The competition between Wendy’s and Burger King is always flame-broiled, whether online or off.
The brands tossed ample shade at each other over their new value meals. Late last year, Wendy’s added a 4 for $4 promotion. That was met with a response from rival, Burger King, which added a 5 for $4 deal.
Well, the two had it out on Twitter beginning with this subtweet:
5 for $4, because 5 is better than 4. pic.twitter.com/BZe8JFbKjm
— Burger King (@BurgerKing) January 21, 2016
Wendy’s responded with this burn:
@bguerns13 edible food — Wendy’s (@Wendys) January 22, 2016
Dang, Wendy’s. The response kicked off an epic food fight, slugged out through GIFs and Internet lingo.
.@Wendys pic.twitter.com/eSqrItLFEI
— Avalanche (@AvalancheTwitch) January 23, 2016
@AvalancheTwitch BK right now @Wendys pic.twitter.com/48MEIRAzj5 — Hazardous (@HazardousCreate) January 23, 2016
@Wendys @bguerns13 pic.twitter.com/KFhEZOPlor
— Erik (@ThatGuyEdub) January 23, 2016
Neither Wendy’s or Burger King responded to a request for a comment, apparently letting their tweets speak for themselves. But they collected thousands of likes and retweets, apparently striking a chord with their young followings.
What does McDonald’s, which sparked the value meal war with its 2 for $2 deal last year, have to say?
Happy Friday! Who are you grabbing McPick 2 for $2 #WinningChoices for tonight?
— McDonald’s (@McDonalds) January 22, 2016
Never mind.
More in Marketing
Who owns the creative brief? Brands and creators are renegotiating the relationship
Brands are moving creators beyond sponsored posts and into the creative process, reshaping who influences marketing decisions.
Future of Marketing Briefing: Media measurement is becoming an asset in boardroom theater
Major advertisers spent their quarterly earnings calls talking up media effectiveness efforts to analysts and shareholders this week. It suggests a shift in the way C-suites consider ad spend.
Nike, Lululemon hit with lawsuits alleging deceptive ‘phantom discounts’
In recent weeks, major global brands have been the subject of lawsuits alleging deceptive pricing strategies.