Chain Restaurants-

[JohnL]

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.

←

Am I missing something?

Australia has some 32 fast food chains which originated there in addition to all the international chains.

KFC alone has about 600 outlets which given the fact that Australia has one of the lowest population densities in the world is pretty interesting.

The facts seem to belie these conclusions.

[JohnL]

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 see a problem in the comparisons in this thread.

I think most would agree that there are good chains and bad chains, good independents and bad ones.

However, we seem to be creating an ideal situation and applying it to small independent restaurants. That is a restaurant run as a stand alone endeavor where the owners are dedicated to offering high quality, locally produced, fresh ingredients skillfully prepared at reasonable prices etc.

The truth is most of these restaurants do not fit this description. The large majority of independent restaurants that could be compared to national or regional chains are not the perfect places we seem to be envisioning. To be fair, one should compare MacDonald's or BK to the typical local hamburger place (not the ideal one). make that comparison against one of the better chains (maybe Fuddruckers or Fat Burger etc) and the typical local joint starts to look even worse. that's the other problem--most want to compare that paradigm small independent to the worst chains. To be fair try the comparison to the best of the chains!

I would suggest that quality, price and consistency involve trade offs but do not have to be mutually exclusive.

If anything, there is room for local restaurants that do offer better fresher products and better cooking etc the trade off will usually be price but if reasonable these places should (and do) thrive. The chains aren't "choking" off these operations.

I also do not see the point being made about Syracuse and Nashville these are test markets because their demographics represent those marketers are seeking nationwide. Columbus Ohio is a key test market among others, I am not sure what additional criteria a fast food or chain marketer requires. I know Syracuse is a test market for a number of products (not just fast food).

Show me any country of 300 million people and equivalent geographical size with a vast highway system and the constant movement of large numbers of the populace and I will show you a country with a well developed fast food/chain restaurant system.

Edited February 7, 2007 by JohnL (log)

[markk]

Are we talking fast food? Airline food? Upscale chains?

No, not fast food actually. I accept the trade-off that in return for being able to drive through and be handed a bag of food that can be assembled from the time I place the order at one window and pick it up at the next, I'm not going to have a chef whip me up a meal.

We're talking sit-down restaurants that aren't fastfood places; I guess I'll give as a criterion a place that has servers and printed menus. If they then bring me what amounts to "arline food" on a plate, this is my problem.

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

The only way I can answer that is by reverse-example.

I keep thining of Bonefish Grill. Every dish on their menu is made with four or five "sauces" - gloopy, cloying things with what I consider to be strange consistencies. I can't say for sure whether these are made at one central plant and shipped to the locations in huge containers, but if they're making them at each place, they must be using something like a precise chemical formula, because they're frighteningly identical from place to place.

And putting these 'sauces' over, or in things, comprises all their offerings. The other day I called to ask their specials, and there was one that sounded different, so when I asked for a description of it, they told me "it's really just grilled swordfish with a combination of our 'lime-tomato-garlic' sauce and our 'pan-Asian' sauce.

So to me, this isn't really "cooking". Do not get me wrong here: the second time I had to go to a Bonefish, I asked them to omit these sauces. The server said "Well, if we leave them out of the mussels, you're just going to get a bowl of mussels steamed with white wine!" They agreed to throw a little chopped garlic in with it, which they had, and what do you know - it was great. As for my swordfish, they grilled a piece really well, and gave me a wedge of lemon, and with a sprinkle of salt, it too was delicious. I'm not saying that you can't make a meal out of some of these places.

But since they're primarily staffed by people with no culinary training or talent, just people assembling ingredients on a plate following a laminated, illustrated photo-tutorial poster hanging in the kitchen, I'm not calling them "real" restaurants.

And I'm wondering if their popularity and omnipresence is discouraging chefs and cooks around the country from opening their own places. Maybe the independent places we have that are horrible, as you say, are because nobody who could do better is willing to take the financial risk any more of opening a "real" restaurant? With a chain restaurant every few hundred feet now, and perishability of ingredients being what it is, maybe startup restaurants can't get enough business soon enough to stay in business until they make it through and onto the radar? Maybe most of the country just prefers "airline food" on a plate when they go out to eat?

[Mallet]

Where does Starwich fit?

[larrylee]

Speaking of chains... MSN is running this piece called Pig-out Picks.

When the nation’s unofficial food police, the folks at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, evaluated popular restaurant dishes such as fettuccine Alfredo (“heart attack on a plate”) and Kung Pao chicken (“more than a day’s worth of salt”), the results made headlines and turned heads. But—how does that saying go?—you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

[Kent D]

Speaking of chains... MSN is running this piece called Pig-out Picks.

When the nation’s unofficial food police, the folks at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, evaluated popular restaurant dishes such as fettuccine Alfredo (“heart attack on a plate”) and Kung Pao chicken (“more than a day’s worth of salt”), the results made headlines and turned heads. But—how does that saying go?—you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

←

Ugh -- after reading those examples, I may never eat out again. 2,000+ calories, 150 gms of fat, 3,000mg of sodium -- those restaurants should, at the very least, be required to give a warning and ask you to sign a waiver before serving those entrees. Just so you know what you're doing to yourself.

[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.

←

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.

←

Am I missing something?

Australia has some 32 fast food chains which originated there in addition to all the international chains.

KFC alone has about 600 outlets which given the fact that Australia has one of the lowest population densities in the world is pretty interesting.

The facts seem to belie these conclusions.

←

Sure, there are a lot of fast food chains in Australia. I was talking about mid range chains of which I can barely think of any. Sizzler's was here a few years ago but has all but shut down, I think there are a few Hard Rock cafes and something else but nothing on the level of Ruby Tuesday or TGIF.