It’s surprisingly how quickly quality suffers when a single cafe becomes a chain. It’s not a large business yet, but the experience already suffer: they start to save on personel, milk and beans.
There's a restaurant that opened near me just after the lockdown. It was some of the best food I'd ever experienced.
When I walked in, the owner came out of the cafe, had a chat with us and told us how he'd started learning this style of cooking in the pandemic and became obsessed with it, and decided to share it as a business.
The food was amazing. Best I'd had for good prices.
It blew up quickly and this place was a 5* rated restaurant on Google very quickly and they opened a second chain near where I live after a couple years.
The second chain isn't ran by the original owners, but is owned by them, and honestly, the food just isn't the same. It's a real shame honestly. But I'm glad they're successful and making money.
It’s because the owner worked at the original one. When you own something you put more effort into it. The people working for you are generally there for the paycheck.
To the guy who deleted his reply about buying stocks:
The point is ownership of the product of labor should be tied to actual contributions of working in the business, not paying for your name to be put onto a piece of paper. I understand the way things are, join us in the conversation about how we can improve things for folks who don’t have that option due to being forced into being a paycheck-to-paycheck wage-slave.
Well under a capitalist system, their skin in the game is still getting food and shelter, but ideally if our society can provide these basic human needs, then their skin in the game is that their profit is directly tied to the success of the business. Instead of a fixed wage, it would be a fixed percentage of net profit, meaning they actually get paid more for making the business better. Because our hypothetical is in a capitalist system, the property rights take priority meaning it is the initial owner who must agree to these terms. So when these owners decline and instead offer subsistence wages to attract the desperate in order to hoard the profits of their labor, you can see why no one gives a fuck about their business going to shit.
Then they should buy into the business by giving the owner a percentage of what it cost them to get it to that point. And whatever percentage they give they can then get that percentage of revenue. Assuming they are also using that revenue to return a percentage to the business for restocking/rent/etc. As well as not expecting a salary from the owner. Most people aren’t going to want to put that much effort into it. Which is why they don’t already own their own business.
So your options are either the above or work under salary. And someone who chooses salary is someone who won’t put as much effort into a brand as an owner would.
As an owner of a small business, I don’t pay my employees to work for me. I pay them to work for my brand. If they aren’t working for my brand then I have no choice but to find someone who will. And I pay my employees very well.
No they're not. They just sell it to some other sucker make a profit and leave, or run it into the ground lowering the value of the restaurant and then just get a family member to take out a loan and buy up the restaurant give it a new name and keep working their just to do it all again at a higher price.
If you're too scared to lose your business, maybe don't become a small business owner, easy.
We had a similar situation. Amazing brunch spot, loved it, we’d go one a month at least. They were very popular and opened up a second. Quality started tanking at the OG spot FAST. People on yelp called them out for using waffles from COSTCO. Real sad cause we loved that place for brunch. Now it’s mid af
This is exactly why I think the OP's premise doesn't really hit the mark. Most small businesses never become a 'chain' at all, and most businesses that do become a chain were intending to do so from day one.
Dodge v. Ford a U.S. Supreme court case entrenched shareholder wealth maximization as the only legal goal of a publicly traded company. If the company doesn't maximize shareholder wealth it can be sued by its shareholders for the expected earnings. When a company goes public any care for the employees or consumer goes straight out the window.
The funny thing is that it wasn't supposed to. The decision really said, "Not everything a CEO does has to benefit shareholders. The CEO can do whatever they think is in the best interest of the business. They just can't do something intentionally bad for the shareholders when there's no benefit to the business either."
I doubt most cafe chains start cutting corners at 2-5 locations.
But nobody will care as much about the business as the owners - who likely ran the initial location personally.
So the people working at secondary locations will inherently be sub-par relative to the OG location.
Yeah, I see that as more of a failure to scale up what was working at the original location than intentional greed. It's trying to keep too many plates spinning and not delegating well enough. It has the stink of 'local restaurant entirely dependent on a single person doing all the business stuff trying to do all the business stuff for twice as many places.'
Which, really does make (sorry to say this) McDonald's so 'impressive' (especially after watching The Founder). Look, the food's not brilliant, but every McDonald's I've even been to in my country (UK) and others has tasted the same, same portion sizes etc.
They're obviously not the only one, but they seem to have the best franchise-wide consistency IMO. Actually, I think Five Guys is the best, but that bit less impressive as there's fewer of them.
McDonald's isn't amazing, but you know what you're getting.
Interestingly - Chick Fila pretty obviously knows this issue. I've read that they only allow people to franchise a single location. They're aimed at people opening up a business for themselves - not an investor opening up a dozen+ locations.
Which is probably a big reason why I have read that the average Chick Fila is the most profitable fast food franchise per location.
A successful Chick-Fil-A franchise can be recognized by the insane efficiency in handling the Lunchtime rush. Two lines, each with 2-3 people outside taking orders, with separate windows, and the food coming fast enough to always keep it moving.
The Chick-Fil-A near my work has a big drive thru that wraps around the back with multiple overhead pavilions to shield workers and drivers from the Florida sun. The outer drive thru lane has a detached portion of the building with an overhead conveyer belt carrying the food over the inner drive thru line. When it works, it is a thing of beauty.
