Consumer Reports lists nation's best, worst fast food

[Robin Garr]

Louisville's Yum claims 2 of the worst 3 fast foods, says Consumer Reports: KFC, Taco Bell and Mickey D's hit bottom: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/maga ... /index.htm

Surely this is a matter of self-selection bias at work, though, right? I mean, the poll was of CR readers, who, by virtue of the fact that they subscribe to a publication dedicated to scrutinizing quality, are predisposed to care most about quality in their food.

One could set the annual sales figures of those chains over against CR's findings if one wanted to demonstrate that most American's don't think their food is the worst.

Not that this is a totally useless poll or anything; it's just a matter of being clear about what you're asking and of whom you are asking it.

[Robin Garr]

I could be wrong about this, but I think CR is reasonably congnizant of research metholodogy. Frankly, even in an open poll with a demographic bias, the results might be instructive if the demographic of the poll universe is roughly congruent with mine. <shrug>

I could be wrong about this, but I think CR is reasonably congnizant of research metholodogy. Frankly, even in an open poll with a demographic bias, the results might be instructive if the demographic of the poll universe is roughly congruent with mine. <shrug>

That's true, I get that, and I feel the same way. It just seems that the lede in that CR piece makes bigger claims about what Americans want from their food than a poll like this could back up. To their credit, they do disclose that the sample was of their readers, but that still raises the issues I brought up before.

Sales figures very rarely coincide with customer satisfaction. Of course McDs and Taco Bell/KFC have giant sales, they are on every street corner. That doesn't mean that every customer walking out is fully satisfied with their meal and experience.

What people say/request and how they act are two different animals. Sales figures reflect how they act while surveys and Best of lists do not.

One of the things I drill into the head of every new owner we train is that in this business it is better to be consistently bad, than inconsistent.

Consistency
A customer's expectation is the most important part of your survival as a restauranteur. Most restaurants are successful because they consistently offer a high quality product at a reasonable price for said product. Even more restaurants are successful (looking at you fast food) because they consistently offer a low quality product at a reasonable price for said product. The key is consistency. The reason many restaurants fail is inconsistency. People do not eat at McDonalds because the food is just so amazing. They eat there because it is the same every single time at every single store. It's mediocre at best, and bad at worst, but it's like that every single time at every single store. There is no risk.

Risk
Customers dining habits are a risk/reward behavior. If a restaurant is always good or always bad that minimizes the risk so the customer always knows what to expect when dining. When you can trust the result you are more likely to spend the money, even on something bad, because you know what you are going to get. But when you cannot trust the result, the risk is higher and therefore you are less likely to gamble your money away on a result that is unknown. I no longer buy from Spinellis. Why? Because 30-40% of the time my pizza is a charred mess on the bottom. If it's not a charred mess, then it is AMAZING, but there is too much risk that it will be charred for me to spend my money on it. The gamble is too high. So, what do I do? I pay $5 at Little Caesars. Is the pizza better there? Hell no, but it is the same pizza every single time. No risk. (same reason I LOVE Clifton's Pizza, I have NEVER had a bad pie from there, not in 12 years. Consistency, no risk)
So customers are more likely to eat at a restaurant that has consistently sub-par food just because it minimizes the risk. Steak n' Shake thrives on this. (those shoestring fries are cold EVERY time).

So if the customer knows what to expect before they even order their meal, you have already won more than half of the battle.

You can't just suck and win.
This doesn't mean the key to being a restaurant mogul is serving terrible slop day in and day out. McDonald's didn't start out selling the squashed "meat and bread" pile that they call a double cheeseburger that you get today. They started out selling a high quality (or at least decent) product, and after gaining lots of loyalty, they gradually decreased the quality of the product and the customer's expectations along with it. And they remained consistent through the transition. It was so gradual you'd never even know it happened.
This is why the Big Chains can get away with it and the smaller guys cannot. Case in point: when J. Gumbo's expanded from 3 stores to 8, our (then) investors farmed the cooking out to an independent commissary (we had been doing our own cooking up to that point) and the quality went right into the dumpster. The backlash was horrible (right here at Hotbytes, no less!) because up to that point we had been serving a high quality product and then we suddenly pulled the rug out from under our loyal customer base. We were never satisfied with that switch and as soon as we could, we bought everything back and opened our own kitchen and have been cooking the food ourselves, our way, ever since. It has taken years to overcome that mistake and we still aren't fully out from under its shadow here locally.
You can't make a big change like this until you have mass loyalty (about 5 years ago Raisin' Canes changed their signature sauce, and not for the better, but it seems like they are now big enough to weather that storm as they continue to grow). There is clearly a threshold. It is hard enough for chains, but for independents it is often make or break.

