How to make McDonald's work

[Phatlouie07]

chefs(e.g. tony bourdain, eric ripert, etc. etc.) particularly aren't fond(ok despise) fastfood joints. say..put those two with thomas keller, ducasse, vongerichten, boulud, bouley, Ferran Adrià, alice waters, charlie trotter, gray kunz and oh..let's just add emeril and alton brown to the mix to make this a bit more interesting..those guys..they have to operate a run of the mill mcDonalds fast food chain...they cannot do any burgers with truffles or foie gras, have to use KRAFT CHEESE. and the french fries comes pre-cooked(only have to deep fry them) in those huge bags...and only use pre-made hamburger patties. how long do you think they will last??

[Bux]

What would be the point of it all? What do you mean by asking how long they would last? Why would they start? All of those guys would last as long as they had to last. The point is that they have no reason to start.

[Holly Moore]

Pull back your constraints to let one of them them run a McDonald's that meets founder Ray Kroc's 1960's standards:

1. The restaurant sparkles, shines.

2. Only fresh raw product = fresh cut, twice fried french fries, fresh beef patties ground early in the morning and delivered fresh each day, daily made tartar sauce. No freezer. No microwave.

3. Only fresh finished product - burgers and fries are trashed after 10 minutes holding. Timers in each section of the bin to make sure it happens. During rush hours burgers are never more than a minute or two off the grill.

4. Two additional employees - the porter who spends his time keeping the parking lot and inside spotless. The bus person who clears and cleans everyone's table as soon as they leave.

5. A youth workforce that wants/needs to work, that competes for jobs, where there is a waiting list and some franchisees only hire straight A students.

Then put in a manager who started off at a buck an hour peeling potatoes, who will motivate, build morale and enthusiasm, who will lead by stepping in wherever needed and is able take over the grill from the justifiably cocky crew cheif and, using two spatulas, one in each hand, flip the burgers six at a time, laying down "12's" and "24's" in rows of 6 on an eight foot grill full of patties and buns in precise alignment and all cooked perfectly.

You'll end up with a fast food restaurant that in its way is as well run and as committed to service and quality as any five star french restaurant. And you'll end up with a fast food restaurant with lines out the door and around the building just like it used to be back in the '60s.

Do that and you don't need a Bourdain or a Ripert to run the place. But you'll have a fast food restaurant that Bourdain or Ripert or any of the others will respect and on some days maybe even envy.

The majority of the McDonald's of today are a discrace. If the first McDonald's restaurant operated with the sloppy standards of today's McDonald's, the company never would have made it out of Des Plaines IL - Ray Kroc's first McDonald's.

But back then most McDonald's restaurants ran with the beauty and precision of a finely tuned swiss clock. It was a thrill to stand behind the scenes in an out-of-the-way corner and watch a high volume McDonald's turn out its equivelent of pitching a "no-hitter" - back-to-back thousand dollar hours at a time when burgers were going for fifteen cents each.

[Carrot Top]

Beautiful post, Holly. Seriously.

Couldn't think of a single thing to add (If indeed, the concept had even occured to me, but it didn't...things have gotten so far from that original truth).

That post would rival the precision and care of an original McD's.

Edited October 27, 2004 by Carrot Top (log)

[=Mark]

Pull back your constraints to let one of them them run a McDonald's that meets founder Ray Kroc's 1960's standards:

4.  Two additional employees - the porter who spends his time keeping the parking lot and inside spotless.  The bus person who clears and cleans everyone's table as soon as they leave.

←

As I recall 1960s McDonalds did not have tables.

[TheFoodTutor]

You'll end up with a fast food restaurant that in its way is as well run and as committed to service and quality as any five star french restaurant.  And you'll end up with a fast food restaurant with lines out the door and around the building just like it used to be back in the '60s.

←

Sorry to disagree with you, but what you'd actually have is a restaurant that a) charged at least 10 bucks for a hamburger or b) was losing money hand over fist.

The cost of running a restaurant and the amount of competition around aren't close to what they were like in the 60s. There are plenty of options for better quality hamburgers and fries, with better service and cleaner dining rooms, but people simply don't want to pay that much for a fast food hamburger. I see restaurants such as the one you described go out of business every day in my city.

McDonald's is exactly the way it is because that's what the public dictates. They want a $1 McValue menu, and they are willing to sacrifice good service, cleanliness and even health codes to get it.

