Chain Restaurants-

[markk]

I read in one of the local threads, "Middle TN is the testing ground for all new chain concepts. It is a sad state of affairs. This problem however is not secluded to nashville, it is a national crisis. The chains have saturated all other markets and are now entering the upscale casual / affordable fine dining realm. They are like a giant blob picking off local independants left and right."

That's as good a phrasing as any I've seen of this phenomenon. But I keep thinking that in life and society, things are supposed to come around, and what's old becomes new again, and to cite one real example, in our cities, the absolute worst neighborhoods become the trendiest as the years roll by. And of course, one area, and one way in which new, independent restaurants driven by a chef and a dream come to life is by opening up in those neighborhoods before they're reborn, when the rents are still low and affordable.

I thought of my question last night while watching an episode of Alton Brown's "Feasting on Asphalt", in which he explained that the independent, mom and pop "roadside" eating establishment died out in the USA with the creation of the Interstate Highway system. And I guess one thing led to another, and that's why we have the situation described in the original quote - the chain restaurants are ubiquitous, and the independents are gone; whether you're researching restaurants in the Southeast or Northwest, you're likely to get the same chain places suggested to you, even if the locals don't know they're part of a chain, and even if they're no longer only attached to shopping malls, but are now posing as free-standing restaurants and even moving into storefront locations in our downtowns.

Now I know, people are voting with their dollars, and they're electing the chain restaurants for now. I'm not questioning that.

So my question is not "how did this happen", but rather, can anybody suggest some scenarios for when this comes full-circle in America? How is it going to work, and on what time-frame, when people eventually get tired of all the chains which "have saturated all other markets and are now entering the upscale casual / affordable fine dining realm", and they slowly, give way back to the way it was before them? (Or, is it not going to cycle at all? Is it going to move in some direction that I'm not imagining?)

[Joisey]

It's just like any other chain concept in whatever market you look at: Convenience, Affordability and Consistency. The food chains aren't going anywhere, they will just subtly shift their target demographics and themes to put themselves into whatever market they can make a buck in.

I was told there are three test markets for new food chain concepts: Phoenix, AZ; Nashville TN and Syracuse, NY. When I was working in Syracuse, me and a buddy were the first people in the country to try Zima Malt beverage, the distributor we work with was casually giving out samples and asking opinions.

[WHT]

I think if anything we will see more consolidation as we have seen over the past 20 years. It may eventually be just a few chains run by megacorps. Think along the lines of Judge Dread and the Taco Bell reference, Mc Donald’s, Wal-mart, Pepsi/Yum Brands all come to mind as they acquire more smaller chains under there portfolios.

Back in the mid 70’s K-mart was in deep financial trouble and it looked bleak for them. Now they are the third largest retail companies in the world. Think of companies like Siemens, Sony and Hyundai and how diverse there holdings are. Thus is the wave of the future.

[ChefJB]

One possible undoing for chain restaurants is the need to depend on the cheap readily available industrial food chain. As food borne illness get stronger and more prevelant, the possibility for outbreak becomes higher in chains etc...... smaller independent restaurants are more able to rely on local food chains, and hopefully those are safer than the large ones.

[Shalmanese]

It's quite puzzling to me because, as far as I can tell, there are no mid range national chains in Australia. We have the American KFC/McDonalds/Hungry Jacks and the homegrown Red Rooster at the low end but nothing like Chillis or TGIF. So I don't know why chains are so stultifyingly present in American dining yet seemingly non existant in Australia.

[chiantiglace]

It's just like any other chain concept in whatever market you look at: Convenience, Affordability and Consistency. The food chains aren't going anywhere, they will just subtly shift their target demographics and themes to put themselves into whatever market they can make a buck in.

One possible undoing for chain restaurants is the need to depend on the cheap readily available industrial food chain. As food borne illness get stronger and more prevelant, the possibility for outbreak becomes higher in chains etc...... smaller independent restaurants are more able to rely on local food chains, and hopefully those are safer than the large ones.

