Topic: Entitlement Mentality - page 4. (Read 11684 times)
Business culture, company culture, as in, "We don't bake our buns on site, we put our burgers under heat lamps, we don't think it's important to train our employees how to mop the floors, we don't think fresh unfrozen ingredients are important, we do franchises, etc."
It's a culture thing. McDonald's just can't visualize anything that isn't McDonald's like.
Also completely false. McDonald's has changed many times over the years, and experiments with new restaurants and culture constantly. You heard of Roy Rogers restaurants? Those are McDonald's owned. How about Chipotle, which started the awesome high quality burrito trend that was also copied by BajaFresh? Guess who you have to thank for Chipotles? Yep, McDonald'a.
Ummm, no. I've seen McDonald's way of cooking and menu for over forty years. Not many changes there.
Doesn't McDonald's serve stuff like fried insects in some Asian countries? I'm pretty sure they feature culture-specific food at many international locations.
Culture, as in this case, doesn't refer to the community, but the way of thinking by the business.
I think both cultural contexts are implicated in what I said. There's the community culture (i.e. insects are popular to eat in some areas), and there's also the way of thinking about business in terms of cultural trends (e.g. your 'burrito trend' example vs. my 'insect trend' example).
It's a culture thing. McDonald's just can't visualize anything that isn't McDonald's like.
Also completely false. McDonald's has changed many times over the years, and experiments with new restaurants and culture constantly. You heard of Roy Rogers restaurants? Those are McDonald's owned. How about Chipotle, which started the awesome high quality burrito trend that was also copied by BajaFresh? Guess who you have to thank for Chipotles? Yep, McDonald'a.
Ummm, no. I've seen McDonald's way of cooking and menu for over forty years. Not many changes there.
Doesn't McDonald's serve stuff like fried insects in some Asian countries? I'm pretty sure they feature culture-specific food at many international locations.
Culture, as in this case, doesn't refer to the community, but the way of thinking by the business.
It's a culture thing. McDonald's just can't visualize anything that isn't McDonald's like.
Also completely false. McDonald's has changed many times over the years, and experiments with new restaurants and culture constantly. You heard of Roy Rogers restaurants? Those are McDonald's owned. How about Chipotle, which started the awesome high quality burrito trend that was also copied by BajaFresh? Guess who you have to thank for Chipotles? Yep, McDonald'a.
To be fair, McDonalds did have a problem a few years ago where their race for the bottom had driven away a lot of customers to the point where they were starting to have issues. I think this was also an issue for Hardees and, more recently, Dominoes. The incentive in many large companies is to cut costs because that produces returns *right now* and customers get lost later after all the bonuses are handed out.
McDonalds has looked at automation. But the truth is by the time you have an expensive engineer to look after the machinery, the downtime it takes for him to get there when things break, his travel costs, the cost of someone to watch things to guard against vandalism, you may as well pass some aprons and a spatula to a trio of spotty teenagers and cross your fingers that the place doesn't burn down while they're out-back smoking pot.
Doesn't McDonald's serve stuff like fried insects in some Asian countries? I'm pretty sure they feature culture-specific food at many international locations.
They have the McKroket (based on a meat croquette) over here in NL.
It's the McDonalds product I consume the most. Since I otherwise prefer the Burger King burgers.
It's a culture thing. McDonald's just can't visualize anything that isn't McDonald's like.
Also completely false. McDonald's has changed many times over the years, and experiments with new restaurants and culture constantly. You heard of Roy Rogers restaurants? Those are McDonald's owned. How about Chipotle, which started the awesome high quality burrito trend that was also copied by BajaFresh? Guess who you have to thank for Chipotles? Yep, McDonald'a.
Ummm, no. I've seen McDonald's way of cooking and menu for over forty years. Not many changes there.
Doesn't McDonald's serve stuff like fried insects in some Asian countries? I'm pretty sure they feature culture-specific food at many international locations.
It's a culture thing. McDonald's just can't visualize anything that isn't McDonald's like.
