Marketers, Retailers to Feel Sting of Consumer Paycheck Pinch

January 29, 2013

012113-air-jordan-graphicAs payroll taxes rise, the middle and lower classes will spend less at stores—and the corner bar.

Already moody from the uneven economic recovery, consumers are about to get a lot grumpier. The first pay period of the year ushered in higher Social Security taxes, which are expected to suck more than $1 billion from spending in 2013, presenting marketers with yet another challenge as they seek to pry precious dollars from shoppers.

Paychecks began shrinking Jan. 1, when the tax rate jumped to 6.2% from 4.2%, ending a temporary break that began in 2011. For a household making $50,000 a year, that means a loss of about $83 a month, or $1,000 a year. The payroll tax applies only to wages up to $113,700. Various analysts have projected anywhere from a $113 billion to $120 billion hit to the economy, with most agreeing the keenest pain will be felt in the first quarter as consumers adjust. IHS Global Insight cited the higher taxes when lowering its first-quarter consumer-spending growth projection to 1.4% from 2.6%.

For the middle and lower classes, “any hit to their income will affect their spending patterns,” said Greg Daco, an IHS Global economist, adding that consumers could shell out less for groceries, clothing, toys and more. “They are going to, wherever possible, limit their spending to essentials if their budgets are tight.”

For industries that rely on spending from blue-collar workers, the hit could not come at a worse time. Look no further than the corner bar, where beer sales had begun to stabilize after a multiyear slump thanks to the decreasing unemployment rate. But in the fourth quarter, as fears rose of higher taxes and the fiscal cliff, sales slumped again. The number of beers sold at bars and restaurants in the quarter fell 2%, compared to a modest 0.5% drop in the first nine months of the year, according to GuestMetrics, which tracks the hospitality industry.

“The initial sticker shock of having your paycheck go down will affect beer demand,” especially in the first quarter, said Harry Schuhmacher, editor of Beer Business Daily. As a result, marketers will face more pressure to keep sales steady with effective ads and in-store marketing, he said. “There’s going to be a real big focus on retail execution—getting big displays out there,” he said. “Beer is not going to be on the grocery list. So to overcome that, they’ve got to generate impulse buys.”

In a report last week, Bernstein Research stated that the tax hike will hurt middle-and-upper income consumers the most because low-income households typically derive a share of income from nonwage sources such as government assistance. As such, Bernstein projected that discount retailers, such as dollar stores and Walmart, will be insulated and might even stand to benefit as consumers trade down. But department, general-merchandise, apparel and home-furnishing stores face higher risks, Bernstein stated, citing marketers such as Target, Best Buy and Williams-Sonoma.

Morgan Stanley took a slightly different view, saying that marketers catering to lower-income households will suffer the most. In a report last month, it projected that the tax hike would decrease “discretionary-spending capability” by 6% for people who make less than $40,000, noting that “most households at this level spend all that is available to them.” As a result, Morgan Stanley projected headwinds for retailers that cater to the teen market, such as Aeropostale, as well as restaurants that target the low end, including KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Domino’s and McDonald’s. This might explain the rash of value-oriented marketing in the sector of late. “Many consumers will be faced with making hard choices about where to eat and how much they have to spend at restaurants,” said Darren Tristano, exec VP at Technomic, a restaurant consultant.

Conversely, packaged-food brands could benefit as people eat at home more often. That was the case when the recession took hold in 2008, noted Todd Hale, Nielsen’s senior VP of Consumer & Shopper Insights. “I would expect that we are going to see some return to that, but not completely, because things are not as dire as they were back then.” But in the short term, at least, shopping patterns are likely to change. Sales of private-label products—which have been relatively flat—could rise some, Mr. Hale said. Also, consumers, at least for a little while, might use more coupons after cutting back on them last year as the economy rebounded, he said.

The question is how much of the tax-rate hit will be blunted by positive factors, such as the improving unemployment rate, rising housing market and fairly stable gas prices. David French, senior VP-government relations of the National Retail Federation, noted that when the tax cut was put in place two years ago, the organization’s members did not report much of a boost largely because of higher energy costs, which ate up the new consumer cash. “Today, ironically, we kind of have a mirror-image situation: As the tax cut has lapsed, energy prices have fallen,” he said. The tax hike, he said, is “probably going to be somewhat lost in the wash of other economic factors.”

Either that, or consumers are about to take marketers to the cleaners.