I agree with both of these qoutes. Chains greatest strength is there ability to Research and Develop. The times are changing in the want and need for local products. Even though its very simple to get fresh berries from chile in the winter, people are starting to come to grips with the fact that its not such a great idea to eat summer products in the winter.

I really dont think the chains are going anywhere, but I have a feeling that in the future the chains will adapt possibly by creating seasonal menus and creating more personalized themes/styles, meaning maybe instead of 20 Applebees, they may break them up into 4 different types of restaurants with different names but similar concept.

This is my guess, and I would kind of like to see this from the chains. The best thing for me would be a better market for individual or private restaurants.

[SuperLuckyCat]

I think we will see the chains having to reinvent themselves away from the source of American obesity. The amount of food that is expected by the customer in a plate of food at these chains far exceeds wise portion size. People seem to expect 4-5 cups of food when they order at Olive Garden, Carrabas, Chilis, Applebees, etc. There have also been promotions, I think at TGIFridays, for a 3 course meal that I am sure is at least 1,000 calories if you ate it all, some fatty appetizer, dinner (like a cheese-topped steak?!), and then dessert.

When the baby boomers and the following generations get SEVERE health wake-up calls, when 75% of the nation has diabetes or is morbidly obese, and people can't afford the health care consequences of American eating habits, I bet we will see the chains having to change. Imagine if there was a calorie, fat, and fiber count next to every menu option in chain restaurants?

This comment doesn't address the commonality and consolidation of chains threatening all independent restaurants, but I wanted to point out that we are not far from a health crisis in the US that may force these chains to reinvent themselves.

[phaelon56]

It's quite puzzling to me because, as far as I can tell, there are no mid range national chains in Australia. We have the American KFC/McDonalds/Hungry Jacks and the homegrown Red Rooster at the low end but nothing like Chillis or TGIF. So I don't know why chains are so stultifyingly present in American dining yet seemingly non existant in Australia.

←

Australia also happens to be one of the few markets in the worldf where Starbucks closed a significant number of stores within the first five years of having opened them. I think it was roughly 10 out of 35 that they shut down due to poor levels of revenue.

There are dramatic cultural differences between the US and Australia and I think an awareness of the value of locally grown foodstuffs and independent businesses may be among them.

As for US chains? They have highly efficient business models and deep pockets. As consumer tastes chaneg and evolve, whether it be due to increased sophistication or even as a reaction to food borne illnesses, the chains will figure out how to reposition themselves, adjust their product offering and then have the money to market accordingly.

Here in Syracuse the local market hasn't been able or willing (not sure which) to support a true seafood restaurant for years. The arrival of Bonefish Grill (owned by the Outback/Carraba's people) proved that the market is there. But the insanely high entry costs, even in this undervalued market, make it unlikely that any local independent operator will try to compete.

I went to Bonefish at the behest of date who wanted to eat there and was surprised to have one of the better pieces of fish I've ever had in a restaurant). And guess who's trying to compete head to head with Bonegfish? None other than the kings of frozen, season-butter drenched, microwaved "seafood". Yes... Red Lobster.

Here's a snippet from the Red Lobster Web Site describing their new "fresh fish" offering:

Our fresh fish selections change daily and vary by restaurant. When you visit, check out our new fresh fish sheet for a complete listing of today’s features. Some of our favorites include Atlantic salmon, tilapia and rainbow trout, in addition to a great variety of other regional and local favorites.

[markk]

Here in Syracuse the local market hasn't been able or willing (not sure which) to support a true seafood restaurant for years. 

A light bulb just went off in my head - is this where the first "L&N Seafood Grille" was many years ago? I knew them from Florida, but for some reason thought I had read that it came from Syracuse. The Florida ones were great but disappeared very quickly.

[misstenacity]

Depending on the company, test marketing moves around: I recall having one of the first Taco Bell Gorditas about 8 or 9 years ago in the Denver area, at least six months before they were unleashed on the world.

Regarding portion size, I think that we all THINK they have to come down, but I'm not sure it's going to happen anytime soon. Cheesecake Factory is still going strong, last I heard.