Sure, there are exceptions to the rule. There are a few local mom and pops that seem to go on forever despite having less than stellar food (in my humble opinion), but the key to survival in this industry is consistency. You will NEVER succeed if you are inconsistent. No way, no how. But if you can be consistently good (or even bad) you have a shot.

Money is the key
The reason people still eat at McDonalds, in addition to them being consistent, is that they are also cheap. Their prices apologize for the quality of their food. A $1 cheeseburger basically says "we're sorry, we know this isn't terribly good, but look, it's very cheap!" Way up above I said that you had to be consistent AND charge a reasonable price. The two are dependent upon each other. If the McDonalds Cheeseburger was $8, you would run, not walk, to Smashburger. But because McDonalds is cheap, they set the expectation low and then meet it every time (consistency). This wins loyalty, even in the face of lackluster food. People may still eat elsewhere, but they know they can depend on McDonalds to serve a low quality burger at a low price, so they are more likely to make McDonalds an option when picking where to eat.

So the key to success is consistency and value. If you can offer both, you have two of the most important tools in the box for being a restaurant kingpin. I speak from experience here, because I grapple with these two issues every single day.

There you have it, Robin, I'll take my million dollar book deal, when do we start touring the country?

Good post Ronnie. Very insightful. I would add that while "cheap" is a good motivator, so is "quick" "easy" "predictable"(like you mentioned earlier) and "good with kids in tow". I've turned away from some nifty little restaurants at lunch in favor of an inferior product just because I've got two kids in two and I'm not going to pay $7.99 X 2 for a chicken sandwich for them when there are no children selections available.
HOWEVER -having said that, if we get the big influx of cruddy chicken from China everywhere I think I would bite the bullet, pay the price, and feel better about feeding them real meat.

[Robin Garr]

... There you have it, Robin, I'll take my million dollar book deal, when do we start touring the country?

I'm in! Let me know when the contract is inked, and I'll be 1000 percent behind ya!

Ronnie makes some good points, but they only go so far. Consistency is huge, but it's ludicrous to suggest most people hate the taste of what McDonalds and Taco Bell are putting out and continue to eat it simply because of consistency, cost, and convenience. The fact is that it tastes good to millions of people. It's not the same kind of "tastes good" as all the gourmet foodie goodness we prize here, but it still tastes good.

I eat at Taco Bell probably once a month, and McDonalds maybe once a quarter. I choose it instead of choosing better Mexican food or a better burger. I do it because I like the taste. Is it consistent, cheap and convenient? Sure. So is the fruit sitting in my fruit bowl at home. But I like TB and McDs. Am I aware it's unhealthy? Sure. Am I aware it's loaded with salt, sugar, and fat all designed by evil food overlords to captivate my poor unsuspecting midbrain and turn me into a mindless eating machine? Yup. I still like it, and freely indulge as an occasional special treat. Do I walk out unsatisfied? No, I walk out quite satsified with having gotten a tasty snack at a reasonable price.

[Robin Garr]

Do I walk out unsatisfied? No, I walk out quite satsified with having gotten a tasty snack at a reasonable price.

And there is the point, right there. No reason to be ashamed of choosing what you like, with double credit for being informed about it when you do.

Jeff, I think you prove my point. You are satisfied with the quality of the product you purchased at the price you paid. Your expectation for the quality was set and met by the price and by the consistency of the product. I love Taco Bell and White Castle, but I under no pretense that those are high quality tacos and burgers. They are good, they are tasty, but they are also worth what I pay for them, consistently. If you asked me to pay $3 for a White Castle, I would probably look elsewhere. Same for Taco Bell, that's a $2 taco not a $4 taco.

Today's double cheeseburger from McDonalds is not a high quality burger. It's a cheap burger that tastes good enough to eat.

I will agree that the average national palate is probably less refined and if all you have ever eaten is chicken nuggets, then they probably taste pretty good to you, but that's more about dietary habit and training. Again, places like McDonalds thrive because of it. If more people ate a Mussel and Burger regularly, the perceived quality of McDonalds would likely decline but comparison.