In a recent thread about comparing hardware stores, one was mentioned, I thought,“Never heard of it.” Turns out it’s a heartland chain. The biggest “offender” is fast food. The Boston area has only recently got Sonic, I don’t recall a Jack-in-the-Box, and In and Out is exclusively on the West Coast.
Pretty much any national chain started out as regional chain. It takes a lot of capital and time to grow. Also, distribution is cheaper when your stores/restaurants are all near each other.
Wal-mart was once a regional chain: http://projects.flowingdata.com/walmart/
What’s the point of them? You make it sound like they’re intentionally designed by some conglomerate. “Yes, let’s create a fast food chain, but not put some in *every *state, let’s just do a few this time.”.
It’s a business that’s expanded regionally. I’m not sure there needs to be a point beyond that.
For Cali Dopers: How old is In-n-Out? I ask because it’d seem that something that successful and iconic would want to be national.
Bigger isn’t always better. It’s often hard to control quality the more something expands.
There used to be a ton of Jack-In-The-Boxs in MA. My parents managed a few of them (serially, not concurrently) from the time they were dating until I was two or so. For reasons I don’t recall, they packed things up around 1980 and haven’t come back to the state since.
To this day we still have a few of the christmas ornaments they gave out in the 70s.
This reminds me, next place I move to better have a Dunkin Donuts. I went to one in NH and the blueberry muffins and coffee were far superior to the only other coffee chain around here, Starbucks. If I remember correctly they were more reasonably priced too.
I used to think DD was as widely spread as Starbucks or McD’s, it wasn’t until a couple of years ago I found out they really start to thin out as you head west…i don’t think CA has any at all…compared to New England where they average 10’ from each other.
Quality control and logistics costs seem to be the main factors holding a number of regional fast food chains from expanding. There is a local fast food chain here in Western New York that was approached by a Las Vegas casino and offered a prime spot in their shopping district. The chain had to turn it down because they didn’t feel they could keep its control standards, and the shipping costs of sending out their specialty items would make it difficult to turn a profit. It was a shame for the chain, because they would have been a perfect fit for Vegas.
I’m not from California, but I know this one. The first In-N-Out opened in 1948.
I don’t know if they “want” to be national or not. There are no franchises; each location is still privately owned and operated by the original family that started the business. Seems like they’re doing just fine and have little interest in expanding much further.
In-And-Out has recently arrived in Texas. Trader Joe’s is on the way, too.
Some of the biggest trouble a company can get themselves into is too-rapid expansion. I once worked for a jeweler that decided to “go national” after enjoying many years of success in Florida. They expanded from 25 stores to 50 stores, in ten different states, in the space of about 18 months.
Then 9/11 hit. They wound up being forced to close EVERY one of the new stores (where they didn’t have the name recognition and loyal customer base) and retreated back to Florida, tail tucked between legs, to hunker down and wait out the recession. Stock plummeted, and the company hovered on the brink of bankruptcy for years.
That expansion must have seemed like a good idea on paper, but it wound up being a disaster. If they’d proceeded at a slower pace, it might have succeeded in the long run, but probably their best bet would have been to stay put as a regional chain.
Advertising costs is another factor. Your income is generally based on how many outlets you have but your advertising is generally based on how many cities you’re in. So it’s more efficient to concentrate the most possible outlets in the fewest possible cities.
Now you’ve got me curious. The Anchor Bar? Nick Tahou’s? The Dinosaur? Mark’s Pizzeria?
I think the OP is more of a bitch about “Why aren’t the places I want to eat located where I am?” more than anything else. No other explanation makes any sense.
Pizzeria Uno, for example.
Business is business. Ideally you follow the path that gets you the best returns. A lot of regional or local businesses fail when they push for nationwide scope.
Also, running a regional business can be a very different experience from running a nationwide business. Some business owners prefer to stick to what they know, what they know they can make work, and what gives them the kind of professional and private lifestyle that they like.
There are the expansion and administrative challenges, and depending on the store, local tastes (both gustatory and otherwise) vary regionally.
That adds a whole layer of complexity; a Southern regional grocery store will need to carry different flour than one in the Pacific Northwest; biscuits and bread have different requirements. Regional stores just carry the one type, while national chains have to both carry and coordinate both types.
Same thing goes double for restaurants; what’s popular in Minneapolis may not be particularly popular in Phoenix or Atlanta.
Now I’m wondering too. Although I’m not sure the ones you suggested would really be considered “fast food.” Maybe Ted’s Hot Dogs or Mighty Taco?
And, like it or not, the US isn’t a single homogeneous culture. Some chains simply won’t have national appeal.