Foodservice Solutions

Chipotle’s Boorito Is More Than a Halloween Promotion: It Is a Test of Brand Power, Food Value, and Consumer Migration

2026-10-23T00:23:00.000-07:00

Chipotle Mexican Grill knows something many restaurant marketers still struggle to understand: consumers do not simply buy food. They buy convenience, customization, identity, experiences, and a reason to return according to Steven Johnson Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

Boorito, Chipotle’s annual Halloween promotion, brings those ingredients together. What began in 2000 as a burrito-themed costume contest has evolved into a recurring brand event built around food, fandom, digital engagement, and a limited-time price incentive.

For October 31, 2026, Chipotle is offering participating Chipotle Rewards members a $6 entrée when they arrive in costume after 3 p.m. local time, subject to the promotion’s restrictions. The following day, November 1, the company plans to waive delivery fees on qualifying digital orders placed through its website or app. Delivery menu prices and other applicable charges may still apply.

From the perspective of the Grocerant Guru®, Boorito is not just about selling burritos. It is about influencing when, why, and how consumers choose a meal.

But an important business question sits beneath the Halloween fun: Can Chipotle turn cultural relevance and a powerful food proposition into sustained growth—or is the brand becoming a takeover target because investors see an opportunity to unlock value that its current operating model is not fully delivering?

To answer that, we need to look beyond the promotion and examine Chipotle’s food marketing, target audience, competitive position, and performance against the benchmarks that increasingly matter in today’s prepared-food marketplace.

1. The Food Proposition: Customization Is the Product

Chipotle’s competitive advantage begins with the food itself. Its core proposition combines made-to-order meals, customizable ingredients, recognizable proteins, rice, beans, salsas, vegetables, and add-ons such as guacamole. The result is a format that lets consumers build a meal around their preferences without requiring a traditional full-service dining experience.

That matters because customization gives the brand a broad target audience without forcing it to sell the same meal to everybody.

· Young adults and Gen Z: Digital ordering, social media, limited-time promotions, and food customization provide reasons to engage with the brand.

· Millennials and working professionals: Fast service, portable meals, and the ability to select ingredients fit busy workdays and changing schedules.

· Families and group occasions: Bowl and entrée customization accommodates different appetites and preferences within one order.

· Value-conscious consumers: Promotions such as Boorito offer a price incentive, although the regular menu’s total cost can rise with premium proteins, guacamole, queso, and other extras.

· Health- and ingredient-conscious diners: The ability to select proteins, vegetables, beans, and other components offers control over meal composition. That does not automatically make every order low-calorie, low-sodium, or nutritionally superior.

The key is that Chipotle does not need five different restaurant concepts to reach these audiences. One customizable food platform can serve multiple occasions.

This is where the Grocerant Guru® sees the opportunity: the consumer is the target, not a demographic silo or a restaurant channel.

2. Boorito: A Food Promotion Disguised as a Cultural Event

Boorito illustrates how food marketers can make a price promotion more memorable than a conventional coupon.

The event connects four marketing mechanisms:

1. Tradition: More than 25 years of history give Boorito recognition beyond a single Halloween advertising campaign.

2. Participation: Wearing a costume makes the guest part of the promotion, not merely a recipient of an offer.

3. Loyalty data: Requiring a Chipotle Rewards scan links the discounted transaction to the loyalty program.

4. Repeat occasions: The November 1 delivery offer creates another opportunity to capture spending after Halloween.

The evolution of Boorito—from a costume contest in 2000 to digital and virtual activations in 2020 and 2021, followed by newer meme-inspired and late-night concepts—also shows how a food brand can adapt a long-running promotion to changing consumer behavior.

But the marketing economics deserve scrutiny.

A $6 entrée can attract traffic, encourage trial, and create social conversation. It can also reduce the amount earned per transaction. The promotion’s success therefore depends on whether incremental visits, add-on purchases, future full-price visits, and new loyalty engagement compensate for the discount.

The November 1 delivery offer presents a different challenge. Waiving delivery fees does not mean the entire order is free of extra costs: Chipotle’s terms state that higher delivery menu prices and other applicable charges may remain.

The Grocerant Guru® takeaway: A promotion should be judged by the consumer behavior it creates, not the number of people who redeem it. The ultimate test is whether a Halloween bargain creates a more valuable customer relationship in November and beyond.

3. How Chipotle Stacks Up Against Competitors

Chipotle is one of the largest limited-service restaurant brands in the United States. Its competitive position becomes clearer when we look at sales, menu propositions, and the alternatives available to consumers.

Selected 2025 U.S. system-wide sales figures reported in the QSR 50 ranking include:

Brand	U.S. system-wide sales
Taco Bell	$17.247 billion
Chipotle	$11.679 billion
Panda Express	$6.472 billion
QDOBA	$1.268 billion
CAVA	$1.169 billion

Source: QSR Magazine’s 2026 QSR 50, based on 2025 U.S. system-wide sales. The brands have different menus, restaurant footprints, and business models.

The comparison shows Chipotle’s scale, but scale alone does not prove that it has the strongest food proposition or the best growth opportunity.

Taco Bell competes aggressively on affordability, menu variety, snack occasions, and convenience. Its larger U.S. system sales demonstrate the reach of a value-oriented Mexican-inspired quick-service model.

QDOBA competes more directly on customizable burritos, bowls, and proteins. Its franchise-heavy structure differs from Chipotle’s predominantly company-operated model.

CAVA offers a comparable customization proposition with Mediterranean ingredients. CAVA reported 22.5% full-year revenue growth and 4.0% same-restaurant sales growth for fiscal 2025, alongside a 24.4% restaurant-level profit margin.

CAVA is especially worth watching because it demonstrates that consumers can migrate toward another customizable, ingredient-led fast-casual concept without abandoning the underlying behaviors that make Chipotle attractive.

The competitive question is not simply whether a guest buys a burrito or a grain bowl. It is whether that guest chooses Chipotle, Taco Bell, CAVA, a grocery prepared-food counter, or a convenient meal from another retailer for the next eating occasion.

That is the Grocerant Niche in action: prepared-food competition extends beyond traditional restaurant categories.

4. Four Industry Benchmarks Chipotle Is Missing—or Needs to Improve

Chipotle remains a major restaurant business. However, its reported quarterly results show several performance gaps that investors and competitors should watch. These are four measurable pressure points, not claims that the company has failed every industry standard.

Benchmark 1: Consistent Same-Store Sales Growth

Chipotle’s second-quarter 2026 comparable restaurant sales increased 2.2%, following a 0.5% increase in the first quarter and declines in the second and third quarters of 2025.

That is an improvement, but it is not yet a consistently strong growth pattern.

What to watch: Sustained growth in customer transactions, not just higher average checks or the opening of additional restaurants.

Benchmark 2: Protecting Restaurant Operating Margins

Chipotle’s second-quarter 2026 restaurant-level operating margin fell to 25.2%, from 27.4% a year earlier. Its company operating margin declined to 15.7%, from 18.2%.

What to watch: Whether food preparation, staffing, throughput, pricing, and restaurant technology can support growth without continued margin erosion.

Benchmark 3: Controlling Food and Packaging Costs

Food, beverage, and packaging costs reached 29.7% of revenue in the second quarter of 2026, compared with 28.9% a year earlier. Chipotle attributed the increase to inflation, especially beef and freight, and higher protein and produce usage.

What to watch: Reducing waste and improving purchasing and portion consistency while maintaining the ingredient quality consumers expect.

Benchmark 4: Turning Sales Growth into Earnings Growth

Second-quarter revenue rose 9.3% to $3.3 billion, but diluted earnings per share remained flat at $0.32 year over year.

What to watch: Converting new restaurant openings and incremental sales into stronger earnings per share, rather than relying primarily on footprint expansion.

These are meaningful gaps because restaurant growth is not the same as economic growth. Opening more locations can increase total revenue while comparable-store weakness, higher costs, and operating expenses limit the benefit to shareholders.

5. Four Benchmarks Chipotle Is Meeting—or Exceeding

The other side of the scorecard matters just as much. Chipotle has important competitive strengths that a potential buyer, investor, or rival would find difficult to overlook.

Benchmark 1: Sales Productivity

Chipotle generated approximately $3.104 million in average U.S. sales per unit in the 2025 QSR 50 comparison. That exceeded Taco Bell’s $2.216 million and QDOBA’s $1.700 million in the same ranking.

Why it matters: High sales per restaurant can support investment in labor, food quality, technology, and new customer experiences.

Benchmark 2: Digital Engagement

Digital sales accounted for 38.3% of Chipotle’s food and beverage revenue in the second quarter of 2026, up from 35.5% a year earlier.

Why it matters: Digital ordering gives Chipotle another route to purchase, creates opportunities to engage loyalty members, and can help coordinate pickup and delivery.

Benchmark 3: Capacity to Expand

Chipotle operated 4,186 company-owned restaurants at June 30, 2026, after opening 100 company-owned locations during the second quarter. Eighty of those new locations included a Chipotlane.

Why it matters: A substantial development pipeline provides a way to grow sales geographically and extend digital pickup access.

Benchmark 4: A Differentiated, Repeatable Food Platform

Chipotle’s menu allows guests to customize bowls, burritos, tacos, and salads around a common ingredient system. That supports multiple dayparts and occasions without requiring an entirely different restaurant concept for each customer segment.

Why it matters: This flexibility supports menu innovation, group orders, loyalty offers, and new consumption occasions. It is a strategic strength, although it is not a directly comparable numerical industry benchmark.

The distinction is important: Chipotle is not a weak business simply because it has execution challenges. It has a large, productive restaurant base, significant digital adoption, and a recognizable food platform. The issue is how effectively management converts those assets into stronger comparable sales, margins, and earnings.

6. Why Is Chipotle Considered a Takeover Target?

In October 2026, reports surfaced that Starbucks had explored a potential acquisition of Chipotle. Starbucks subsequently stated that it was not pursuing a takeover. There is no confirmed transaction in the reporting reviewed here.

So why did the possibility attract attention?

First, Chipotle offers scale and an established food brand. With more than 4,000 company-operated restaurants by mid-2026, a buyer would gain a substantial restaurant platform, a recognizable food proposition, and an established customer base.

Second, its digital capabilities could complement another foodservice business. Loyalty, app ordering, digital pickup, and Chipotlanes provide multiple ways to serve consumers. A buyer with a different daypart or product portfolio might see opportunities to cross-promote, although potential synergies would need to be demonstrated rather than assumed.

Third, Chipotle has significant expansion potential. The combination of a repeatable restaurant format and strong sales per location makes additional development attractive. A strategic buyer might believe it could accelerate growth, improve site selection, or apply its own real-estate and operating expertise.

Fourth, operating improvements could create additional value. Chipotle’s declining restaurant-level margins and food-cost pressure make operational execution an obvious area for improvement. An acquirer might believe it could improve purchasing, labor deployment, or technology utilization. But any buyer would need to protect the food quality and service experience that underpin the brand.

Fifth, the company is large enough to attract strategic attention—but difficult to acquire. A transaction involving a public company of Chipotle’s size would require substantial financing, shareholder support, due diligence, and regulatory review. A buyer would also have to justify the acquisition price and integration risks.

The Grocerant Guru® perspective is that takeover speculation often becomes louder when a well-known brand combines valuable assets with visible performance challenges. That does not mean a sale is inevitable—or even desirable.

Chipotle’s strongest value may lie in its ability to improve its own operating model while preserving the distinct food experience that customers recognize.

7. What Chipotle’s Food Marketing Should Do Next

Chipotle’s next growth opportunity is not necessarily another Halloween promotion or another limited-time menu item. It is building more reasons for existing and prospective customers to choose its food across the week.

Three strategic priorities stand out.

Make Value More Visible

Consumers compare total meal cost, not just entrée prices. Clear combinations, family offerings, and occasion-based bundles can help communicate value without relying entirely on discounts. Chipotle has been expanding its attention to group occasions, including family meals designed for four to six people.

Connect Digital Engagement to Actual Eating Occasions

Rewards and app engagement should encourage repeat purchases, trial of new ingredients, and visits at different times of day. The important metric is not merely digital-sales mix; it is whether digital customers return more frequently and generate profitable incremental sales.

Compete Beyond the Restaurant Category

Grocery delis, convenience stores, prepared-food counters, and delivery-first concepts all compete for the same consumer need: a satisfying meal that fits the moment. Chipotle must remain compelling when consumers ask not simply, “Where should I eat?” but “What is the easiest, most satisfying meal for me right now?”

That is where the Grocerant Niche becomes relevant. Consumers migrate among foodservice channels based on convenience, price, quality, portability, and occasion. Brand loyalty matters, but it is continually tested by alternatives.

Three Closing Insights from the Grocerant Guru®

1. Food builds the brand; value earns the next visit.

Boorito can generate excitement, but long-term growth depends on whether Chipotle’s everyday food proposition justifies its price. A successful promotion creates trial; a compelling meal creates habit.

2. Digital is a sales channel, not the finish line.

Chipotle’s 38.3% digital-sales mix is a substantial asset. The next challenge is converting that access into profitable frequency, stronger loyalty, and more occasions—not simply moving existing orders from the counter to the app.

3. The real competition is consumer migration.

Chipotle is not competing only with Taco Bell, QDOBA, or CAVA. It is competing with every retailer or restaurant capable of delivering a satisfying prepared meal at the right price, in the right format, at the right moment. Whether Chipotle remains independent or attracts future acquisition interest, its best defense is to keep earning the consumer’s next meal occasion.

The Grocerant Guru® bottom line: Boorito demonstrates Chipotle’s ability to turn food into a cultural event. Its longer-term challenge is turning that attention into sustained traffic, stronger margins, and a value proposition that consumers choose even when there is no Halloween costume, special offer, or delivery promotion to bring them through the door.

Tap into the Foodservice Solutions® team for greater understanding of New Electricity or for a Grocerant Program Assessment, Grocerant ScoreCard, or for product positioning or placement assistance, or call our Grocerant Guru®. Since 1991 www.FoodserviceSolutions.us of Tacoma, WA has been the global leader in the Grocerant niche. Contact: Steve@FoodserviceSolutions.us or 253-759-7869

Consumer Migration: How 7-Eleven Can Win More Eating Occasions

2026-10-22T00:22:00.000-07:00

From the Grocerant Guru® perspective, the real opportunity for 7-Eleven is not limited to growing convenience-store traffic. It is capturing consumer food purchases that might otherwise go to a quick-service restaurant, grocery deli, coffee shop, or delivery platform.

Consumers are dynamic, not static. Their food decisions change with the occasion, the day, their budget, their schedule, and what they feel like eating. A customer who buys breakfast at a restaurant today may purchase coffee and a breakfast sandwich at 7-Eleven tomorrow. A shopper who usually buys lunch at a grocery deli may choose a hot handheld meal at a convenience store when time is short. A household that does not want to cook dinner may consider prepared foods or delivery instead.

This is consumer migration in action: the movement of food spending between providers as needs and circumstances change.

7-Eleven's portfolio gives it several ways to compete for that migration.

Breakfast migration: Coffee, breakfast sandwiches, and Laredo Taco Company breakfast tacos can position 7-Eleven to compete for occasions traditionally served by coffee shops, fast-food breakfast menus, and at-home breakfasts. The opportunity is to combine speed with dependable quality and relevant meal pairings.

Lunch migration: Fresh sandwiches, salads, pizza, and hot handheld foods can compete for purchases otherwise made at quick-service restaurants, grocery delis, and workplace cafeterias. Customers who prioritize speed may appreciate convenient access; those watching their spending may respond to clearly priced meal combinations.

Snack and beverage migration: Slurpee drinks, Big Gulp beverages, coffee, and 7-Select snacks can reinforce the retailer's established strengths while creating opportunities for complementary purchases. The marketing challenge is to turn an occasional beverage stop into a broader food purchase without relying exclusively on discounts.

Dinner migration: Hot foods, pizza, chicken offerings, and delivery create opportunities to compete for informal evening meals. Laredo Taco Company and Raise the Roost add restaurant-style food propositions that can help extend the brand beyond conventional convenience-store fare. Availability, portion size, value, and consistency will determine how effectively these products compete with restaurant takeout and grocery prepared meals.

At-home convenience migration: Through 7NOW, customers can order eligible food, beverages, and household essentials without visiting a store. This extends the competition from the physical convenience-store location to the customer's home, workplace, or other delivery destination.

The strategic point is that each of these occasions represents a potential migration opportunity, not proof that migration has already occurred. To establish actual switching behavior, 7-Eleven would need evidence such as customer surveys, purchase histories, competitive switching studies, and incremental-sales analysis.

Technology Can Make Migration Measurable

7-Eleven's loyalty data, digital ordering, inventory-aware merchandising, and AI-supported marketing could help the company understand when customers are changing their food purchasing habits.

For example, the company could measure whether a customer who previously purchased only beverages begins adding breakfast food, whether lunch purchases repeat more frequently after a targeted offer, or whether a delivery promotion generates new food spending rather than shifting an existing in-store purchase online.

The most useful measures would include:

New food-customer acquisition: Are customers choosing 7-Eleven for food for the first time?
Cross-category migration: Are beverage-only customers adding meals, or snack buyers adding fresh food?
Occasion expansion: Is 7-Eleven winning more breakfast, lunch, afternoon, and dinner purchases?
Competitive switching: Are customers moving purchases from restaurants, grocery delis, or other providers to 7-Eleven?
Incremental profitability: Do the additional purchases generate sufficient margin after discounts, labor, food costs, waste, and delivery expenses?

These measurements would distinguish genuine growth from transactions merely moving between 7-Eleven's own channels.

The Grocerant Guru® Perspective: Follow the Consumer, Not the Channel

The traditional boundaries separating grocery, restaurants, and convenience retail mean less when consumers are deciding what to eat. A consumer may choose a grocery deli for dinner on Monday, a restaurant on Tuesday, and 7-Eleven on Wednesday. The same person can be a different kind of food customer at each occasion.

7-Eleven's opportunity is to make its portfolio relevant enough to earn more of those choices. Fresh grab-and-go foods can compete for lunch; signature beverages can reinforce habitual visits; restaurant-style concepts can broaden meal appeal; and digital delivery can reach customers who would not otherwise enter the store.

The objective is not to convince every consumer to abandon another channel. It is to earn a larger share of the consumer's food occasions by delivering the right combination of price, quality, convenience, and service.

The Grocerant Guru® bottom line: Consumer migration follows value, not channel labels. 7-Eleven can strengthen its position in the Grocerant Niche when its food portfolio and technology work together to make the retailer a relevant choice for more eating occasions throughout the day.

For international corporate presentations, educational forums, or keynotes contact: Steven Johnson Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions. His extensive experience as a multi-unit restaurant operator, consultant, brand / product positioning expert and public speaking will leave success clues for all. For more information visit www.GrocerantGuru.com , www.FoodserviceSolutions.us or call 1-253-759-7869

Thanksgiving 2026: Ready-2-Eat, Heat-N-Eat, or Cook From Scratch? The Smartest Holiday Meal May Be a Mix of All Three

2026-10-21T00:21:00.000-07:00

With Thanksgiving just a month away, consumers face a familiar holiday question: How do you put a memorable meal on the table without spending a fortune, spending all day in the kitchen, or exhausting the person responsible for making it happen?

The answer is changing. Today's Thanksgiving meal doesn't have to come from one store, one restaurant, or one cooking method. Consumers can combine traditional home cooking with Ready-2-Eat (RTE) prepared foods and Heat-N-Eat (HnE) meal components to balance price, quality, convenience, and time.

That is the Grocerant Guru® perspective: Thanksgiving isn't just a turkey dinner. It's a collection of meal components, each with its own price, preparation time, convenience factor, and consumer value.

The smartest holiday shoppers will compare the entire meal—not just the price of the turkey.

The supermarket price challenge: Feeding 10 for less than $40

Supermarket News reports that several major retailers have announced Thanksgiving meal promotions for 2026. The early offers show how aggressively grocery retailers are positioning value as families plan their holiday budgets.

Lidl's Thanksgiving offering, for example, gives Lidl Plus members the ingredients for a meal serving 10 people for $35.86. That's approximately $3.59 per person.

Aldi's advertised meal for 10 costs less than $39, or less than $3.90 per person, and includes 15 items. Its package features a 16-pound turkey, stuffing mix, vegetables, sweet potatoes, Hawaiian sweet rolls, cranberry ingredients, and the ingredients for pumpkin pie.

Schnucks is also promoting a Thanksgiving dinner for 10 for less than $4 per serving, with a frozen turkey, potatoes, stuffing, gravy ingredients, vegetables, rolls, cranberry sauce, pie, and whipped topping.

Sam's Club takes a somewhat different approach, advertising a meal for 16 at less than $10 per person. Its assortment includes both turkey and ham, mashed potatoes, macaroni and cheese, vegetables, salad, rolls, gravy, charcuterie, and two pumpkin pies.

These promotions demonstrate an important distinction: some retailers emphasize the lowest advertised ingredient cost, while others offer a broader assortment or more premium meal components.

For consumers, the question is what the advertised price actually delivers—and what additional spending, preparation, or cooking time the meal requires.

Source: Supermarket News, 2026 Thanksgiving meal-deal roundup, as provided for this article. Prices and eligibility reflect the reported offers and should be checked against each retailer's current terms.

The real comparison: Ready-2-Eat versus Heat-N-Eat versus scratch cooking

Thanksgiving is an ideal example of why consumers increasingly mix foodservice and grocery options. A single holiday meal can include a turkey cooked from scratch, prepared mashed potatoes, restaurant-made pie, and ready-to-serve appetizers.

Each approach has advantages, and none is automatically the cheapest once all costs are counted.

Cook from scratch: The traditional approach gives households control over ingredients, seasoning, recipes, portion sizes, and family traditions. Buying a whole turkey and preparing vegetables and sides at home can deliver considerable value, especially for larger gatherings. But the shelf price of the ingredients is only part of the equation. Cooking requires preparation, oven space, equipment, cleanup, and time. The cost of ingredients that go unused or spoil also matters.

Heat-N-Eat (HnE): Refrigerated or frozen mashed potatoes, prepared stuffing, refrigerated sides, heat-and-serve rolls, ready-made gravy, and fully cooked turkey breast can shorten the workday considerably. Consumers pay for preparation already completed by someone else, but they retain the ability to serve a warm meal at home. HnE can be particularly attractive when oven space is limited or the host wants to spend more time with guests.

Ready-2-Eat (RTE): Fully cooked turkey, prepared side dishes, deli salads, bakery pies, sliced meats, and restaurant catering can take much of the cooking burden off the host. Some products are served cold or at room temperature; others are fully cooked and ready to serve after simple plating. RTE can offer the greatest time savings, although the per-serving price may be higher than preparing equivalent dishes from basic ingredients.

The most useful comparison is not simply the price per package. It is the total cost per guest, including ingredients, preparation time, waste, and the value of convenience.

For a household hosting 10 people, a low-cost ingredient bundle can be an excellent foundation. But a shopper who adds a prepared pie, a deli vegetable tray, or a fully cooked turkey breast is making a different trade-off: paying more for some components in exchange for less work.

That is not necessarily overspending. It can be a deliberate purchase of time.

Thanksgiving is a meal-component opportunity

The traditional Thanksgiving menu lends itself to a component-by-component buying strategy.

The centerpiece: A raw whole turkey is generally the starting point for scratch cooking. A fully cooked turkey, cooked turkey breast, or prepared ham can be a practical alternative for households with limited oven capacity or smaller gatherings. Compare the price per edible serving rather than comparing package prices alone.

