a meaningful strategic difference between a CEO serving as a brand spokesperson and a brand hiring a celebrity spokesperson? What are the tradeoffs? (Chapters 8 and 15)
   • Answer: A CEO spokesperson offers authenticity and institutional authority, but also concentrates risk: the CEO’s personal brand becomes entangled with the corporate brand, and missteps are harder to walk back. A celebrity spokesperson can be selected for alignment with the target market and replaced if the relationship becomes a liability. The Kempczinski case illustrates the downside of the CEO-as-spokesperson model. By contrast, the Wall Street Journal’s profile of Burger King’s Tom Curtis suggests a more deliberate approach: Curtis has been built up as a public-facing personality over time, with staged authenticity that feels less like a one-off promotional obligation and more like a genuine extension of the brand.

Claude was used to generate a first draft of this blog post.