[Holly Moore]

Pull back your constraints to let one of them them run a McDonald's that meets founder Ray Kroc's 1960's standards:

4.  Two additional employees - the porter who spends his time keeping the parking lot and inside spotless.  The bus person who clears and cleans everyone's table as soon as they leave.

←

As I recall 1960s McDonalds did not have tables.

←

I did my time at McDonald's in the late 60's and as I recall it was a mixed bag - the newer McD's were being built with dining rooms and a lot of the older ones, especially those in cooler climates, were renovating and adding them on. I also believe this is the time period when McDonald's evolved from the red and white tile buildings to the mansard roof look of today.

[Holly Moore]

You'll end up with a fast food restaurant that in its way is as well run and as committed to service and quality as any five star french restaurant.  And you'll end up with a fast food restaurant with lines out the door and around the building just like it used to be back in the '60s.

←

Sorry to disagree with you, but what you'd actually have is a restaurant that a) charged at least 10 bucks for a hamburger or b) was losing money hand over fist.

The cost of running a restaurant and the amount of competition around aren't close to what they were like in the 60s. There are plenty of options for better quality hamburgers and fries, with better service and cleaner dining rooms, but people simply don't want to pay that much for a fast food hamburger. I see restaurants such as the one you described go out of business every day in my city.

McDonald's is exactly the way it is because that's what the public dictates. They want a $1 McValue menu, and they are willing to sacrifice good service, cleanliness and even health codes to get it.

←

Agree the cost of running a restaurant has changed with inflation - but not so that 15 cent hamburgers would have to go for $10 - a 6,000 plus percent increase. Food costs may have gone up 300-400 percent over that time span. Labor costs somewhere around 800 percent. Not all that different from the rise in menu prices.

The four conditions affecting McDonald's deterioration as I see it are:

1. Management focus. When I worked for McDonalds it was an operationally based company. Operations called the shots and the top management (president and regional vice presidents) all came up through the ranks. Over my time there, McDonald's was evolving to a marketing driven company. Now I believe it is a cost/ROI driven company. All are interrelated, but operations no longer calls the shots as they once did.

Operations stressed QSC - Quality, Service and Cleanliness. Yes, there were target controllable costs (food and labor), but the need to meet them was not an excuse to waiver from QSC. Both had to happen, or else. And that "or else" could be and sometimes was Ray Kroc walking into a store and firing the manager on the spot.

2. Cannibalization - McDonald's was its own strongest competitor. As the McDonald's chain grew the size of each restaurant's trading area shrunk. Where at one time there might have been 10 miles separating McDonald's restaurants, later there were 5 miles and now often less. Same number of hamburger eaters out there, so less potential hamburger eaters per restaurant. Hence new products. Broaden the menu to offer a variety that would appeal to more people in the market and would bring regular customers back more often.

The McDonald's menu of today compared to the McDonald's menu of the '60's is akin to a Ford plant, on a single assembly line of Henry Ford's era, now turning out the entire Ford family of cars. Mass confusion. The only way McDonald's could deal with the increased complexity has been to pre-cook and increase holding times. The result - mediocracy where once they excelled.

3. The labor force and the resultant work ethic. The fast food labor force has changed. High schoolers are no longer the vast labor pool they used to be. Where once McDonald's managers could pick and choose from a waiting list of eager workers, now they are forced to pretty much hire whomever walks through the door. This is an overstatement, but it's rare to find the cheerful exuberance and team spirit that once existed behind McDonald's counters.

4. Competition. But there was a time when McDonald's kicked ass because of the quality of their operations. I remember fast food rows in places like Columbus Ohio and Tucson AZ packed with a few dozen franchise fast food restaurants. McDonald's still dominated. McDonald's has made the competition stronger than it might have become by cutting its commitment to QSC and by expanding its menu to be everything to everybody.

As I've said before here, I'm still not convinced that the Wheel of Retailing doesn't hold true for McDonald's. That someone could open of a 1960's style McDonald's today, and find the market that McDonald's and all the others have lost.

[ghostrider]

Gotta echo Carrot Top, Holly, that post was a joy to read.

There are plenty of options for better quality hamburgers and fries, with better service and cleaner dining rooms, but people simply don't want to pay that much for a fast food hamburger. I see restaurants such as the one you described go out of business every day in my city.