The starches: Potatoes, stuffing, macaroni and cheese, and rolls are natural candidates for HnE. Shoppers can peel and mash potatoes themselves, use refrigerated prepared potatoes, or buy a ready-made side. The same applies to stuffing: a boxed mix offers a low-cost starting point, while a prepared version saves additional steps.

The vegetables: Fresh carrots, celery, green beans, and sweet potatoes allow scratch cooks to control seasoning and texture. Frozen steamable vegetables reduce preparation and cleanup. Prepared green bean casseroles and other refrigerated sides offer an additional convenience tier.

The sauces and accompaniments: Cranberry sauce, gravy, and relishes are relatively easy to purchase ready-made. Making them from scratch may be worthwhile for cooks who prize family recipes, but buying them can eliminate several small tasks that otherwise accumulate on a busy cooking day.

The desserts: Pumpkin pie illustrates the choice particularly well. Consumers can purchase filling and crust and bake at home, buy a prepared pie from the supermarket bakery, or order dessert from a restaurant or bakery. The first option offers customization; the second and third offer time savings.

The extras: Appetizers, cheese boards, prepared salads, beverages, and bakery items are often the easiest parts of the meal to outsource. They also help hosts accommodate guests who arrive early or bring unexpected additions to the table.

The lesson is simple: consumers don't need to choose one preparation method for the entire meal. They can cook the dishes that matter most to their family and purchase the rest.

The price of convenience: What should consumers actually compare?

A meaningful comparison requires more than putting a raw turkey beside a fully cooked turkey and declaring a winner.

The Aldi and Lidl offers are built around ingredients that still require preparation. Sam's Club's reported meal includes more prepared components, but it also costs more per guest. That does not make one offer universally better; the menus, serving assumptions, and labor involved differ.

Here is how I would advise consumers to evaluate the options:

Thanksgiving strategy	Primary advantage	Cost consideration
Cook from scratch	Control, customization, traditional recipes	Ingredients, energy, equipment, preparation time and waste
Heat-N-Eat sides with a home-cooked turkey	Balances savings and convenience	Prepared components can cost more than basic ingredients
Fully prepared supermarket meal	Fewer cooking tasks and easier coordination	Compare the complete package, serving sizes and any extras
Restaurant or catering order	Minimal cooking and potentially broader menu choices	Per-person pricing, ordering deadlines, service fees and pickup logistics
Mix-and-match meal	Lets shoppers spend where convenience matters most	Requires comparing several purchases and coordinating pickup

There is no defensible universal dollar premium for RTE or HnE without comparing equivalent products, serving sizes, local prices, and preparation requirements. But consumers can make the economics work in their favor by choosing which tasks they want to pay someone else to perform.

For example, roast the turkey at home, buy prepared mashed potatoes and gravy, steam frozen vegetables, and purchase a bakery pie. The result is still a Thanksgiving meal prepared for family and friends, even though several components never passed through the host's own kitchen.

That is component-based meal planning in action.

Why grocers and foodservice operators should pay attention

Thanksgiving illustrates a broader food-marketing reality: consumers do not necessarily organize their food decisions around industry categories.

They are not always thinking, "I need a grocery product," "I need a restaurant meal," or "I need a prepared food." They are thinking, "I need to feed 10 people, stay within budget, and have time to enjoy the day."

That consumer objective can be fulfilled by a supermarket, club store, restaurant, bakery, or a combination of them.

The reported 2026 meal promotions also demonstrate that price messaging remains powerful. Lidl's $35.86 offer for 10 works out to about $3.59 per person for Lidl Plus members. Aldi's under-$39 meal also targets shoppers looking for a low-cost traditional dinner. Sam's Club, meanwhile, is selling a broader assortment designed for 16 people, including two proteins and a selection of prepared sides.

These are different consumer propositions. One emphasizes the low entry price; another emphasizes assortment and convenience. The best choice depends on what the shopper values, what the household already has, and how much work the host wants to do.

For retailers, the opportunity extends beyond selling a turkey. It includes merchandising coordinated meal components, making serving quantities clear, offering easy add-ons, and communicating the total cost of a meal.

For restaurants, it means recognizing that a family may not want a complete catered dinner but may gladly buy the turkey, appetizers, a few signature sides, or dessert. A well-designed partial-meal offer can serve a different need from a full catering package.

The Grocerant Guru® view: Thanksgiving is another reminder that there are no permanent silos in the consumer's mind. What matters is the meal occasion, the desired experience, and the balance of price, quality, service, and portability.

The last-minute Thanksgiving guest: Have a Ready-2-Eat backup plan

Suppose relatives call on Thanksgiving morning and announce that two more people are coming. Or a neighbor unexpectedly joins dinner. The turkey is already accounted for, but there is not enough food for everyone.

Don't panic, and don't automatically start cooking another entrée.

My last-minute recommendation is to visit a supermarket with a full-service deli and prepared-foods section. Depending on availability, assemble a Ready-2-Eat supplemental meal with:

· A fully cooked rotisserie chicken or prepared turkey breast.

· Ready-made mashed potatoes, gravy, and one or two prepared vegetable sides.

· Dinner rolls from the bakery.

· A pumpkin pie or another ready-made dessert.

This is a practical backup, not a guarantee that any particular store will have these items on Thanksgiving Day. Call ahead, check holiday hours, and confirm availability before traveling. Some stores close early, limit hot-food service, or sell out of popular prepared entrées.

The strategy is to supplement the original meal rather than duplicate it. A prepared chicken, a couple of sides, and a pie can stretch the table without requiring the host to roast another bird.

That is the value of Ready-2-Eat food: it gives consumers another option when the number of guests, the schedule, or the cooking plan changes.

One important reminder: keep prepared hot foods at safe holding temperatures, refrigerate perishable leftovers within two hours, and reheat leftovers to 165°F. The USDA provides additional guidance on.

Three closing Grocerant Guru® insights

1. Price is the invitation; value closes the sale. A Thanksgiving offer advertised at less than $4 per person gets shoppers' attention. But consumers ultimately judge value by the meal they can serve, the quality they experience, the amount of work involved, and whether the offer fits their household.

2. The future of the holiday meal is mix-and-match. Scratch cooking, Heat-N-Eat, and Ready-2-Eat are not competing ideologies. They are options consumers can combine. Retailers and foodservice operators that help shoppers assemble the right meal for their circumstances can compete for more of the occasion.

3. Convenience is not the opposite of tradition. Thanksgiving traditions are about gathering, sharing food, and making memories. If buying prepared potatoes, a ready-made pie, or an additional entrée gives the host more time with family, convenience can help preserve the tradition rather than diminish it.

The bottom line? This Thanksgiving, don't ask only whether cooking from scratch is cheaper than buying prepared food. Ask which parts of the meal deserve your time, which parts deserve your money, and how to deliver the best experience for everyone at the table.

That's how consumers turn a holiday menu into a smarter meal—and how the Grocerant Niche continues to connect grocery, prepared food, and foodservice around what consumers actually want.

Wilder Market & Kitchen: The Future of Food Retail Is Not Another Grocery Store. It Is the End of Channel Silos

2026-10-20T00:20:00.000-07:00

What if the future of food retail is not a better grocery store, a more convenient restaurant or another premium prepared-foods concept—but a destination that combines the best of all three, that’s what Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions® wants you to start thinking about.

And what if consumers are already telling the food industry that separating grocery shopping from restaurant-quality meals, ingredient transparency, convenience and hospitality is an outdated way to organize a business?

That is the consumer challenge behind Wilder Market & Kitchen, the new Miami concept backed by Major Food Group. Scheduled to debut in fall 2026, Wilder combines a neighborhood market, café, made-to-order sandwiches, hot and cold prepared foods, and a patio designed to encourage customers to stay awhile—or take dinner home.

The ambition is bigger than putting a restaurant inside a grocery store. Founder and CEO Danielle Axman wants to create a neighborhood destination where ingredient integrity, sustainability, culinary quality and hospitality work together.

For the Grocerant Guru®, that is a development worth watching. Food retail and foodservice are not competing in separate consumer universes. They are competing for the same stomachs, wallets, meal occasions and increasingly limited time.

Consumers do not shop in channel silos. They shop for solutions.

Meet Danielle Axman: The consumer problem behind Wilder

Axman's background offers an important clue to Wilder's positioning. Reporting on the launch identifies her as a former member of the founding team behind BABE Rosé, the canned-wine brand, and a former chief of staff at SoulCycle. Her experience spans consumer products, brand building and experience-driven hospitality rather than the traditional grocery-store operating ladder.

The idea for Wilder emerged after she became a mother. Axman found herself spending considerable time researching ingredients, interpreting labels and investigating where food came from. Even after doing that work, she often struggled to find products that met her standards and tasted good.

Her proposed answer was straightforward: create one place where consumers could buy groceries, pick up a prepared meal and feel more confident about what they were purchasing, without having to do all the research themselves.

That origin story matters because it starts with a consumer frustration rather than a traditional retail category.

Axman is not simply asking shoppers to buy more organic produce or pay a premium for a prepared meal. The broader proposition is to reduce the effort required to make food decisions while delivering a better eating experience.

The commercial challenge will be converting that proposition into a repeatable routine. A compelling origin story may earn a first visit. Consistent food quality, credible sourcing, convenience, appropriate prices and a dependable experience must earn the second, third and fiftieth.

Major Food Group brings culinary credibility—and a different growth proposition

Wilder's founding investor and strategic adviser is Major Food Group, the hospitality company founded by Mario Carbone, Rich Torrisi and Jeff Zalaznick.

The group is associated with prominent concepts including CARBONE, Sadelle's and The Grill, alongside a broader portfolio of restaurants, private clubs, bars and hotels. Its experience centers on distinctive food, recognizable brands, hospitality and creating destinations that customers want to revisit.

Wilder represents a meaningful extension of that playbook. Rather than opening another restaurant, club or hotel, Major Food Group is backing a business designed to combine everyday grocery needs with prepared meals and neighborhood hospitality.

That shift changes the frequency equation.

A celebrated restaurant may depend on customers making a special occasion out of a visit. A neighborhood market can compete for coffee in the morning, lunch, a snack, an ingredient for tonight's dinner and a ready-to-eat meal on the way home.

The opportunity is to turn culinary credibility into more frequent, everyday consumer interactions.

But there is an important distinction: a Michelin-associated culinary pedigree does not automatically make a grocery business successful. Grocery requires disciplined purchasing, inventory management, fresh-food execution, labor productivity, waste control and pricing that supports repeat purchasing.

Major Food Group brings a potentially valuable hospitality perspective. Wilder must demonstrate that this perspective can work at neighborhood-market frequency and economics.

The Wilder Standard: Ingredient integrity must become a consumer benefit

Wilder's proposed standards are intended to guide what the business sells and serves, how ingredients are sourced and how decisions account for environmental health, labor practices and animal welfare.

The company has identified the Environmental Working Group (EWG) as an input into its standards and named prospective farm and producer relationships including Paradise Farms, Glaser Organic Farms and White Oak Pastures.

The distinction is important: Wilder is attempting to make sourcing standards part of the operating proposition, rather than leaving shoppers to evaluate every package independently.

Ingredient transparency is not an imaginary consumer issue. The International Food Information Council's 2025 Food & Health Survey continued its long-running examination of how Americans understand food, ingredients and food safety. Its national survey program included 3,000 U.S. consumers.

EWG's 2026 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce, meanwhile, analyzed U.S. Department of Agriculture testing data and reported pesticide residues in 75% of conventionally grown produce samples examined. That is a finding about the samples and methodology used in that analysis—not proof that every residue creates a health risk or that conventional produce is unsafe.

For Wilder, the strategic opportunity is to make sourcing information easier to understand and act on.

The standard must also be credible. Shoppers should be able to distinguish verified sourcing claims, specific production practices, supplier commitments and broader sustainability aspirations. Ingredient integrity should be explained clearly, not used as a vague premium-price justification.

And here is the Grocerant Guru's test: Does Wilder make it easier for a consumer to eat well, enjoy the food and feel confident about the purchase—or does it simply make shopping more expensive?

The winning proposition has to deliver both trust and taste. If the food is not delicious, transparent sourcing alone will not create a durable food brand.

Elevate Your Brand with Expert Insights

For corporate presentations, regional chain strategies, educational forums, or keynote speaking, Steven Johnson, the Grocerant Guru®, delivers actionable insights that fuel success.

With deep experience in restaurant operations, brand positioning, and strategic consulting, Steven provides valuable takeaways that inspire and drive results.

Visit GrocerantGuru.com or FoodserviceSolutions.US Call 1-253-759-7869

Pizza’s Next Battle: Scale, Sales, Customer Frequency and the Toppings Consumers Crave

2026-10-19T00:19:00.000-07:00

When you’re hungry for pizza, what makes you choose one over another—and what makes you come back? Is it the toppings you crave, the quality you can taste, the price that fits your budget, or the convenience of getting dinner on the table without another hassle?

Smithfield Culinary’s new research suggests consumers have strong opinions: 46% say toppings matter most, and 79% have gone out of their way to try a particular pizza. That tells the pizza business something important: consumers aren’t just buying a pie; they’re choosing an experience they believe is worth their money, time and appetite.

For national chains, neighborhood pizzerias, grocery delis and convenience stores alike, the challenge is clear: What makes your pizza the one consumers want tonight—and the one they choose again tomorrow?

From the perspective of the Grocerant Guru®, pizza's next chapter will be shaped by the intersection of brand scale, average unit volume, customer frequency, ingredient quality, convenience, portability and perceived value. Operators that connect those elements to evolving consumer expectations will be better positioned to capture the next meal occasion.

1. The Seven Pizza Chains: Size, Sales and Average Unit Volume

Understanding the competitive landscape requires looking at more than the number of locations. Systemwide sales indicate total sales generated across a chain's restaurant network, while average unit volume (AUV) measures average annual sales per location. Neither figure, on its own, reveals profitability or customer loyalty.

Industry reporting from the 2026 QSR 50 and PMQ's 2025 Pizza Power Report provides a basis for comparing major U.S. pizza chains. The figures below reflect different reporting sources and dates, so they should be treated as an industry snapshot rather than a perfectly standardized ranking.

Seven major pizza chains

1. Domino's

· Reported U.S. systemwide sales: $9.953 billion.

· Reported average unit volume: $1.385 million.

· Reported U.S. locations: 7,186.

Domino's leads this group in reported U.S. sales and AUV. Its combination of digital ordering, delivery, carryout and national brand recognition supports a high-volume operating model. The challenge is to keep translating convenience and familiarity into repeat orders as consumers face changing budgets and more prepared-food choices.

2. Pizza Hut

· Reported U.S. systemwide sales: $5.094 billion.

· Reported average unit volume: $808,000.

· Reported U.S. locations: 6,307.

Pizza Hut retains a substantial national footprint. However, reported unit declines and lower AUV than Domino's make restaurant productivity and the performance of existing locations important issues. A large footprint is an advantage only when locations continue to meet consumer expectations and generate sustainable sales.

3. Little Caesars

· Estimated U.S. systemwide sales: approximately $3.700 billion.

· Estimated average unit volume: approximately $950,000.

· Reported U.S. locations: 4,374.

Little Caesars competes through affordability, convenience and a recognizable value proposition. Its larger location count relative to Papa John's demonstrates that a chain can build scale around a different combination of price, service and customer expectations.

4. Papa John's

· Estimated U.S. systemwide sales: approximately $3.702 billion.

· Estimated average unit volume: approximately $1.124 million.

· Reported U.S. locations: 3,294.

Papa John's has fewer reported locations than Little Caesars but higher estimated AUV. That distinction illustrates why unit count alone is not an adequate measure of competitive strength. Sales productivity, average order value, operating costs and customer frequency all matter.

The reported sales estimates for Papa John's and Little Caesars are nearly identical, so the small difference should not be interpreted as a meaningful competitive gap.

5. Marco's Pizza

· Reported U.S. systemwide sales: $1.094 billion.

· Reported average unit volume: $832,000.

· Reported U.S. locations: 1,184.

Marco's represents an important middle-market competitor. It has a smaller footprint than the four largest chains but enough scale to compete nationally. Its opportunity is to combine recognizable brand positioning with product differentiation and local execution.

6. Papa Murphy's

· Reported U.S. locations: approximately 1,127 in the cited location ranking.

· Comparable systemwide sales and AUV: not established in the cited figures.

Papa Murphy's take-and-bake model serves a different meal occasion from conventional delivery and carryout. Consumers finish preparing the pizza at home, allowing the brand to compete for the family dinner occasion through a different service model.

7. Godfather's Pizza

· Reported U.S. locations: approximately 583 in the cited location ranking.

· Comparable systemwide sales and AUV: not established in the cited figures.

Godfather's Pizza remains a recognizable competitor with a smaller footprint than the leading national chains. Its position reinforces the importance of distinguishing between national scale and the ability to maintain relevance within particular markets.

The sales and AUV figures above draw on the 2026 QSR 50 and PMQ's 2025 Pizza Power Report. Because reporting dates, estimates and location definitions can vary, the figures for these seven brands should not be interpreted as a single, audited ranking across every measure.

What about customer frequency?

Customer frequency is a critical part of pizza economics, but public information does not provide a consistent, current, apples-to-apples frequency ranking for all seven chains.

Industry surveys have reported that Americans consume pizza several times a month. Those category-level figures demonstrate pizza's recurring role in the American diet, but they do not establish how frequently customers visit a particular chain.

For operators, that distinction matters. A chain can increase AUV through more frequent orders, larger baskets, higher prices or a combination of these factors.

Without customer-level frequency, average ticket, repeat-purchase and retention data, sales figures alone cannot explain the complete consumer story.

The Grocerant Guru® perspective is straightforward: measure how often customers return, not just how many locations you operate.

2. Smithfield Culinary's Findings: Seven Food Marketing Signals

Smithfield Culinary's Guest Check survey, conducted among 2,000 U.S. adults who order restaurant pizza at least monthly, examines what consumers say makes a great pizza. The findings provide useful direction for menu development and marketing, although stated preferences do not automatically translate into purchases or repeat visits.

Here is my assessment of seven important food marketing signals in the findings.

1. Toppings are the leading product differentiator

Forty-six percent of respondents identify toppings as the most important component of a great pizza. Crust ranks first for 30%, sauce for 13%, and cheese for 11%.

Grocerant Guru® rating: A

This is a strong menu-development signal. Toppings give operators an opportunity to create recognizable signature products, limited-time offers and premium combinations without rebuilding an entire menu.

However, the other 54% remind operators that toppings are not everyone's first priority. Crust quality, sauce and cheese remain essential parts of the product experience.

2. Ingredient quality beats piling on more

Thirty-seven percent of respondents prioritize topping quality, compared with 18% who prioritize quantity.

Grocerant Guru® rating: A

This is an important value proposition. Consumers do not necessarily want the heaviest pizza; they want a pizza whose ingredients justify its price.

Better seasoning, appealing textures, consistent portions and recognizable ingredient quality may create more value than simply adding more meat. Operators should test whether customers will pay a premium for those attributes and whether the resulting sales justify the added costs.

3. Destination pizza can create brand advocacy

Nearly eight in ten respondents say they have made a special effort to try a particular pizza, including taking detours, making day trips, waiting in lines or incorporating pizza into travel plans. One-quarter report traveling at least 25 miles to eat pizza or visit a particular pizza restaurant.

Grocerant Guru® rating: A

A compelling pizza can become the destination rather than just the dinner solution.

Operators should develop products worth talking about, signature offerings that customers remember, and regional identities that consumers cannot easily reproduce elsewhere. The opportunity is not to make every pizza expensive; it is to give consumers a reason to choose yours.

4. Pepperoni remains a powerful menu anchor

More than nine in ten respondents say pepperoni will never go out of style. Among the reported pepperoni pairings, sausage leads at 49%, followed by extra cheese at 30%, bacon at 27% and mushrooms at 27%.

Grocerant Guru® rating: A

Familiar favorites reduce the risk of menu experimentation. Pepperoni can anchor a core offering, while sausage, bacon and other complementary ingredients help create a more differentiated premium option.

Operators should test combinations against food cost, customer uptake and repeat orders rather than relying on popularity claims alone.

5. Meat-forward pizza has a defined audience

Twenty-seven percent of respondents identify as “Meat Maximalists,” and the survey says this preference appears across generations. The release also reports that 59% have experienced someone taking a slice of their meat-topped pizza after ordering a vegetarian pizza.

Grocerant Guru® rating: B+

Meat-forward options are worth testing, but a defined segment is not the entire market. A balanced lineup should retain vegetarian choices and allow customization.

Operators should also manage portions carefully. Ingredient appeal must translate into sustainable margins, and menu choices must reflect the needs of different households and occasions.

6. Regional identity can turn pizza into an experience

One-quarter of respondents seek regional pizza styles when traveling. Meanwhile, 82% of Gen Z respondents say they have participated in a friendly debate over which pizza style is best.

Grocerant Guru® rating: A−

Regional styles offer a way to create local relevance, storytelling and limited-time menus. The opportunity is to give customers something distinctive while preserving the consistency national chains need.

A regional product should be authentic enough to interest enthusiasts and accessible enough for mainstream customers. Operators should also consider whether regional offerings attract incremental visits instead of simply shifting customers away from existing menu items.

7. Pizza's competition extends beyond pizza chains

The 2026 Convenience Store News Foodservice Study, cited in the Smithfield Culinary release, reports that 76% of retailers offer pizza.

Grocerant Guru® rating: A

This is a significant channel signal. Consumers can encounter pizza in convenience stores, supermarkets, restaurants and other retail environments.

These channels compete for different occasions, price points and levels of convenience. A convenience-store customer seeking a quick individual meal has different needs from a family ordering several pizzas for dinner.

Pizza operators are no longer competing only with the pizzeria down the street. They are competing for the same meal occasion across an expanding range of foodservice and retail channels.

The grades in this analysis are my editorial assessments of each finding's usefulness for food marketing and menu strategy. They are not ratings assigned by Smithfield Culinary or measured consumer-satisfaction scores.

3. What Smithfield Culinary Gets Right—and What Operators Still Need to Prove

Smithfield Culinary makes a persuasive case for putting more thought into toppings. But from a food marketing perspective, the strongest opportunity is not simply to sell more meat. It is to turn a product preference into a repeatable, profitable customer occasion.

Three distinctions matter.

First, stated preference is not purchase behavior.

Saying toppings matter most does not tell us whether consumers will pay $2 more for premium sausage, switch brands for a specialty pizza or order that product a second time.

Operators need transaction data, menu-item sales, attachment rates and repeat-purchase measurements to establish those connections.

Second, quality must be visible and credible.

If a chain advertises premium ingredients but delivers an inconsistent product, the promise becomes a liability. Portion standards, preparation procedures and ingredient consistency must support the marketing claim.

Quality should be experienced, not just described.

Third, consumer value is larger than the pizza itself.

Price, quality, service, convenience and portability all shape the overall experience. A delicious pizza that arrives late, travels poorly or costs more than the household planned may not earn another order.

Even the largest chains must keep earning consumer business. Scale, brand recognition and digital ordering are advantages, but they do not eliminate the need to demonstrate value on every occasion.

The real question is not whether pizza is popular. It is whether a specific operator can convert that popularity into profitable, repeatable demand.

4. The Grocerant Guru® Consumer Challenge

Here is the test I would put to every pizza-chain executive and independent operator:

If a customer can buy pizza almost anywhere, what makes your pizza worth choosing, worth paying for and worth ordering again?

I would measure the answer through five practical indicators.

Trial: Are signature toppings, regional styles or new combinations bringing new customers into the brand?