Profitability in some chains seems to be edging towards a 15 page long specialty drinks menu, as I discovered at Elephant Bar, where the food definitely took a back burner in quality. But like many of the big chains here in Albuquerque, as soon as the place opened up there were 90 minute waits to get a table. I attempted to write a pretty bad review, but it ended up milder than it could have:

Elephant Bar and it's lack of Oomphness

Other trends seem to be in the mid-high range dining - chains that command $20 plate prices and up. Or perhaps that's just here, and we're late to the party...

I'd like it if major chains did split themselves up into more pointed concepts, from healthy to regional and beyond.

Andrea

in Albuquerque

[JohnL]

I read in one of the local threads, "Middle TN is the testing ground for all new chain concepts. It is a sad state of affairs. This problem however is not secluded to nashville, it is a national crisis. The chains have saturated all other markets and are now entering the upscale casual / affordable fine dining realm. They are like a giant blob picking off local independants left and right."

That's as good a phrasing as any I've seen of this phenomenon.  But I keep thinking that in life and society, things are supposed to come around, and what's old becomes new again, and to cite one real example, in our cities, the absolute worst neighborhoods become the trendiest as the years roll by.  And of course, one area, and one way in which new, independent restaurants driven by a chef and a dream come to life is by opening up in those neighborhoods before they're reborn, when the rents are still low and affordable.

I thought of my question last night while watching an episode of Alton Brown's "Feasting on Asphalt", in which he explained that the independent, mom and pop "roadside" eating establishment died out in the USA with the creation of the Interstate Highway system.  And I guess one thing led to another, and that's why we have the situation described in the original quote - the chain restaurants are ubiquitous, and the independents are gone; whether you're researching restaurants in the Southeast or Northwest, you're likely to get the same chain places suggested to you, even if the locals don't know they're part of a chain, and even if they're no longer only attached to shopping malls, but are now posing as free-standing restaurants and even moving into storefront locations in our downtowns.

Now I know, people are voting with their dollars, and they're electing the chain restaurants for now.  I'm not questioning that.

So my question is not "how did this happen", but rather, can anybody suggest some scenarios for when this comes full-circle in America?  How is it going to work, and on what time-frame, when people eventually get tired of all the chains which "have saturated all other markets and are now entering the upscale casual / affordable fine dining realm", and they slowly, give way back to the way it was before them?  (Or, is it not going to cycle at all?  Is it going to move in some direction that I'm not imagining?)

←

I think that there are a lot of misperceptions here.

First, chain restaurants are not inherently good or bad so to start with a premise that these operations are somehow evil or detrimental is IMOP wrong. There are good chains and bad. Regional and national. Lumping them all together under the rubric of "chain" to paint them with a broad brush doesn't work.

Secondly, assumptions about the so called mom and pop or local non chain restaurants being inherently good is equally as wrong. A lot of these places whose passing we seem to be lamenting were awful. By the way, the worst places I have ever eaten at were small local places-- I remember the worst, a cute quaint looking local place off the interstate in Southwest Virginia!

As one poster noted--the development of the highway system probably had a lot to do with the rise of chains offering uniformity etc. They also mean that someone traveling through unknown territory does not have to get off the interstate and drive around looking for a place to eat that may or may not be any good and risk getting lost, wasting time or finding one's self in an unsafe area. Of course, if one wants to do this, then there are still plenty of local mom and pop places--their proliferation may have diminished but maybe, just maybe those that remain are the cream of the cop so to speak. Competition is good for the most part.

Let's not forget that this is an ever evolving scene--remember McDonald's started as a mom and pop operation.

Some regional chains are much better than most of the mom and pops they are supposedly replacing. I would offer Legal Sea Food's, Fuddrucker's, and Jasper White's Sea Shack's as evidence of very fine chain operations. Haagen Dasz operates chains--is this not a very fine product? Also--Auntie Annie's pretzels are offering a wonderful product. I believe that chains sometimes offer mote diversity into an area (these incredible pretzels were probably not available in a lot of the areas before Annies showed up). How about the myriad barbeque chains? Tony Roma's is pretty damn good. Starbucks has its minuses but here in NY at least it has offered an alternative to the mostly awful stuff served at deli's--the deli's haven't disappeared they are either serving better coffee (a good thing) or losing some of their coffee business. In fact, I would venture that Starbuck's is introducing a lot of areas to not only better coffee but espresso and capuccino etc. Is it the pinnacle of quality--no--but it ain't bad and it is probably better than what was available before they entered the market.