McDonald's is exactly the way it is because that's what the public dictates. They want a $1 McValue menu, and they are willing to sacrifice good service, cleanliness and even health codes to get it.

I tend to agree with this analysis, but then how do we explain the continued thriving of the Steak & Shake chain in the St. Louis area, where I grew up? Last time I was there (3 years ago) they still seemed to be doing what Ray Kroc set out to do, and yes, charging more than McD's these days, and still you had to wait for a table at dinnertime.

Maybe it's a peculiar combination of local brand-name recognition + the tastes + character of the local population: there are still enough people in that area who are willing to pay a bit extra for freshly cooked, tasty food, and wait the extra few minutes it takes to get that.

I wonder if there are other such chains in other regions of the country. I've heard folks talk about Whattaburgers in Texas, if I remember it right.

Ah I now see that Holly has anticipated me - missed this last paragraph first time through - Steak & Shake seems to be living proof of this point:

As I've said before here, I'm still not convinced that the Wheel of Retailing doesn't hold true for McDonald's. That someone could open of a 1960's style McDonald's today, and find the market that McDonald's and all the others have lost.

[TheFoodTutor]

I tend to agree with this analysis, but then how do we explain the continued thriving of the Steak & Shake chain in the St. Louis area, where I grew up?  Last time I was there (3 years ago) they still seemed to be doing what Ray Kroc set out to do, and yes, charging more than McD's these days, and still you had to wait for a table at dinnertime.

←

I would say that Steak & Shake costs considerably more money, as far as getting a burger and fries, than McDonald's. I haven't been to one in a little while, but I seem to remember paying $6-7 for entrees, plus tax and tip, when I go to Steak & Shake, while McD's has a range of items on their $1 value menu - one of the reasons why they have enough business to not shut down hundreds of their stores.

One way S & S can afford to provide more service and a (somewhat) higher-quality product is that, aside from charging higher prices, they have a good portion of their workforce whom they only have to pay $2.13 per hour, relying on tips for the rest of their income. McDonald's must pay all their employees minimum wage, or probably more if they don't want to have the absolute dregs of the employment pool.

Personally, I don't think of Steak & Shake as being anywhere close to the standards Holly described. They're burgers are mediocre at best, and I can't think of any food items on their menu that I'd describe as "tasty." The service is horrid at most times, and I find it a generally unpleasant place to eat. The servers I know who now work or have worked for the company say that the organization treats its employees like crap and any server worth his or her salt will go work somewhere better after enduring it for a couple months.

I work in a restaurant that does serve hand-cut fries, freshly ground hamburgers and gives the sort of service described above. However, we charge $9 for our burger with fries, and even at that, it's a darned good thing we serve a lot of other stuff, because the profit on burgers is definitely not what keeps us afloat.

Just MHO.

[FistFullaRoux]

Just a clarification that Ray Kroc was not the founder of McDonalds, and the Illinios restaurant was not the first. The first McDonald's was in San Bernadino, CA - and Kroc was the first to license that restaurant concept.

He was a traveling blender salesman. He initially pitched the idea of franchising it so he could sell more blenders.

[Holly Moore]

Just a clarification that Ray Kroc was not the founder of McDonalds, and the Illinios restaurant was not the first. The first McDonald's was in San Bernadino, CA - and Kroc was the first to license that restaurant concept.

He was a traveling blender salesman. He initially pitched the idea of franchising it so he could sell more blenders.

←

Fair enough, though I maintain Ray Kroc is the founder of McDonald's as in McDonald's Corporation. He had the vision. And the first McDonald's corporate restaurant was in Des Plaines.

But you are right that the first McDonald's restaurant was opened by the McDoanld's brothers. It always irked Ray that his name wasn't on the sign. For a brief period we developed a new concept, Raymond's. Thicker patties, fancier decor, higher prices. Number one opened on Oak Street in Chicago. Number two on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. I don't recall a number three.

[stephenc]

"Fresh" McNuggets just wouldn't be the same.

There's just something about those fatty, super processed, sodium laden McNuggets that I love.

[bleachboy]

You'll end up with a fast food restaurant that in its way is as well run and as committed to service and quality as any five star french restaurant.  And you'll end up with a fast food restaurant with lines out the door and around the building just like it used to be back in the '60s.