Conversion: Do customers who see the offer actually purchase it?

Basket size: Does the new pizza increase the total order, or simply replace another menu item?

Frequency: Do customers return more often after trying it?

Profitability: Does the incremental margin justify the ingredients, labor, promotion and operational complexity?

These measures connect culinary creativity to business performance. They also help operators avoid a common mistake: assuming that a product with strong social-media appeal will necessarily become a reliable source of sales.

Pizza's advantage is its versatility. It can be a family dinner, an individual meal, a game-day centerpiece, a travel discovery, a workplace lunch or a convenient prepared-food purchase.

The challenge is to match the right product, portion, price and service model to each occasion.

Three Grocerant Guru® Insights on How the Pizza Sector Is Evolving

Insight 1: The next pizza battle is about differentiated value, not topping overload.

Smithfield Culinary's finding that 37% prioritize topping quality compared with 18% who prioritize quantity gives operators a reason to rethink premiumization.

The winning offer may be a carefully composed sausage-and-pepperoni pizza with excellent execution rather than an overloaded pie that raises food costs without increasing perceived value.

Test the premium, measure the repeat purchase and let consumers—not the chef's ego—decide.

Insight 2: Pizza is becoming an occasion-driven foodservice platform.

Traditional delivery and carryout remain important, but convenience stores and other retailers are competing for quick meals, snacks and immediate consumption.

Prepared pizza can serve a different need from a made-to-order family dinner. Operators should develop products and service formats around the occasion, considering portion size, holding time, packaging and speed instead of assuming every customer wants the same pizza experience.

This creates opportunities for both national chains and retailers that understand how consumers shop across foodservice channels.

Insight 3: Consumer loyalty will be earned one evolving occasion at a time.

The willingness to travel for pizza and the interest in regional styles show the potential for destination-worthy products. Yet frequency and convenience still matter.

Chains should pair reliable everyday favorites with distinctive regional offerings, limited-time products and digital ordering that makes repeat business easy.

Independent operators can compete through local identity and product character rather than trying to outspend national chains.

The challenge for every operator is to keep evolving without losing the core attributes that earned customer trust in the first place.

The Final Word from the Grocerant Guru®

The U.S. pizza sector is large, highly competitive and increasingly defined by more than store count.

Scale creates reach. Average unit volume helps measure sales productivity. Customer frequency helps reveal loyalty. Culinary differentiation creates a reason to choose one operator over another.

Smithfield Culinary's research adds an important message: toppings are a major opportunity, and consumers say quality matters more than simply piling on ingredients. But the business opportunity lies in connecting those preferences to actual behavior.

At Foodservice Solutions® in Tacoma, Washington, my perspective is straightforward: consumers are dynamic, not static. Their expectations, budgets, meal occasions and definitions of value evolve. The pizza operators that keep pace will be those that continuously test what consumers want, verify what they buy and measure whether they return.

A great pizza can earn a first order. A consistently great experience, delivered at the right price and for the right occasion, is what earns the next one.

Can A Voice-AI Kiosk: Win the Next Meal Occasion—or Just Cut the Cost of Taking an Order?

2026-10-18T00:18:00.000-07:00

The Grocerant Guru® Consumer Test: Will Square’s new voice-AI kiosk make customers more likely to choose a restaurant, spend confidently, and come back—or will it simply help operators take orders with fewer employees?

Square says its new voice-AI kiosk can deliver the speed of self-service without sacrificing the hospitality of a good server. That is the promise. The Grocerant Guru® wants proof.

Here is the consumer test: Will customers order more confidently, discover meals they actually want, spend more wisely, receive better service, and return more often—or will Square simply help restaurants do more with fewer employees?

The survey numbers cited in the announcement should give operators pause. According to Technomic survey data referenced in the press release, 35% of consumers find kiosk ordering unappealing, while 46% say voice AI in the drive-thru is unappealing. Meanwhile, ordering at the counter with an employee remains the most popular method, at 46%.

Those numbers expose the central challenge: Just because technology can take an order does not mean consumers want to give one to a machine.

Square and its restaurant customers must prove that voice AI improves the experience where it matters most: convenience, menu discovery, order accuracy, perceived value, and customer loyalty. They must also demonstrate that labor savings translate into a better overall operation—not longer waits, frustrated customers, or lost opportunities for meaningful human interaction.

The ultimate test is simple: Does Square’s kiosk give consumers a compelling reason to choose that restaurant again? If the measurable benefits accrue primarily to the operator while customers receive no meaningful improvement, that is labor optimization—not consumer innovation.

The Grocerant Guru® bottom line: Consumers do not reward restaurants simply for adopting AI. They reward restaurants that make the next meal easier to find, worth the price, and satisfying enough to repeat.

What Square Is Bringing to the Ordering Experience

Square, the Oakland-based point-of-sale provider owned by Block, has introduced a kiosk designed to let restaurant customers order by voice, touchscreen, or a combination of both.

The device features a 21.5-inch display and built-in voice AI trained on the restaurant’s menu. According to the announcement, customers can ask questions about spice levels, allergens, and popular food pairings. The kiosk can also detect when a customer approaches and welcome them to begin ordering.

James Schonzeit, Square’s head of food and beverage, says the objective is to combine the efficiency of self-service with the guidance customers receive from a good server. Thomas Templeton, Block’s head of hardware, argues that voice makes some menu questions easier to handle than navigating multiple touchscreen menus.

The concept has merit. Traditional kiosks can require customers to tap through several screens to identify ingredients, explore options, or customize an order. A conversational interface could make those tasks more natural.

But the critical distinction is between a technology that works and a technology customers want to use.

Square says customers can turn off the voice feature, continue ordering by touch, and request employee assistance when the AI cannot answer a question. Those options matter because consumer preferences differ. A commuter seeking speed may welcome voice ordering, while another customer may prefer a touchscreen or a conversation with an employee.

Choice is part of hospitality. Forcing every customer into one ordering method is not personalization.

1. Voice AI Could Make Menu Discovery Easier

Square’s kiosk is designed to answer questions using the restaurant’s menu information. That could reduce friction for customers who need help understanding ingredients, flavors, or combinations.

Consider three potential applications.

Quick-service restaurants: A customer deciding between two sandwiches could ask which is spicier, what comes with each, or which side complements the meal. A well-designed system could reduce uncertainty and help customers make a confident choice.

Convenience stores: A shopper selecting a freshly prepared sandwich, hot snack, or ready-to-eat meal could benefit from clearer ingredient information and suggestions for combining food and beverages. That could help transform an individual purchase into a more complete meal occasion.

Grocery delis: A customer choosing among prepared entrees, sides, and heat-and-eat options could use conversational guidance to assemble dinner for one person or an entire family. Better discovery could make the deli more useful as a destination for tonight’s meal.

These are potential applications, not proven outcomes from Square’s new kiosk.

Accuracy is essential, especially when customers ask about allergens. AI should use verified restaurant information, avoid guessing, and refer customers to a trained employee when an answer cannot be confirmed. A confident but incorrect answer can damage trust and create serious safety concerns.

The larger opportunity is to make menus easier to understand and meals easier to assemble. That is more valuable than simply moving the ordering process from a counter to a screen.

2. Hospitality Is More Than Taking an Order

Square’s goal of combining speed and hospitality is strategically sound. However, hospitality means more than a friendly greeting followed by a completed transaction.

A good employee can explain a menu, recognize a special request, resolve a problem, recommend a relevant item, and help a customer feel understood. Voice AI may replicate some of these functions, but it cannot assume every customer wants the same experience.

Consider three distinct meal occasions:

· The commuter wants a fast, predictable transaction and may appreciate voice ordering if it reduces screen navigation.

· The family ordering dinner may need ingredient clarification, substitutions, multiple meals, and reassurance that every item is correct.

· The customer exploring a new menu may value an employee’s recommendation, an explanation of an unfamiliar flavor, or help understanding portion sizes.

One ordering interface will not necessarily serve all three equally well.

Square’s decision to preserve touchscreen ordering and provide an option to turn off voice is therefore important. Customers should be able to choose how they order rather than being forced into a technology experience they do not want.

For operators, the question is whether AI allows employees to spend more time helping customers and preparing food—or simply removes opportunities for employees to create a better experience.

Technology should strengthen hospitality, not redefine hospitality downward to mean merely completing a transaction.

3. Labor Savings Need a Sales-and-Service Scorecard

Square’s kiosk is priced at $1,999, with a reported $99 monthly software fee per device. The announced price includes a mount for counter, wall, or floor installation.

Those figures offer a starting point for evaluating the investment, but they do not establish whether the system will pay for itself.

At the announced pricing, one kiosk would cost $3,187 over its first 12 months: $1,999 for the hardware plus $1,188 in software fees. That excludes any additional installation labor, maintenance, downtime, or other operating expenses.

Restaurants need to determine whether the kiosk creates incremental economic value.

They should measure:

1. Order throughput: Are more customers served during peak periods, and do actual wait times decline?

2. Labor productivity: Are employees freed to perform higher-value tasks, or must they spend time troubleshooting the kiosk and assisting customers?

3. Order accuracy: Do modifications, substitutions, and special requests reach the kitchen correctly?

4. Average check: Does the system increase purchases without making customers feel pressured?

5. Repeat business: Do customers return because the experience is genuinely better?

A restaurant might process more kiosk transactions while losing opportunities to connect personally with customers. It might also increase order volume only to create kitchen bottlenecks that erase the gains at the front counter.

The appropriate metric is not how many customers speak to a machine. It is whether the entire operation becomes more productive while customers receive better service.

Operators should also distinguish between shifting orders from employees to kiosks and generating genuinely incremental sales. Moving an existing transaction to a different interface does not automatically create new revenue.

4. The Real Opportunity Is Meal Building, Not Just Order Taking

The most promising application of voice AI may be helping customers decide what to eat.

Foodservice operators increasingly compete for meal occasions that cross traditional channel boundaries. A consumer deciding what to eat may consider a restaurant, a convenience-store prepared meal, a grocery deli entree, takeout, or delivery.

Consumers do not necessarily organize these choices according to industry categories. They want food that fits the occasion, budget, schedule, and appetite.

Imagine a customer asking, “What can I get for lunch that is spicy, filling, and under $12?” If the restaurant’s menu data supports that request, the kiosk could narrow the choices and make ordering easier.

Another customer might ask which available entree pairs well with a particular side. The system could help build a more complete meal without requiring the customer to navigate several screens.

These examples illustrate the potential rather than verified capabilities or results of Square’s announced product.

For operators, the strategic lesson is clear: Design technology around consumer needs rather than merely digitizing an existing menu.

A screen that reproduces a paper menu has limited strategic value. An interface that helps customers solve the problem of what to eat could have considerably more value.

The same principle applies to grocery delis and convenience-store foodservice. Make meals easier to discover, assemble, purchase, and enjoy.

5. Upselling Must Deliver Value, Not Just Add Items

Square says its voice AI will not proactively upsell customers initially, although upselling will remain part of the on-screen ordering process. The company is also working toward allowing operators to customize the voice.

These details matter because the way a recommendation is presented influences how customers perceive the experience.

A relevant suggestion can improve a meal. An irrelevant prompt can slow the transaction and undermine trust.

Consider three examples:

· A sandwich customer receives a suggestion for a side and beverage that create a convenient lunch combination at a clear price.

· A family ordering several entrees sees an appropriate bundle that reduces the cost of assembling dinner.

· A customer ordering a spicy entree receives a suggestion for a complementary side or beverage that fits the flavor profile.

The commercial objective should be to help customers discover something they genuinely want—not simply maximize the number of items added to an order.

Operators should track attachment rates, average checks, promotion redemption, customer satisfaction, and repeat visits together. An increase in average check is less impressive if it comes with longer waits, abandoned orders, or declining customer loyalty.

The best recommendation delivers value to the customer while generating profitable sales for the operator.

6. A $1,999 Kiosk Is Not Automatically the Right Investment for Every Operator

Square says the device is intended for businesses ranging from single-location coffee shops to large restaurant chains.

The announced price may make the hardware accessible to a broad range of operators, but the total investment involves more than purchasing a screen.

Independent restaurants must consider the software subscription, installation, available space, menu-data quality, employee training, and time required to maintain the system. They must also determine whether customer volume and ordering patterns justify the expense.

A high-volume quick-service restaurant with recurring lunchtime queues may have a different business case from a neighborhood restaurant where customers value conversation and personal menu guidance.

For a small operator, the question is not whether a competitor has installed a kiosk. It is whether the technology solves a specific operational or consumer problem at a cost the business can justify.

Large chains may have more resources to test different configurations and compare results across locations. Smaller businesses may need a disciplined pilot before committing.

Technology adoption is not a strategy by itself. Consumer relevance and profitable execution are the strategy.

7. The Industry Needs Evidence, Not Just a Better Demonstration

Square’s kiosk combines a large 21.5-inch display with voice-enabled ordering. It can detect when a customer approaches and offer a welcome. If the AI cannot answer a question, the system is designed to bring an employee into the interaction.

These features may make ordering more approachable. But a polished demonstration cannot substitute for real-world performance.

Restaurant operators should pilot the system in comparable locations and evaluate results against an established baseline. They should also examine performance across different dayparts, menu categories, customer types, and levels of restaurant busyness.

The evaluation should include customers who prefer touchscreens, those who try voice ordering, and those who still want to order with an employee.

Operators should ask:

· Did customers complete orders faster?

· Were fewer orders abandoned?

· Did order accuracy improve?

· Did the system increase profitable sales?

· Were employees able to spend more time helping customers and preparing food?

· Did customers report a better experience and indicate that they would return?

Square expects the experience to improve as AI develops and customers become more comfortable with it. That may happen, but operators should not treat future improvements as present-day results.

The technology must earn its place through evidence.

The Grocerant Guru® Bottom Line

Square’s voice-AI kiosk addresses a legitimate challenge: how to combine operational efficiency with a better ordering experience. Its ability to answer menu questions, support both voice and touch, and involve an employee when necessary could make it more useful than a conventional self-service terminal.

Yet the consumer research cited in the announcement signals a warning. Some diners do not find kiosks appealing, and even more express reservations about voice AI in the drive-thru. Those attitudes should shape the rollout rather than be dismissed as resistance to change.

The broader foodservice opportunity is not to replace every human interaction with artificial intelligence. It is to use technology where it improves convenience, discovery, accuracy, and value while preserving human assistance where consumers want it.

Restaurants, grocery delis, and convenience stores all compete for the same underlying prize: becoming a relevant, trusted answer to the consumer’s next meal occasion.

Square may have created a useful new tool. The market will decide whether it creates a better meal experience.

Three Grocerant Guru® Insights

1. Labor savings are not consumer value.

Square must demonstrate that voice AI does more than reduce the cost of taking an order. Faster transactions, fewer errors, easier menu navigation, and better service must translate into a demonstrably better customer experience. If the savings never benefit the consumer, operators should not confuse internal efficiency with customer value.

2. Menu discovery is the real opportunity.

Consumers are not simply looking for a way to place an order; they are trying to decide what’s for dinner, lunch, or their next snack. Voice AI could help customers navigate flavors, ingredients, meal combinations, and price points. The competitive advantage belongs to operators that use AI to make choosing a meal easier—not merely to automate checkout.

3. Repeat business is the ultimate scorecard.

A kiosk can process transactions, but only consumers determine whether the experience deserves another visit. Restaurants must measure customer satisfaction, order accuracy, profitable add-on sales, repeat visits, and loyalty alongside labor productivity. Consumers are dynamic, not static. Technology must evolve with their expectations, not force them to adapt to the operator’s preferred way of doing business.

The Grocerant Guru® challenge: Don’t ask how many orders Square’s AI can take. Ask how many customers it can win, satisfy, and bring back. That’s the difference between installing technology and building consumer relevance.

Kroger’s AI Revolution: 3,000 Job Cuts—but What’s in It for the Consumer?

2026-10-17T00:17:00.000-07:00

Kroger plans to eliminate 3,000 corporate jobs over the next three years while expanding its use of artificial intelligence. Here is the question CEO Greg Foran must answer: How much of the money Kroger saves will actually reach consumers through lower grocery prices—and how will shoppers know?

Reducing payroll and automating work may lower Kroger's operating expenses, but those savings do not automatically translate into lower prices at checkout. Management controls what happens next. Savings could be reinvested in price cuts, better fresh-food offerings, improved service, new technology or other corporate priorities. They could also help offset expenses and strengthen profitability.

Consumers deserve a clear answer about which path Kroger intends to take.

Shoppers don't buy algorithms. They buy groceries, meals and value. They care about what they pay, whether the food is worth the price and whether Kroger gives them a compelling reason to return. If AI makes the company more productive, management should demonstrate how that productivity improves the shopping experience and delivers measurable value.

The Grocerant Guru® challenge is straightforward: Publish the savings, identify how those savings will be used, and measure the results shoppers actually experience.

Track prices on a consistent basket of everyday groceries. Demonstrate improvements in fresh-food availability and prepared-meal value. Report whether those improvements follow the company's technology investments and restructuring.

This is not a demand that every dollar saved must become a price reduction. Kroger has legitimate operating costs and financial obligations. It is a demand for accountability. If management promotes AI as a way to build a better grocery business, consumers should be able to see evidence of the benefit.

Cutting costs is a corporate decision. Passing value to shoppers is a management choice. Until Kroger demonstrates that its savings are producing measurable consumer benefits, lower grocery prices remain a possibility—not a promise the company has earned the right to make.

The facts behind Kroger’s announcement

According to reporting published October 12, 2026, Kroger plans to eliminate approximately 3,000 corporate positions over the next three years. The company has about 8,200 corporate employees, meaning the announced reduction represents roughly 37% of that workforce. Kroger employs more than 400,000 people across its broader enterprise and operates more than 2,700 stores under banners including Ralphs, King Soopers, Smith's and Fred Meyer.

The announced cuts concern corporate positions. They are not an announcement that Kroger will eliminate 3,000 store-level jobs.

CEO Foran says technology is changing how work gets done and that Kroger must reduce duplication, adopt new capabilities and reconsider where work is best performed.

That language matters. Kroger is not describing AI as an isolated software upgrade. It is positioning technology as part of a broader organizational restructuring.

There is a business case for eliminating redundant work. But there is also a fundamental distinction between removing unnecessary bureaucracy and eliminating people who understand how to serve customers, manage suppliers, maintain product quality and solve operational problems.

The outcome depends on which work disappears—and what Kroger does with the money it saves.

1. What role is AI really playing in these cuts?

AI is an important part of Kroger's strategy, but the available evidence does not establish that AI alone accounts for all 3,000 announced job cuts.

In September 2026, Kroger outlined an AI strategy designed to improve shopping, simplify tasks for employees and produce better business results. The company's plans include tools to help shoppers plan meals, discover recipes, build shopping carts around budgets and preferences, and identify relevant savings. Other tools are intended to help frontline employees prioritize tasks and reduce information overload.

These applications have genuine potential.

AI can improve demand forecasting, help buyers anticipate changing preferences, identify inventory discrepancies, personalize promotions and automate repetitive administrative tasks. It can also make online grocery shopping more convenient.

But AI does not have to replace a person to change that person's job. It can reduce the number of people needed to perform a task, consolidate departments, eliminate reporting layers or allow one employee to supervise workflows previously handled by several people.

That is where the distinction between AI adoption and corporate restructuring becomes important.

AI can enable workforce reductions, but Kroger must explain which cuts are specifically attributable to AI and which reflect broader organizational changes.

Kroger's financial history also provides important context. During fiscal 2025, the company recorded approximately $2.5 billion in impairment and related charges associated with its automated fulfillment network. The experience is a reminder that technology investments do not always produce the anticipated financial or operational results.

The lesson is not that automation should be abandoned. It is that technological ambition must be matched by sound execution and measurable results.

Kroger management must demonstrate that its new strategy improves the operating model, rather than simply using technology as a justification for reducing expenses.

2. Will grocery prices go down—or will the savings simply keep Kroger afloat?

This is the most important question for consumers.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that grocery prices, measured by its food-at-home index, were up 2.2% over the 12 months ending August 2026. That is a national inflation measure, not a Kroger-specific price change.

Against that backdrop, Kroger's promise to become more efficient will not be enough to win consumers' confidence. Shoppers need tangible results.

There are three principal destinations for savings generated by AI and restructuring.

First, lower shelf prices. Kroger could use efficiency gains to reduce prices on frequently purchased staples, strengthen private-label value and offer more competitive meal solutions.

Second, better operations. Savings could support improved product availability, fresher produce, more reliable pickup and delivery, better staffing during busy periods and stronger prepared-food offerings.

Third, financial repair and profitability. Savings could help absorb restructuring costs, offset previous investment losses, improve profitability or support other corporate priorities.

All three outcomes may be commercially rational. But they are not interchangeable from the consumer's perspective.

A company can become more profitable without lowering prices. It can also improve value without cutting every shelf price, for example by reducing waste, improving food quality, offering better meal bundles or making pickup more reliable.

The public announcement does not establish how much the 3,000 job cuts will save, what portion of any savings will be reinvested in lower prices or whether shoppers will receive a measurable price reduction attributable to AI.

That is the missing accountability.

Kroger reported $4.9 billion in adjusted FIFO operating profit for fiscal 2025, alongside $1.9 billion in reported operating profit after significant impairment and related charges. These figures reflect different accounting measures and illustrate why the financial picture must be examined carefully rather than reduced to a single profit number.

The Grocerant Guru® is not arguing that Kroger should ignore profitability. A financially healthy grocer can invest, compete and serve customers for the long term.

The issue is whether cost reductions will translate into consumer value or primarily strengthen the company's financial position.

A lower corporate expense line is not the same thing as a lower grocery bill.

Kroger management should answer five straightforward questions:

· How much will the planned workforce reductions save annually once fully implemented?

· How much of those savings, if any, will be invested in lowering prices on frequently purchased grocery items?

· Will Kroger publish a consistent price comparison that allows consumers to measure its performance against competing retailers?

· How will the company demonstrate that AI improves fresh-food availability, prepared-food quality, pickup accuracy and customer service?

· How will Kroger ensure that eliminating corporate positions does not weaken the operational support stores need to serve shoppers?

Until management provides measurable answers, claims that AI will make groceries cheaper remain a possibility—not a demonstrated result.

3. The employee undercurrent: efficiency for management, uncertainty for workers

There is another side to the announcement that deserves attention.

When a company tells employees that it needs fewer layers, less duplication and a different way of working, those still employed must consider what the changes mean for their jobs, responsibilities and career prospects.

It would be inappropriate to assume that every Kroger employee is unhappy or that every corporate position is unnecessary. The announcement does not establish the feelings of the affected workforce.

Nevertheless, a restructuring of this scale creates understandable uncertainty. Employees may wonder whether institutional knowledge will be lost, whether workloads will increase, whether decisions will become more centralized and whether today's surviving role will be tomorrow's redundant position.

There is a business risk here that executives can underestimate.

Employees who understand suppliers, regional customers, store-level realities and the nuances of food merchandising carry knowledge that is not always captured in a database. AI can analyze historical sales, but it cannot guarantee that management will interpret local circumstances correctly or respond effectively to every unexpected problem.

Consider a regional merchandising team that understands why a particular prepared-food offering succeeds in one market but fails in another. Reducing duplicate reporting may be sensible. Removing the people who understand those customers, without transferring their knowledge, may not be.

The same concern applies to food manufacturers. If sales, category management and customer-service teams are reduced too aggressively, suppliers may struggle to understand changing retailer requirements and respond to consumer needs.

