McDonald's value menu isn't the only thing holding it back 28%

By Dan DeFrancesco46%

8/7/2026, 5:23:11 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anecdotal, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 32.6% saturation with 166 hits. Analysis detected 697 faulty-reasoning hits from 509 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31% and a BS Rank of 28% (23,105 of 31,900 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.40% of the article peer group.

Some McDonald's customers told us they don't see value in the Golden Arches value menu. 
That's a top concern for CEO Chris Kempczinski, who said the chain botched the rollout of a new low-cost menu . 
The menu, featuring 10 items priced under $3 each, was launched as McDonald's simultaneously cut back on its digital discounts, upsetting some of its loyal customers. 
"That ended up being a bad trade," Kempczinski said on this week's earnings call. 
So what are customers looking for? 
BI's Alex Bitter and Katherine Li decided to run a little survey of our own to hear from folks about where the Golden Arches are looking rusty . 
Out of 227 people who responded to Business Insider's not-so-scientific reader survey, the majority (about 57%) rated the value that they got for their money while dining at McDonald's as "poor" or "very poor." 
( We're still accepting responses here , if you have thoughts.) 
One issue: McDonald's could be a victim of memories of a bygone era. 
One customer said the chain's under-$3 menu didn't feel like a real value. 
"If it were $1, it might be worth it," Brian Schnabel told BI. 
(McDonald's ended its dollar menu back in 2013. 
Man, I feel old.) 
Fast-food restaurants that raise their prices risk losing their competitive edge over their higher-end peers. 
When an extra-value meal runs you north of $10, people might consider splurging at fast-casual chains like Chipotle or Shake Shack. 
Even casual dining spots like Chili's are getting in on the action with their competitive meal deals. 
Price isn't the only number potentially weighing down McDonald's. 
Take a look at any menu these days, and you'll notice restaurants love touting the amount of protein in their food. 
Many even separate high-protein options. 
It's all an effort to tap into the growing wellness trend that's got people doubling down on protein . 
McDonald's jumped on the bandwagon, with a dedicated "Protein Picks" section on its app. 
But it's a tough pitch. 
The menu doesn't lend itself to people looking for high-protein, low-calorie options. 
One of your best bets is the 3-piece McCrispy Strips. 
They pack a respectable 31 grams of protein, but comes in at roughly 400 calories. 
(Don't even think about using that creamy chili McCrispy Strip Dip, which clocks in at 110 calories.) 
You might not think of McDonald's as a go-to spot for healthy eating, but one chain known for indulgence managed to do it. 
Chick-fil-A has become a fast-food favorite among the fitness community. 
Its eight-piece grilled nuggets offer 25 grams of protein at just 130 calories. 
(Again, stay away from the 140-calorie Chick-fil-A sauce.) 
And for value hunters out there, the price difference is negligible. 
The Chick-fil-A order cost $6.85 after tax, while the McDonald's order was $6.43 when I test-ordered both online. 
I realize not everyone's tracking their macros. 
But just like price, it shows another area where McDonald's is potentially coming up short in appealing to the trends customers are following. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.5%Dan DeFrancesco: 3.0%Business Insider: 2.3%Confirmation Bias4.5%This article: 3.5%Dan DeFrancesco: 2.6%Business Insider: 0.6%Anchoring Bias3.5%This article: 10.8%Dan DeFrancesco: 6.2%Business Insider: 2.8%Availability Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 2.9%Business Insider: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.7%Business Insider: 3.6%Framing Effect5.1%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.5%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.5%Pessimism Bias1.0%This article: 17.9%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 4.0%Negativity Bias17.9%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.7%Business Insider: 2.4%Halo Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 2.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 4.1%Dan DeFrancesco: 1.4%Business Insider: 1.0%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 32.6%Dan DeFrancesco: 9.4%Business Insider: 3.4%Hasty Generalization32.6%This article: 1.2%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Red Herring1.2%This article: 3.3%Dan DeFrancesco: 2.5%Business Insider: 0.6%Bandwagon3.3%This article: 4.9%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion4.9%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 1.7%Business Insider: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.7%Dan DeFrancesco: 7.6%Business Insider: 2.9%Anecdotal14.7%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.5%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.5%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.2%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Middle Ground2.2%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.3%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Special Pleading3.3%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 2.2%Business Insider: 2.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Dan DeFrancesco: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.8%

509 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers9.4%attributed speech461writer words
Selected voice

Brian Schnabel

100%flagged-word coverage
13 attributed words27% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Brian Schnabel: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.