←

Sorry to disagree with you, but what you'd actually have is a restaurant that a) charged at least 10 bucks for a hamburger or b) was losing money hand over fist.

The cost of running a restaurant and the amount of competition around aren't close to what they were like in the 60s. There are plenty of options for better quality hamburgers and fries, with better service and cleaner dining rooms, but people simply don't want to pay that much for a fast food hamburger. I see restaurants such as the one you described go out of business every day in my city.

←

I disagree. If I remember correctly, the original McDonald's ONLY sold hamburgers and french fries. Probably some sort of beverage, too. There was no breakfast menu, no filet o' fish, no McNuggets, no salads, etc. etc.

If the restaurant sells only one thing and does it so well that people flock there, they can charge a very cheap price for their product and still make a tidy profit. That's just economics. Look at hot dog vendors, for example.

There are still such establishments, by the way. Fat Mo's in Nashville is a good example of a local hamburger stand that has expanded to multiple restaurants, all of which offer up fabulous burgers for under $5. Admittedly, I prefer Houston's, which serves up a totally kick ass burger for about $8.

[TheFoodTutor]

Houston's does have a good burger, but it's $9 at many locations, and it's $13 at the ones in California.

[bleachboy]

Houston's does have a good burger, but it's $9 at many locations, and it's $13 at the ones in California.

←

Yikes! The location in Nashville is the first Houston's, so maybe it's cheaper for posterity or something.

(Also you can get a G&T at Houston's, not so at McDonalds! )

The best burger in Nashville is at Sunset Grill, though. Kobe beef burger for like $9.95 -- sweet!

I bet Sean Brock at Capitol Grille would also do a kickass burger if you asked him to. Maybe one day I will.

Edited October 27, 2004 by bleachboy (log)

[TheFoodTutor]

That is an interesting point regarding the difference in the price of a burger from one location to the next. My perception of the cost of doing business is tainted, because I live in an area where the cost of living is quite high, and the cost of running a restaurant is exceptionally high, with a very strong chance of failing.

So to me, a $10 burger, given Holly's stated standards, doesn't seem unreasonable. The burger at Houston's is $9, so after tax and tip it's well over $10, and even at that, the restaurant doesn't make much money on it. In fact, if beef prices are running particularly high, they may be taking a loss by selling it, after you figure in all the labor, food cost and other operating costs. They sell the burger anyway, of course, hoping you'll wash it down with a beer or a glass of wine.

I appreciate Holly's nostalgia for the days when people in fast food really cared about their jobs, and I did manage fast food myself for a while. For me, caring about my job meant working well over 80 hours a week, losing 14 pounds and landing in the hospital. This probably also has to do with the area where I live, but since this is where I am, I can only conclude that running a sandwich shop with high standards is not economically feasible for me in this location at this time.

[jgarner53]

I'd venture to say that In n Out Burger in California (anywhere else?) is pretty close to doing that: no freezers, workers are paid beginning at $8/hour, well above the national minimum wage, restaurants are clean, service is fast, and a cheeseburger, fries, and soda are about $5.

They cut their fries fresh (though they're not twice fried, as far as I know), burgers are made to order and served on buns baked by the company (though I don't know if they're baked on site). Shakes have real ice cream.

All you can get is a burger (or a cheeseburger), fries, and soda, lemonade, or a shake (vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry). No nuggets, no salads, no breakfast.

It's the only fast food I'll eat anymore, and indispensable when on the road between SF and LA or SF and Tahoe.

[bleachboy]

I'd venture to say that In n Out Burger in California (anywhere else?) is pretty close to doing that: no freezers, workers are paid beginning at $8/hour, well above the national minimum wage, restaurants are clean, service is fast, and a cheeseburger, fries, and soda are about $5.

←

Unfortunately, I've never been far enough out west for a long enough time to actually try one of these fabled burgers.

[ghostrider]

I tend to agree with this analysis, but then how do we explain the continued thriving of the Steak & Shake chain in the St. Louis area, where I grew up?  Last time I was there (3 years ago) they still seemed to be doing what Ray Kroc set out to do, and yes, charging more than McD's these days, and still you had to wait for a table at dinnertime.

