Choice of Consumers

By Patricia Dailey, Editor-in-Chief -- Restaurants & Institutions, 9/1/2004

Baseball statistics, class rankings and election results are endowed with numerical precision that makes them quick to read and easy to analyze. High scores connote winners while all the others—no matter how closely they trail or how good they really are—are relegated to also-ran status, existing in shadows cast by greater accomplishments.

That same sense of order helps shed light on why all the charts that accompany the Consumers’ Choice in Chains coverage (see p. 48) are so compulsively readable and compelling. Glance down a column of numbers and a capsule summary of the chain industry as viewed through the eyes of its patrons quickly emerges. Answers to the most basic, yet ultimately most important questions—which restaurant brands have the best food, service, value and menu variety—are easily plucked from the tables. And by some tellings, the data are irrefutable, the final tallies having settled the game. Those with highest scores will bask in the victory, commending themselves for jobs well done, while others will growl and gnash their teeth before deciding on action plans.

A peek behind the dynamics of gathering the numbers suggests that maybe it’s not quite as simple as all that. As each segment’s winning chains savor the thrill, it might be helpful to insert a small cautionary note in amongst the champagne toasts. Chains that fall further down the list can find their consolation as well, a constructive way to view some of the information.

Though they call into play a lifetime of past experiences, perceptions and opinions, all polls are freeze-frames, measures of a moment in time. Choice in Chains results, though rich in rock-solid data, reflect responses of patrons that may or may not be the chain’s most loyal users, its coveted core audience. And although nearly every basic business book puts forth the adages that all customers are equal and they’re always right, neither is entirely true.

There are a multitude of possible reasons a diner selects one restaurant over another and some actually are make sense: the food is tasty, the servers friendly, the bill affordable and reflective of good value. But the determinant also could have been a parking space in front, the amount of available cash or lack of other options. In other words, not everyone who walks through a restaurant’s door is there because they think it’s a great place. Should they happen to be polled, their evaluations of the brand likely would be different than those of a loyal user.

Likewise, some brands have cult-like status that engenders unshakable devotion from its patrons that may be hard to figure for the uninitiated (think White Castle).

Most any score can be improved upon, made better through focused, well-aligned actions. A useful starting point is an honest assessment of the chain’s targeted consumers—the audience for which it shapes the message and aims its efforts. In the end, it is their choices that matter the most.