Here in the NY area there are hundreds of local non chain diners. I would say that very few of them are all that good--in fact--most offer the same menu items and the same level of mediocrity that one could lump them all together and call them a "chain."

The premise that chains are destroying America is just a tad over wrought IMOP. There are thousands of local joints of varying quality. Yes, thousands have disappeared over the past decades but to attribute this solely to the rise of chains is too simple. I also not someone here is actually blaming chains for obesity.

Really, let's start putting the blame for that on people! I would rather have options. If I make the wrong choices that's my problem not McDonalds.

So, like everything--chain restaurants have good and bad sides to them. Interestingly, I see more and more chains I also see established chains offering better quality --but I also see better quality local operations too. Those fresh taco trucks ands stands in Southern California (the mecca of fast food chains) are also increasing in number and popularity--I wish we'd see more here! (maybe one will franchise itself out!!!).

Edited February 6, 2007 by JohnL (log)

[Daniel]

Some regional chains are much better than most of the mom and pops they are supposedly replacing. I would offer Legal Sea Food's, Fuddrucker's, and Jasper White's Sea Shack's as evidence of very fine chain operations. Haagen Dasz operates chains--is this not a very fine product? Also--Auntie Annie's pretzels are offering a wonderful product. I believe that chains sometimes offer mote diversity into an area (these incredible pretzels were probably not available in a lot of the areas before Annies showed up). How about the myriad barbeque chains? Tony Roma's is pretty damn good.

I havent been to any of these choices you offered up as "very fine" but, Tony Roma's is rather poor, I would offer Corky's for a good chain BBQ experience. But I do agree in theory with what you are saying.. I just havent been to many chains that are all that good..Popeyes is good, Cluck U Chicken, and Gino's East out of Chicago is good.. Nothing else comes to mind..(Does Legal Seafood use frozen fish for everything?)But yes, because its a mom and pop, it doesnt mean its good.. And because its a chain, it doesnt mean its going to be bad..There is a better chance of finding something made with care and love at a mom and pop and almost no chance with a chain..

Chains are certainly not destroying America, its just making us fatter and less creative..

Edited February 6, 2007 by Daniel (log)

[JohnL]

Some regional chains are much better than most of the mom and pops they are supposedly replacing. I would offer Legal Sea Food's, Fuddrucker's, and Jasper White's Sea Shack's as evidence of very fine chain operations. Haagen Dasz operates chains--is this not a very fine product? Also--Auntie Annie's pretzels are offering a wonderful product. I believe that chains sometimes offer mote diversity into an area (these incredible pretzels were probably not available in a lot of the areas before Annies showed up). How about the myriad barbeque chains? Tony Roma's is pretty damn good.

I havent been to any of these choices you offered up as "very fine" but, Tony Roma's is rather poor, I would offer Corky's for a good chain BBQ experience. But I do agree in theory with what you are saying.. I just havent been to many chains that are all that good..Popeyes is good, Cluck U Chicken, and Gino's East out of Chicago is good.. Nothing else comes to mind..(Does Legal Seafood use frozen fish for everything?)But yes, because its a mom and pop, it doesnt mean its good.. And because its a chain, it doesnt mean its going to be bad..There is a better chance of finding something made with care and love at a mom and pop and almost no chance with a chain..

Chains are certainly not destroying America, its just making us fatter and less creative..

←

When they first came to Manhattan i thought Tony Roma was pretty good. I admit I haven't been to one in a while.

Legal Seafoods uses mostly fresh fish. They buy a huge amount of the daily catch in New England. I would say they are probably at the top of the chain--chain as far as what a chain can attain! (yeeesh).

The original family who started from a thriving fish market in Boston area are still very involved (I don't know if they have ownership).