The lesson is not that companies should preserve every job. It is that labor savings can become false economies when they destroy the knowledge, accountability and customer relationships needed to generate sales.

Kroger must demonstrate that its restructuring makes the organization more capable—not merely smaller.

Employee confidence also matters to customers. If a restructuring leaves remaining employees overwhelmed, weakens store support or slows responses to customer problems, the financial savings could come with an operational cost.

That is a risk management should measure, not dismiss.

4. Will every food company reduce staff because of AI?

No. AI will change work across the food industry, but it does not follow that every company will make layoffs or that every position affected by AI will disappear.

The impact will vary by function, business model and the quality of implementation.

Grocery retailers

Grocers can apply AI to forecasting, inventory management, promotion planning, online shopping, scheduling and customer-service workflows.

Corporate functions with repetitive administrative processes may face pressure to consolidate. Store operations, fresh-food preparation, merchandising execution and customer-facing work still require physical activity, judgment and accountability.

The opportunity is to use technology to help employees do more valuable work—not simply to reduce headcount.

Food manufacturers and consumer packaged goods companies

Manufacturers can use AI to forecast demand, improve production planning, analyze product feedback, optimize marketing and support sales teams.

However, food safety, product formulation, manufacturing quality, regulatory compliance and supplier management require appropriate human oversight. Automating a report is different from accepting responsibility for a product that reaches millions of consumers.

Restaurants and convenience stores

Restaurants and convenience stores can use AI for ordering forecasts, labor scheduling, inventory control, personalized offers and customer support. These tools may reduce waste and administrative burdens.

But preparing food, maintaining service standards, keeping equipment operating and serving customers during a busy meal period still require people or physical automation systems.

A restaurant can automate ordering but still lose customers if the kitchen cannot deliver accurate orders promptly. A convenience store can forecast demand more effectively but still lose sales if fresh food is unavailable when customers want it.

AI can change the labor equation. It cannot make poor execution irrelevant.

For some companies, AI will mean fewer administrative roles. For others, it will mean retraining, redeployment, new jobs or better productivity without an overall reduction in staff.

AI creates choices for management. It does not dictate a single employment outcome for the entire food industry.

5. Legacy food companies face a relevance problem—not just a cost problem

Kroger is competing in a market where consumers can choose among traditional supermarkets, Walmart, Aldi, Lidl, Amazon, convenience stores, restaurant takeout and prepared meals.

The competitive boundary is no longer defined solely by where customers buy groceries. It increasingly reflects where they can find the right food, at the right price, at the right time, with the least friction.

This is the Grocerant Niche: consumers increasingly assemble meals from multiple channels rather than thinking in the traditional categories of grocery, restaurant or convenience store.

The challenge is especially significant for prepared foods.

A shopper deciding what to eat tonight might compare a supermarket rotisserie chicken and sides with a restaurant family meal, a convenience-store hot-food offer or a ready-to-eat meal delivered to the door. Each competes for the same occasion, even when the businesses operate under different formats.

If Kroger uses AI to improve its understanding of that occasion, it could develop more relevant meal bundles, reduce food waste, target discounts more precisely and improve the availability of fresh-prepared foods.

But if AI merely helps the company send more digital promotions for products that remain too expensive, the competitive advantage will be limited.

The consumer does not care how sophisticated the retailer's algorithms are. The consumer cares whether the meal is appealing, affordable, convenient and available.

That is why the Price Value Service Equilibrium matters. Price is important, but value also includes quality, convenience, service and the experience of getting dinner on the table.

A legacy food company that focuses exclusively on reducing costs risks overlooking the reason consumers choose one retailer over another.

The same principle applies to restaurants, convenience stores and food manufacturers. Cost control is essential, but relevance comes from understanding what consumers want and delivering it at a price they consider worthwhile.

6. The real danger: companies change faster than customers see a benefit

Kroger's restructuring comes after its proposed merger with Albertsons was blocked in 2024 following legal challenges by the Federal Trade Commission and states. The failed merger demonstrated that scale alone is not a guaranteed solution to grocery competition.

Kroger now has to pursue competitiveness through its operating model, merchandising, pricing, technology and customer experience.

That is a substantial challenge. And the company's history with automated fulfillment offers a cautionary lesson: technological ambition must be matched by operational and financial discipline.

The same principle applies to AI.

A company may announce a new platform, eliminate jobs and report improved productivity. Yet the customer may still encounter empty shelves, confusing promotions, expensive prepared meals or an online order that does not meet expectations.

If that happens, the transformation has not solved the consumer's problem.

There is also a long-term risk to employee engagement. Workers who see repeated restructuring without clear improvements in the customer experience may become skeptical of the next corporate initiative. That is not a claim about how Kroger employees currently feel; it is a management risk that leadership should monitor through retention, engagement, service and operating-performance measures.

The strongest food companies will be those that align employee confidence with customer confidence. They will explain why work is changing, train people for new responsibilities and demonstrate that productivity gains improve the business customers actually experience.

The burden of proof belongs to management. Consumers should not have to assume that layoffs will benefit them. Kroger should demonstrate the relationship between its cost savings and measurable improvements in prices, products and service.

7. The Grocerant Guru® test: three measures Kroger should publish

If Kroger wants consumers to believe AI is improving the business, it should make the results measurable.

1. A price-value scorecard.

Track prices on a consistent basket of frequently purchased items, disclose meaningful price investments and demonstrate whether efficiency savings are contributing to lower prices. National inflation figures cannot substitute for company-specific evidence.

2. A customer-experience scorecard.

Measure in-stock rates, fresh-food quality, pickup accuracy, delivery reliability, prepared-food availability and customer satisfaction. AI should improve the outcomes that matter to shoppers.

3. A workforce-and-productivity scorecard.

Explain how the company is redeploying resources, training employees and measuring productivity. Report whether corporate reductions are accompanied by improvements in frontline support, service quality and operating execution.

These measures would help distinguish a real transformation from a financial restructuring dressed in technological language.

They would also give shareholders a better view of whether the strategy creates durable growth rather than short-term expense reductions.

Most importantly, they would allow consumers to judge Kroger by results instead of promises.

Three Grocerant Guru® Insights

1. AI does not automatically lower prices. It creates the opportunity to lower costs. Management decides whether the benefits reach consumers, support better operations or remain within the company's financial structure. Shoppers will judge Kroger by the price they pay—not the technology it deploys. Kroger should demonstrate measurable consumer benefits before claiming its AI strategy delivers them.

2. Employee discontent and customer discontent can reinforce each other. A company that removes unnecessary bureaucracy may become stronger. A company that removes essential knowledge, weakens service or leaves employees uncertain about their future can undermine the customer experience it is trying to improve. Workforce changes must be measured against the business outcomes they are supposed to deliver.

3. The next generation of food retailing will be won at the intersection of meals, menus, price and convenience. Grocery stores, convenience stores, restaurants and food manufacturers are competing for the same eating occasions. AI can help companies understand and serve those occasions more effectively—but it cannot replace relevant products, competitive prices and reliable execution.

The bottom line: Show consumers the savings

Kroger's planned elimination of 3,000 corporate positions is a major organizational change, and AI is an important part of the company's transformation. But the announcement does not prove that every cut is caused by AI, that grocery prices will fall or that every food company will follow the same path.

The more important question is what Kroger builds with the resources it frees up.

If the company delivers lower prices, better fresh food, more relevant prepared meals and stronger service, customers may reward the transformation. If the savings primarily improve the company's financial position while shoppers continue to struggle with the cost of dinner, the company will have missed a larger opportunity.

The Grocerant Guru® is not asking Kroger to promise that every efficiency gain will become a price reduction. Businesses have legitimate operating costs and financial obligations. The challenge is to make the relationship between technological investment, workforce restructuring and consumer value transparent.

That means publishing meaningful benchmarks, tracking results over time and being accountable for the outcomes.

Technology should make food companies more relevant to consumers, not merely less expensive to operate.

Kroger's leadership has announced what it plans to change inside the company. Now management must demonstrate what changes outside the company—in the shopping cart, at the checkout and on the dinner table.

Until that evidence exists, lower grocery prices are a possibility, not a proven outcome.

And in a food marketplace where consumers can choose among supermarkets, discount grocers, convenience stores and restaurants, the company that earns trust through demonstrable value will have an advantage over the company that simply announces another round of cost cutting.

Do your food marketing ideas look more like yesterday than tomorrow? Interested in learning how our Grocerant Guru® can edify your retail food brand while creating a platform for consumer convenient meal participation, differentiation and individualization? Email us at: Steve@FoodserviceSolutions.us or visit: us on our social media sites by clicking one of the following links: Facebook, LinkedIn, or Twitter

Inflation Is Rewriting What’s for Dinner: Why Grocery Stores, Convenience Stores and Restaurants Must Rethink Value Before Consumers Walk Away

2026-10-16T00:16:00.000-07:00

Inflation is not simply a pricing problem. It is a relevance problem, a meal-planning problem and, increasingly, a battle for the consumer’s next food dollar according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® and Founder of Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

Numerator’s September 2026 Consumer Goods Price Index (CGPI) delivers a warning that every grocery retailer, convenience-store operator and restaurant executive should take seriously: consumers are still paying substantially more for everyday purchases than they did just a few years ago, and the burden is not distributed equally across generations or income groups.

According to Numerator, everyday household goods prices increased 0.7% in September after declining 0.2% in August and 0.4% in July. Prices were up 2.1% year over year and had climbed 34% since January 2018.

Those numbers matter. But the most consequential finding for food retailers is this: quick-service restaurant prices have increased 53.3% since January 2018, compared with a 34% increase across the overall consumer basket.

That is a 19.3-percentage-point difference in cumulative price growth.

For consumers trying to answer the daily question, “What’s for Dinner?”, the economics of convenience are changing. A meal purchased at a drive-thru, a prepared entrée from a grocery deli, a ready-to-eat convenience-store offering or a restaurant takeout order may all compete for the same household food dollar.

Consumers do not necessarily see separate industry categories. They see dinner, a price, the portion, the flavor, the convenience and whether the purchase was worth it.

That is the Grocerant opportunity—and the competitive threat.

The inflation numbers tell only part of the story

Numerator reports that prices for everyday household goods have risen 34% since January 2018. For low-income consumers, the increase is 36%. For Gen Z consumers, it is 40.8%.

Gen Z has therefore experienced cumulative price growth 6.8 percentage points above the national average. Low-income consumers are 2 percentage points above that average.

The differences become more concerning when the September year-over-year figures are considered. Gen Z experienced 3.1% inflation, compared with 2.1% nationally.

Meanwhile, 39.6% of consumers surveyed by Numerator identified rising prices as their top concern for the coming year, approaching the August record of 40.5%.

These figures challenge the comfortable assumption that slowing inflation automatically restores consumer confidence. A slower rate of price increases does not reverse previous increases. When the price level remains high, shoppers must continue making trade-offs.

Numerator Senior Economist Paul Stanley also reported that wage growth slowed to 3% in September, its weakest pace in more than five years, and remained slightly below broader inflation for a fifth consecutive month.

There is an important distinction here. Numerator says everyday consumer goods inflation was 2.1% year over year, below the reported 3% wage-growth rate. That offers some relief in that category. But wage growth, overall inflation and household purchasing power are not interchangeable measures, and gains in one category do not guarantee relief across rent, utilities, transportation, insurance and foodservice spending.

For the food industry, the practical question is not whether a headline inflation rate looks better. It is whether the next meal delivers enough perceived value to earn the purchase.

Why the 53.3% increase in quick-service restaurant prices matters

Quick-service restaurants have long sold more than food. They sell time, accessibility, familiarity and freedom from meal preparation.

But a 53.3% cumulative increase in QSR prices since January 2018 puts pressure on that proposition.

When the price of a restaurant meal rises faster than the broader consumer basket, customers have greater reason to compare alternatives, reconsider add-ons, skip beverages or desserts, buy fewer restaurant meals or assemble dinner from several retailers.

These are possible consumer responses, not outcomes established by the CGPI figures alone. Nevertheless, they represent risks that foodservice operators should test against their own transaction, menu-mix and repeat-purchase data.

A grocery deli can compete with a burger chain without becoming a restaurant. A convenience store can compete with a quick-service breakfast outlet without duplicating its entire menu. A restaurant can compete with a grocery-prepared meal by offering a more compelling combination of flavor, portion, speed and price.

The competition is increasingly about the meal occasion rather than the traditional industry label.

Grocery stores: The prepared-food opportunity—and the execution risk

Grocery retailers already have an advantage: consumers visit their stores to buy food for the household. Fresh-prepared meals and meal components can turn that trip into an immediate dinner solution.

But having a deli counter does not automatically make a grocery store relevant at 5:30 p.m.

Two risks stand out:

1. A price gap that makes the prepared meal difficult to justify. If a family sees a prepared entrée, two sides and a beverage costing more than its perceived value, it may return to ingredients, frozen meals or another retailer. Grocery operators must compare complete meal costs, not just the price of an individual entrée.

2. A failure to make dinner easy to assemble. A consumer who must search across departments for a protein, vegetable, starch and sauce is still doing the planning work. Clearly priced meal bundles, mix-and-match components, portion options and convenient packaging can reduce that friction.

The grocery deli should not simply ask, “What prepared food can we sell?” It should ask, “Which part of tonight’s dinner can we make easier, more affordable and more appealing?”

Convenience stores: Convenience must include food value

Convenience stores are well positioned to capture breakfast, lunch, snacks and selected dinner occasions. They offer accessible locations, extended hours and opportunities to purchase food while fueling a commute or running an errand.

However, convenience alone is not an unlimited license to charge more.

1. Premium pricing without a distinctive product. If a sandwich, pizza slice or hot snack costs more than a comparable alternative but offers no meaningful advantage in flavor, freshness, portion or speed, the customer has little reason to return.

2. A narrow assortment that misses the meal. Consumers looking for dinner may want a protein, a complementary side and a beverage rather than a single snack. Operators that develop coordinated meal combinations, recognizable price points and dependable availability have a better opportunity to capture the full occasion.

The challenge is to move beyond selling individual convenience foods and toward offering convenient meal solutions.

Restaurants: Menu engineering must go beyond raising prices

Restaurants face a difficult balancing act. Labor, occupancy, ingredients and other operating costs can pressure margins, but repeated price increases can weaken the perceived value that brings customers back.

1. Higher menu prices can expose weak differentiation. If customers cannot explain why a restaurant is worth the premium, its brand promise may not withstand comparison with grocery-prepared meals, convenience-store food or another restaurant.

2. Menu complexity can undermine the value proposition. Too many items, inconsistent execution and poorly designed combinations can make ordering slower and costs harder to control. A focused menu with distinctive flavors, appropriate portions and well-designed meal bundles may offer a stronger value proposition than indiscriminate discounting.

Restaurants need to protect profitability while giving consumers a compelling reason to choose them. Price increases alone are not a customer-retention strategy.

The intersection of meals, menus and “What’s for Dinner?”

The most important competitive shift may be the one that traditional industry reporting obscures.

A grocery store thinks in departments. A convenience store thinks in missions and transactions. A restaurant thinks in menu categories and dayparts.

Consumers think about what they want to eat, how much they want to spend, who they are feeding and how much time they have.

That difference creates the Grocerant marketplace: fresh-prepared and ready-to-eat meals, snacks and beverages competing across grocery, convenience, restaurant, takeout and delivery channels.

The winning operator may not be the one with the largest menu or the lowest individual price. It may be the one that makes it easiest for the consumer to build a satisfying meal at a price that feels fair.

Consider three practical applications:

· Build the meal, not just the basket. Pair an entrée with complementary sides and beverages, while allowing customers to substitute components and control spending.

· Make flavor discovery affordable. Introduce distinctive sauces, seasonings, regional flavors and limited-time offerings in accessible portions so customers can experiment without committing to an expensive full meal.

· Make the value visible. Communicate portion size, ingredients, convenience, meal combinations and total cost clearly. A discount that is difficult to understand is a weaker selling proposition than an easy-to-recognize meal solution.

In a market where consumers are actively weighing alternatives, every component can influence the final purchase. The entrée may attract the customer, the side may complete the meal, the beverage may increase satisfaction and the total price may determine whether the transaction happens at all.

That is why menu strategy, merchandising, packaging and price communication must work together.

From Baby Boomers to Gen Z: One inflation story, different meal decisions

Generational categories can help marketers frame hypotheses, but they should not be mistaken for uniform consumer behaviors. Numerator's reported inflation differences establish a clear result for Gen Z; they do not establish that every generation behaves the same way or that age alone explains food purchasing decisions.

Retailers should use generation as a starting point, then validate the conclusions against actual household, transaction and menu data.

Baby Boomers: Value, trust and manageable portions

Example 1: The meal that feels wasteful. A large restaurant combo may be unattractive to a customer who wants a smaller portion. Grocery delis and restaurants can offer appropriately sized entrées, half portions where practical and flexible side choices.

Example 2: Paying for convenience without receiving it. A prepared meal that is difficult to identify, order or carry may disappoint a customer who values straightforward service. Clear pricing, legible merchandising, dependable quality and easy-to-understand meal combinations can improve the experience.

These are testable opportunities, not claims that all Boomers prefer smaller meals or share the same service expectations.

Generation X: Household budgets and time pressure

Example 1: Dinner must work for multiple people. A household may need to accommodate different appetites and preferences without buying separate expensive meals. Family bundles and mix-and-match entrées can make the total cost easier to manage.

Example 2: Convenience loses value when it creates another task. A meal requiring extra preparation, multiple stops or complicated ordering may fail to solve the problem that prompted the purchase. Retailers can test ready-to-heat combinations, online ordering and reliable pickup against actual repeat-purchase rates.

Millennials: Convenience, flexibility and price transparency

Example 1: Delivery fees can change the decision. A meal that appears affordable on a menu may become less attractive after delivery charges, service fees and tips. Restaurants should communicate total costs early and offer pickup or direct-order bundles where appropriate.

Example 2: A single meal occasion can cross retail channels. A consumer may buy a prepared entrée from a grocery deli, add a fresh side and finish with a restaurant beverage or snack. Retailers that make complementary components easy to find can compete for more of that occasion.

Millennials should not be treated as a single lifestyle segment. Household composition, income, location and work schedules can matter as much as generation.

Generation Z: The strongest inflation warning in Numerator’s data

Gen Z is the most clearly exposed generation in the supplied figures: cumulative everyday-goods inflation of 40.8% since January 2018 and year-over-year growth of 3.1% in September 2026.

Example 1: The familiar quick-service meal becomes harder to justify. With QSR prices up 53.3% since January 2018, a young consumer watching available spending may reconsider add-ons, reduce visits or look for a grocery or convenience-store alternative. Operators should test entry-level meals and smaller, distinctive products rather than assuming the consumer will keep paying more.

Example 2: A low advertised price may not produce a repeat customer. An inexpensive item can generate trial, but poor portion value, inconsistent quality or a lack of flavor distinction can prevent repeat purchases. Retailers should measure repeat transactions and total meal spend, not just promotion-driven traffic.

Numerator's data also suggest that Gen Z's inflation experience is partly associated with greater QSR spending. That is an important finding, but it does not prove that restaurant spending is the sole cause of the group's higher inflation or that all Gen Z consumers have identical budgets.

Low-income households: The pressure cuts across generations

Income deserves separate attention because it can affect consumers at every age.

Example 1: Trading down can change the channel. A household may move from a restaurant dinner to a grocery-prepared entrée, a value-priced convenience-store meal or a combination of items prepared at home. Operators need to understand which occasions they can retain through price points and meal flexibility.

Example 2: Small price differences can determine the whole purchase. A customer comparing several dinner options may choose the one that provides enough food for everyone, even if another option offers a more premium ingredient or brand. Transparent meal pricing, practical portions and affordable add-ons can help retailers remain in consideration.

Numerator reports a 36% cumulative increase in everyday household-goods prices for low-income consumers since January 2018. That is evidence of a greater cumulative inflation burden, not proof that every low-income shopper has traded down or stopped buying restaurant food.

The marketing lesson across all generations is straightforward: segment by behavior, budget and meal occasion as well as age. Demographics can help identify opportunities; transaction data must establish what actually works.

What retailers should measure before changing their strategy

The CGPI provides an important external signal, but it is not a substitute for a retailer's own operating data. Numerator says the index covers approximately 20% of the consumption basket captured by the broader Personal Consumption Expenditures price index and closely tracks the PCE Food & Beverage index.

That makes it a useful indicator of consumer price experience. It does not mean the index directly measures every restaurant meal, grocery-deli transaction or convenience-store purchase.

Retailers should pair the inflation signal with five measures:

1. Transaction frequency: Are customers visiting less often?

2. Units and meal components per transaction: Are they dropping sides, beverages or desserts?

3. Average transaction value versus transaction count: Is revenue growth coming from higher prices rather than stronger demand?

4. Repeat-purchase rates: Do trial and promotions produce lasting customer behavior?

5. Complete-meal affordability: How does the total cost of a satisfying dinner compare across the retailer's own offerings and credible alternatives?

These measures help separate inflation-driven revenue from genuine customer growth. A higher average check can disguise fewer transactions or a shrinking number of items per basket. Conversely, a well-designed meal bundle can improve perceived value while helping protect profitable sales.

The objective is not to win every price comparison. It is to understand the occasions that matter, establish a compelling value proposition and earn the next purchase.

Three Grocerant Guru® Insights

1. Follow the consumer's meal, not your industry's boundaries. Grocery stores, convenience stores and restaurants compete for overlapping food occasions. Consumers can switch channels whenever price, flavor, portion or convenience changes the equation. Build strategies around “What's for Dinner?” rather than assuming customers will remain loyal to a traditional retail category.

2. Make value tangible before raising the price. Consumers need to see what they receive for their money: a satisfying portion, distinctive flavor, dependable quality, convenient packaging and a fair total price. Use mix-and-match meal components, accessible entry prices and transparent bundles to protect relevance without relying exclusively on discounting.

3. Evolve with the economics of every generation—or risk losing market share. Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z do not share identical needs, but every group can reconsider a purchase when the value equation breaks down. Test offers against actual transaction and repeat-purchase data, refine menus and merchandising, and adapt quickly when customer behavior changes.

The bottom line: Inflation may be moderating in some categories, but the accumulated cost of everyday living continues to shape the dinner decision. The operators that recognize the intersection of meals, menus, price and convenience—and make it easier for consumers to solve “What's for Dinner?”—will be better positioned to earn repeat business. Those that depend on legacy habits, automatic loyalty or price increases without a stronger value proposition risk surrendering sales to competitors that understand the consumer's changing needs.

Wendy’s Franchise Fight Raises a Bigger Question: Why Aren’t Franchisees Fighting Harder to Make the Brand Relevant Again?

2026-10-15T00:15:00.000-07:00

A franchise agreement should be more than a license to display a familiar logo. It should be an investment in a brand that continually earns consumer attention, delivers compelling food, justifies its price, and gives customers a reason to return according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® Founder, at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

Yet the Chapter 11 battle involving Wendy’s and one of its largest franchisees, Meritage Hospitality Group, raises a question that reaches well beyond bankruptcy court: Why are franchisees spending so much energy fighting over which restaurants to close when the industry needs an equally serious fight over how to make the restaurants worth visiting in the first place?

According to the supplied report, Meritage entered Chapter 11 after a difficult financial period, with additional restaurant closures under consideration and a dispute with Wendy’s over franchise terminations, potential damages, and which underperforming locations should shut down. Meritage’s restructuring team argues that keeping deeper-loss restaurants open undermines the purpose of its closure program. Wendy’s, meanwhile, argues that its preferred closures would better serve the overall restaurant portfolio.