Also completely false. McDonald's has changed many times over the years, and experiments with new restaurants and culture constantly. You heard of Roy Rogers restaurants? Those are McDonald's owned. How about Chipotle, which started the awesome high quality burrito trend that was also copied by BajaFresh? Guess who you have to thank for Chipotles? Yep, McDonald'a.
Ummm, no. I've seen McDonald's way of cooking and menu for over forty years. Not many changes there.
Because In-n-Out focuses on profitability, excellent food, and excellent service, within a framework that pays reasonable wages. Maybe if McDonalds focused on being profitable while paying better wages and offering better food, they too would have a more sophisticated and thoughtful expansion plan.
You're not claiming that In-n-Out profits > McDonald's profits, are you?
Per store, definitely.
Quote
Quote
Regarding trying recipes: they're clueless.
Why do you say that? McDonald's has their own university devoted to researching and creating new recipes (among other things), and hires top chefs to create and test foods in their experimental restaurants around the country. What does In-n-Out do that's not "clueless" that McDonald's doesn't?
Do you have a memory problem?
http://consumerist.com/2011/06/30/science-confirms-in-n-out-burger-is-the-best-and-mcdonalds-the-worst/
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/02/in-n-out-v-mcdonalds-which-burger-chain-has-been-deemed-superior/
http://voices.yahoo.com/in-n-out-vs-mcdonalds-337393.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2009/01/28/in-n-out-burger-vs-mcdonalds-guess-who-won/
Quote
Quote
Regarding locations: ask yourself why In-n-Out's very crowded restaurants do not drive away customers.
The same reason some restaurants can have waiting times of 15 minutes before they get seated: people are willing to wait for something special. In-n-Out essentially has a monopoly on In-n-Out burgers, but are getting screwed on fast food competition in general.
They're not getting screwed at all. How funny.
Quote
Quote
Also, as I've said, they're employing more employees per store, so it's not as if In-n-Out is employing less employees per region.
How many McDonalds restaurants are in your city and state compared to In-n-Out restaurants? If there are twice as many, In-n-Out better be employing twice as many people outer store. I suspect it's 10 times as many stores though. At least.
I just googled three cities: the ratios are 3:1 and 3:2 and 3:2.
An average of 9:5 then?
It's a culture thing. McDonald's just can't visualize anything that isn't McDonald's like.
Also completely false. McDonald's has changed many times over the years, and experiments with new restaurants and culture constantly. You heard of Roy Rogers restaurants? Those are McDonald's owned. How about Chipotle, which started the awesome high quality burrito trend that was also copied by BajaFresh? Guess who you have to thank for Chipotles? Yep, McDonald'a.
I already explained that to you. The first thing they need to do is get better recipes and cooking methods. Then cut stores, which cuts real estate costs. With better recipes and and less stores, they'll attract the customers from the removed stores to the remaining stores, bringing in more revenue per store.
A large proportion of McDonalds are franchises. I can't find an exact proportion but in the UK, it's 50% so likely higher here. That means employees are paid by the franchise owner and McDonalds makes money regardless of the profitability. McDonalds doesn't have much of an incentive to close branches or improve the product or workflow. Many franchise owners are making less than their employees (I have known of some directly). Now, they might be able to go-it-alone, trim the workflow and provide better food but people will still flock to the craptacular McDonalds that pops up next door five minutes after.
Good luck to In-n-Out though. If they have a good business plan, they'll surely succeed and I would welcome a better eating experience. I haven't eaten McDonalds in so long I can't remember.
Here's the question you might want to ask yourself:
If the minimum wage rose $3.00 or $4.00, how would it affect the profitability of McDonald's vs. In-n-Out? Is McDonald's able to survive a minimum wage increase? Is their business model that fragile?
If the minimum wage rose $3.00 or $4.00, how would it affect the profitability of McDonald's vs. In-n-Out? Is McDonald's able to survive a minimum wage increase? Is their business model that fragile?