They are in our area--Paramus I believe as well as White Plains and the Palisades Mall. They also have a fairly creative and reasonable wine list.

I agree that in most cases, small individually owned and operated places are more likely to hit the peaks--I think they are also more likely to hit the valley's though.

I would disagree with your last statements --

I sense your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek!

There is a case to be made that chains are actually adding to the diversity (creativity) by introducing foods into areas where one would not find them. They also offer financial reward to those who can take a good idea and expand it.

The obesity part--they add to the temptation but I believe we are making ourselves fatter by giving in!

as a final thought. Could some very successful chefs like Puck, JGV, Keller, Ducasse, Palmer etc be on the brink of chaindom? I believe Puck is there already. Is Las Vegas the first stop on the superhighway of high end restaurant chaindom?

[markk]

I read in one of the local threads, "Middle TN is the testing ground for all new chain concepts. It is a sad state of affairs. This problem however is not secluded to nashville, it is a national crisis. The chains have saturated all other markets and are now entering the upscale casual / affordable fine dining realm. They are like a giant blob picking off local independants left and right."

I think that there are a lot of misperceptions here.

First, chain restaurants are not inherently good or bad so to start with a premise that these operations are somehow evil or detrimental is IMOP wrong. There are good chains and bad.

-

Let's not forget that this is an ever evolving scene--remember McDonald's started as a mom and pop operation.

-

Some regional chains are much better than most of the mom and pops they are supposedly replacing. I would offer Legal Sea Food's, Fuddrucker's, and Jasper White's Sea Shack's as evidence of very fine chain operations.

-

Here in the NY area there are hundreds of local non chain diners. I would say that very few of them are all that good--in fact--most offer the same menu items and the same level of mediocrity that one could lump them all together and call them a "chain."

I think that the OP is a genius for having started this thread, but let me add my two cents based on your excellent reply. To me, the only "evil" of the chains is the thought that somebody is standardizing and cooking (or prepping and freezing) a product somewhere in a central kitchen, and shipping it out to be reheated, and/or sending out ingredients that are cookie-cutter identical to be cooked on location in all 50 states.

An example of this is Wolfgang Puck Express, which opened a branch with much hype and fanfare in Hoboken (NJ) and quickly closed. I remember one of the very first branches, and the food was vibrant and delicious. It was the case in Hoboken that everything comes from the central kitchens in Arizona - the pizza dough (not such a terrible thing), the famous Caeser Salad dressing, and everythng inbetween. The food tasted dull and lackluster. It tasted exactly like airline food.

(Once in the 70's while asking the airline reservationist on the phone what I'd get for buying an upgrade to Business Class on a particular transcontinental flight, she replied 'a bigger seat, and you get the Coach meal served on china'.)

Now I don't have tremendous experience with chains because, based on early experiences, I began to avoid them. Sometimes in traveling, that's not possible. But I've had "airline food" served on real plates at them. And when the economics of the marketplace mean that the chains that serve "airline food" on real china prosper while places trying to cook from scratch die out to the point that nobody even tries any more, that'll be bad to me.

I've experienced this at Olive Garden when I've had to go there in my travels, and I've experienced it at Houston's as well. To me, it's just Howard Johnson's frying up a trillion tons of clam strips somewhere and sending them by the truckload to the various locations to serve. My first meal at a Bonefish Grill had everything covered with, or cooked with, four identical, goopy, gluey, cloying sauces that kept repeating throughout the menu; on a subsequent visit I ordered everthing without the sauces, just some salt and lemon, and the mussels and fish were quite good, I must say.

Yes, my local Jersey diners are one worse than the next, and I know a lot of mom and pop places with horrible food. But what I meant was, with so many chains able to buy their way in to the boulevards and hearts of so much of America, and with local places being given only the very briefest window of opportunity to make it, it seems like one day we'll have absolutely nothing but chains with standardized food.

Yet, in a lot of cities, independent restaurants are opening up. Frequently it's in questionable neighborhoods where the rent is low (which ultimately turn around and become fashionable), but people go there specifically because they want real food.

