Recent Posts
- To Norman Brinker
- Adios
- Hold Your Line!
- Foodservice Ups its Game
- Winning at the Restaurant Game
- If We Could Save Just One Life
- Do You Know Where Your Marketers Are?
- Eat This
- Restaurant Unicorn
- Bobby Bets Big on Burgers
Recent Comments
- Chef Leo Cassidy Jr. on To Norman Brinker
- John H on The Demise of Grady's
- Sherry Harmon on To Norman Brinker
- Doni Thompson on NA Bev on the Rocks
- HabexceceCora on The Thrilla in Vanilla
Most Commented On
- To Norman Brinker (34)
- The Demise of Grady's (31)
- Adios (20)
- I Must Be Stupid (20)
- "Is Everything Okay?" (16)
Archives
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
Blog
Fighting Gravity
November 30, 2008

The restaurant industry has had close ties to gravity since the day that Sir Isaac Newton saw an apple fall from a tree and wondered why it fell straight down. Gravity is such a part of our everyday lives that we do not question why it works the way that it does. We just know that it does. As we get older we become more aware of the effect of gravity on our bodies. Age brings on an inevitable loosening, sagging, and drooping that can be fought back with exercise, diet and a little nip and tuck. But in the end gravity seems to always have its way. We don't like it, but we accept it.
One of the things that we should not accept is the apparent reality that gravity also takes its toll on our restaurants. It causes fresh to become frozen, made-from-scratch to become manufactured, cooked-to-order to become pre-cooked, hospitality to become service, unique to become cookie cutter, and ultimately, restaurants to become units.

We should be pondering our industry's linkage to gravity with the question, "What causes most restaurant concepts to get pulled down in quality over time?"
I have noticed that most restaurants or chains either open at their peak, or peak within a few years of first opening. The founder, or founders, put everything that they are capable of into the creation of the restaurant, within the realities of their economic situation. Within the first year or two they still might be tweaking the concept as they respond to customer feedback, and what is selling and not selling. But with as much certainty as an apple falling to the ground, gravity begins to work on our restaurants, and the slow process of compromise and efficiency begins to set in.
A few years ago I was talking with a friend who started what has become a good sized chain of restaurants. At the time he had about 40 locations, on his way to a plan of a few hundred. I had just visited some of his locations and was asking him questions about the concept. As we talked he mentioned that he was beginning the inevitable process of manufacturing many of the items that had previously been made in each location. When I asked why he told me that it was just one of the things that you had to do when you got bigger. Necessity, he thought. Gravity, I thought.
There are a dozen reasons why gravity pulls down our concepts. There are a dozen reasons why this should be unacceptable to all of us. The compromises come in response to a desire for greater profits when sales flatten, or begin sliding. "If my sales are flat, or falling, how do I increase my profits, or at least maintain them?", thinks the operator. The search is on for what can be changed without it being noticed by the customer. And so begins the march towards death by 1000 cuts.
The older the concept, the greater the number of changes over time that the customer "will never notice." Flatware becomes lighter, napkins become thinner, cheeses are a little less aged, coffee becomes less flavorful, dressings lose their punch, etc. You know the drill. No doubt you have made some of these decisions yourself, or were asked to implement them. It is a rare concept that can defy gravity.
There are a few concepts that come to mind that seem to float weightless while others are earthbound. Chipotle is one of my favorite examples. Same basic menu. Greatly improved ingredients and execution. Red Lobster seldom gets credit for the evolutions that they have made over the decades from fried seafood house, to a wood-fired, grilled, fresh seafood purveyor. In-N-Out Burger is a poster child for staying true to its roots. And no discussion about fighting gravity can end without throwing in Houston's as an example.