Both parties have financial arguments to make. But from the perspective of the Grocerant Guru®, the larger strategic issue is what happens when a legacy brand’s consumer proposition fails to generate enough sales to support the economics of the franchise system.

Closing restaurants can reduce losses. It does not, by itself, rebuild consumer relevance.

The real question is whether franchisors and franchisees are working together aggressively enough to create more reasons for consumers to choose the brand, more often, at a price they believe is worth paying.

The numbers tell a story beyond bankruptcy

The figures in the supplied report illustrate the challenge facing Meritage and the broader strategic question facing Wendy’s.

The report states that Meritage was closing 41 additional restaurants across five groups, following 60 earlier closures. The 41 locations in the current closure process reportedly averaged $1.15 million in annual sales while losing approximately $127,000 per restaurant over the preceding 12 months.

Wendy’s proposed alternative list reportedly averaged $1.07 million in annual sales and lost approximately $114,000 per restaurant over the same period. The report also puts Wendy’s national average annual restaurant sales at approximately $2 million through 2025.

Those figures are reported numbers, not independently audited conclusions presented here. Nevertheless, the gap deserves attention.

If the figures are comparable, the restaurants under discussion are generating substantially less revenue than the reported systemwide average. That is a signal to investigate location economics, local competition, operating execution, consumer demand, and the strength of the brand proposition in each market.

The figures alone do not prove that Wendy’s brand messaging, food, pricing, or service caused those restaurants to underperform. Restaurant-level results can also reflect occupancy costs, labor expenses, traffic patterns, management, competition, and other market-specific factors.

But the strategic question remains: When a restaurant generates substantially less sales than the system average, what is the plan to make it more relevant to the consumer before the only remaining plan is to close it?

That question deserves just as much attention as the closure schedule.

1. Brand messaging: Familiarity is not the same as relevance

Wendy’s has a recognizable brand, a distinctive square hamburger, a long-standing fresh-beef message, and a history of irreverent advertising. Those are assets. But legacy brand equity is not a permanent guarantee of consumer preference.

Consumers do not buy a brand’s history. They buy what the brand delivers today.

Wendy’s own management acknowledged the need for change when it introduced Project Fresh on October 9, 2025. The plan called for strengthening brand positioning, improving marketing effectiveness, assessing the U.S. restaurant system, elevating the customer experience, and prioritizing average unit volume growth. The company specifically identified a need to connect more effectively with the next generation of customers..

That announcement is significant. It demonstrates that brand relevance and restaurant productivity are not simply complaints raised by struggling franchisees; they are issues Wendy’s corporate leadership has publicly identified as priorities.

The performance numbers add urgency. Wendy’s reported U.S. same-restaurant sales declined 5.6% for full-year 2025, following growth of 1.4% in 2024 and 3.7% in 2023. U.S. franchised restaurant average unit volume also declined, from approximately $2.086 million in 2024 to $1.984 million in 2025..

These results do not establish that advertising or messaging alone caused the decline. They do establish that a recognized national brand experienced a meaningful reversal in sales momentum.

The question for franchisees is straightforward: Are they getting the brand-building, marketing, menu innovation, and customer traffic support they need to compete effectively in their own markets?

Franchisees should demand measurable answers, not simply more promotional calendars.

They should ask corporate leadership to demonstrate which campaigns generate incremental visits, which messages convert younger customers, which promotions bring in new customers rather than discount existing purchases, and which marketing investments produce sustainable increases in restaurant-level sales.

A franchisee paying royalties and contributing to marketing funds should expect more than brand awareness. The objective is to generate profitable transactions.

2. Product: Does the menu fit the way consumers eat today?

The burger business has changed. Consumers still buy burgers, but they also compare chicken, snacks, beverages, breakfast, customizable meals, delivery options, and food that fits a particular occasion.

That is where the Grocerant Guru® perspective becomes important. Consumers increasingly construct meals across multiple channels and formats. A restaurant is not competing only with the burger restaurant across the street. It competes with convenience stores, supermarket prepared foods, delivery platforms, and other destinations offering quick, portable meal solutions.

The National Restaurant Association's 2025 off-premises research reported that nearly 75% of restaurant traffic occurred off-premises, including takeout, delivery, and drive-thru occasions. Its research also identified convenience, quality, and price as important considerations when customers choose off-premises meals..

That is a major consumer behavior signal. A brand must deliver more than a recognizable product. It must make the product easy to purchase, transport, eat, and justify economically.

Wendy’s has taken steps in this direction. In February 2025, the company outlined plans to expand chicken and beverage offerings, strengthen its Biggie Bag value platform, improve loyalty engagement, and continue breakfast innovation. Restaurant Dive reported that Wendy’s SpongeBob-themed Krabby Patty promotion produced a 20% same-store sales lift at its peak, according to company commentary.

That promotion offers an important lesson: a distinctive product-and-marketing combination can generate a measurable traffic response. It does not prove that every promotion will work or that the effect will persist after the promotion ends. It does show why franchisees should insist on a pipeline of relevant products and compelling reasons to visit.

Three product questions franchisees should push corporate leadership to answer:

· Which menu innovations produce repeat purchases and incremental traffic, rather than a brief promotional spike?

· How quickly can local operators test products that respond to regional tastes, emerging meal occasions, and competitive gaps?

· Does the menu offer enough flexibility for consumers seeking affordable combinations, portable snacks, chicken, breakfast, and beverages throughout the day?

A franchisee should not have to accept a stagnant consumer proposition simply because the brand has a famous hamburger.

3. Price: Value is what customers receive, not just what they pay

Price competition is unavoidable. But discounting without a clear value proposition can weaken margins while failing to build loyalty.

The National Restaurant Association's 2025 industry outlook found that 47% of limited-service customers said their dining experience mattered more than price. The same report said 47% of restaurant operators planned to introduce new discounts, deals, or value promotions to attract traffic.

These findings point to a tension: affordability matters, but price is not the entire experience.

For Wendy’s, the challenge is to communicate why its food deserves the customer's money while offering price points that make sense for different budgets and occasions. A value meal must feel like a genuine solution, not a complicated calculation involving add-ons, app restrictions, or an offer that disappears before the customer can use it.

This is where franchisees should demand a better balance between national promotional strategy and local restaurant economics.

A corporate offer can produce more transactions and still leave the franchisee with insufficient incremental profit if food costs, labor, discounts, and transaction mix are not properly accounted for. Conversely, a well-designed combination can improve perceived value, increase attachment rates, and encourage customers to purchase more than a single item.

Franchisees should insist that promotional evaluations include:

· Incremental transactions and repeat visits.

· Average check and food-cost impact.

· Profit contribution after discounts and labor.

· New-customer acquisition versus subsidizing existing purchases.

· Performance by daypart, market, and customer segment.

The objective should be to grow profitable unit sales, not simply to advertise a low price or defend market share.

4. Service: The promise is made at the drive-thru window

Brand messaging creates an expectation. Product delivers the promise. Price frames the value. Service determines whether the customer wants to repeat the experience.

A national advertising campaign cannot compensate indefinitely for inaccurate orders, inconsistent food, long waits, or an unfriendly interaction.

Wendy’s itself placed customer experience and operational execution among the priorities in its Project Fresh plan. Its investor-day strategy also emphasized more consistent execution, digital convenience, and improved hospitality..

That matters because service is not merely an expense to manage. It is part of the product the customer buys.

Franchisees should push for store-level reporting that connects speed, order accuracy, food quality, customer complaints, digital ordering, and repeat visits. They should also have a voice in determining whether corporate initiatives make operations easier or add complexity during already difficult service periods.

Three practical tests should be applied to every major operating change:

1. Does it make ordering easier for the customer?

2. Does it help employees deliver a more consistent experience?

3. Does it increase repeat business or profitable transactions enough to justify the cost?

If the answer is no, the system should reconsider the change.

The important point is not to demand fewer standards. It is to demand standards that improve the customer experience and the economics of the restaurant together.

5. Why don't more franchisees demand a growth strategy?

The Meritage dispute illustrates a fundamental imbalance in franchising. Operators may invest their capital, hire employees, manage local execution, pay occupancy and operating costs, and absorb the consequences when customer traffic weakens. The franchisor controls important parts of the brand identity, national advertising, menu direction, franchise standards, and systemwide strategy.

That division of responsibility can create tension when results deteriorate.

In Meritage's case, the supplied report describes a legal fight over termination, approximately $147 million in asserted claims, and competing views about which restaurants should close. Those claims and the parties' legal positions remain disputed; they should not be mistaken for final judicial findings.

But the broader lesson is clear: Franchisees need a stronger voice in the strategic decisions that determine whether their restaurants can succeed.

Why should operators settle for defending their share of a shrinking or stagnant market when they could demand a credible plan to expand consumer demand?

Market share is not the same as market growth. A brand can maintain its share while the category weakens. It can also gain share while individual restaurants struggle with unprofitable sales, excessive costs, or poor local execution.

The better measure is whether the brand is winning more relevant occasions, increasing repeat visits, and generating sustainable average unit volume and restaurant-level profitability.

Franchisees should organize around common business objectives rather than waiting until financial distress forces them into individual disputes. Within their contractual and legal rights, they can press for transparent performance reporting, franchisee advisory participation, evidence-based marketing tests, product-development input, and clear accountability for systemwide growth initiatives.

They should also ask corporate leadership to report progress against measurable goals, including:

· Same-store sales and transaction growth.

· Average unit volume by comparable market and restaurant cohort.

· Customer satisfaction, order accuracy, and service speed.

· New-product trial and repeat-purchase performance.

· Promotional return on investment and franchisee profitability.

· Digital engagement that converts into profitable visits and orders.

Not every weak restaurant can be saved. Some locations have structural disadvantages that no campaign can overcome. Nor should a franchisor be expected to preserve every unit regardless of its economics.

But closing restaurants should be part of a comprehensive strategy, not a substitute for one.

The goal should be to distinguish restaurants that need operational improvement, restaurants that need a stronger consumer proposition, restaurants that need local market repositioning, and restaurants that genuinely need to close.

That is a much more useful conversation than arguing only over which locations disappear first.

The Grocerant Guru® bottom line: Fight for relevance, not just survival

Wendy’s has publicly acknowledged the need to strengthen brand positioning, improve the customer experience, and increase average unit volume. Its reported 2025 U.S. same-store sales decline demonstrates why those priorities matter.

For franchisees, the Meritage situation is a reminder that contractual rights and financial restructuring are important, but they cannot replace consumer demand.

The brand they bought must continue to earn its place in the consumer's consideration set. It must communicate a relevant promise, deliver compelling food, provide credible value, and make the experience worth repeating.

Franchisees should not accept market share as the ultimate measure of success. They should push for a brand that grows transactions, strengthens customer loyalty, and improves unit economics.

Three Grocerant Guru® Insights

1. Relevance drives the visit; value helps close the sale.

Consumers do not owe a legacy brand their loyalty. They reward brands that meet current needs with the right food, price, convenience, and experience. Franchisees should demand evidence that marketing investments turn relevance into repeat purchases and profitable sales.

2. A closure plan is not a consumer-growth plan.

Closing money-losing restaurants may be necessary, but it does not answer why consumers are choosing competitors. Every turnaround should distinguish between a bad location, poor execution, an outdated offer, and a brand that is losing relevance in a particular market.

3. Franchisees bought a business opportunity, not a museum piece.

A legacy brand's history is an asset only when it helps attract today's customers. Franchisees should push harder for better products, sharper messaging, credible pricing, stronger service, and measurable unit-sales growth. The objective is not merely to defend a share of the market. It is to make the brand more relevant to an evolving consumer and grow the business profitably.

Steven Johnson is the Grocerant Guru® and founder of Tacoma, Washington-based Foodservice Solutions®. His perspective focuses on the convergence of restaurants, grocery prepared foods, convenience retail, and evolving consumer meal occasions.

Papa Murphy’s Adds Pinkberry: Why Fixing the Pizza Business Should Come Before Adding Frozen Yogurt

2026-10-14T00:14:00.000-07:00

If Papa Murphy’s is closing underperforming pizza restaurants, why should anyone believe adding frozen yogurt will fix the underlying problem asks Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru®
Founder, Foodservice Solutions®, Tacoma, Washington.

That is the consumer test Papa Murphy’s and parent company MTY Food Group need to answer before celebrating their latest co-branding strategy.

Three franchise agreements to combine Papa Murphy’s Take ’n’ Bake pizza with Pinkberry frozen yogurt represent a business development announcement. They do not prove stronger consumer demand, more frequent visits, improved profitability, or a successful turnaround.

My challenge to Papa Murphy’s and MTY is simple: Prove that consumers want the combination before treating co-branding as a growth strategy.

Are consumers rejecting Papa Murphy’s because the brand is not meeting their needs? Or is management betting that adding a second brand will make the existing business more attractive?

That distinction matters.

From the perspective of the Grocerant Guru®, consumers do not organize their lives around corporate portfolios, franchise agreements, or shared real estate. They organize food purchases around eating occasions, convenience, taste, price, portability, and perceived value.

A family looking for dinner does not automatically want frozen yogurt. A consumer craving dessert does not automatically want take-and-bake pizza. Putting both brands under one roof may create operating efficiencies, but efficiencies alone do not guarantee incremental customers, repeat visits, or stronger profits.

If the combination generates new customers, more frequent visits, stronger transactions, and sustainable incremental profits, it deserves consideration. If it simply adds another operation to manage while the core pizza business struggles, this is not innovation solving a consumer problem. It is management adding complexity without yet proving the payoff.

That is the test every foodservice growth strategy should face: Does it make the brand more relevant to the consumer—or merely make the corporate portfolio look bigger?

What the Announcement Actually Says

On October 7, 2026, Papa Murphy’s announced three franchise agreements for its co-branded concept with Pinkberry. The locations are:

· Sunriver, Oregon: Joshua and Samantha Kimzey plan to open their first location in both systems in early November 2026.

· Santa Fe, New Mexico: Longtime Papa Murphy’s franchisee John Perea will add Pinkberry to his existing restaurant, which he has operated since 2010.

· West Haven, Utah: Casey Kauer, who operates five Papa Murphy’s restaurants in Utah, plans to open a new co-branded location in summer 2027.

The company identifies shared real estate, labor, and operational resources as potential benefits. The concept also offers franchisees an opportunity to serve different eating occasions and develop additional revenue streams. MTY has identified other possible co-branding opportunities, including sweetFrog.

The important distinction: Three franchise agreements demonstrate interest in testing the model. They do not establish that consumers want the combination, that the economics will outperform a standalone restaurant, or that the concept can reverse Papa Murphy’s broader business challenges.

Those are separate questions, and the industry should not confuse them.

Problem No. 1: Papa Murphy’s Has a Core-Business Challenge

The facts: In July 2026, MTY said it expected to close between 45 and 50 underperforming Papa Murphy’s locations as part of a broader plan to close 68 corporate-owned restaurants across its portfolio. Industry reporting also indicated that Papa Murphy’s U.S. footprint had fallen more than 20% from its 2020 level.

MTY’s third-quarter fiscal 2026 results showed same-store sales declining 1.9% across its system, with the U.S. segment down 2.7%. Those figures cover MTY’s broader business, not Papa Murphy’s alone.

The Grocerant Guru® perspective: These figures make the consumer question more urgent. Before celebrating a new concept, management must establish whether the existing pizza business is attracting customers, retaining them, and generating attractive returns.

Adding another brand might help. It could also introduce additional inventory requirements, equipment needs, staffing demands, and marketing complexity.

The essential question is whether Pinkberry improves the economics of the pizza operation—or simply adds another business to manage.

A new revenue stream is not automatically a profitable one. Management needs to demonstrate that the combined concept produces incremental sales and profits after accounting for all associated costs.

Problem No. 2: More Menu Options Do Not Automatically Create More Demand

The facts: Papa Murphy’s and Pinkberry offer different but potentially complementary propositions. Papa Murphy’s sells take-home pizza that customers bake themselves. Pinkberry specializes in frozen yogurt and toppings.

Pizza can address a family dinner, while frozen yogurt can serve a dessert or snack occasion.

The Grocerant Guru® perspective: Complementary products do not necessarily produce complementary purchasing behavior.

A customer who buys pizza for dinner may not want frozen yogurt. Someone looking for an afternoon dessert may have no reason to visit a take-and-bake pizza store.

The concept must demonstrate that the combined offer creates incremental purchases rather than simply shifting existing Pinkberry or Papa Murphy’s transactions into a shared location.

That distinction matters because incremental sales are not the same as incremental profit.

Management should measure how many customers purchase from both brands, how many are new to each brand, how often customers return, and whether average transaction values and contribution margins improve.

Without that evidence, co-branding remains a hypothesis—not a proven growth strategy.

Problem No. 3: Operational Efficiency Is Not the Same as Customer Value

The facts: MTY promotes shared real estate, labor, and operational efficiencies as benefits of the co-branding model. In Santa Fe, franchisee John Perea has cited seasonality as one reason the combination appealed to him, including the potential to support year-round employment.

These are legitimate business considerations.

The Grocerant Guru® perspective: A lower-cost operating model does not automatically deliver a better customer experience.

Consumers continue to evaluate food quality, price, convenience, service, and whether a purchase fits the occasion. If the combined operation creates confusing ordering, slower service, inconsistent product quality, or an unconvincing value proposition, the projected efficiencies may not translate into customer loyalty.

The brands must also protect their individual identities. Papa Murphy’s must remain relevant to customers seeking a convenient take-home meal, while Pinkberry must offer a compelling frozen-dessert experience.

The winning formula is not simply two signs on one building. It is two distinct customer needs served effectively through a coordinated operation.

The Consumer Test: Five Measures That Matter

Before expanding the concept, Papa Murphy’s and MTY should evaluate five measurable outcomes.

1. Incremental customers. Are new customers entering because of the combined concept, or are existing customers simply switching locations?

2. Cross-brand purchasing. What percentage of pizza transactions also include Pinkberry, and vice versa? Are customers genuinely buying across both brands?

3. Visit frequency. Does the combination give customers a reason to visit more often throughout the week?

4. Profitability. After labor, food costs, equipment, marketing, and occupancy expenses, does the combined operation generate stronger returns than the alternatives?

5. Brand preference. When customers choose between competing pizza, take-home meal, and dessert options, does the combined offer improve the likelihood that they choose these brands?

These measures would help distinguish a promising franchise development story from a genuinely successful consumer strategy.

e Grocerant Guru® Recommendations

1. Build around eating occasions, not just co-branding.

Map the customer journey from dinner planning to dessert. Test family meal bundles, pizza-and-dessert offers, and promotions that give customers a clear reason to purchase from both brands. Measure incremental sales rather than relying on bundle redemptions alone.

2. Make value visible to the consumer.

The combined concept must deliver a compelling reason to choose it over buying pizza and dessert elsewhere. Test price points, portions, family offers, and promotional combinations. Track repeat purchases and contribution margins so discounting does not create the illusion of growth.

3. Prove the model before scaling it.

Use the three locations as a disciplined learning opportunity. Establish baseline performance, measure cross-brand purchases, compare results with appropriate standalone locations, and evaluate the findings before committing to a broader rollout.

Three Grocerant Guru® Insights

Insight No. 1: Fix the Core Before Adding Another Concept.

Co-branding is not a substitute for consumer relevance. Papa Murphy’s must demonstrate that it can attract customers, earn repeat visits, and deliver a compelling Price Value Service Equilibrium. Adding Pinkberry may create another revenue opportunity, but the real measure is whether it strengthens the underlying business.

Insight No. 2: Sell More Eating Occasions, Not Just More Menu Items.

Consumers think in terms of breakfast, lunch, dinner, snacks, and dessert—not corporate brand portfolios. Papa Murphy’s and Pinkberry must prove that their combination creates incremental purchases across those occasions. Shared real estate is an operating strategy; winning more consumer occasions is a growth strategy.

Insight No. 3: Measure Consumer Behavior Before Expanding the Footprint.

Three co-branded locations offer an opportunity to test the concept, not declare victory. Measure new customer acquisition, cross-brand purchases, repeat visits, average transaction value, and incremental profitability. If the numbers demonstrate sustained consumer demand, expand. If they do not, management should resist confusing franchise development with brand growth.

The Bottom Line: Follow the Consumer, Not the Logo

Papa Murphy’s and Pinkberry may have found a workable way to share space, labor, and customer occasions. That possibility deserves a fair test.

But Papa Murphy’s store closures and MTY’s declining U.S. same-store sales make it especially important to distinguish franchise expansion from consumer-led growth. Three signed agreements are a starting point, not a verdict.

The Grocerant Guru® perspective is straightforward: A new concept is only as good as the consumer behavior it changes.

If the combination attracts new customers, increases visit frequency, strengthens brand preference, and generates sustainable incremental profit, it deserves consideration for expansion. If it merely adds operational complexity while the core business continues to struggle, it risks becoming a distraction dressed up as innovation.

Foodservice brands do not grow simply by combining logos. They grow by earning more consumer occasions, delivering meaningful value, and giving people a reason to come back.

Prove the consumer demand first. Celebrate the expansion second.

Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru®
Founder, Foodservice Solutions®
Tacoma, Washington

The Next Generation Wants Ramen: Why Drive-Thru Convenience, Global Flavors and Customization Could Reshape Foodservice

2026-10-13T00:13:00.000-07:00

The next generation of foodservice consumers is sending a message that convenience retailers, quick-service restaurants and grocery retailers should not ignore: food needs to be fast, customizable, flavorful and worth talking about. Ramen is emerging as an intriguing way to bring those expectations together, and the next logical question is whether consumers can get the experience they want through a drive-thru according to Steven Johnson Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

The University of Houston is providing a compelling example of how to turn a familiar, inexpensive food into a more engaging foodservice experience. UH Dining Services recently introduced The Ramen Library inside Cougar Village Market, allowing students to choose from more than a dozen ramen varieties, select spice levels and personalize their bowls with sauces, seasonings and toppings.

Inspired by self-service ramen stations popular in Korean convenience stores, the concept transforms packaged ramen from a basic pantry staple into a customizable meal occasion. Students select their noodles, add hot water and build a bowl that reflects their individual preferences.

That is more than a new menu item. It is an example of experience-driven food marketing.

According to UH Dining Services, Asian cuisine ranked as the leading cuisine preference in its student dining focus groups. The Ramen Library grew out of that feedback, demonstrating the value of listening to consumers rather than simply adding another conventional grab-and-go sandwich or snack.

For foodservice operators, the opportunity extends beyond college campuses. Ramen offers an accessible platform for flavor discovery, portion flexibility, customization and repeat visits. It also provides a way to introduce global flavors without requiring consumers to commit to an unfamiliar, expensive entrée.

Ramen Is More Than a Food Trend. It Is a Customization Opportunity.

The attraction of ramen is not difficult to understand. It can be affordable, portable in the right packaging, easy to personalize and adaptable to different eating occasions. Consumers can choose familiar flavors or experiment with spicy, savory, tangy and umami-rich combinations.

Brands such as Shin Ramen, Buldak and Jin Ramen give consumers recognizable starting points. A selection of toppings, sauces, proteins and vegetables creates opportunities to make each bowl feel different without requiring an entirely new kitchen operation for every menu variation.

Social media adds another dimension. Visually appealing bowls, dramatic spice levels, cheese-topped noodles, egg additions and creative flavor combinations can inspire consumers to try a product and share their own versions. When the customer participates in building the meal, the food itself becomes part of the marketing.