So what I was asking is, does anybody predict a scenario in which enough people will want real food instead of "airline food served on china" that at some point the masses will get fed up with the chains and they'll die out?

[JohnL]

Markk.

I still believe your whole premise is wrong.

I think when you are more specific you make some good points.

But that's my point. I just don't think you can generalize.

I also think one needs to look at things in perspective. Are we talking fast food? Airline food? Upscale chains?

Let's take your HoJo's clam strips--I would argue that:

Clam strips freeze and travel pretty well and if reheated or cooked properly can be very good--they are real food (whatever that is). Are they as good as the clam strips prepared in a local sea food restaurant neat the ocean? Maybe--if one discounts the various lousy local seafood places near the ocean.

Given that HoJo's are serving them in many different states far from the ocean (though I believe HoJo's food operations are going out of business--which by the way, runs counter to your theory that these places are dominating the food scene),

clam strips (a regional dish) are available/introduced to people who live far from the ocean. Is this a bad thing?

Now those clam strips at Legal Seafoods or the Summer Shack are even better (but right now these places are not located west of the Atlantic seaboard).

Some foods travel well others don't.

I would also argue that the Wolfgang Pucks and the California Pizza spots in airports are a hell of a lot better than you give em credit for and while I am in, say O'Hare, I can eat at one of them or I can get a Chicago dog from a cart. (or I can go to a McDonald's).

Fast food and convenience food is getting a lot better due to technology not in spite of it!

I am not sure what you are calling "real" food.

I just think things aren't so bad.

I still recall that horrible local mom and pop place in Virginia and if I could do it over again I would have preferred a McDonalds (which by the way, is at the bottom of my chain quality list).

[phaelon56]

So what I was asking is, does anybody predict a scenario in which enough people will want real food instead of "airline food served on china" that at some point the masses will get fed up with the chains and they'll die out?

←

No. The chains will never die out - at least not in my lifetime (I'm guessing I have abouty another 50 years of life left in me). But I do think a time will come in which some of them will either have to or will choose to evolve interms of their approach.

IMO it's unrealistic to think that chains will suddenly start "buying lcoal" or "cooking seasonally". The economies of scale and centralized distroubtion are among the basic business tenets to which they subscribe and on which their profitability is based.

But I do think some of them may start offering more organic, free range, hormone free etc. etc. etc. offerings.

I also don't think chains are inherently evil. I've eaten at most of them at some point or another and don't care for most of them base simply on my taste if food and cooking styles. But I do recognize when they're doing a good job in relative terms. I live in a town with an abundance of Italian-American red sauce style restaurants. So - why is Carraba's so popular here? It's because the food and service is better than 90% of the independents in the area.

But when it comes to diners.... 90% of our local diners (many of which are not all that great) are as good as Denny's but cheaper.

[Joisey]

--I live in a town with an abundance of Italian-Amercian red sauce style restaurants. So - why is Carraba's so popular here? It's because the food and service is better than 90% of the independents in the area.--

You're from Syracuse, right? When I was there in the mid 90s I used to lament to my friends "how many f'ing bad Italian joints does one town need?" The last straw was a place called "Paysan's" opening...we decided that we were going to open a place called "Goombah's" and do the cliche Italian thing to glorious excess. Sad thing is, it would have been succesful.

[phaelon56]

The bad news is that there are even MORE bad red sauce joints in town now than there were then. Paisan's (I'm sure we're talking about the same place 'cause it did open back around the mid 90's) is close to being the worst of the bunch and they're still in business!

The good news: we have a few newcomers that are actually fairly good - Francesca's Cucina on North Salina and Asti Cafe just down the block from them - and Grimaldi's Luna Park out in netherworld also known as the Carrier Circle Hotel Zone. Luna Park has a talented young chef, a Tuscan influenced menu and, if I recall correctly, the dinner menu has nary a red sauce item on it.

[Daniel]

I would also argue that the Wolfgang Pucks and the California Pizza spots in airports are a hell of a lot better than you give em credit for and while I am in, say O'Hare, I can eat at one of them or I can get a Chicago dog from a cart. (or I

←

You also have Chiles Too in the terminal where Wolfgang's is.. I think Wolfgangs is actually a good thing. For an airport place to have that cool of an oven is impressive.. I normally get a beer and a dog though..