Technomic Presents First-Ever Chain Restaurant Consumers’ Choice Awards

January 28, 2013

consumers_choice_award_140x148NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — Technomic presented the winners of its first-ever Chain Restaurant Consumers’ Choice Awards on Jan. 16 at the Consumer Trends & Directions Conference in Newport Beach, Calif. Consumers themselves selected the winners, the company said.

Technomic asked consumers to rate 115 restaurant chains on more than 60 different attributes as part of its comprehensive Consumer Restaurant Brand Metrics program, which records 80,000 consumer visits annually. The Chain Restaurant Consumers’ Choice Award-winners were selected based on analysis of consumer ratings in four key areas: food and beverage, service, atmosphere and brand image. The winners are:

  • Service
    Quick Service: Chick-fil-A
    Fast Casual: Firehouse Subs Full Service: Outback Steakhouse
  • Food & Beverage
    Quick Service: Culver’s ButterBurgers & Frozen Custard
    Fast Casual: McAlister’s Deli
    Full Service: Cracker Barrel Old Country Store
  • Atmosphere
    Quick Service: Caribou Coffee
    Fast Casual: Panera Bread Co.
    Full Service: LongHorn Steakhouse
  • Brand Image
    Quick Service: Jamba Juice
    Fast Casual: Qdoba Mexican Grill
    Full Service: Red Robin Gourmet Burgers

“Technomic is pleased to recognize these leading chains for their success at satisfying customers,” stated Technomic Executive Vice President Darren Tristano . “But it’s important to point out that it’s the consumers who rated the chains and selected the winners. In essence, this award is from the customers themselves.”


Income Influences Patronage and Attitudes

October 18, 2012

High-income consumers not only use foodservice more often than lower-income consumers do, they also have a different set of demands.

Consumers’ household income—particularly as it relates to their disposable income—strongly impacts many areas of their life, including where they live, where and how they shop, their daily priorities and intrinsic motivations—essentially their overall lifestyle.

Wealth also influences how and why consumers use foodservice. High-income consumers are about twice as likely as lower-income consumers to use foodservice at least once a week, making them an important demographic for the industry. However, it would be remiss to not examine patronage and purchasing decisions among middle- and lower-income groups to determine how to build incremental sales with these consumers as well.

Technomic’s recent Influence of Income Consumer Trend Report polled consumers of all stripes, then broke them down into Working, Lower-Middle, Upper-Middle and Affluent income groups.

  • Working—Generally consumers who earn an annual household income of $34,999 or less. Those earning up to $44,999 were also included in this group if their household size was larger than two individuals. Those in high-cost areas such as major cities were also included in this group if they earned up to $54,999 and had an even larger household size of three or more individuals.
  • Lower Middle—Consumers who report an annual household income of roughly $45,000 to $74,999. Consumers with even lower income ranges, such as those earning $35,000–$44,999, were included in this group if they lived in a low cost-of-living area or if their households included just themselves or one other individual.
  • Upper Middle—Generally consumers who earn $85,000–$104,999 annually. Those in smaller households, or in lower cost of living areas such as rural, suburban or small city areas, were included in this group as long as they reported an income of at least $65,000–$84,999.
  • Affluent—Generally consumers who report an annual household income of roughly $125,000 or more. Consumers who live by themselves and earn $105,000–$124,999 were also included in this group, while households in this income bracket but with a larger household size or in higher cost of living areas fell into the Upper-Middle income group.

Foodservice Patronage

Affluence is tied to greater foodservice usage; nearly twice as many Affluent consumers as those in the Working group use foodservice more than once a week. Wealthier consumers also source a greater portion of their meals away from home than lower-income consumers, with the greatest gap at lunch. On average, more than two-fifths of Affluent consumers’ lunches, compared to just a third of Working consumers’ lunches, are purchased at restaurants.

Base: 2,000 consumers aged 18+
Source: The Influence of Income Consumer Trend Report

The fact that away from home lunch purchases vary so widely based on consumers’ level of affluence speaks to the importance consumers place on convenient foodservice options at lunch, and a preference to source lunch from restaurants regularly if they can afford to do so. Many lower-income consumers likely can’t afford to purchase food away from home for lunch as often as their higher-income counterparts, choosing to eat at home or bring meals from home more often. Operators may be able to increase incremental traffic and sales at lunch by varying their menus to offer options for consumers on a tight budget. This could be through options that provide greater value, such as combos, or items that are offered at absolute low price points, such as value meals. However, when doing so, operators will want to be sure that these items do not cause core customers to trade down from their usual, higher-priced offerings.

