I read an article about the early McDonald’s and they sound great: they made the fries on site, they brought in fresh meat for the burgers and they had big windows where people could watch the kitchen. They were clean places where you could grab a burger and fries. In fact, they sound a lot like 5 Guys and Shake Shack that they are now losing business to. Ironically, 5 Guys is now struggling because it’s become so big it can’t maintain the quality.
I just don’t think you can have a massive restaurant chain and be turning out appealing food. Giant food conglomerate and wholesome are at odds with one another.
A lot of the vitamins in vegetables are absorbed better when eaten with a little fat. Now, granted, it’s possible to overdo the dressing, and Americans being Americans, we often do so. But there’s nothing inherently unhealthy about salad dressing in moderation.
Dick’s, a small chain of half a dozen or so in Seattle, is probably the closest thing I’ve encountered to what McDonald’s must have been like 50 or so years ago. Limited menu (a basic 1/8 pound hamburger pretty identical to McDonalds’ , cheeseburger, ‘special’ burger with mayo, lettuce, and pickle, and double-patty version of the special with or without cheese), one size of fries, drinks, and ice cream. The burgers and fries are all pre-made and sit under a hot lamp before being served, you get your order instantly after paying for it, they don’t take special orders, and cups of ketchup/mustard/onions are 5 cents apiece. The kitchen is visible and you can watch the cooks do their thing while you’re in line (and there’s always a line), and they use fresh ingredients and real ice cream.
Everything about the place has pretty much been frozen in time since the late '60s, which can be either a good thing or a bad thing depending on who you ask and how drunk they are when you ask them.
In-N-Out Burger also sounds like what those early McDonald’s restaurants might have been like. So perhaps that’s one option for a McDonald’s revival; open restaurants with a stripped-down menu of just burgers, fries, soda and shakes. No McRib sandwich, no Egg McMuffin, no Filet-O-Fish, etc. And there might be retro appeal in building ones like this old one from 1953.
American fast food restaurants in Korea and China tweak their selections for local tastes: less meat, differet types of meat than we get, burgers with sausage links and whatnot. A Chinese McD’s had pies with some weird local fruit that, to my Western palate, tasted like cigarette butts. KFC China has dinners that include rice dishes instead of mashed potatoes, or offer single battered shrimp. Pizza Hut in China is very different from America’s; it’s fancy enough that an adult would bring a date there. It’s worth noting that China McDonalds had a tainted beef scandal right when I first moved there and for several months the meatiest thing they sold was a fish sandwich. Business was off a bit, but Chipotle should have been so lucky. KFC in Japan sells beer and wine.
Paris, of course, has swell-looking McDonalds units, but–unlike my town in China–they also had enough really good local fare that I was never tempted to go in and try a “grand royal.”
If McDonald’s ever does go upscale, I would hope that they would have Ruby Tuesday’s style burgers and salad bars. Remember when Kenny Rogers and Roy Rogers had swell roasted chicken dinners for about five bucks? Man, I wish that was still available!
I’ve always thought that McDonald’s could make (even more) boatloads of money if they offered two types of fries. They can have their “regular” current fries, but also their “old fashioned” fried in beef tallow fries. Put whatever warnings they need, and put in bold letters that they aren’t health food but I’m old enough to remember them and as good as the current ones are when hot, the old ones were heads and shoulders above them.
Wasn’t legislation passed which prevented McDonalds from serving a downscaled menu in the US? Out of health concerns, they were mandated to present a more well-rounded, nutritional selection of items.
If so, that could explain the rise of competitors (like Five Guys) in recent years. Simply, they aren’t bound to the same requirements, and so McD’s simply can’t legally compete. But, the market wanted what the market wanted, so the law has been effectively circumvented.
I hadn’t heard that, and I’d be very surprised if it were the case; how can legislation be passed to require something of one private company but not its competitors?
It looks like there was a bill which was threatened or passed which would have forced restaurants with more than 20 location to post nutrition info. This seems largely to be a response to the Supersize Me film.
There’s no way of knowing whether this was under threat, viewed as a marketing gimmick, or even a happy and benevolent act by them. But it is an explicit goal that they’ve targeted and, as said, may have helped to launch the competition within the downscale burger+fries only stores.
One McD’s around here was pretty much the same thing: a mall location branded as a regular McDonald’s but with a retro interior. Being in a corridor off the mall itself, it initially survived the mall’s transition to a Target although the “diner” interior was replaced with one more in-line with other locations.
How is a buffet fast food? McDonald’s Next seems more like their attempt to get into the casual dining market to me. And that is a place that is booming, and probably leaching off fast food sales.
But McDonald’s is still pulling in a lot of money with their current model. I think they’re just trying to diversify, so they have an alternative for those who are like those restaurants.
I don’t see fast food getting better for you–at least, not in any significant way. It’s not like any McDonald’s competitors have fewer calories or anything–a lot of them have more. They give out more and bigger food.
Fresher ingredients and better presentation are associated in American’s minds as healthier, but it really isn’t. Supersize me was a fraud. It’s like whole organic thing. It’s about being being “premium,” not healthier.
McDonald’s problem is that they are locked into their reputation…as the Walmart of food.
Everybody knows what to expect there: cheap prices, and a product whose quality matches the price.
(Plus, they have an advantage that is irrelevant for Walmart, but important for the food business: they give fast service.)
And for that market, they are fine.
But trying to upscale their operations seems to me like a bad idea.
They will be neither cheap nor fast.
If they want to change a lot, and aim for a different target audience, they should drop the McDonalds name, and open an additional company with a different logo.
Car analogy: Volkswagen owns Lamborghini. But they don’t use the same name , or market to the same people.
The catch there would be that they’d have to maintain different fryers for each kind of fries, driving up the capital cost of each restaurant, and operationally, they’d have to have strict procedures to be followed in order to make sure that the vegan fries stay that way, else angry vegetarians would sue them.
McDonald’s is an interesting study; for the longest time, they marketed a lot toward children and minorities, but in recent years, there’s been a certain backlash against the child-centric marketing and a certain associated perception that it’s “kid food” and not very good, at least among the white majority. Sort of a “little kids like fries and McDonald’s hamburgers because they’re greasy and salty. Adults like chain X, because their hamburgers are better, or because they have healthy options.” concept. They do seem to have a lock on the breakfast business, and are known for having excellent fries however.
I can’t help but think that this kind of thing is a sort of response to that mentality- they’re trying to figure out what they need to do to convince the vast majority of people that they’re a viable option for lunch that’s not going to give them a heart attack or make them super-fat.
Not coincidentally, I think that being the biggest fast food chain does them no favors in this regard, because documentarians and other muckrakers use them as convenient short-hand for fast food in general, but they take the direct PR hit, not their competitors.
My first response is that it would be no problem since I would gladly pay them double or triple the current price for these. They were just that good.
On the other side though is the thought that I would taste them again and think… well, these aren’t quite as good as I remember. Childhood memories can be like that sometimes.