[markk]

I would also argue that the Wolfgang Pucks and the California Pizza spots in airports are a hell of a lot better than you give em credit for

I hope so! I was citing the Hoboken one as an example of possibly the worst chain food I've ever eaten; what was especially amazing about how bad it was is that I was at one of the very first ones (I believe) in a terminal at LAX, and the food was fantastic - fresh tasting, vibrant, good enough to rival lots of "real" restaurants. And yet 15 years later and 3,000 miles away, the one in Hoboken tasted like I remember school cafeteria food. If they're not all terrible, I'm really glad to hear it.

IMO it's unrealistic to think that chains will suddenly start "buying lcoal" or "cooking seasonally".

I agree! So I was wondering, if people start craving that again, will the chains fall out of favor?

The economies of scale and centralized distroubtion are among the basic business tenets to which they subscribe and on which their profitability is based.

Absolutely. And I like that in an appliance store where they're selling inanimate objects. When applied to food, it scares me.

BTW - I've been to Syracuse. I don't think you have worse restaurants there than we have in Hoboken. But if the choice is reduced to those and pre-fab chain food... well, that's scary too. But that wasn't my point. I guess nobody thinks that the chains will fade away.

I also wonder about all the Barnes and Nobles and Bed Baths and Beyond (and LNT's) that are springing up all over. I know they're all the rage now, bu I wonder if years from now those will sit empty and people will be opening restaurants in them.

[ghostrider]

There's a curious little pizza chain out in the heartland called Il Vicino. We stumbled on the one in Clayton MO because it was near our hotel & they were open later than most other places in the area when we needed a late dinner. The pizza was superb, with top-notch ingredients, & the wood-fired oven was all it was cracked up to be. We thought it was a terrific place & returned a couple of nights later.

At the time we thought it was a local place. There was absolutely nothing in the restaurant to indicate that it was a chain; it wasn't until we returned home & I googled it that I realized. I felt like I'd been conned a bit, but that hasn't kept us from going back every time we're in St. Louis; it's still darned good pizza.

With only 8 locations I guess they're a nascent chain right now. Their strategy of hiding their chain-ness is interesting. Do other emergent chains do that? I have no other experience in this arena.

[markk]

There's a curious little pizza chain out in the heartland called Il Vicino. 

At the time we thought it was a local place.  There was absolutely nothing in the restaurant to indicate that it was a chain; it wasn't until we returned home & I googled it that I realized. 

I had the reverse once. I ate a few times at a little place in France whose low prices and extremely cute logo, and mostly the plasticized menus, in a shape that wasn't rectangular, screamed out that it had to be a chain, but it wasn't. It's called Le Baeckeoffe", and in fact it serves 7 varieties of "baeckeoffe", individual pots of differening ingredients (meat, or duck, or chicken, etc.) slow baked under a layer of sliced potatoes, which is a traditional dish. It screamed "chain" but it was not. My subsequent Googling showed that they had wanted to chain it or franchise it, but that never happened. I guess printing the menus like that was the first step. It was good, too.

I think that in the US, when I see a restaurant with any decor or physical traits that had to cost a lot of money (other than a very fancy downtown restaurant, I mean), I just assume it's probably a chain.

[JohnL]

The worst Italian restaurant I ever ate in was in Columbus Ohio.

It was not a chain.

I think that it is pretty clear that the chains will usually lie somewhere in the middle.

That is, they are rarely the worst places but they usually will not reach the top levels.

I also fail to see any valid argument that chain restaurants are destroying the mom and pop businesses. In fact, I would argue that many mom and pop businesses have gone out of business due to factors unrelated to the growth of chains.

I recently posted about a situation in Westchester County (north of NYC) where a local chef with a very successful restaurant opened a fast food place next door. He is offering all natural high quality ingredients--hot dogs, burgers, quesadillas etc and so far has been quite successful. this in the face of competition from every fast food chain as well as other stand alone places. I can list other small stand alone fast food operations that thrive around the area.