Takeout and delivery usage skews to lower-income consumers, while a significantly greater proportion of meals purchased by Affluent consumers are for dine-in. Consumers with a higher disposable income are also more likely to use technology such as a cell phones or smartphones to place their takeout and delivery orders.

Different Priorities

Low prices are the highest priority for Working and Lower-Middle income groups when choosing a limited-service restaurant for dine-in occasions, while Affluent consumers place greater importance on a convenient location. Low prices are also more important to lower-income groups than higher-income groups at full-service locations, as the chart illustrates.

Affluent consumers place a higher priority on convenience of location than any other income group, for both limited- and full-service restaurant occasions. This data suggests that lower-income consumers sometimes need to go out of their way for the low-cost items they seek, while higher-income consumers are willing and able to pay higher prices to visit a convenient location.

Base: 952 consumers aged 18+ who dine in at these locations
Source: The Influence of Income Consumer Trend Report

Consumers with different levels of affluence cope with time constraints in different ways; lower-income consumers are more willing to trade health for convenience, while higher-income consumers are more likely to multi-task during meals and eat on the go.

Slightly more Affluent than Working consumers say an appealing taste and the use of fresh ingredients are important for limited-service dine-in occasions, suggesting that, to some degree, lower-income consumers associate these qualities with higher prices. Lower-income consumers may assume to some extent that taste and freshness cost more, and as a result likely rate it lower because of their priority on low prices. Meanwhile, for full-service dine-in occasions, Affluent consumers emphasize taste and freshness, while lower-income consumers are more likely than higher-income consumers to place a high level of importance on menu variety.

Higher-income consumers are more likely to seek restaurant recommendations from friends and family; a third of Affluent consumers, compared to a fifth of Working consumers, say they often ask for such recommendations. Higher-income consumers are also significantly more likely than lower-income consumers to utilize computers and smartphones to research restaurant menus online. And twice as many Affluent than Working consumers say they often consult online review sites and blogs when choosing a restaurant.

Priorities do not always differ by income group. Two out of three consumers overall agree that order accuracy and food that tastes just as good as for dine-in are highly important for takeout and delivery occasions; the fact that there are few significant skews by income indicates that these are must-haves for takeout occasions regardless of consumers’ level of affluence.

A Change in Attitude

Just half of Affluent consumers, versus three-fifths of Working consumers, view eating out at full-service restaurants as a special treat. This indicates a significant difference between Affluent and Working consumers’ perceptions and motivations for dining at full-service restaurants. Working consumers have tighter budgets and do not visit full-service restaurants as frequently as Affluent consumers, which is likely why lower-income consumers view these occasions as special events.

Additionally, more than a quarter of Affluent consumers, compared to just a tenth of Working and Lower-Middle consumers, say they eat out at restaurants more frequently than they prepare food at home, confirming that Affluent consumers have a high reliance on and preference for restaurant meals.

Base: 898 (a special treat) and 934 (whenever I want to) consumers aged 18+; responses were randomly rotated
Respondents indicated their opinion on a scale of 1–6 where 6 = agree completely and 1 = disagree completely
Source: The Influence of Income Consumer Trend Report

Wealthy consumers also appear to use restaurants to a greater extent than lower-income consumers as a place to socialize. Seven out of 10 Upper-Middle income-group consumers, and just three-fifths of Working and Lower-Middle consumers, say restaurants are a great place to get together with friends.

Although few consumers actively follow restaurants through social media, those who do are most likely to be from Upper-Middle and Affluent households. Facebook, the leading social media site consumers use to connect with restaurants, appeals to consumers from all levels of wealth. However, Twitter and Groupon, in particular, are used regularly by Affluent consumers.

Two-fifths of Affluent consumers, compared to a quarter of Working consumers, say they prefer restaurants with new or innovative menus, suggesting that unique offerings may help attract higher-income consumers. Several ethnic cuisines, including Japanese, Spanish, Greek and Thai, are especially appealing to Affluent consumers.

Base: 914 (willing to try new foods) and 933 (new or innovative flavors) consumers aged 18+; responses were randomly rotated
Respondents indicated their opinion on a scale of 1–6 where 6 = agree completely and 1 = disagree completely
Source: The Influence of Income Consumer Trend Report

Key Takeaways

Consumers’ level of affluence strongly impacts when and how they use restaurants, and it would be easy to focus on these frequent diners. But while they are very important to the foodservice industry because of their high patronage, they account for just a small proportion of consumers. Therefore, it is important for operators to consider their lower-income customers as well.

Understanding the preferences of consumers at different income levels is key to developing strategies that meet the various needs of consumers, regardless of income.

Darren Tristano is Executive Vice President of Technomic Inc., a Chicago-based foodservice consultancy and research firm. Since 1993, he has led the development of Technomic’s Information Services division and directed multiple aspects of the firm’s operations. For more information, visit www.technomic.com.


Burgers and Blueberries?

May 8, 2012

They don’t like to admit it, but today’s consumers are still influenced by advertising perceptions. Key marketing terms can drive those perceptions toward better-for-you emotional drivers, craveability and real attitude and usage trends.

Recently, Burger King launched their “Fresh Menu,” which adds several new items including salads, premium chicken tenders and smoothies. McDonald’s recent earnings report indicates that the focused and increased effort by Burger King toward this new and fresh promotion has allowed them to gain some share from McDonald’s and has given Burger King some renewed momentum. 

McDonald’s, on the other hand, has been promoting a more “wholesome” menu and recently added “sweet, plump, fresh blueberries by the bushel” to their menu promotions. They are combined with crunchy walnuts, real banana and two full servings of whole grains in Blueberry Banana Nut Oatmeal, and with yogurt and granola—“a half cup of dairy and a full serving of whole grains”—in the Blueberry Yogurt Crunch. The effort shows an emphasis on more healthful offerings combining seasonal berries with “low-fat” yogurt and the “wholesome crunch of granola.”

Although these efforts may only have a small impact on consumer menu choices, these brands are providing the important alternatives that give consumers better options when dining away-from-home. 

This may be a small step, but nonetheless, a step in the right direction.

McDonald's Blueberry Ad (English)

 

McDonald's Blueberry advertisement (Español)


Capturing Lunch and Dinner Customers

April 23, 2012

John Lofstock | Apr 06, 2012

When it comes to foodservice, convenience store operators must develop the expertise to make smart choices and deliver winning mealtime solutions.

 People need food, and convenience stores need people to like their food, which is why keeping lunch and dinner menus fresh, new and exciting is so important.

The food itself is the key point of differentiation for anyone in the foodservice business. Keeping menus fresh requires innovation and a keen eye for new products and emerging consumer trends.

“I think everybody likes variety, at lunch especially,” said Rick Yost, operations manager for Dead River Convenience Stores in Rockport, Maine. “You may get a guy two or three days a week for lunch and he’s not going to want to eat the same cheeseburger two or three times, so it’s important to have a variety.”

Dead River stores offer a standard, core food menu, but the company also gives store deli managers the latitude to add as many as five items on top of those that they feel will appeal to local tastes. There is, Yost pointed out, sufficient geographic diversity to make such flexibility critical to success.

“The optional five items rotate in and out,” Yost noted. “My stores are far apart and we have some coastal region locations that do a lot of lobsters rolls and things like that in the summertime. Then we also have some mountain-based stores where there are a lot of snowmobilers and skiers. They’ll do a lot of chili-type items in the wintertime, which aren’t necessarily big sellers in the stores along the beaches, but they’ll do well there. That’s where that kind of menu diversity is crucial.”

Tracking the Trends

Yost and his Dead River colleagues keep their fingers on the pulse of Americans’ ever-shifting food preferences by studying the retail market and interacting with consumers.

When it comes to identifying new products and food trends, suppliers are also a good source for information. “As long as it’s a two-way street where suppliers are feeding us accurate trending data and not trying to simply sell us something, we will always listen to what they have to offer,” Yost said.

Among the trends Dead River is seeing in its New England markets for the lunch daypart is a surge in Mexican foods, such as mini tacos and burritos. At dinner, customers are seeking value meals and more bundling.

“People are looking for more full meals,” Yost said. “It used to be our entire dinner menu consisted solely of pizza. Now we offer a Chester’s Chicken program in a lot of stores, with an eight-piece meal that comes with potatoes and other side dishes. It’s really a replacement meal, an alternative to the QSRs out there.”

The Dead River menu has expanded over the past two years to include several varieties of lasagna, spaghetti and chicken. “These are the alternative, full-service meals that are providing our strongest growth to date,” Yost said.

This coming summer, Dead River will once again be focusing on meal replacement items. As such, the company is placing a greater emphasis on desserts, such as smoothies and bakery items. “Customers like to end meals with an indulgence. We have found that when we have bundled these items together with a fresh meal, sales have been strong, so we will continue to focus on this growing demand.

Seeking Value

One trend that relates equally to the lunch and dinner dayparts is the move toward value offerings, including both dollar menus and combo meals, according to Kelly Weikel, consumer research manager for Chicago-based research and consulting firm Technomic Inc.

“I think that as more c-stores compete to take business from QSRs and fast-casual restaurants they will take a page from these locations and start offering more value menus—this will also be relevant to the snacking category—and pushing more combo meals that bundle an entrée, side and beverage at lunch,” Weikel said.

Additionally, as the quality perception of c-store foods increases, the industry will become a more viable choice for consumers at dinner. Since their positioning is centered on convenience, Weikel reasoned, and because other retailers are actively pushing them, this could mean more family-style bundles offered at dinner.

Indeed, in October 2011 a Technomic survey polled 500 c-store customers who purchase foodservice items at least every six months at a convenience store about value meals and dollar menus in a c-store setting. To ensure that consumers understood the difference between these two types of value offerings when responding, value meals and dollar menus were discussed separately and clearly defined.

Consumers not only agree that value offerings are appropriate at convenience stores, many have come to expect them and say such offerings influence them to visit c-stores instead of fast-food restaurants, Technomic found. Many customers reported they expect to see value meals (44%) and dollar menus (50%) at c-stores.

Despite the fact that value menus are a fast-food staple, Technomic research suggested more consumers (54%) expect fast-food restaurants to offer dollar menus. More importantly, most consumers said value meals (55%) and dollar menus (54%) can influence them to visit c-stores instead of fast-food restaurants, Technomic reported.

While both types of value offerings are about equally likely to drive traffic and help c-stores compete with fast-food restaurants, the data relating to consumer expectations indicated that consumers think value or dollar menus could be effective in a c-store setting.

Among the overall c-store trends Weikel identified are:

• A focus on stealing business from both quick-serve and fast-casual restaurant operators.

• Continued emphasis on quality,   freshness,  health and made-to-order foods.

• A growing need to cater to Hispanic consumers, especially with snacks and desserts.

• The expansion of private-label brands to offset a weak economy.

• C-store consumers will push for more adult beverages, specialty/high-quality coffees.

Boosting Meal Occasions

Technomic, which tracks and analyzes all retail segments that serve food and beverages, reported in January that over the past year, 40% of consumers have cut back on away-from-home dinner purchases, largely because they have less money to spend on dining out. This makes it more important than ever that c-stores combine quality with value. If they can deliver on these promises, the industry has a real opportunity to steal customers from other foodservice segments.

When weighing dine-out options, today’s consumers are more likely to choose restaurants based on the availability of frequent diner programs. As a result of consumers’ decrease in away-from-home dinner purchases, it is vital for operators and suppliers to stay on top of dinner and late-night trends, such as combo meals, smaller portions or shareable items, in order to more effectively identify opportunities of growth.

“It’s imperative for operators to recognize the importance of today’s value equation,” said Darren Tristano, Technomic’s executive vice president. “Drawing dinner and late-night traffic now means exploring new ways to underscore value beyond low prices. Operators may be able to boost dinner sales by strengthening their overall value with other pricing strategies, such as specials or combo meals.”

Technomic researchers have also found average unit volumes for c-stores offering prepared food and dispensed beverages jumped to more than $136,000 in 2011, up from $123,000 in 2007. The growth rates were based on approximately the same number of stores offering foodservice, indicating operators are becoming better at foodservice expansion and execution.

Overall, Technomic reported, c-store foodservice grew to $11.5 billion in 2011 (from $10.2 billion in 2007), based largely on the expansion of foodservice items, additional stores adding foodservice and more foodservice experience.


Popular eateries thrive in area

April 12, 2012

By Amanda McElfresh. 28 March 2012

The Daily Advertiser

(c) Copyright 2012, The Daily Advertiser. All Rights Reserved.

Four chains, including one based in Louisiana, are among the top 10 fastest-growing restaurant companies in the country, according to a new study that measures the industry’s growth.

Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers, with headquarters in Baton Rouge, came in eighth on the list with sales of $206 million in 2011, statistics from the consulting firm Technomic Inc. showed. That was an 18.2 percent increase in sales from 2010.

Also making the list were Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwich Shop, which came in third with sales of $895 million, a year-over-year increase of 21.8 percent. The restaurant opened its first Lafayette location on Johnston Street last year.

Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar was seventh, with sales of more than $2 billion, a 20.1 percent increase. Another wing specialty restaurant, Wingstop, rounded out the top 10 with sales of $382 million, a year-over-year increase of 14.7 percent. Both have locations on Ambassador Caffery Parkway.

The top fastest-growing chain, Five Guys Burgers and Fries, had sales of $951 million last year. That was a 32.8 percent increase over 2010. The restaurant plans to open its first Lafayette location later this year.

“The common theme in fastest-growing chains is both fast-casual in limited service and contemporary (dining), and more upscale casual dining restaurants that demonstrate higher consumer appeal and strong unit economic models driving unit growth and expansion,” said Darren Tristano, executive vice president of Technomic.

Raising Cane’s stands out because of its limited menu, which features only chicken fingers, cole slaw, Texas toast and French fries. That focus is deliberate and allows the company to put an emphasis on strong quality, said company spokesperson Julie Perrault.

“The concept has always worked for us. The reason why we’ve been so successful is our focus is so narrow, and I think that is unique in the restaurant industry,” Perrault said. “When people want chicken fingers, they want Cane’s. We will always look into considering other things, but for the time being, we really focus on what we do and that ‘one love’ philosophy.”

Tristano said the restaurant’s strategy and vibe also are contributing to its growth.

“Their culture had energy and appeal, and their contemporary, fast-casual, dine-in format and value-driven price point give them strong growth opportunity in the market with a differentiated concept,” he said.

Raising Cane’s now has three Lafayette locations, and Perrault said the community has embraced the chain since it opened its first location on West Congress Street.

“It’s always been a huge area of support for us, and we’ve been proud to support a lot of community efforts and (UL),” she said.

Lafayette’s popularity with top chains may be attributed to its population growth and the fact that it is home to thousands of individuals from various demographic segments.

“Chains generally look for demographic alignment with consumers that are representative of their customer base,” Tristano said. “Many of the chains we list are aligned very broadly across many consumer demographics with an emphasis on quality food, experience and attractive price points.”

Top Ten

The 10 fastest-growing restaurant chains and estimated 2011 sales

1. Five Guys Burgers and Fries, $951 million

2. Chipotle Mexican Grill, $2.2 billion

3. Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwich Shop, $895 million

4. Yard House, $262 million

5. Firehouse Subs, $285 million

6. BJ’s Restaurant and Brewhouse, $621 million

7. Buffalo Wild Wings Grill and Bar, $2 billion

8. Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers, $206 million

9. Noodles and Company, $300 million

10. Wingstop, $382 million

Source: Technomic Inc.

Gannett Co., Inc. – Newspaper Division


Broth-Based Beverage Boon?

April 4, 2012

Some restaurant operators are beginning to redefine the traditional “cup of soup.” With the growth in fast casual and on-the-go consumers’ continued need for convenience and portability, servings of soup are now moving from spoon to drinkable containers. Broth-based soups have found their way on to several menus.

Fast-casual growth chain Freshii offers a spicy lemongrass, classic chicken and 100% vegetable broth served in a collared coffee cup to go.

Lettuce Entertain You chain Wow Bao offers Thai Herb Broth infused with fresh ginger and lemongrass which can be carried and sipped like a cup of tea.

These soup beverages are low in calories and priced between $1.29 and $2.29 providing consumers with a bell-warming, hot cup of comfort with a price and calorie count that is easy to stomach!


Investing snapshot: Cosi Inc. — How does Cosi fare in the growing fast-casual restaurant space?

April 3, 2012

Investing snapshot: Cosi Inc.

Investing snapshot: Cosi Inc. — How does Cosi fare in the growing fast-casual restaurant space?

By Kristin Samuelson, Chicago Tribune reporter

The player: Cosi Inc. (COSI)

Exchange: Nasdaq

Headquarters: Deerfield

Revenue: $75.9 million for the first nine months of 2011, down from $84.3 million a year earlier, when sales of 13 company-owned restaurants and closures accounted for $8.4 million.

52-week stock range: $1.45/56 cents

Friday’s close: $1.02

Key business: Incorporated in 1998, this fast-casual restaurant specializes in freshly baked flatbread and signature Squagels and serves soups, sandwiches, salads, pizza, coffee, beer and wine.

By the numbers: About 2,000 employees and 80 company-owned and 56 franchised restaurants in 17 U.S. states, the District of Columbia and the United Arab Emirates.
Fourth-quarter earnings release: 3 p.m. March 29

The scoop

  • The Nasdaq on Aug. 23 threatened Cosi with delisting because its share price had been less than $1 for 30 days, and it gave the company until Feb. 21 to close above that for 10 straight trading days. Cosi regained compliance Feb. 17.
  •  Cosi Chief Executive James Hyatt resigned Aug. 23. In December, Carin Stutz, whose experience includes executive stints at the parent of Chili’s and Maggiano’s, Applebee’s International Inc. and Wendy’s International, took over.
  • Activist investor Brad Blum, who helped turn around Olive Garden in the mid-1990s, was CEO of Burger King Holdings Inc. and Romano’s Macaroni Grill, and whose Blum Growth Fund LLC has a 6.8 percent stake in the company, has developed a better relationship with Stutz than he had with interim CEO Mark Demilio.

The buzz

RJ Hottovy, senior restaurant analyst at Chicago-based Morningstar Inc., said “the fast-casual space has been the sweet spot of the overall restaurant industry over the past several years,” citing its superior quality to fast food at reasonable prices.

And though he does not cover Cosi, he said it has not kept up with the biggest players, Chipotle and Panera Bread, because it cannot match their quality, peak hours output and consistency.
“The assembly-line production that Chipotle and Panera, for the most part, operate, I think that’s where Cosi has really struggled,” Hottovy said. “Chipotle and Panera have done a good job of standardizing the experience. It’s a different ordering process every time you walk into a Cosi.”

Darren Tristano, executive vice president at Chicago-based food research and consultancy Technomic, said he hopes Cosi will benefit from the expanding bakery cafe segment of fast casual.
“Brands like Panera not only compete with Cosi, but build a (consumer) need for brands like Cosi” by developing awareness of this type of restaurant, Tristano said.
Tristano added that Cosi has “quality food … they just haven’t delivered the number many investors are looking for.

“(Cosi is) not well capitalized to be able to aggressively invest in the brand,” Tristano said. “Most other bakery cafes have been adding net units, which means they’ve opened more units than they’ve closed.”

But Tristano likes developments such as the shift in leadership that “might breathe some new life into the organization,” especially the positioning of Blum, who has a formal consulting role with the company.

View the full article on chicagotribune.com


Leveraging Today’s Value Mindset – M&C Report

April 2, 2012

Leveraging Today's Value Mindset

Leveraging Today’s Value Mindset

Consumers are more reliant on value than ever before, and the definition of value has grown beyond simply price to include many elements of the dining occasion.

Each consumer’s interpretation of his or her personal economic situation is rarely static, so how they choose to spend hard-earned discretionary dollars is always changing as well. Unfortunately, one category of discretionary expenditures that can quickly be adjusted is restaurant use. In uncertain times, people modify what they spend during each visit or even reduce the number of restaurant visits. Yet at the same time, they still crave restaurant food and the social experience of dining out.

Given this consumer mindset, how do concepts formulate a winning business strategy?

Defining the New Value Equation
Consumers indicate that individual restaurant success depends on the ability to create, communicate and deliver value. However, the definition of value is not simple and straightforward. The precise meaning varies not only from person to person, but even within a single individual, depending on the specific meal occasion and what he or she expects during that visit.

In a general way, value can be broken down to an equation: value = (menu + experience) / price.

However, consumers weigh menu, experience and price attributes in different ways. For example, some demographic differences appear when looking at the importance levels that consumers give restaurant touchpoints or attributes.

Technomic’s Consumer Restaurant Brand Metrics—an ongoing program that gathers consumer feedback on 55 different attributes that capture a restaurant experience, from the quality of the food to the reputation of the brand—represents 1,000 nationally representative consumers and more than 25,000 restaurant visits.

We selected 10 attributes that represent the key elements of the value equation: price, menu and experience, and analyzed consumers’ importance ratings by age and income. The attributes that rose to the top in almost every instance were food taste/flavor, pleasant service and good value through low prices.

However, different age groups do not rate these attributes equally. While each cohort rates food taste as very important (or a top two box on a scale of 1 to 5), almost all of those age 55 and older (97%) say it is important, while about 95% of those 35–54 and 90% of those 18–34 say the same. Likewise, the data indicates the older the consumer, the more apt he or she is to say that pleasant service is important.
Those in different income groups also do not rate the top attributes equally. Again, each group rates food taste, pleasant service and price value as the most important. They rank them in that order, too, except those who earn less than $25,000, who rank good value through low prices before pleasant service.

Consumers with a household income between $50,000 and $99,999 rate the importance of each of these attributes higher than those in other income levels, followed closely by those in the $25,000–$49,999 group. If a concept is courting these customers, it must be sure to execute well on all of these attributes.

Value Tactics
Many restaurants communicate value price-point perceptions, simply aiming to show that their price is better than their competitors’. Examples include value menus, such as the Dollar Menu at McDonald’s and Taco Bell’s overall pricing strategy, and daily specials such as Hooters’ Wingsday Wednesday, when the $8.99 platter of its signature item is $5.99. Similarly, offering large portions, as they do at The Cheesecake Factory and Maggiano’s Little Italy, can communicate value. All-you-can-eat options have a similar appeal.

Other ways to indicate that a restaurant or menu item is “worth it” is to offer a unique flavor (as at fast-casual Mexican chain La Salsa, whose limited-time Green Chile Chicken Burrito highlights an ingredient that adds an authentic Southwestern appeal), a sense of indulgence (such as Kenny’s Burger Joint’s Naughty Mommy, with Stoli Strawberry, Navan vanilla cognac, amaretto, cheesecake, strawberry and vanilla ice cream) or an element that is considered premium (for instance, those that include high-end brands such as Ghirardelli or Crown Royal or people with a reputation for excellence such as Wolfgang Puck).

Consumers are looking to do more in less time, and their value definition is often grounded in minutes and even seconds. At some restaurants, including In-N-Out and Chipotle units, employees use hand-held technology to take orders. Customers then pay and receive their orders when they reach the window or counter. At Cracker Barrel, a prominent chalk board displays menu items that can be prepared and served in just a few minutes. Likewise, restaurants are adding value by offering portable menu items with sound packaging, separate registers and grab-and-go cases, and online and mobile ordering.

Restaurants that focus on the overall experience create value by showing customers they have nothing to worry about over the course of their dining occasion. Marketing messages tend to focus on how the guest will feel, and examples of food, hospitality and ambiance are mixed in to reinforce that commitment. A good example is Bonefish Grill, whose marketing features upscale touchpoints like a chef in his white jacket presenting delicious-looking food to cozy couples and groups of friends.

Similarly, restaurants ranging from family-style eatery Egg & I to high-end steakhouse Capitol Grille have positioned themselves to offer businesses and community groups a quiet and private space for meetings.

Recommended Roadmap
Restaurants use literally hundreds of interesting value strategies and tactics. However, not every method will be right for every operation. With that in mind, we propose these steps as a roadmap to determining which strategies are worth trying.

Analyze menu pricing and portion sizes against competitors. Keep in mind that the competition does not simply include, say, those that serve the same type of menu. McDonald’s competition includes Burger King and Wendy’s, of course, but it might also look at Subway, Starbucks and even the local convenience store.

Know your target market. As the Consumer Restaurant Brand Metrics data above reveal, different customers rank some attributes higher than others. Beyond age and income, gender also plays a role in restaurant attribute priorities, as do region, population density, ethnic background, whether there are kids involved—the list goes on.

Ask your current customers what they want. This can take any of several forms, including quantitative surveys to determine price flexibility and asking how they use brand and the competition; facilitated focus groups to gain qualitative insights; secondary research from a reputable firm; outreach to email contacts and social media networks; and simply watching and talking to guests in the restaurant.

Identify opportunities to provide value. Use the examples in this article and pay attention to how value is communicated in other concepts to both analyze the competition and spark new ideas. Market your efforts using the attributes and brand-use drivers that your customers find important.

Key Takeaway
Studying your competition, target audience and current customers will enable you to broaden your view of “value” and what it means to consumers. Your company can then address whether it should follow the pack and develop a value message similar to what the majority of operators are using or aim to create a differentiated message using some value strategies that are used less often. The execution may be more challenging than a tried-and-true method, but the results may be increased customer traffic and long-term bottom-line improvement.

Darren Tristano is Executive Vice President of Technomic Inc., a Chicago-based foodservice consultancy and research firm. Since 1993, he has led the development of Technomic’s Information Services division and directed multiple aspects of the firm’s operations. For more information, visit http://www.technomic.com.

This article came from a print version of M&C Report


Burger King Does Their Homework, Gives Customers What They Want?

April 2, 2012

Burger King launches 10 new menu items in an effort to regain share and increase unit sales. The menu items include a new home-style snack wrap, salads, smoothies and frappe coffees. 

BK has done their homework and the conclusion is:

  • Contemporize restaurants – Update and remodel tired, aging stores
  • Improve packaging – use more contemporary cardboard cartons vs. wrappers
  • Change server uniforms to be more modern
  • Provide customers with the same choices they enjoy at McDonalds

Although these changes may not lead to a rapid turnaround for the burger giant, it certainly is a giant step in the right direction. 

After all, it has often been said that “sometimes the best ideas are borrowed” and “imitation is the greatest form of flattery”. 

We’ll have to wait and see if  this “me-too strategy” works…

Burger King New Menu Items


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 72 other followers