←

I would say that Steak & Shake costs considerably more money, as far as getting a burger and fries, than McDonald's. I haven't been to one in a little while, but I seem to remember paying $6-7 for entrees, plus tax and tip, when I go to Steak & Shake, while McD's has a range of items on their $1 value menu - one of the reasons why they have enough business to not shut down hundreds of their stores.

One way S & S can afford to provide more service and a (somewhat) higher-quality product is that, aside from charging higher prices, they have a good portion of their workforce whom they only have to pay $2.13 per hour, relying on tips for the rest of their income. McDonald's must pay all their employees minimum wage, or probably more if they don't want to have the absolute dregs of the employment pool.

Personally, I don't think of Steak & Shake as being anywhere close to the standards Holly described. They're burgers are mediocre at best, and I can't think of any food items on their menu that I'd describe as "tasty." The service is horrid at most times, and I find it a generally unpleasant place to eat. The servers I know who now work or have worked for the company say that the organization treats its employees like crap and any server worth his or her salt will go work somewhere better after enduring it for a couple months.

I work in a restaurant that does serve hand-cut fries, freshly ground hamburgers and gives the sort of service described above. However, we charge $9 for our burger with fries, and even at that, it's a darned good thing we serve a lot of other stuff, because the profit on burgers is definitely not what keeps us afloat.

Just MHO.

←

Thanks for the update on Steak & Shake. I guess my view of them was colored by nostalgia. I hadn't been to one in a long time, c. 20 years, before our last visit to StL. The service did pretty much suck (& if they really do treat their employees that badly that may be their downfall) but was at least pleasant. However the cheeseburger & the fries were a couple of notches above McD's, at least to my taste. Yes, I've had better elsewhere, but I thought they delivered a good value (don't recall the specific prices at this point) & were worth what was then a pretty small price differential. My impression was that they'd found a niche between McD's & a good bar burger (I'm thinking Blueberry Hill in StL), where you'd expect to pay even more & are still satisfied with what you get.

[jhlurie]

I ate at a Steak & Shake a few days ago, on a trip to Missouri--my second trip to one of these in about 3 years. I'd rate it at about the level of a Johnny Rocket's, for those of you who know that chain. Really, that puts it pretty far about McDonald's, even if it's also infinitely less than a good restaurant burger.

I'm also including a possible fudge factor here based on the fact that around Kansas City, the quality of the meat is usually pretty good, whereas sometimes what's shipped elsewhere in the country isn't the same.

[TheFoodTutor]

That's funny. There's a Johnny Rockets within walking distance of my apartment, and I think it's a huge ripoff as far as a $5+ burger. My boyfriend likes to get a shake there, and if he's hungry he'll get a burger, too, but then he remembers how crappy their burgers are and realizes he's wasted his money yet again.

But yes, I'd agree with the idea that Johnny Rockets and Steak and Shake are the same level of burger. Personally, if I'm ordering a burger that I cannot get cooked to my specified temperature, either because the patty is too thin to be cooked mid-rare or because the meat quality is not high enough, I'll just go to Wendy's where they have burgers for as little as a dollar. I won't have someone waiting on me there, but I'd rather not feel obligated to tip a server when I'm eating at that level anyway.

In and Out Burger is a very well-respected chain that does seem to be more along the lines of Holly's standards. Too bad they only have them in 3 states.

[viva]

There's a reason In n' Out Burger *always* has a line out the door and a car line wrapped around the block. It's damn tasty and is always quality. I don't mind Fat Burger or a couple of local burger joints, either. There's no reason for me to go to McDonald's for a burger - it's mushy crap compared to these others.

[bleachboy]

It's worth noting that for my money the best burger available from a corporate fast food chain is Hardee's. Their burgers are really quite tasty.

[TheFoodTutor]

There's a reason In n' Out Burger *always* has a line out the door and a car line wrapped around the block.  It's damn tasty and is always quality.  I don't mind Fat Burger or a couple of local burger joints, either.  There's no reason for me to go to McDonald's for a burger - it's mushy crap compared to these others.

←

We are getting a Fat Burger here in Atlanta! It's going in a spot in a strip mall where there was once a KFC, which they tore down to build a combo KFC/Taco Bell, and then that went out of business. We were driving by the location, and I saw the Coming Soon! sign, and I pointed it out to my boyfriend with some excitement. He looked at me as if I were crazy, because he just didn't understand why I would think that would be a neat development.

Well, I am crazy, but I just think it's cool whenever I get to try something new.