The Grocerant Guru® has long emphasized that consumers do not necessarily organize their eating occasions around traditional industry boundaries. They want the right food, at the right price, in the right format, at the right time. Ramen can compete for occasions that might otherwise go to a burger, sandwich, convenience-store snack or takeout meal.

Follow the Food Marketing Data, Not Just the Social Media Buzz

Several established consumer and industry indicators help explain why ramen deserves attention:

· Convenience is a structural consumer expectation. The National Restaurant Association's 2025 State of the Restaurant Industry identifies convenience, value and digital access as important elements of the modern restaurant experience. Ramen can address these expectations when preparation, packaging and service are designed around the customer's time constraints.

· Younger consumers help accelerate food discovery. Social platforms make unfamiliar ingredients, international dishes and spicy-food challenges easier to discover. For operators, the marketing opportunity is to turn that initial curiosity into a repeatable, affordable purchase rather than rely on a short-lived viral moment.

· Customization creates multiple paths to purchase. A common noodle base can support different spice levels, flavor profiles and toppings. This allows operators to offer variety while managing menu complexity more carefully than a collection of unrelated entrées might permit.

· Value is about more than the lowest price. Customers evaluate portion size, taste, convenience and the overall experience alongside price. A well-executed ramen bowl can give consumers an accessible entry price while allowing optional upgrades to increase perceived value and average transaction size.

These are established foodservice and consumer-marketing principles, not proof that every young consumer wants ramen or that demand for drive-thru ramen has already been established. The opportunity is to test the proposition, measure purchase behavior and refine the offer around local consumers.

The Drive-Thru Question: Can Ramen Travel at the Speed of Convenience?

The next opportunity is to take the ramen experience beyond the campus market and into the drive-thru.

Imagine a customer approaching a quick-service restaurant and selecting a bowl from a menu built around flavor, spice and personalization. One customer chooses a mild soy-based broth, chicken and vegetables. Another selects a spicy Korean-inspired sauce, additional protein and a higher heat level. A third chooses a simpler, lower-priced bowl.

The concept could be designed around a small number of noodle bases, signature sauces and modular toppings. Digital menu boards and mobile ordering could make the selection process easier, while clearly priced add-ons would give consumers control over their spending.

However, operators need to solve the operational details. Hot broth and noodles require spill-resistant packaging, dependable temperature control, suitable utensils and a serving format that travels well. Noodles can soften during a long hold, and excessively complicated topping choices can slow production. A successful drive-thru ramen offer must be engineered for consistency and speed, not merely transferred from a self-service station.

There is also an important distinction between ramen prepared with hot water at a self-service station and a freshly prepared, broth-based restaurant bowl. Both can serve consumers, but they have different production requirements, price points and expectations.

The best starting point may be a limited menu with two or three signature bowls, a clear entry price and a handful of optional upgrades. Operators can then evaluate service times, food costs, repeat purchases, waste and customer satisfaction before expanding.

The larger point is that the drive-thru need not be restricted to burgers, fries, chicken sandwiches and breakfast biscuits. It can become another access point for global flavors and personalized meal solutions.

Three Ways Foodservice Operators Can Turn Ramen Into a Brand-Building Opportunity

1. C-stores: Become the Neighborhood Destination for Flavor Discovery

Convenience stores already compete on speed, location and immediate consumption. A dedicated ramen station can extend that proposition by turning an ordinary packaged product into an interactive food destination.

· Offer three price tiers: classic, loaded and premium.

· Build a flavor library featuring Korean-inspired spicy noodles, savory soy, garlic, sesame and rotating limited-time flavors.

· Provide optional eggs, vegetables, proteins and crunchy toppings where food-safety controls and store operations permit.

· Use loyalty offers, digital screens and social media to promote new flavors and encourage repeat visits.

Brand-building opportunity: Make the store known for discovering the next big flavor, not just buying gasoline, beverages and snacks. A customer who comes in for ramen may also purchase a beverage, dessert or another snack, creating potential incremental basket sales.

2. Fast-Food Restaurants: Put Ramen on the Drive-Thru Menu

Quick-service restaurants can use ramen to reach consumers who want something different without sacrificing convenience. The opportunity is to create a focused, repeatable menu rather than a complicated, full-service noodle operation.

· Introduce two or three signature bowls, such as savory chicken, spicy Korean-inspired and vegetable-forward.

· Offer a clearly priced base bowl, with transparent upgrades for protein, eggs and premium toppings.

· Test a limited-time flavor every four to six weeks, supported by mobile ordering, drive-thru menu boards and app-based promotions.

· Design the packaging and preparation sequence to preserve noodle texture, maintain safe temperatures and minimize service delays.

Brand-building opportunity: Establish a recognizable point of difference from competing burger and chicken chains. Flavor rotations can create reasons to return, while customers' choices and feedback can help determine which bowls deserve permanent menu placement.

3. Grocery Delis: Turn Ramen Into a Customizable Meal Solution

Grocery retailers have an opportunity to bridge the gap between packaged noodles and fresh-prepared foods. The deli can offer ready-to-eat ramen bowls, chilled meal kits or properly managed hot-service options, depending on the store's equipment and food-safety capabilities.

· Create a good-better-best assortment, from an affordable noodle bowl to a fresh-prepared premium meal.

· Offer mix-and-match components, including proteins, vegetables, sauces and toppings, so shoppers can build meals suited to their preferences.

· Merchandise complementary beverages, desserts and snacks to encourage complete meal purchases.

· Use weekly features, sampling where permitted and digital coupons to introduce new flavors and measure demand.

Brand-building opportunity: Position the deli as a destination for convenient, globally inspired meals that can compete with restaurant takeout. The combination of a familiar price entry point and fresh-prepared upgrades gives shoppers more control over how much they spend.

Price, Flavor and Braggability: The Grocerant Equation

The opportunity for all three sectors is to balance affordability with discovery. A low entry price attracts trial; customization helps consumers find their preferred flavor; and a memorable experience can give them a reason to return.

Operators should measure more than initial sales. Track trial-to-repeat conversion, average transaction value, attachment rates for beverages and sides, preparation times, food waste and customer satisfaction. Compare performance across dayparts and consumer groups rather than assuming that a concept popular on a college campus will perform identically in every neighborhood.

Ramen also lends itself to what the Grocerant Guru® calls braggability: the customer's willingness to share an appealing food experience with friends, family or social media followers. A visually distinctive bowl, a signature sauce or a carefully managed spicy-food challenge can generate conversation. But social engagement only creates lasting value when the food delivers on taste, quality, convenience and price.

The University of Houston's Ramen Library and Nisqually Markets' Ramen Go! station demonstrate that operators can adapt this concept to different convenience-oriented environments. Nisqually Markets' expansion of its station to three locations is a useful example of an operator extending the format beyond a single store. Neither example, by itself, establishes the commercial case for drive-thru ramen; that requires direct operational and consumer testing.

The strategic lesson is straightforward: global flavors do not need to remain confined to specialty restaurants. They can be translated into accessible formats that fit the everyday routines of consumers.

Three Insights from the Grocerant Guru®

1. Convenience is the platform; flavor is the differentiator. C-stores, fast-food restaurants and grocery delis should not compete on speed alone. Give consumers a convenient way to discover global flavors, personalize their meals and return for something new.

2. Make value visible at every price point. An affordable entry-level bowl, appealing upgrades and transparent pricing allow consumers to choose their own balance of price, portion and flavor. The winning offer is not necessarily the cheapest; it is the one consumers believe delivers the most value for their money.

3. Build around the evolving consumer, not yesterday's menu. The next generation is exposed to more global food ideas than ever, but exposure is not the same as purchase intent. Test ramen in the drive-thru, the convenience store and the grocery deli. Measure repeat purchases, basket growth and brand relevance. Then invest where the results demonstrate that consumers want more.

Steven Johnson, the Grocerant Guru®, is founder of Tacoma, Washington-based Foodservice Solutions®. The company's work focuses on the intersection of retail foodservice, fresh-prepared foods, convenience and evolving consumer eating behaviors.

Starbucks Buying Chipotle? The Grocerant Guru® Asks: Is This Strategy—or Desperation?

2026-10-12T00:12:00.000-07:00

Starbucks does not need another restaurant brand nearly as much as it needs to keep its own customers coming back according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® and Founder of Foodservice Solutions® based in Tacoma, Washington.

Reports that Starbucks has explored acquiring Chipotle Mexican Grill raise a fundamental question for the foodservice industry: When a company is still working to restore its own brand momentum, is buying another successful restaurant concept a smart growth strategy—or an expensive distraction from fixing the business it already owns?

From the perspective of the Grocerant Guru®, the timing deserves scrutiny. Buying growth is not the same as creating growth. And acquiring someone else's customers does not automatically make your own customers more loyal.

The reported discussions are not evidence that a deal has been agreed upon, that a formal offer has been made, or that Starbucks is acting out of desperation. But they do invite a closer examination of Starbucks' operating performance, its customer relationships, and the risks of pursuing growth through acquisition rather than execution.

Starbucks' Numbers Tell a More Complicated Story

According to Reuters reporting on October 8, 2026, Starbucks had explored a potential takeover of Chipotle. Starbucks declined to comment on the reported transaction and emphasized its ongoing turnaround strategy. Analysts have questioned the strategic fit, the potential cost, and the risk of distracting management from the company's core business.

Chipotle's appeal is understandable. It has a strong fast-casual brand, a differentiated fresh-food proposition, and substantial growth potential. Starbucks has a large global store network and international operating experience. On paper, combining those capabilities might look attractive.

But attractive on paper does not necessarily mean attractive to customers or shareholders.

The operating evidence at Starbucks deserves attention.

Starbucks reported the following for fiscal 2025:

· Global comparable-store sales declined 1%.

· Comparable transactions declined 2% globally.

· U.S. and North American comparable-store sales declined 2%, with comparable transactions down 4%.

· Average ticket increased 2% in the U.S., partially offsetting the transaction decline.

· Full-year consolidated revenue increased 3% to $37.2 billion, while operating performance came under pressure.

These figures are reported in Starbucks' fiscal 2025 annual results. They demonstrate an important distinction: revenue can increase even when existing stores are struggling to generate more customer visits. New stores, pricing, and other revenue sources can help lift total sales without necessarily fixing the underlying customer experience. (Source: Starbucks fiscal 2025 results and annual report.)

As of October 9, 2026, more recent evidence also complicates the argument that Starbucks is simply continuing to decline. Its reported third-quarter fiscal 2026 U.S. comparable-store sales increased 7.9%, with transactions up 4.2% and average ticket up 3.6%. That is a meaningful improvement, not evidence of continuing comparable-sales deterioration.

The appropriate conclusion is therefore not that Starbucks' AUVs are definitively declining. Starbucks' reported comparable-store sales and transactions are useful indicators, but they are not the same metric as average unit volume, or AUV. AUV measures average sales per restaurant over a defined period, and the precise calculation depends on the data and store population being used.

The bigger question is whether Starbucks can sustain its recovery without taking on the cost and complexity of another enormous restaurant business.

Why a Chipotle Acquisition Could Be a Distraction

Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol previously led Chipotle. That history could make a transaction easier to evaluate strategically, but it also creates a temptation to look backward at a business model he knows rather than concentrate on the distinct challenges Starbucks faces today.

Starbucks sells more than coffee. It sells convenience, customization, routine, a place to meet, and—in the right circumstances—a sense of personal connection. Its customers make decisions based on price, wait times, order accuracy, service, location, and the experience of being in the coffeehouse.

Chipotle solves a different consumer need. Its core proposition revolves around customizable meals, fresh ingredients, substantial portions, and fast-casual convenience.

Both brands participate in consumers' food and beverage decisions. Yet they do not automatically share the same purchase occasions, spending priorities, or expectations.

A Starbucks customer seeking an affordable morning coffee is not necessarily a Chipotle customer seeking lunch. A Chipotle customer looking for a convenient dinner is not necessarily interested in buying a premium coffeehouse beverage.

There are opportunities to cross-sell, but cross-selling potential should not be confused with proven incremental demand.

A large acquisition also brings substantial financial and operational responsibilities. The October 2026 reports put Chipotle's equity value at roughly $40 billion or more, with enterprise value higher when lease obligations are included. A transaction could require significant financing, and a premium over the prevailing share price could increase the total cost further.

That is a substantial commitment for a company still working to improve its customer experience, store productivity, and profitability.

AUVs, Traffic and the Consumer Equation

For restaurant operators, average unit volume is one of the most important measures of a concept's health. It helps reveal how much revenue an average location generates, rather than allowing a growing store count to obscure weak performance at existing locations.

But AUV is only one piece of the equation.

Restaurant operators should also examine:

· Transactions: Are more customers visiting, or are sales being supported primarily by higher prices?

· Average check: Are customers adding items, trading up, or simply paying more for the same purchase?

· Frequency: Are customers returning several times a week, or reducing visits?

· Contribution margin: Are additional sales generating profit after food, labor, occupancy, and other operating costs?

· Customer retention: Are consumers choosing the brand because they prefer it, or because it is the most convenient available option?

Starbucks' fiscal 2025 results illustrate why these measures matter. Higher average tickets partially offset lower U.S. transactions. That is a warning sign worth monitoring, even though subsequent reported results suggest a recovery may be underway.

For the Grocerant Guru®, the consumer takeaway is clear: a company cannot rely indefinitely on price increases, additional locations, or acquisitions to compensate for a weakened customer proposition.

The challenge is to make every visit worth repeating.

Three Acquisition Lessons Foodservice Executives Should Remember

Restaurant history offers several examples of companies that purchased another brand but failed to achieve the expected long-term results. These cases are not identical to a potential Starbucks-Chipotle transaction, but they demonstrate the risks of overpaying, underinvesting, and losing sight of what made an acquired brand successful.

1. Quaker Oats and Snapple: Distribution Is Not the Same as Understanding the Customer

In 1994, Quaker Oats acquired Snapple for approximately $1.7 billion. Quaker already had experience with Gatorade and expected its distribution capabilities to help build the bottled-tea and juice business.

The strategy did not work as planned. Snapple relied heavily on smaller distributors and convenience-oriented channels, while Quaker's established strengths were not a perfect match for Snapple's distribution and marketing model.

Quaker sold Snapple in 1997 for approximately $300 million, a dramatic reduction from its acquisition price. The deal became a widely cited example of a company paying a high price for a brand without fully understanding the operating and marketing conditions that made it successful.

Grocerant Guru® lesson: Distribution scale cannot substitute for channel knowledge, brand authenticity, and an understanding of where and why consumers buy. (Source: Los Angeles Times, March 28, 1997.)

2. Wendy's and Baja Fresh: A Strong Brand Can Lose Its Edge Under New Ownership

Wendy's acquired Baja Fresh in 2002 for approximately $275 million. At the time, Baja Fresh was a prominent fast-casual Mexican restaurant chain with strong average unit volumes.

By 2006, Wendy's sold the business for approximately $31 million.

Restaurant Business reported in 2024 that the brand's subsequent difficulties included inadequate marketing support, competition from Chipotle, and changes to sourcing and operating practices that reportedly damaged aspects of Baja Fresh's product quality and brand culture.

The result was a striking loss in valuation and a diminished competitive position.

Grocerant Guru® lesson: A successful food brand is not simply a collection of locations, recipes, and real estate. It is a relationship with consumers built on consistent food quality, experience, and trust. When ownership changes the things customers value, the brand can lose its reason to exist. (Source: Restaurant Business, November 20, 2024.)

3. McDonald's and Donatos: Even a Giant Must Know When to Refocus

McDonald's acquired Donatos Pizza in 1999 as part of a broader effort to learn about and participate in other restaurant categories.

By December 2003, McDonald's announced that Donatos would be sold back to its founder as the company narrowed its focus on revitalizing its core business. McDonald's also reduced its broader non-McDonald's brand activities.

This was not proof that Donatos was an inherently bad restaurant concept. Rather, it showed that a business can be worthwhile on its own and still be a poor fit for the acquiring company's immediate strategic priorities.

McDonald's explicitly connected its portfolio decisions with its objective of doing fewer things better to improve sales and operating income.

Grocerant Guru® lesson: Management attention is a finite resource. A company can own several good brands and still underperform if the portfolio distracts leadership from the core business that needs improvement. (Source: McDonald's corporate announcement, December 15, 2003.)

The Grocerant Perspective: Customers Do Not Think in Corporate Portfolios

Consumers do not organize their lives around corporate ownership charts.

They decide what to eat and drink based on the moment, the occasion, the price, the time available, and the experience they expect.

A morning coffee, a midday burrito bowl, an afternoon snack, and a ready-to-eat dinner component may come from different businesses. In the consumer's mind, these are not necessarily competing corporate brands. They are competing solutions to an immediate need.

That is the essence of the Grocerant Niche: consumers increasingly mix and match freshly prepared food, beverages, snacks, and meal components across restaurants, grocery retailers, convenience stores, and other channels.

Starbucks and Chipotle may have opportunities to complement one another. But a combined corporate structure would not automatically make their food and beverage offerings more relevant, their service faster, or their prices more attractive.

Those improvements must be earned at the point of purchase.

Starbucks' best opportunity may be to continue rebuilding the coffeehouse experience, improve order accuracy and speed, strengthen value perceptions, and create reasons for existing customers to visit more often. Chipotle's opportunity is to continue delivering the fresh, customizable meals its customers expect while pursuing its own growth strategy.

Both companies have work to do. Neither should assume that acquiring the other is the fastest way to do it.

Three Insights from the Grocerant Guru®

1. Stay focused on your evolving consumer—not someone else's customer.

An acquisition may deliver new customers on paper, but retention and repeat visits depend on relevance, experience, quality, convenience, and value. Know what your own customers need today, not just what another brand's customers appear to buy.

2. Grow customer frequency before you buy another growth story.

Monitor transactions, AUV, average ticket, food quality, labor productivity, and repeat purchase behavior. If existing customers are visiting less often, understand why and fix the underlying problem. Sustainable organic growth is often more valuable than an expensive acquisition that adds complexity.

3. Build a brand customers choose across occasions, channels, and budgets.

Consumers are mixing and matching beverages, snacks, fresh-prepared meals, and meal components across an increasingly broad range of retailers and foodservice providers. The winning brands will be those that consistently meet consumers where they are, deliver the right product at the right price, and make the next purchase easy.

The bottom line: The reported Starbucks interest in Chipotle may reflect strategic ambition rather than desperation. But if Starbucks wants a stronger future, the first priority should be to ensure that its own customers have compelling reasons to come back. Buying another brand can expand a portfolio. It cannot, by itself, repair a customer relationship.

Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru®, founder of Foodservice Solutions®, Tacoma, Washington.

Beyond Convenience: Why Food Quality, Beverage Pairings and Mix-and-Match Meals Will Shape the Next Chapter of C-Stores

2026-10-11T00:11:00.000-07:00

Convenience stores have earned their place in America's food and beverage landscape by doing one thing exceptionally well: making it easy for consumers to get what they want, when they want it. But convenience alone is no longer enough to capture the next generation of foodservice growth according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® and Founder of Tacoma, Washington-based Foodservice Solutions®.

New research from Acosta Group suggests that value, food quality and freshly prepared offerings could help convenience retailers win more eating and drinking occasions from fast-food restaurants, grocery stores, mass merchandisers and coffee shops. The study surveyed 775 U.S. convenience store shoppers from August 26–31, 2026, examining how consumers choose among competing channels.

The findings reinforce a central principle of the Grocerant Guru®: Consumers do not think in retail silos. They think about the meal, the snack, the beverage, the price and the convenience of getting everything together.

For convenience store operators, that creates two distinct but connected growth opportunities: food that earns repeat visits and beverages that increase purchase frequency and basket value. The next opportunity is to connect the two through flexible, mix-and-match meal solutions.

The broader industry numbers demonstrate why this matters. According to the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), foodservice represented 28.5% of U.S. convenience-store in-store sales in 2025 and generated 38.9% of in-store gross profit dollars. Prepared food accounted for 73.9% of foodservice sales.

The message is clear: Foodservice is no longer simply an amenity attached to a fuel purchase. It is a central part of the convenience retail business model.

1. The Food Sector: Freshness, Quality and Value Must Work Together

Acosta Group's research identifies a significant opportunity to improve the food proposition. Asked what would make them more likely to purchase food and beverages from convenience stores in the future, 53% of respondents cited better value for their money, 47% cited higher-quality food, and 35% cited more freshly prepared meals and snacks.

These are not three unrelated requests. Together, they describe the consumer's expectation of a worthwhile meal.

A low price will not necessarily overcome concerns about freshness. Freshness alone may not persuade a price-conscious shopper to purchase. And a quality product that takes too long to obtain can lose to a competing quick-service restaurant or a nearby grocery deli.

The Grocerant Guru® perspective is that successful convenience food programs must balance all three.

Prepared Food Is Already Doing the Heavy Lifting

The industry's sales mix supports a food-forward strategy. NACS reported that prepared food accounted for 72.6% of convenience-store foodservice sales in 2024, increasing to 73.9% in 2025. The category includes familiar favorites such as pizza, chicken, burgers, sandwiches, wraps and salads.

That mix offers retailers a practical starting point. Rather than trying to build a restaurant menu overnight, operators can strengthen core categories, improve consistency and make it easier for customers to assemble a complete meal.

Consider the possibilities:

· Breakfast: A breakfast sandwich, fresh fruit and coffee.

· Lunch: A sandwich or wrap, a side and a cold beverage.

· Dinner: Hot chicken, a salad or another side, and a drink.

· Afternoon snack: A protein-forward item with coffee, tea or a flavored beverage.

· Travel occasion: A portable entrée, a shareable snack and a beverage suited to the journey.

These combinations address different occasions without requiring every customer to purchase the same predetermined bundle.

Freshness Is a Competitive Signal

Fresh food also helps establish trust. In a separate 2025 NACS Convenience Voices survey, 45% of respondents said they would shop at convenience stores more frequently if higher-quality, fresher food were available. NACS also reported that some customers planned to buy food elsewhere shortly after leaving a store because they could not find enough healthy options or did not consider the food fresh enough.

For operators, that is a warning against confusing availability with appeal. A sandwich in a cooler is an available product. A well-presented sandwich with clear freshness cues, a credible ingredient proposition and an appealing companion beverage is a more complete offer.

Freshness must be supported operationally, too. Production schedules, holding times, temperature controls, replenishment and product rotation all influence whether a retailer can consistently deliver the promise made on its packaging and menu boards.

Better-for-You Food Should Complement, Not Replace, Indulgence

Acosta's findings also point to demand for freshly prepared foods, fresh fruits and vegetables, and high-protein options. This does not mean convenience stores must abandon pizza, fried chicken, candy or other indulgent favorites.

Instead, the opportunity is to broaden the range of choices. A consumer who wants a hot sandwich today may want yogurt, fruit, eggs, cheese or a protein-forward snack tomorrow. Giving that shopper meaningful options can help the retailer remain relevant across more occasions.

Circana's eating-patterns research similarly identifies protein as a high-priority consumer interest and notes that snacks increasingly serve as additions to main meals.

The strategic lesson is straightforward: A broader food assortment can increase the number of reasons to visit without requiring a complete reinvention of the store.

2. The Beverage Sector: From Add-On Purchase to Traffic Driver

Beverages deserve their own strategic focus because they can serve different needs throughout the day: morning energy, lunchtime refreshment, afternoon indulgence, hydration, travel and an accompaniment to dinner.

Coffee shops compete for specialty coffee and indulgent drinks. Quick-service restaurants compete through meal deals and fountain beverages. Grocery stores compete through assortment and multipack value. Convenience retailers can compete across these occasions, provided their beverage offerings are relevant, visible and priced appropriately.

