Showdown in Global Foodservice

Does the U.S. foodservice industry lag behind other countries when it comes to innovation? It’s a question worth considering.

By Patricia B. Dailey, Editor-in-Chief -- Restaurants & Institutions, 6/1/2007

In a ritual as predictable as spring itself, they came to Chicago, pumped up and ready for business-minded missions. A diverse collection of foodservice-industry members were magnetically drawn to the National Restaurant Association Restaurant, Hotel-Motel Show last month. More than 73,000 interested, curious and ultimately foot-sore soldiers trooped the aisles of this annual extravaganza, all invested with different agendas and propositions: to buy, to sell, to see, to instruct, to learn, to trade, to consult, to connect.

This year, McCormick Place’s near-endless maze of corridors seemed marked more by growth-oriented optimism than by any concerns that the foodservice industry is flat, uninspired or limping to a downward slide. Enthusiasm and good humor were orders of the day, and many voices from among a cast of thousands cooed about the show and its brilliant displays of goods and services. Adjectives, superlatives and exclamations—never in short supply—bounced around like a ball and jacks: new, advanced, improved, revolutionary, groundbreaking, exciting, innovative, original, unique, indispensable, bold, original, efficient, economical, energy-saving, business-building, miraculous.

Burbling up from among all the happy talk was at least one quiet whisper of dissent. “Parochial in its thinking” is how researcher-consultant Peter Backman, a London-based visitor to the NRA Show, describes the industry’s doings in the United States. Depending on one’s point of view, this makes Backman a skunk at the U.S. foodservice industry’s garden party or an agent provocateur; either way, his comments beg for at least some measure of critical thought and analysis, especially as the economy moves to an increasingly global position.

Those who live, breathe and love the U.S. foodservice industry—who exist squarely in the middle of this vast $537 billion behemoth—may not have the distance or perspective to dissect or fully hear what Backman is saying: that comparatively speaking, the show seemed narrow in its scope or outlook, even a bit provincial.

Writing in a report to his clients, Backman says that little of what was on display struck him as particularly new or innovative. He speculates as to the reasons: For one, this demonstrates a “flight to safety—if it works why change it.” He also notes that there appeared to be little that was genuinely groundbreaking or new; the products already had been seen in the European marketplace.

“If I was giving advice to U.S. companies—and I am,” he writes, “I would say: have a look at Europe. They are doing imaginative things well over there.”

It’s easy enough to pan critics, to summarily dismiss critical words as narrow, ill-wrought or not really invested with any essential truth. But strip away the deeply entrenched belief that the U.S. industry always will continue to dominate and lead and then take another look around. There may be great lessons to glean from far-distant ports.