It would force many McDonald's in poorer areas to close down, because they would no longer be able to afford to operate. I did mention that different McD's restaurants in different areas charge different prices, right? The effect would be similar to dropping an In-n-Out into a poor urban area. It'd go out of business in no time.
Because In-n-Out focuses on profitability, excellent food, and excellent service, within a framework that pays reasonable wages. Maybe if McDonalds focused on being profitable while paying better wages and offering better food, they too would have a more sophisticated and thoughtful expansion plan.
You're not claiming that In-n-Out profits > McDonald's profits, are you?
Quote
Regarding trying recipes: they're clueless.
Why do you say that? McDonald's has their own university devoted to researching and creating new recipes (among other things), and hires top chefs to create and test foods in their experimental restaurants around the country. What does In-n-Out do that's not "clueless" that McDonald's doesn't?
Quote
Regarding locations: ask yourself why In-n-Out's very crowded restaurants do not drive away customers.
The same reason some restaurants can have waiting times of 15 minutes before they get seated: people are willing to wait for something special. In-n-Out essentially has a monopoly on In-n-Out burgers, but are getting screwed on fast food competition in general.
Quote
Also, as I've said, they're employing more employees per store, so it's not as if In-n-Out is employing less employees per region.
How many McDonalds restaurants are in your city and state compared to In-n-Out restaurants? If there are twice as many, In-n-Out better be employing twice as many people outer store. I suspect it's 10 times as many stores though. At least.
Who would say no to better working conditions and better wages? Is that fair or is it also entitlement mentality to think like that?
Of course that's fair. But since In-n-Out is focusing of quality instead of cheap jobs, they may not have jobs available for you, meaning you'd have no option but McDonald's.
Low wage fast food joints tend to have a high employee turn over. Because everyone who can get a better job will quit the moment they find one.
Would it be fair for you to make an offer to In-n-Out to work for less than what they are currently paying their employees, in the hopes of getting one of their employees jobs?
Well that sometimes happens. There was a story in the papers over here today about interns offering their services for free because they had difficulty getting a paid internship and desperately needed the work experience for their education.
I disagree. I think that it's the antithesis of "surviving." It's only "surviving" if it works (i.e. strikes lead to wage increases which allow significant improvements in ones quality of life).
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the last time McDonald's workers went on strike in Chicago, they received a 10 cent raise. This means that if they went on strike for even a single day, it would take nearly 3 months of full-time work for that 10 cent wage increase to earn them back their lost wages from that one day.
I wouldn't call that "surviving." I'd call it horrible risk analysis.
I have a hard time blaming them trying to get better work conditions. It's a way to increase the pressure on the employer so they can use this as a negotiation tool.
I agree that 15$/hour for flipping burgers is a lot, but it doesn't excuse the ridiculous minimum wage of 7.25$. Our minimum wage is 10.15$CAD (rate is almost 1:1) just across the border up north and McDonald prices are still decent. You're getting a nice plate of bullshit from the fast-food corporations right now.
It's about finding a balance and right now, looking at this with my outsiders goggles, I think you're crushing your economy by letting the employers get all the entitlements. Unions are a GREAT way to bring back the money at the bottom of the pyramid when it's stuck at the top. Sure, too much unions is not better, but right now, you would strongly benefit to counter the effects of "too much capitalism" that your country is plagued with.
Here's the question you might want to ask yourself:
If the minimum wage rose $3.00 or $4.00, how would it affect the profitability of McDonald's vs. In-n-Out? Is McDonald's able to survive a minimum wage increase? Is their business model that fragile?
If the minimum wage rose $3.00 or $4.00, how would it affect the profitability of McDonald's vs. In-n-Out? Is McDonald's able to survive a minimum wage increase? Is their business model that fragile?
Because In-n-Out focuses on profitability, excellent food, and excellent service, within a framework that pays reasonable wages. Maybe if McDonalds focused on being profitable while paying better wages and offering better food, they too would have a more sophisticated and thoughtful expansion plan.
Regarding trying recipes: they're clueless.