One of the great ironies in our industry is that the independent operator envies the chains for their resources. Their marketing budgets and staffs, purchasing clout, real estate advantages, design and construction departments, training teams, menu development resources, and their easy access to capital (okay, so this is an old advantage). The chains envy the independent operators for their ability to stay close to their customers, and evolve in step with their changing needs. At the end of the day, neither has an advantage over the other if they don't fight gravity. In the words of the bumper sticker, "Gravity doesn't pull, it sucks."
Posted by Lane Cardwell on November 30, 2008 | Comments (5)
Reader Comments
at 11/30/2008 1:43:52 PM, keep fighting for us commented:
Wow, I can’t quite understand everything you’re trying to tell us in this blog. I do know that my bank now allows me pay my bills on line. That is so much better than writing check and buying a stamp. I know I can buy / order a pizza using my cell phone, while on the way home and everyone is happy! My children much to my displeasure will text friends while we dine at a restaurant (so went interactive and participatory dinning). Evolution of our restaurants is how we cultivate both current customers satisfaction levels and how we garner new customers. Restaurants do not operate in a vacuum, our customers change. We must change as fast as or faster than our customers. When we lead with change; in most instances the restaurant chains profits/grows. If we do not change fast enough we see market share capitulation too those who do change or lead. Regional operating preferences are not always transferable to a larger stage: flavor profiles, labor cost, affordable rents etc. Independent operators who keep up in their communities with local flavors and local farmers have a distinctive advantage. They can react faster; more direct and appear more relevant. Our industry has for to long not keep up with technology. I watched our customers this holiday, our tables, the families, what they ate and what they did. Phone and texting! WOW !! that is the next big thing, how do we incorporate each into our concept? Our customers are! There is no going back, I can not get any younger! What I want is my concept to maintain relevance!
at 11/30/2008 2:22:22 PM, Lane commented:
I hope that I didn't appear to be anti-change. I am pro-change. I am anti-dilution to the quality of the concept. I am pro-technology if it can help our customers and is sought after by our customers. The restaurant industry has always been a technology laggard. It increasingly makes us seem outdated when all of the other places people spend money are pushing the envelope on technology. Papa John's is making a big impact with text message ordering. I was trying, imperfectly it appears, to caution against the seemingly inevitable trend toward slowly dumbing down a concept in both quality and uniqueness. Not enough leaders push concepts towards being better. They may add new menu items and run some LTOs, but the bar on an existing concept seldom gets raised. It gets milked over a long time period. Or so it seems to me. Relevance is the key word. Maintaining relevance these days, and competing with independents in each market, requires steady improvement. Or least an absence of going backwards.
at 11/30/2008 2:24:43 PM, Jeffrey Summers commented:
This has absolutely nothing to do with technology - it's about complacency.
Where the levels of excitement about an NSO are extremely high, the focus is as sharp as it ever will be, etc... Then over time (sometimes the following month) operators are not so focused or so excited because they now realize they have some success. The fear is gone. The worry is gone and standards slip, quality becomes an afterthought.
The focus shifts from what made you a success to extreme cost control, from experiences to transactions, from top line to bottom line.
This is the worst disease effecting the industry ever. The good news it that you have control over how you react to such a realization.
at 12/1/2008 7:11:34 AM, William commented:
Excellent call to arms for operators and leaders of concepts. We have all been guilty of this. What we forget is that our long term customers see the cumulative effect of our "small" changes. We tend to remember them change to change.
at 12/1/2008 12:04:35 PM, leadership not commented:
Compliancy is the culprit the result is mediocrity. Some time back some one called many of the current crop of CEO’s recycled managers, grounded in tradition, weaned in the 70’s & 80’s, groomed for their job via duplication rather than leadership. They did what they were told to do or were tasked to do. Very, Very few rocked any boats, broke from the pack or provided any changed. They instead balked at new technology as something that hurt the bottom line, squawk at employee benefits while watching Starbucks continue wildly growth for twenty years. Fighting technology, our employees and loosing focus of our customers is not a recipe for growth or future success. It maybe time for a change of leaders, chain positioning and customer focus!

