The best burger place in Detroit (maybe in the US) is a local place that has been open for decades and continues to thrive.

This flies in the face of claims that small start ups are being quashed by the big guys.

I believe that a conventional wisdom has developed that big is bad (wrong) small is good (also wrong) and anything that can be labeled big, chain, corporate, industrial is immediately deemed evil and not good for America.

And god forbid anyone opens up a place with the intent to make a profit! let's at least acknowledge that one great thing about a capitalist system is profit motivates and spurs competition and actually serves to get rid of bad producers or bad operators and poor quality. ask anyone who lived under other economic systems about food quality and choice. yes, it can perpetuate mediocrity and foster some bad practices but, again, nothing is perfect.

Really, chains and small places can exist together. there is probably more diversity and more quality food available today than ever before. We have Purdue and Tyson but we also have D'atragnan and Eberly, and Murray's and....

In fact, if I want a chicken I probably have more places to go today than in the history of chicken farming in this country--so where is it that the evil empire has squashed all the little high quality start ups?

spices? Penzy's is thriving in the face of the big boys (McCormack etc). there are hundreds of hot sauces out there. Cheese--has Kraft taken over the market? No--today there are literally hundreds of small local artisinal cheese makers all over the country that did not even exist ten years ago.

There are better processes to flash freeze food items and better transportation to deliver items to places that don't produce things locally. there's the internet and mail order so people from all over can order more things.

Mass production has a lot of benefits--even in the area of food--that can not be overlooked.

Is it a panacea? No is it perfect? No. Can it be improved? Yes (and it has been for decades). Do we benefit from small producers, local, sustainable --absolutely. each can learn from the other. we all, benefit.

[misstenacity]

We can talk about our take on the rise & fall of chains, but the consumer spending trends don't lie: Cheesecake Factory still raking it in...

I get the "Restaurant News Resource" RSS feed, and it has interesting info, now and then. Not a bad site if you like to follow these kinds of trends, like Small Kiosks in Large Office Buildings.

Andrea

in Albuquerque, home to NOT ONE Cheesecake Factory, because of this place and their trademark battle: Dee's Cheesecake Factory

[markk]

Now we're getting there. I didn't have an answer when I threw this out for discussion, and a lot of these replies are most helpful!

I had started with what somebody else wrote in another thread: "The chains have saturated all other markets and are now entering the upscale casual / affordable fine dining realm. They are like a giant blob picking off local independants left and right."

I know there are a lot of people who agree with that. Finding out why they think that was my exercise.

I also fail to see any valid argument that chain restaurants are destroying the mom and pop businesses. In fact, I would argue that many mom and pop businesses have gone out of business due to factors unrelated to the growth of chains.

... I can list other small stand alone fast food operations that thrive around the area.

The best burger place in Detroit (maybe in the US) is a local place that has been open for decades and continues to thrive.

This flies in the face of claims that small start ups are being quashed by the big guys.

I'm not questioning that there certainly are small places that are thriving locally. I would think that as in the examples you cite, people are realizing that these small places can, and do offer better food than they can get at the chain down the street.

I'm wondering why that's not widespread. I guess it has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of people prefer the standardized food they get at chains to even the excellent cooking they can get at a mom and pop?

Maybe he meant by "picking off" that when a chain opens somewhere, people flock to it for a while, during which time the small, independent restaurants, unable to wait-out the time till people return to them, go under? Or is it the case that by the numbers, more people in America prefer chain food to great independent foood? Is the economics - the chains have locations that are more visible and more easily accessible, so people are just going there and not seeking out the independent restaurants on a large scale? Are fewer independents giving it a try any more?

Sure, we can have a mixture of some small, independent places, and the chains at the same time, but a lot of people agree with the statement that "It is a sad state of affairs. This problem however is not secluded to nashville, it is a national crisis. The chains have saturated all other markets and are now entering the upscale casual / affordable fine dining realm. They are like a giant blob picking off local independants left and right."

Is that wrong? Are they not picking them off at all?