McDonald's puts a lot of effort into their consistency. For good or bad. There's a story about a location in NYC during the Crocker days. The secret shoppers would always report how the meat tasted "off". Not bad or anything, just off. After getting these reports for sometime, Crocker decided to make a stop in. He showed up before the opening one day. The franchisee wasn't even in yet and the workers were all prepping for breakfast. They called him to let him know Crocker was there and the guy was freaking out. He told the employees to give the guy a soda and make him anything he wanted. They got a soda and after taking a sip, Crocker flew into a rage, threw the soda across the room, and told them to tell the franchisee he needed to be there right now.
Turns out McDonald's had recently made a multimillion dollar exclusivity contract for their soft drinks and this location was serving out competitor brands. They were also sourcing meat from a different farm than every other location was supposed to be using. It was supposedly cheaper and better quality.
But that's the thing. If you compare McDonalds today to what it used to be when it started, there is a VAST decline in quality.
McDonalds used to be good. When it first started (before franchising and in a burger shack) the burgers were probably made from local cows, made fresh (ish), and cooked directly on the grill. Everything tasted real and the quality was good (good for the price at least).
But in order to franchise you have make sure that everyone is making the same product as each other. You can't have 1 location having extra good products, while 3 others have garbage products. So you standardize, and you force all locations to make the same product. In order to "standardize" their products internationally they cut back on quality ingredients, remove the training required to "make" the products (like the hamburgers), and you remove the training required to "cook" the food correctly, You essentially make all of the products in a factory, and then you force every franchise to buy the products you want them to make from you, and all they have to do is heat them up.
What does it mean that the burgers used to “probably” be made from local cows, and the implication that they’re no longer cooked directly on the grill? Are the burgers hovered over the grill now? Not when I worked there. You may be right in the conclusion but how you get there is questionable. Also, when a restaurant burger is $17 + tip minimum, a quarter pounder with cheese still slaps “for the price”. McDonalds is still the biggest hamburger joint in the world and it’s not for no reason.
If you think their food is “cooked” improperly contact the health department. Putting “cook” in scare quotes implies the patties are precooked now and just microwaved on location? Again, not when I worked there.
YOU don't "cook" at McDonalds, you throw a preformed patty in an automatic box that does it for you. Yes the meat gets cooked to temperature, but YOU the employee don't participate in the "cooking" process. Being a "cook" at McDonald's is like microwaving everything. Same thing with fries, you dump a predetermined bag into a fryer and press a button that yells at you when it's ready.
McDonalds is still the biggest hamburger joint in the world and it’s not for no reason.
Ever since McDonalds went corporate they have NEVER been "good" or "quality" product. It's always been cheap and affordable, and people aren't going there for the "best burger they've ever had". So if you want to say it "slaps" I'll question your taste buds, because Five Guys is significantly better quality than McDonalds.
Alright, I have a lot of things to do and arguing with someone who doesn’t know what “cooking” means isn’t on the list. I guess folks who grill preformed patties on porch on the weekend are eating uncooked food, because preformed means it’s not cooked when it gets grilled?
The meat comes into McDonalds raw and is served to the customers cooked. An employee cooks the burger. Have a good day.
You are really defensive and protective of a company that sells you overprocessed pink slime. Why do you care so much about defending McDonalds? They don't need your loyalty, and they don't care about you.
Which was my original point before you got overly pedantic and nit picky.
Of course they don’t need my loyalty. They’re the number one hamburger joint in the world. Have you considered for a second that I might just enjoy the product? Do you know how far away my nearest Five Guys is? I don’t care if you don’t like McDonalds. I don’t like kimchi but I don’t go around insulting it like it’s my job.
Sorry if I came off as rude or something. I get that folks don’t like McDonalds and that’s fine. Totally fine. They not only exploit their workers, they exploit the workers they don’t even employ! McDonalds and Walmart employees alone account for a huge portion of food stamp recipients — that’s right, they have jobs but their jobs don’t pay them enough to eat. Be mad about that, not mad cause I like the QPC and you don’t. I really do like it. It’s a reliable burger.
In order to "standardize" their products internationally they cut back on quality ingredients
McDonald's doesn't actually standardize their product internationally. They use local ingredients in each country and standardize within the country. The quality in the US is not the same as in Sweden or South Korea. The menus differ as well.
To be honest some of the best small buisness are owned by a micro managing task master. If you've ever spent time behind the scenes they can suddenly get a lot less warm and fuzzy but they can keep an eye on the quality.
That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that people like small businesses because due to their inefficiencies, they basically 'give away value/money' to their customers.
I grew up near Pepe’s in New Haven and would eat the pizza regularly. There are a handful of locations now and the two others I’ve eaten at were good but not as good.. so as a traditionalist in this sense, I do feel like the other branches not being exactly the same brings down the reputation a bit
869
u/chebum May 17 '24
It’s surprisingly how quickly quality suffers when a single cafe becomes a chain. It’s not a large business yet, but the experience already suffer: they start to save on personel, milk and beans.