Regarding locations: ask yourself why In-n-Out's very crowded restaurants do not drive away customers.
Also, as I've said, they're employing more employees per store, so it's not as if In-n-Out is employing less employees per region.
McDonald's is a franchise. How many employees per store there are is not the McDonald's company's choice. Even if an individual McDonald's makes no money, the company still profits in the end off of that establishment.
And all businesses focus on profits, but some (like McD's) make more than others.
So?
Who would say no to better working conditions and better wages? Is that fair or is it also entitlement mentality to think like that?
Of course that's fair. But since In-n-Out is focusing of quality instead of cheap jobs, they may not have jobs available for you, meaning you'd have no option but McDonald's.
Would it be fair for you to make an offer to In-n-Out to work for less than what they currently pay their employees, in the hopes of getting one of their employees jobs, which you said is better?
McDonald's had (and has) an opportunity to create a business model like that of In-n-Out. The result would be no price change for customers buying lunch, no fewer employees (due to reasons outlined in my last post), and very possibly increased profitability as well.
It's a culture thing. McDonald's just can't visualize anything that isn't McDonald's like.
Because In-n-Out focuses on profitability, excellent food, and excellent service, within a framework that pays reasonable wages. Maybe if McDonalds focused on being profitable while paying better wages and offering better food, they too would have a more sophisticated and thoughtful expansion plan.
Regarding trying recipes: they're clueless.
Regarding locations: ask yourself why In-n-Out's very crowded restaurants do not drive away customers.
Also, as I've said, they're employing more employees per store, so it's not as if In-n-Out is employing less employees per region.
McDonald's is a franchise. How many employees per store there are is not the McDonald's company's choice. Even if an individual McDonald's makes no money, the company still profits in the end off of that establishment.
And all businesses focus on profits, but some (like McD's) make more than others.
Who would say no to better working conditions and better wages? Is that fair or is it also entitlement mentality to think like that?
Of course that's fair. But since In-n-Out is focusing of quality instead of cheap jobs, they may not have jobs available for you, meaning you'd have no option but McDonald's.
Would it be fair for you to make an offer to In-n-Out to work for less than what they are currently paying their employees, in the hopes of getting one of their employees jobs?
The first thing they need to do is get better recipes and cooking methods.
They did/do, all the time, by trying new recipe. Recently they had Angus Deluxe burgers, but those were dropped. All that does though is raise costs, not cut them, and likely for a lower marginal profit increase. For example, apparently adding superior Angus Deluxe burgers didn't increase their profits, so your idea of superior recipes and cooking methods didn't work.
Quote
Then cut stores, which cuts real estate costs.
Cut wages from minimum to zero? Tell franchise investors who sunk millions into their own restaurant that they should accept their losses, pack up, and leave?
Quote
With better recipes and and less stores, they'll attract the customers from the removed stores to the remaining stores, bringing in more revenue per store.
Maybe. They tried recipes, but those don't always work. And they do close unprofitable locations sometimes, but if one restaurant even make $1 in profit, why close it? You're thinking that if A gets X customers, and B gets Y customers, then if you close A, then B will get X + Y customers. But that's simply not true. B may not have the capacity to handle all new customers, and long lines will drive them away, and customers who bought from A location may find B's location inconvenient. And, of course, less jobs for locals.
Quote
This is exactly what In-n-Out does: half the stores as McDonalds per area, yet more customers per store, because their food is so good.
If it's so great, how come McDonald's is all over the world, and In-n-Out is only in your area?
Because In-n-Out focuses on profitability, excellent food, and excellent service, within a framework that pays reasonable wages. Maybe if McDonalds focused on being profitable while paying better wages and offering better food, they too would have a more sophisticated and thoughtful expansion plan.
Regarding trying recipes: they're clueless.
Regarding locations: ask yourself why In-n-Out's very crowded restaurants do not drive away customers.
Also, as I've said, they're employing more employees per store, so it's not as if In-n-Out is employing less employees per region.
Jump to: