have
Is this just a (fairly successful) one-day or one-week publicity stunt? Their official tweet only mentioned a “letter flip” on June 11th. Not a permanent name change. Right?
The “b” is for burgers.
For a place the specializes in pancakes, the inability to get maple syrup there is bewildering.
Right. To expand on that slightly, it’s a marketing gimmick to promote their Ultimate Steakburger. They aren’t seriously going to change the signs on like 2000 restaurants. It’s to get people talking about the chain, with some success I guess minus the part about people assuming the ‘b’ is breakfast.
International house of boobies? :dubious:
It’s confirmed. B for burgers. Only a marketing ploy. Nearly all locations will remain IHOP.
IHOP reveals the mystery of IHOb
Didn’t they already have a burger? I know they offer several plate dinners.
I only order from the breakfast menu. Time of day doesn’t matter. I never saw the point in making a trip to IHOP for anything else.
It’s like asking for a burger at a seafood restaurant. They may sell burgers but it seems wrong.
I’m pretty sure they’ve always had some kind of burger on the menu. I’ve been out many times where my companion wants breakfast and I’ve already got my mind set on lunch, so it makes sense to have other things besides breakfast food. Not enough sense to make such a big, stupid campaign about it though.
Looking at the new logo, I was wondering why they were selling tampons
And now that I’ve googled, I see that I am not alone.
Their new burgers remind me of the ones Dairy Queen has offered for years. No idea why they’d be going after that market.
Wendy’s tweets
I love Wendy’s Twitter account.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a burger from IHOP before. I rarely get pancakes there, for that matter. When I go there, I’m in the mood for their mushroom and spinach omelet, which is covered in Hollandaise sauce. Mmm!
Talking about it, yes. Actually getting anyone to make a trip to IHOP to try out their burgers? Not so sure.
A maxim I’ve read states that when a company changes its name from something specific or from the name of the founder to something generic, that is the time to sell your shares.
Isn’t that an acquisition?
An acquisition followed by a rebranding. Rebranding isn’t automatic or mandatory, and it still poses the same problems or risks.
That’s generally used as an example of a terrible business decision. Boston Chicken was a second tier chain known for serving chicken. The company was growing well and its stock price was high.
Then it changed its name in 1995. The name change cost the company a lot of money. But it didn’t result in new business. In fact, they lost customers who were looking for chicken without gaining new customers looking for something else. Worst of all, they took a hit on their stock prices and the company’s finances were structured in a way that depended on maintaining high stock prices.
The company declared bankruptcy in 1997 and was bought up by McDonalds at a discount price.
“Gnosh” is a nice encompassing word. They should be “International House Of Gnosh”. They would certainly draw the biker crowd.
The Coke people will screw around on the margins but it’s always Coke and Coca-Cola, it’s always that color of red, and the script logo has looked more or less like that since World War II. They ain’t changing the brand that MATTERS.
Changing a well known brand’s name always comes off as either rank stupidity or a desperation move. There must be an example of it working but I cannot think of a single one. Lots of well known brands are on their second name - Sony wasn’t always called that, for instance, but it wasn’t well known until after it was Sony.
I guess WWF becoming WWE worked out.
Burger King weighed in too - with a modified logo that said “Pancake King”.
Competitors having fun.