Was Ray Kroc a bad person?
Yes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmdHAMzoNzE
"When I see my competitor drowning, I shove a water hose down his throat."
Yes, yes he was. And you'll never see me eat at McDonalds again.
MovieChat Forums > The Founder (2017) Discussion > Was Ray Kroc a bad person?
Was Ray Kroc a bad person?
No, he was a business man who saw a bigger picture than others. Revolutionary.
If wanting illegals deported makes me a bigot - then wanting a rapist jailed makes you a sexist!
He wasn't revolutionary at all. He didn't have one original idea. Automating the food production, focusing on hamburgers and the branding symbol were all from the McDonald's brothers, eliminating the need for a fridge to maximize profits was his second wife's idea, leasing the land was that other guy's idea. The only thing that made Ray distinct was his willingness to do things that others WOULDN'T, not couldn't, do. He lied, cheated and stole professionally and personally. He abandoned his scruples in ways that others simply declined to do. Only difference. Nothing to admire.
shareMost of these success stories are.
It makes you wonder if you can create a successful company like this without screwing other people over.
So far in films Zuckerberg, Jobs and Kroc were all jerks.
Was he a bad person? He pulled the rug from under the McDonalds brothers and shafted them. Not to mention he stole Joan from Rollie Smith. What do you think?
shareLike most people, successful or not, Kroc had many facets, both positive and negative qualities. I loved that the movie was honest about that without preaching to the audience.
As far as the McDonald's brothers, it's clear that Kroc steamrolled them, but it is also just as clear that the brothers did not have the grandiosity that Kroc had and were "satisfied" with what they accomplished, by and large. They "let the fox into the hen house," as one of them notes in the movie. This doesn't excuse Kroc for all his actions, but there's no question that had he followed his agreements with them to the letter and let them call the shots, the company would not have flourished in the way it did. The brothers were also paid handsomely for their company. Was it what it was worth? Was it what they deserved? No, probably not, but it was enough to make them rich for their time. During negotiations, apparently the brothers felt more than 2% in annual royalties (in addition to their buyout payment) was "too greedy." The royalty agreement was the handshake deal that Kroc never honored. The brothers, who were not foreigners to business, deserve some of the responsibility for how things worked out.
Ah yes, the "if you're able to be fooled you deserve to be fooled" theology. If you wear a nice watch to a seedy part of town, you "deserve some of the responsibility" for getting robbed. If you wear a short skirt to a frat party and pass out drunk, well...
You can finish that sentence.
There's a special place in Hell for people with this mentality.
These analogies are deficient for this situation. Way too black and white. I do like the "letting the fox into the henhouse" one from the film, however, because it implies some consent on the part of the brothers. No one was forcing them into agreements with Kroc.
They were businessmen themselves who own part of the responsibility for their poor decisions and judgment. For example, to agree to a "handshake deal" for the royalties completely cut against the grain of common sense after what they had already been through with Kroc, such as previous, and numerous contract violations.
AND...the McDonald's brothers each received $1 million after taxes in 1961, which was a lot of money (over $8 million in today's dollars, adjusted for inflation). Sure, it wasn't a great deal given the value of the company, and they got screwed on the royalty deal, BUT, let's be clear, it's not robbery at gunpoint either.
Good people who believed others would treat them as they would treat someone else and a miserly wolf who took advantage of naivety. That's how I see it. It's an often quoted sentiment that a man's handshake used to be worth something because people used to honor their word. If you wouldn't screw someone over, it's hard to imagine someone else would. It's naive but that doesn't mean they deserved what happened to them and it in no way diminishes the agregiousness of Ray's actions.
shareGood people who believed others would treat them as they would treat someone else
Just curious, do you find this admirable? I believe, as you surely do, that goodness is always a desirable and admirable trait. But to believe that others will treat you in kind by virtue of your own goodness is the definition of naïve, which you seem to see as well. I know we would all like to believe this of others, but wanting something to be true does not suddenly make it so. It's practically childlike.
Putting aside the issue of whether they "deserved" to have their agreements broken (I don't believe they did, btw), the brothers were not only businessmen, but mature adults. Maturity dictates that you are responsible for "imagining" that others will try to screw you over and protecting your own interests.
It should also be considered that there are two sides to every story, and it is rarely all "good" on one side and "bad" on the other. Recall, the initial contract with Kroc was overwhelmingly in the brothers' favor. Kroc had to take out a second mortgage on his house to keep the franchise business going, and he was doing a tremendous amount of work for that enterprise. share
I don't necessarily think that naivety is an admirable or even inherently "good" trait, my feelings on it as a personality trait are very neutral. I don't think it's bad either. It's as matter-of-fact as having brown hair. It just is what it is. That's simply where they are in their life journey. Some people seem to have hostility against naive people, as if they "should've" known better, thereby placing some culpability on the victims. I disagree with that mentality, as naivety is not done with malice and what someone "should" have known is subjective. It comes down to two things, neither of which are the fault of the person in question: a) previous experiences, b) intelligence.
When I was younger an ex exhibited my private photos. They were taken under the expressed condition that they'd be kept private. I trusted him. Sadly I wasn't so young that I could take legal action. I was told by a few people that I had some culpability, that I shouldn't have posed. That aside, my mistake caused no one harm but me, whereas his did. There's no comparison. I've since never let a man, not even my husband, take pictures of me and it has hindered my ability to ever trust another man fully. Even my husband. What actually effected and traumatized me the most was the reactions of other onlookers who blamed me. I could've gotten over just some a-hole doing one messed up thing to me a lot more easily than the haunting echo of a few others who told me it was my fault. Victim blaming gets us no where as a society and in fact holds us back. Whether it's your intention or not, it comes across as alleviating the burden of guilt on the perp. They come away thinking "yeah, s/he shoulda known better. I could've had some assistance in preventing me from doing the wrong thing." It minimizes accountability. I understand your point that the victim might have some accountability too, but again it goes back to personal experience and intelligence.
If you haven't been screwed over yet, or you have but didn't learn your lesson, IE let a crappy experience leave you jaded, I may not admire you, but I won't condemn you either.
I assume you are of above average intelligence and lose patience with those who are not on your level. There is, however, a higher plain of intelligence and that is the realization that not everybody has the same capacity as you do and therefore applying your standards onto them is not realistic or prudent. Always-- always-- take into account what someone's intention was before passing judgment. With myself and the photos, as with the McDonald's brothers and the handshake clause--did they behave in malice? Was their intention to take advantage of someone else for profit? ... Now what was Ray Kroc's motive? Hint: look at the end result. Pretty good clue.
The McDonald brothers had every chance to expand their business. They had a vision for A restaurant and gave up easily when trying to franchise. Ray saw the potential and acted upon it.
Noone forced them to give up the rights to their name/business.
They signed on the dotted line and thats that.
He was a businessman with vision.
Anyone who says he wasn't probably has a copy of Atlas Shrugged they masturbate to every night.
---
..yes and no.
..no, he saw a huge opportunity that the brothers didn't. They were in their comfort zone and seemed scared to expand in any way after the other restaurants were not well taken care of by the first supervisor. That discourged them greatly. Ray was persistent and his vision was way bigger than theirs used to be, so he went after what he wanted which was to own the company name all along.
..and yes he was also bad, however, Ray neglected his wife, and went after rollie's wife, screwed over the brothers, his ego got even bigger. He was unstoppable.
...
There was a lot about Ray Kroc, as portrayed, that indicates he was not kind and not admirable as a person. But without his entrepreneurial talent and drive, the McDonald's experience that I and many others have enjoyed over the past 50 to 60 years may have remained unknown outside of its original location.
share