NACS 2025 industry data show that packaged beverages accounted for 18.7% of convenience-store in-store sales. Cold dispensed beverages also represent an important category in convenience retail. These figures demonstrate why beverages deserve active merchandising rather than a supporting role.

Three Beverage Opportunities Retailers Should Consider

1. Build the Morning Occasion

Coffee paired with a breakfast sandwich, pastry, fruit or yogurt gives shoppers an easy way to complete breakfast in one stop. Clear bundle pricing can simplify decisions for commuters who prioritize speed.

2. Own the Portable Meal

Water, flavored water, sports drinks and other cold beverages can complement sandwiches, wraps and hot prepared foods. Position the drink next to the relevant meal components to make the combination easy to find.

3. Create an Afternoon Reason to Return

Iced coffee, tea, specialty drinks and an accompanying sweet or savory snack can give customers a reason to visit outside traditional meal periods. Rotating limited-time combinations can provide variety without overcomplicating the core menu.

The Beverage Should Make the Whole Offer More Attractive

Acosta's research reinforces this point: 62% of shoppers selected a sandwich paired with a beverage as the most appealing convenience-store food-and-drink combination tested.

That is a useful merchandising signal. The customer is not necessarily shopping for a sandwich and then separately deciding whether to buy a drink. The customer may be looking for a complete, portable solution.

Retailers should therefore evaluate beverages not only by their individual sales but also by their role in meal attachment, basket size, daypart coverage and repeat visits.

A well-designed beverage strategy can help turn an isolated food purchase into a more valuable transaction.

3. Mix-and-Match Meal Component Building: The Next Grocerant Opportunity

The most actionable opportunity may be the space between a traditional restaurant combo and a collection of unrelated grab-and-go products.

The Grocerant Guru® has long emphasized that consumers assemble eating occasions across channels. They may buy an entrée from a convenience store, add a beverage they prefer, select a side based on appetite and budget, and finish with a snack. Retailers that make this process easy can compete for more of the consumer's food dollar.

Acosta's finding that 62% of shoppers favored a sandwich-and-beverage combination offers a starting point. Its finding that 84% of surveyed shoppers had purchased prepared food from a convenience store during the previous three months indicates that the category already has an established customer base.

The challenge is to help those customers build more complete baskets while preserving choice.

Five Mix-and-Match Meal-Building Opportunities

1. The Everyday Lunch

Choose a sandwich or wrap, add fruit or another side, and select a cold beverage.

Marketing objective: Increase side and beverage attachment without forcing an oversized meal.

2. The Hot-Food Meal

Combine chicken, pizza or another hot entrée with a side and a beverage.

Marketing objective: Compete more directly with quick-service restaurant meal deals.

3. The Lighter, Protein-Forward Meal

Offer combinations built around eggs, cheese, yogurt, lean protein, fruit or other suitable options.

Marketing objective: Serve customers seeking alternatives to traditional hot meals.

4. The Breakfast Builder

Let customers pair a breakfast sandwich with coffee, fruit or a bakery item.

Marketing objective: Make breakfast selection fast while encouraging complementary purchases.

5. The Travel and Shareable Occasion

Combine portable entrées, individually packaged snacks and multiple beverages for road trips, work breaks or shared eating occasions.

Marketing objective: Increase the number of products purchased per trip by serving a defined occasion.

The Food Marketing Data Behind the Strategy

The following findings from Acosta Group's 2026 C-Store Occasions study help explain why mix-and-match meal building deserves attention.

· 53% of respondents said better value would make them more likely to buy convenience-store food and beverages. Retailers should make the total meal price clear and demonstrate what the customer receives.

· 47% cited higher-quality food as a reason to buy more. Value messaging should be supported by freshness, product quality and appealing presentation.

· 35% cited more freshly prepared meals and snacks. Retailers should build around dependable core items and expand preparation where demand supports it.

· 62% preferred a sandwich-and-beverage combination among the tested meal pairings. Complementary food and beverage combinations deserve prominent placement.

· 84% had purchased prepared food at a convenience store in the previous three months. Retailers should focus on converting existing prepared-food customers into more frequent and complete-meal buyers.

These figures represent survey responses, not guaranteed sales increases.

Additional industry evidence supports the strategy. Circana reported in 2024 that 86% of U.S. eating occasions were sourced from home over the preceding year, illustrating the importance of the at-home food economy even as consumers continue to purchase food away from home.

For convenience retailers, that broader shift reinforces the importance of competing with grocery stores as well as restaurants. Prepared meals, snacks and beverages can serve consumers looking for something to eat immediately, something to take home or individual components to complement food already available.

Five Practical Ways to Merchandise Mix-and-Match Meals

1. Use Good-Better-Best Pricing.

Offer an entry-level meal, a more substantial option and a premium combination. This provides a clear value ladder without assuming every customer has the same budget.

2. Price the Combination Transparently.

Show the individual prices alongside the bundle price when appropriate. Customers should be able to recognize the value rather than having to calculate it themselves.

3. Make Substitutions Easy.

Allow a customer to exchange a drink, side or entrée within defined price limits. Flexibility can make a bundle relevant to more preferences and appetites.

4. Merchandise by Occasion and Daypart.

Breakfast, lunch, dinner, late-night and travel occasions require different products and messages. Organize the offer around what the customer is trying to accomplish.

5. Measure the Incremental Purchase.

Track beverage attachment, side attachment, average transaction value, gross profit per transaction, waste and repeat purchases. A bundle that increases revenue but erodes margin or creates excess waste may not be a successful program.

One important distinction: Higher basket value is not automatically incremental growth. Operators should measure whether bundles encourage customers to buy an additional item or simply shift an existing purchase into a discounted combination. That distinction determines whether the promotion creates profitable new demand.

4. The Competitive Landscape: Convenience Stores Are Competing for Share of Stomach

Acosta's research makes clear that convenience stores operate in a highly competitive environment. Among surveyed shoppers, 81% purchased food or beverages from fast-food restaurants, 78% from mass merchandisers and 77% from traditional grocery stores.

These figures are not mutually exclusive market shares. They show that the same consumers use several channels, giving convenience retailers opportunities to win occasions currently served elsewhere.

The competitive implications vary by channel:

· Fast-food restaurants compete through recognizable menus, hot meals, meal bundles and established expectations of service.

· Grocery stores compete through assortment, fresh foods, family meals and the ability to combine prepared food with household shopping.

· Mass merchandisers compete through perceived value, broad selection and multiproduct trips.

· Coffee shops compete through beverage specialization, customization and daypart loyalty.

· Convenience stores can differentiate themselves through proximity, speed, extended availability and food-and-beverage solutions that require little planning.

The challenge is to translate physical convenience into perceived value. A nearby store does not automatically win if the food is unappealing, the price seems excessive or the shopper cannot identify a complete meal quickly.

This is where the Grocerant perspective becomes particularly relevant. The strongest retailers will not simply ask how to sell more sandwiches, beverages or snacks. They will ask how to satisfy more eating occasions with a coordinated assortment of products.

Three Insights from the Grocerant Guru® Steven Johnson

Insight 1: Sell the Occasion, Not Just the Item.

The sandwich, beverage and side are individual products, but the consumer often sees them as one meal. Organize the offer around breakfast, lunch, dinner, snacking and travel, and make it easy to buy the combination that fits the moment.

Insight 2: Value Is the Equilibrium of Price, Quality and Service.

A low price cannot compensate indefinitely for disappointing food. Freshness, reliable execution, portability and a transparent total price all contribute to perceived value. Convenience retailers must deliver the right balance, not simply discount their way into competition.

Insight 3: Mix-and-Match Meal Building Can Create the Next Growth Opportunity.

Consumers do not necessarily want a fixed combination or a traditional restaurant menu. They want to choose the entrée, side and beverage that fit their appetite, schedule and budget. Retailers that make those choices easy—and measure the incremental profit they generate—can compete for more share of stomach.

The Bottom Line

Convenience stores have a substantial foodservice foundation, and the latest Acosta findings point to clear opportunities to build on it. The next phase of growth will depend on delivering more than speed: Shoppers want food that tastes good, looks fresh, feels worth the price and fits the occasion.

For the food sector, that means strengthening prepared meals, improving freshness cues and expanding relevant choices. For the beverage sector, it means treating drinks as both standalone destinations and essential meal components. For merchandising, it means connecting these categories through transparent, flexible mix-and-match combinations.

From the perspective of Steven Johnson, the Grocerant Guru® and founder of Tacoma, Washington-based Foodservice Solutions®, the opportunity is not limited to selling more products inside a convenience store. It is about helping consumers assemble the food and beverage solutions they want—wherever and whenever they want them.

The retailers that make that process easier, more appealing and more valuable will be better positioned to turn convenience into a lasting competitive advantage.

Are you trapped doing what you have always done and doing it the same way? Interested in learning how www.FoodserviceSolutions.us can edify your retail food brand while creating a platform for consumer convenient meal participation, differentiation and individualization? Email us at: Steve@FoodserviceSolutions.us or visit: www.FoodserviceSolutions.us for more information.

KFC Go Buckets: A Return to its Roots, One Cupholder at a Time

2026-10-10T00:10:00.000-07:00

KFC is making its iconic bucket smaller, more portable, and more relevant to how Americans eat today. With the introduction of Go Buckets, starting at $3.49, the quick-service chicken chain is doing something strategically important: bringing its heritage into a new eating occasion according to Steven Johnson Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®. .

The lesson for foodservice retailers is straightforward. The strongest innovation does not always require inventing something new. Sometimes it means making what customers already love fit their lives better.

Announced October 5, 2026, KFC's U.S. Go Buckets offer customers a choice of four nuggets, two wings, or one chicken tender, accompanied by fries or potato wedges. Six combinations give customers options, while the snack-sized container is designed to fit a standard car cupholder.

That last detail is more than packaging. It is a marketing decision that connects food, convenience, mobility, and an everyday consumer behavior: eating between traditional meals.

From the Family Bucket to the Personal Bucket

KFC's bucket story began in 1957, when Colonel Harland Sanders and Pete Harman, the brand's first franchise owner, developed a take-home family meal. The original offering included 14 pieces of Kentucky Fried Chicken, five rolls, and a pint of gravy.

The bucket was not simply a container. It represented a complete meal, designed for sharing at home.

Go Buckets preserve that brand recognition while changing the occasion. Instead of asking customers to bring home a family meal, KFC can now appeal to an individual looking for a quick bite, a commuter seeking something convenient, or a group picking up several snacks.

This is a meaningful distinction: KFC is not abandoning its roots; it is extending them. The bucket remains the recognizable brand asset, but the portion, price, and physical format are designed around a different consumer need.

The Cupholder Is the New Serving Occasion

Foodservice marketers have spent years talking about portability. KFC has turned that concept into a tangible product feature.

A Go Bucket that fits in a standard car cupholder can travel with the customer without requiring a traditional meal setting. It is designed for the passenger seat, the commute, the trip between errands, or a quick stop before the next activity.

The packaging itself communicates the intended use. Customers do not need to interpret an advertising slogan to understand the benefit: this is KFC designed to go.

And the $3.49 starting price puts the product into a lower-commitment purchase conversation than a full meal. For value-conscious consumers, that matters. A snack can be an incremental purchase, while a larger meal may require a more deliberate decision.

The opportunity is to generate occasions that might otherwise go to convenience stores, vending, packaged snacks, or a competing quick-service restaurant.

KFC's launch announcement points to two relevant consumer behaviors: 87% of Americans report snacking outside traditional mealtimes, according to Datassential, and nearly three out of four restaurant orders are taken to go, according to the National Restaurant Association.

Five Food Marketing Data Points: Why Customer Participation Works

Go Buckets are a product innovation, but they also demonstrate the principles behind interactive, participatory, customer-focused marketing. Customers make choices, customize their experience, respond to offers, and determine when and where they consume the product.

1. Listening and Confirming Improve Order Accuracy

The 2024 QSR Drive-Thru Report, produced with Intouch Insight, found that order accuracy was 8% higher when customers were asked to confirm their orders on the confirmation board. Accuracy was also 7% higher when customers did not have to repeat their orders.

Marketing takeaway: Participation works when customers can confirm that the brand has understood what they want. Choice must be matched by execution.

2. Drive-Thru Is a Massive Customer Touchpoint

The CMO Council reported approximately 6 billion U.S. drive-thru visits annually, or roughly 50 million visits a day. It also estimated that drive-thru accounted for 60%–70% of quick-service restaurant sales.

Marketing takeaway: Six billion visits represent enormous potential for relevant offers, menu discovery, customization, and repeat purchases.

3. Customers Want More Than a Generic Promotion

SevenRooms' 2025 U.S. restaurant research found that 83% of diners were willing to sign up for restaurant marketing programs, provided the benefits went beyond discounts. The research also found that 48% of consumers preferred communicating with restaurants by text.

Marketing takeaway: Give customers a reason to participate. Exclusive offers, early access, and relevant messages can make engagement feel valuable rather than intrusive.

4. Personalized Marketing Can Outperform Mass Messaging

DataDelivers' 2024 Restaurant Guest Engagement Report analyzed 68 million guests across more than 2,000 restaurant locations. Its findings indicated that one-to-one marketing generated 400% higher engagement.

Marketing takeaway: Customer data becomes valuable when it helps a brand deliver the right offer to the right guest—not simply when it builds a larger database.

5. Recognition Can Be More Powerful Than Points

Toast's 2026 Regulars Report found that 48% of surveyed diners said being remembered by restaurant staff made them feel most valued. Only 30% said they always felt recognized at the restaurants they visited most.

Marketing takeaway: Participation is not limited to apps and loyalty points. Remembering preferences, recognizing regulars, and making ordering easier are customer-focused marketing, too.

How Many Meals and Snacks Are Purchased Through U.S. Drive-Thrus Each Year?

The best-supported industry figure reviewed for this article is approximately 6 billion drive-thru visits annually, based on 2024 reporting from the CMO Council. That equates to roughly 16.4 million visits per day.

However, visits are not the same as meals or individual food items. One transaction may include a family meal, several snacks, multiple beverages, or food for an entire vehicle. There is no verified figure establishing the exact annual number of individual meals and snacks purchased through U.S. drive-thrus.

For KFC, that distinction matters. Go Buckets are designed to generate additional snack occasions, not just replace existing meal transactions.

A customer who previously drove past KFC between lunch and dinner might now have a reason to stop. Another customer might add a Go Bucket to an existing family order. A third might buy several buckets for passengers.

Each scenario represents a different opportunity to increase purchase frequency, transaction value, or both.

2026: KFC's Comeback Is About Relevance, Value, and Convenience

Go Buckets fit into KFC's broader U.S. comeback strategy, which has emphasized value offerings alongside renewed attention to the brand experience.

The chain has introduced promotions and bundles including its 5 for $5 Tenders deal, $20 Build-a-Bucket, $10 Bucket of the Day, and Popcorn Chicken Big Box. Go Buckets extend that value strategy into a smaller purchase occasion.

The product also offers a useful lesson about customer participation. Six combinations give consumers a degree of control without making the menu complicated. Customers select their preferred chicken, choose fries or wedges, and can enjoy the product in a format designed around their day.

That is customer-focused innovation: not asking consumers to change their behavior to accommodate the restaurant, but adapting the restaurant's offer to consumer behavior.

The larger opportunity is to connect the physical product to digital engagement. KFC can use app offers, limited-time flavor combinations, loyalty rewards, and customer feedback to learn which combinations drive trial and repeat purchases. Those are potential strategies, not evidence that every one is already part of the Go Buckets launch.

Three Insights from the Grocerant Guru®

1. Brand Heritage Is an Asset When It Evolves With the Customer

KFC's bucket began as a family-meal solution. Go Buckets translate that recognizable brand equity into a personal, portable snack. The lesson: protect what customers remember, but continually find new occasions for them to use it.

2. Portability Is a Food Marketing Strategy, Not Just a Packaging Feature

A container designed to fit a car cupholder removes friction between the customer, the food, and the occasion. In today's foodservice marketplace, convenience, portion size, price, and portability all contribute to perceived value.

3. Participation Builds Relevance—and Relevance Builds Repeat Business

Give customers choices, make ordering easy, recognize their preferences, and offer value that fits their lives. The winners across restaurants, grocery service delis, and convenience stores will be those that understand there are no silos in the consumer's mind. Customers simply want good food, at the right price, in the right place, when they want it.

The bottom line: KFC's Go Buckets are a small product with a big strategic message. The brand is returning to its roots while embracing the future of foodservice: more snacking, more portability, more value, and more customer participation.

That is how a familiar bucket can create a new reason to buy.

Braggability Has Taken a Hit: When Restaurant Price Becomes More Memorable Than the Food

2026-10-09T00:09:00.000-07:00

The Grocerant Guru® asks: When did “You have to try this!” become “Can you believe what they charged me?”

There was a time when restaurant food created braggability.

A customer discovered something new, tasted something memorable and couldn't wait to tell somebody about it.

“You have to try this burger.”

“Their chicken is incredible.”

“I found this little place and the food is fantastic.”

“You've got to try their new dish.”

That is braggability.

It is the moment when the customer becomes the marketer.

I have been talking about braggability within the Grocerant Niche for years because the consumer doesn't simply want food. Consumers want discovery, differentiation, convenience, personalization and something worth talking about.

My original Foodservice Solutions® Grocerant ScoreCards identified three powerful reasons consumers purchased Ready-2-Eat and Heat-N-Eat fresh-prepared food:

Freshness.

Full Flavor.

Fast.

Those were food attributes capable of creating conversation.

But today there is a problem.

Restaurant braggability has taken a hit.

And the restaurant industry helped create the problem.

After years of menu-price increases, consumers are increasingly talking about what dinner cost rather than what dinner tasted like.

The National Restaurant Association reported in September 2026 that restaurant menu prices were 3.4% higher than a year earlier, while restaurant operators continued to face affordability pressures and increasingly value-conscious consumers.

Meanwhile, Deloitte's 2026 restaurant research identifies the dangerous cycle many chains have created:

Raise prices → traffic softens → discount → margin suffers → investment gets constrained → discount again.

Deloitte specifically warns that restaurants can become trapped in this promotional cycle instead of building value through quality, service and execution.

That's not a food-marketing strategy.

That's a food-price strategy.

And there is a difference.

Legacy Restaurant Marketing Has a Braggability Problem

For decades, America's restaurant chains built their brands around a relatively simple formula:

Build a menu.

Build a location base.

Build advertising.

Build awareness.

Repeat.

The problem?

Consumers changed.

Food changed.

Technology changed.

Meal occasions changed.

The grocery store changed.

C-stores changed.

Delivery changed.

Takeout changed.

And the consumer stopped thinking in restaurant-industry silos.

Yet too many legacy restaurant brands continue to behave as if consumers wake up every morning thinking:

“Today I am going to visit a casual-dining restaurant.”

They don't.

Consumers wake up thinking:

“What's for dinner?”

That is the Grocerant Niche.

And it changes everything.

The consumer can eat out.

Take out.

Order delivery.

Buy a prepared meal at the grocery store.

Stop at a C-store.

Buy meal components.

Heat something at home.

Or mix and match all of the above.

The consumer doesn't care which industry's organizational chart supplied dinner.

They care about dinner.

Fast Food: The Category That Accidentally Made Price the Headline

Fast food was once one of the most powerful braggability machines in America.

The food was recognizable.

The brands were distinctive.

The products were craveable.

The service was fast.

And the price was predictable.

Then came inflation.

And menu-price increases.

And consumers noticed.

The Associated Press reported in 2025 that McDonald's prices had increased roughly 40% between 2019 and 2024, contributing to weakened value perceptions and traffic pressure. McDonald's responded with additional value initiatives and price reductions on selected combo meals.

Think about that from a food-marketing perspective.

McDonald's built one of the world's most recognizable food brands.

Yet it found itself having to remind consumers that its food was affordable.

That is a warning sign.

The industry responded with $5 meal deals, $6 meal deals, app promotions, loyalty discounts, bundle offers and limited-time value platforms.

Those programs can work.

Circana reported in 2025 that consumer-perceived value-menu traffic increased 1% in the quarter ending June 2025, even as total restaurant traffic declined 1%.

But there is a catch.

Nearly 29% of commercial foodservice traffic was on a deal during the 12 months measured by Circana in 2025—the highest rate in roughly 50 years.

That should scare legacy brand managers.

Not because discounts are bad.

Because when nearly one-third of the industry's traffic is connected to a deal, the deal itself begins competing with the brand.

The customer may not remember the restaurant.

They remember the price.

That's not braggability.

That's bargainability.

Mid-Market Restaurants: The Chains That Finally Figured Out the Fast-Food Problem

Now here is where legacy restaurant marketers should pay attention.

Casual dining has increasingly started taking customers away from fast food by saying, in effect:

“For a little more money, you can have a much better meal.”

That is a brilliant competitive position.

Restaurant Dive reported in 2025 that casual-dining chains including Chili's, Applebee's and Olive Garden were using value strategies to compete directly with QSRs. Chili's, in particular, was posting strong sales and traffic performance while the broader industry struggled.

Why?

Because value isn't necessarily cheap.

Value is what the consumer believes they received for what they paid.

That distinction is critical.

Circana explicitly warned restaurant operators in 2025 that value is rarely defined only by price. Quality, affordability, experience and convenience all contribute.

And Deloitte's 2026 analysis says essentially the same thing: restaurants that deliver stronger quality, service and execution can create greater perceived value without simply cutting prices.

That is exactly where braggability comes back.

A customer doesn't brag about saving 75 cents.

They brag about getting an unexpectedly great meal.

“We went to Chili's and that burger was fantastic.”

“We got a really good meal for what we paid.”

“You have to try this.”

That is a completely different marketing outcome.

High-End Restaurants: Expensive Isn't the Problem—Unremarkable Is

Now let's talk about specialty and high-end restaurants.

A premium restaurant has never promised to be inexpensive.

It promises to be worth it.

That means the food has to deliver something consumers cannot easily replicate.

An extraordinary ingredient.

A unique preparation.

A chef-driven experience.

A remarkable dessert.

A beautiful presentation.

Exceptional hospitality.

A memorable setting.

A dish nobody else is serving.

That's braggability.

The danger occurs when the check gets bigger while the experience becomes more ordinary.

Expensive + ordinary = resentment.

Expensive + extraordinary = experience.

NIQ's 2026 restaurant research found that 43% of guests associate value with high-quality food, while 38% associate value with high-quality drinks. NIQ also found that restaurant value perceptions remain below where they were before the inflation shock.

That means premium restaurants can't simply say:

“We're expensive because we're premium.”

They have to demonstrate the premium.

Every plate.

Every ingredient.

Every interaction.

Every service touchpoint.

Every time.

Because consumers have become more analytical.

The American Customer Satisfaction Index reported in June 2026 that sustained increases in food, labor and supply-chain costs have pushed diners to evaluate restaurant experiences more selectively, judging price, quality and execution together.

The consumer is no longer evaluating the entrée.

The consumer is evaluating the equation.

Whole Foods Still Has a “Whole Paycheck” Problem

Then there is Whole Foods.

Few food brands demonstrate the power of consumer price perception better than Whole Foods Market.

The “Whole Paycheck” nickname has survived for years.

Whether it is completely fair is almost irrelevant.

That's the point.

Consumer perception becomes brand equity.

Once consumers believe something is expensive, every price is interpreted through that belief.

Whole Foods understands this.

Its current value strategy includes Prime member deals, weekly promotions, additional discounts on sale items and its 365 private-label products.

Why?

Because even a premium food retailer must demonstrate value.

And that lesson should be hanging on every restaurant brand manager's wall.

You can spend millions building a premium brand.

You can have celebrity chefs.

You can build beautiful restaurants.

You can create sophisticated advertising.

But if the consumer walks away thinking:

“That wasn't worth it,”

the brand has a problem.

The Most Dangerous Restaurant Brand Is the Look-a-Like / Menu-a-Like Brand

This is where I become particularly critical of legacy restaurant marketing.

Walk through virtually any American market.

How many burgers look alike?

How many chicken sandwiches look alike?

How many bowls look alike?

How many casual restaurants have nearly identical menus?

How many restaurant interiors look like they were designed from the same PowerPoint presentation?

How many brands launch a new menu item because a competitor did?

How many chains advertise essentially the same value proposition?

Then executives wonder why customers aren't excited.

Why would consumers brag about a restaurant that looks exactly like every other restaurant?

My original observation remains relevant:

Differentiation doesn't mean different. It means familiar with a twist—and today that twist must be clearly defined and noticeable.

That's the opportunity.

But too many legacy restaurant marketers have confused brand consistency with consumer relevance.

Consistency is good.

Sameness is not.

The New Consumer Has a Bigger Food Playground

Today's consumer has more choices than ever.

That's why the Grocerant Niche continues to matter.

The consumer can create a meal from multiple sources.

A grocery-store entrée.

A C-store beverage.

A restaurant side.

A bakery dessert.

A prepared salad.

A delivery order.

A meal kit.

A heat-and-eat entrée.

A restaurant appetizer eaten at home.

This is convenient meal participation.

And it destroys the old idea that restaurants own the dinner occasion.

They don't.

Nobody does.

The consumer owns the occasion.

That's why restaurant chains should stop asking:

“How do we get consumers to choose our restaurant?”

And start asking:

“Why should consumers choose our food?”

That is a much harder question.

But it is the right one.

Food First. Local Location Second. Service Always.

My food-marketing philosophy has always been straightforward:

FOOD First.

Local Location Second.

Tied with Service.

Not advertising first.

Not real estate first.

Not the loyalty app first.

Not the celebrity endorsement first.

Not the discount first.

FOOD First.

Because great food creates memories.

Great food creates repeat visits.

Great food creates social sharing.

Great food creates discovery.

Great food creates differentiation.

And great food creates braggability.

The National Restaurant Association projects U.S. restaurant and foodservice sales at approximately $1.55 trillion in 2026, but it also says persistent cost pressures, uneven traffic and rising costs will continue to challenge operators.

That's an enormous industry.

But enormous doesn't mean immune to disruption.

The restaurant industry is competing for the same consumer wallet as every other food channel.

And the consumer is becoming increasingly selective.

Legacy Brand Managers: Stop Asking “How Can We Raise the Price?”

Here's the uncomfortable question.

Perhaps restaurant brand managers should stop asking:

“How much more can we charge?”

And start asking:

“What can we add to the food that makes the consumer willing to pay?”

Those are completely different questions.

One is pricing.

The other is marketing.

AlixPartners' 2026 analysis of approximately 90,000 restaurant locations found average restaurant menu prices rising slightly faster than inflation, while average transaction value failed to keep pace—evidence of trade-down behavior and product-mix shifts toward lower-priced choices.

That is the consumer voting with the wallet.

The consumer is saying:

“I still want restaurant food. I just don't want to overpay for ordinary restaurant food.”

That is a huge distinction.

Braggability Is the Missing Ingredient

Restaurant companies don't need another copycat burger.

They don't need another menu that looks like everyone else's.

They don't need another generic “new and improved” advertising campaign.

They need something consumers can discover.

Something consumers can personalize.

Something consumers can photograph.

Something consumers can taste and remember.

Something consumers can tell somebody else about.

Something that makes the customer say:

“You have to try this.”

That is braggability.

And in 2026, braggability may be more valuable than another percentage point of discounting.

Because discounting buys transactions.

Braggability builds brands.

Three Insights from the Grocerant Guru®

1. Legacy restaurant brands have confused VALUE with PRICE.

Value is not simply paying less. Circana, Deloitte and NIQ all point toward the same conclusion: quality, service, convenience, execution and experience determine whether consumers believe the price was worthwhile.

If your only competitive advantage is a lower price, somebody else can always become cheaper.

But if your advantage is food people cannot stop talking about, you have created something much harder to copy.

2. Look-a-Like / Menu-a-Like restaurants have surrendered their most valuable marketing asset: DIFFERENTIATION.

The consumer doesn't need another restaurant that looks like every other restaurant.

They need familiar with a twist.

They need discovery.

They need individualization.

They need convenient meal participation.

They need something that fits their life and gives them something to talk about.

Stop copying competitors and start giving consumers a reason to brag.

3. The next great restaurant brand won't necessarily be the one with the lowest price—it will be the one with the strongest FOOD STORY.

The restaurant industry is still enormous, but the consumer is increasingly selective.

The winner will understand that restaurants no longer own the meal occasion.

The consumer does.

That's the essence of the Grocerant Niche.

So I ask legacy restaurant brand managers:

What are you giving consumers to talk about?

What are you giving them to photograph?

What are you giving them to recommend?

What are you giving them to brag about?

Because if your customer leaves your restaurant talking only about how much it cost, you may have a pricing strategy.

But you don't necessarily have a food-marketing strategy.

FOOD First. Local Location Second. Service tied to both.

And then ask the question I have been asking for years:

Does your restaurant have BRAGGABILITY?

Because the best marketing department you will ever have is a customer who can't wait to tell somebody else about your food.

Success Leaves Clues—Are You Ready to Find Yours?

One key insight that continues to drive success is this: "The consumer is dynamic, not static." This principle is the foundation of our work at Foodservice Solutions®, where Steven Johnson, the Grocerant Guru®, has been helping brands stay relevant in an ever-evolving market.

Want to strengthen your brand’s connection with today’s consumers? Let’s talk. Call 253-759-7869 for more information.

Stay Ahead of the Competition with Fresh Ideas

Is your food marketing keeping up with tomorrow’s trends—or stuck in yesterday’s playbook? If you're ready for fresh ideations that set your brand apart, we’re here to help.

At Foodservice Solutions®, we specialize in consumer-driven retail food strategies that enhance convenience, differentiation, and individualization—key factors in driving growth.

Email us at Steve@FoodserviceSolutions.us.

AI Is Coming for the Foodservice Job—Or Is It?

2026-10-08T00:08:00.000-07:00

From Cashierless Checkout to Robot Cooks, AI Is Rewriting Who Does the Work Behind the Food. Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®, believes that technology has always had a complicated relationship with foodservice workers.

Twenty years ago, the question was whether self-service kiosks would eliminate cashiers. Then came mobile ordering, self-checkout, automated inventory systems, voice ordering, delivery apps and cashierless stores.

Today, the question is much bigger:

Will Artificial Intelligence replace the foodservice worker—or simply change what the foodservice worker does?

That question is no longer theoretical.

It is playing out every day in restaurants, convenience stores and grocery-service-deli departments.

And there is another group we should not overlook:

unit managers.

The cashier worries about losing the register.

The cook worries about losing the fryer.

The server worries about losing the table.

The deli employee worries about losing the prepared-food counter.

But the unit manager worries about something different:

How many people will I need to run this store tomorrow?

That is where AI becomes both a foodservice worker's potential job killer and an operator's potential savior.

The Technology Train Has Left the Station

My earlier article, “Foodservice Workers Worry as Cashierless Checkouts Mushroom,” examined how Mastercard, Accel Robotics, Circle K, Dunkin' and White Castle were experimenting with frictionless checkout and AI-powered ordering.

That was not the end of the story.

It was the beginning.

In 2024, grocery technology was already moving beyond traditional self-checkout. Grocery Dive reported that grocers were experimenting with smart carts, cashierless technology and other frictionless systems designed to address long lines and labor challenges. Amazon's Just Walk Out technology was already being used in venues such as airports and stadiums.

By 2025, the restaurant technology conversation had expanded dramatically.

Robots were delivering food.

AI was answering phones.

Robotics were moving into kitchen production.

And automated ordering was beginning to take routine work away from employees.

By 2026, AI has moved even further into the operating system of foodservice.

The question is no longer whether AI is coming.

The question is:

Where will it stop?

1. The Restaurant Cook: From Fryer to Food Production Supervisor

Consider what is happening inside restaurant kitchens.

Chipotle, for example, has been investing in automated kitchen equipment and robotic technology. In 2025, the company was rolling out new kitchen equipment designed to simplify restaurant operations across its system of thousands of restaurants. It has also invested in Hyphen's automated makeline technology, which can assemble digital orders such as bowls and salads. CAVA subsequently invested in Hyphen as well.

That creates an entirely different job description.

Yesterday:

Cook the food.

Tomorrow:

Manage the equipment that cooks the food.

That sounds like a subtle distinction.

It isn't.

If one automated makeline can perform the repetitive portion of several employees' work, the operator begins asking a different labor question:

Do I need five people—or three?

That is where worker anxiety is legitimate.

But here is the other side of the equation.

Automation doesn't necessarily mean a restaurant becomes employee-free.

Restaurant Business has previously reported that robotic kitchen systems still require people to program orders, restock ingredients, clean equipment and manage the operation. In other words, the robot may perform the repetitive task, but humans remain responsible for making the system work.

That is an important distinction.

AI may not eliminate the kitchen worker. It may eliminate the old definition of the kitchen worker.

2. The Server: Is the Dining Room Becoming a Delivery Room?

The front of the house faces an equally profound transformation.

Consumers increasingly order through phones, apps, kiosks and websites.

In 2025, the National Restaurant Association reported that 51% of consumers considered takeout or delivery essential to their lifestyle.

That matters.

Because every order that moves from a dining room table to a digital channel changes the labor equation.

A traditional restaurant requires:

Host → Server → Kitchen → Server → Busser → Payment

A digital off-premises order can look more like:

Consumer → AI/Digital Order → Kitchen → Pickup/Delivery

Now add delivery automation.

DoorDash introduced Dot, an autonomous delivery robot, in September 2025. The small electric robot is designed to operate on sidewalks, bike lanes and parking areas as part of DoorDash's autonomous delivery platform.

Restaurant technology companies have also demonstrated robots designed to transport food to tables and remove dishes.

At the 2025 National Restaurant Association Show, Pudu Robotics demonstrated Bella Bot Plus, a robot designed to assist with food and beverage delivery and repetitive tasks such as moving dishes and cutlery.

Think about what that means for the traditional server.

The server's job used to be:

Take order. Deliver food. Refill drinks. Clear dishes. Process payment.

Technology can increasingly perform portions of every one of those tasks.

So what happens to the server?

The best answer may be:

The server becomes more valuable—but there may be fewer of them.

That is a very different proposition.

3. The Phone Doesn't Need a Person Anymore

The restaurant telephone is another example.

In April 2025, Donatos announced it would deploy Revmo AI for automated phone ordering across its 174 restaurants. The objective was to remove rote ordering tasks from employees while improving order conversion and the guest experience.

Later in 2025, Red Lobster announced systemwide deployment of SoundHound AI technology to handle phone takeout orders. Again, the stated goal was to free employees to concentrate on in-person service.

From the operator's perspective, this is logical.

A human employee answering the phone can handle one call at a time.

AI can potentially handle multiple calls simultaneously.

That is a productivity equation.

But from the employee's perspective, it is also a warning:

If answering the phone is 80% repetitive, why should an operator pay a person to do it?

That is precisely the question AI forces the industry to confront.

4. Convenience Stores: AI Is Moving Behind the Counter

The C-store industry may be one of the most interesting laboratories for AI because convenience retailers operate at the intersection of retail, foodservice, fuel, prepared foods, inventory and speed.

In 2026, NACS reported that AI was moving into workforce optimization, inventory, customer experience, foodservice monitoring and operational intelligence.

Majors Management, which supports more than 1,400 convenience stores through its MAPCO brand and supply network, announced plans in 2026 to deploy AI, machine learning and agentic systems across pricing, inventory, loyalty, labor planning and customer experience.

And 7-Eleven has been using AI technology to streamline recruiting, payroll, HR and operational processes.

That is important because the unit manager is one of the biggest beneficiaries.

7-Eleven reported that its old hiring process could take nearly two weeks and involved candidate ghosting and missed first days. Its AI-supported platform consolidated recruiting and workforce systems. Importantly, the company's talent leadership emphasized listening to store leaders and frontline employees before implementing the technology.

That is the right question for AI:

What problem are we trying to solve?

Not:

Where can we put AI?

5. The C-Store Foodservice Worker Faces a Different Future

The convenience store is rapidly becoming a foodservice destination.

In 2026, industry technology providers described foodservice as the leading growth opportunity for convenience retailers, with prepared food and grab-and-go increasingly central to the business.

That means the C-store employee increasingly isn't simply a cashier.

They may be:

· Preparing fresh food.

· Managing hot-hold products.

· Monitoring food temperatures.

· Stocking grab-and-go meals.

· Managing digital orders.

· Cleaning equipment.

· Handling customers.

· Monitoring food waste.

· Operating technology.

AI can now help with many of those tasks.

NACS reported in 2026 that AI-enabled food-safety systems can automatically monitor temperatures, generate alerts and create digital audit trails, reducing manual temperature logging.

That sounds like a worker benefit.

And it can be.

But it also creates another question:

If technology eliminates enough administrative and monitoring work, does the store need the same number of employees?

That is the uncomfortable conversation.

6. Grocery-Service Deli Workers Are Not Immune

The grocery-service deli may actually be one of the most fascinating parts of the Grocerant Niche.

Why?

Because it combines:

Retail + Restaurant + Prepared Food + Grab-and-Go.

In 2024, Fresh Thyme expanded its partnership with Afresh to bring AI-driven ordering and inventory management into deli and prepared-food departments. The technology provided inventory recommendations and automated ordering capabilities.

That means AI isn't merely deciding what somebody should buy.

It can increasingly help decide:

How much food should the deli prepare?

That is huge.

A deli manager historically depended upon experience:

"We sold 42 rotisserie chickens yesterday. It's Friday. Let's make more."

AI can analyze sales patterns, weather, day of week, promotions, inventory, waste and other variables.

The objective isn't necessarily to eliminate the deli employee.

It is to eliminate guesswork.

But again, there is a labor implication.

If better forecasting means fewer mistakes, less waste and more accurate production, the operator may eventually need fewer labor hours.

And the deli employee who once spent hours counting, recording and adjusting inventory may find that AI has already done the work.

7. The Prepackaged Meal Is Another Labor Equation

Now take this one step further.

The consumer wants:

Dinner.

They don't necessarily care whether that dinner was cooked in a restaurant, grocery deli, C-store kitchen, commissary or food manufacturing facility.

That is the heart of the Grocerant Niche.

Consumers increasingly think in terms of food occasions, not traditional industry silos.

A prepackaged ready-to-eat meal can eliminate several labor steps.

There is no server.

There may be no cook at the point of purchase.

There may be no cashier.

There may be no dining room.

The consumer:

Picks it up → Pays digitally → Takes it home → Eats.

That is convenience.

But it is also labor compression.

The industry is moving from:

More employees touching the food

toward:

More technology coordinating fewer human touches.

8. And What About the Unit Manager?

This may be the most overlooked part of the AI discussion.

The unit manager is already expected to be:

· Recruiter.

· Scheduler.

· Food-safety manager.

· Inventory manager.

· Customer-service manager.

· Labor-cost manager.

· Sales manager.

· Trainer.

· Problem solver.

· Technology troubleshooter.

AI can potentially help with every one.

The National Restaurant Association's 2026 research found that about 26% of restaurant operators were using AI tools, with applications including marketing, administrative tasks, menu optimization, employee scheduling, customer ordering, inventory management and reservations. Most importantly, 94% of operators reported that their technology investments over the previous two to three years had not resulted in permanent job elimination.

That is an important reality check.

The AI apocalypse hasn't arrived.

But the operating model is changing.

And the same 2026 research shows where the transformation is heading.

Technology is not just being aimed at the cashier.

It is moving into:

Scheduling. Ordering. Inventory. Marketing. Hiring. Production. Food safety. Delivery.

The unit manager is increasingly becoming a technology-enabled manager.

The Real Fear May Not Be "AI Will Take My Job"

The bigger fear may be:

"AI will take pieces of my job until there isn't enough of my old job left."

That is different.

A restaurant employee might not lose his or her job to a robot.

Instead, one robot may eliminate the need for one employee during the lunch rush.

AI scheduling may eliminate two hours of administrative work.

Automated ordering may eliminate phone coverage.

A robotic makeline may eliminate repetitive assembly.

Digital payments may reduce cashier transactions.

Delivery robots may reduce delivery labor.

Prepackaged meals may reduce production labor.

Individually, each change seems small.

Collectively, they can fundamentally change the labor model.

Foodservice Operators Have a Responsibility

Technology is not inherently good or bad.

The question is how it is deployed.

NACS reported in 2026 that frontline employees need to understand how AI works and that retailers need to prepare their people—not simply drop technology on them.

That may be the most important lesson.

Don't implement AI to replace people. Implement AI to make people better—then be honest about what happens next.

Because eventually, some jobs will disappear.

That has happened every time foodservice technology has advanced.

The question is whether the industry creates better jobs, better training and better customer experiences as it eliminates repetitive tasks.

The Grocerant Niche Changes the Conversation

This is where I believe the Grocerant Niche provides an important lens.

The consumer doesn't care whether the meal came from:

Restaurant + Grocery + C-store + Delivery + Ghost Kitchen + Prepared Foods.

The consumer cares about:

PRICE + QUALITY + SERVICE + CONVENIENCE.

Technology can improve all four.

But technology cannot completely replace the human experience.

A machine can assemble a bowl.

AI can answer a telephone.

A robot can deliver a meal.

A camera can monitor inventory.

A computer can predict tomorrow's demand.

But someone still has to care whether the food is good.

Someone has to notice the customer who needs help.

Someone has to fix the equipment.

Someone has to solve the problem when the AI gets it wrong.

And someone has to take responsibility.

That is why I don't believe the future of foodservice is human versus machine.

I believe it is:

Human + Machine.

But—and this is the big but—the human workforce of 2030 will not look like the workforce of 2020.

Three Insights From the Grocerant Guru®

1. AI will not kill foodservice—but it will kill repetitive foodservice work.

Cashiering, phone ordering, inventory counting, scheduling, temperature logging, food assembly and delivery are all increasingly becoming technology-assisted or automated. Operators should prepare workers for the jobs that remain rather than pretending the old jobs will remain unchanged.

2. The unit manager may become the most important human in the AI-enabled foodservice operation.

The winning manager will not compete with AI. The winning manager will know when to use it, when to question it and when to override it. AI can analyze the business; the manager still has to run the business.

3. FOOD still comes first.

The foodservice industry can automate the transaction, the kitchen, the delivery and even the checkout—but consumers still have to want the food.

That brings me back to one of the fundamental principles of the Grocerant Niche:

FOOD First. Location Second. Service Always.

AI can make foodservice faster.

AI can make foodservice more efficient.

AI can reduce labor costs.

But AI cannot make mediocre food magically delicious.

The future belongs to foodservice operators that use technology to remove friction while using people to create relevance.

The foodservice industry is dynamic—not static.

The question isn't whether AI is coming.

It already arrived.

The question is:

Are foodservice workers, unit managers and operators ready to evolve with it?

Are you ready for some fresh ideations? Do your food marketing ideas look more like yesterday than tomorrow? Interested in learning how our Grocerant Guru® can edify your retail food brand while creating a platform for consumer convenient meal participation, differentiation and individualization? Email us at: Steve@FoodserviceSolutions.us or visit: us on our social media sites.

Independent Restaurants Are Feeling the Squeeze: When the Consumer’s Wallet Gets Tight, Food Has to Work Harder

2026-10-07T00:07:00.000-07:00

The independent restaurant and small local-chain operator has always played a different game than the national restaurant chain.

There is usually no billion-dollar advertising budget. There is no enormous purchasing department negotiating national contracts. There may not be a sophisticated real-estate department capable of moving locations when occupancy costs become untenable according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

There is simply a restaurant, a neighborhood, a kitchen, employees, customers—and a monthly P&L.

And in 2026, that P&L is under pressure.

The 2026 Independent Restaurant Industry Report from the James Beard Foundation, produced with Deloitte, surveyed more than 380 independent restaurant owners, chefs and operators across 47 states. Its conclusion is remarkably clear: independent operators are dealing with persistent pressure on costs, demand and predictability.

That pressure is coming from multiple directions simultaneously.

Food inflation is only one piece of the problem

The National Restaurant Association estimates that total restaurant expenses increased 36% between 2019 and 2026, with food, labor, utilities, occupancy, supplies and credit-card processing all contributing to the increase.

That number matters because a restaurant does not operate on food cost alone.

The operator is paying for:

· Food

· Labor

· Rent

· Utilities

· Insurance

· Technology

· Credit-card fees

· Repairs

· Packaging

· Delivery commissions

· Local taxes and regulatory costs

Meanwhile, the customer is paying attention to the price on the menu.

That creates the restaurant industry's great 2026 dilemma:

The operator's costs are rising while the consumer's tolerance for higher prices is not rising at the same speed.

The James Beard Foundation found that restaurants raising menu prices by more than 10% were the most likely to expect lower profits.

In other words, raising prices can protect revenue while simultaneously damaging demand.

That is the pricing trap.

The consumer has not stopped eating out

Here is where the story gets particularly interesting.

Bank of America reported in August 2026 that restaurant spending and transaction growth had improved meaningfully during 2026. Its card data also showed spending growth strongest at independent restaurants, regional operators and other non-chain establishments, while some national chains were not participating as strongly in the rebound.

That is an important food-marketing signal.

The consumer is not saying:

"I don't want restaurants."

The consumer is increasingly saying:

"Give me a reason to spend my money here."

That is a very different question.

And it brings us directly to the Grocerant Niche.

The household food budget is one wallet

Consumers do not wake up thinking:

"Today I will spend $38.72 from my restaurant budget and $74.21 from my grocery budget."

They think:

"What's for dinner—and what can I afford?"

That food decision can move among supermarkets, restaurants, convenience stores, takeout, delivery, prepared foods, warehouse clubs, dollar stores and increasingly sophisticated ready-to-eat and heat-and-eat alternatives.

There are no silos in the consumer's mind.

There are only food occasions competing for the same household wallet.

That becomes especially important when consumers are financially stretched.

The Federal Reserve reported that in 2024, 63% of adults said they switched to cheaper products because of higher prices, while 61% said they used less or stopped using products. Overall, 79% took some action in response to higher prices.

That is not merely an economic statistic.

It is a food marketing statistic.

It tells every restaurant operator that consumers are willing to change behavior when price pressure becomes significant.

And what happens later in the month?

There is a persistent industry discussion about grocery spending weakening after roughly the 22nd of the month, as household cash flow tightens before the next paycheck or benefit cycle.

But there is an important distinction:

I have not found a credible 2026 national dataset that establishes the 22nd as a universal cutoff for grocery sales.

What the research does establish is that household spending changes materially around bill-payment and cash-flow cycles.

A 2026 study published in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization found that consumers postpone non-bill spending until after major bill payments, with spending increasing 41%–51% on the day of and days following a bill payment compared with spending before the payment. The effect becomes stronger for consumers with longer pay cycles.

That is highly relevant to foodservice.

Because when the household checking account gets tight, the question becomes less about whether consumers eat and more about which food purchases survive the cash-flow squeeze.

The USDA's Economic Research Service also found recurring seasonal differences between food-at-home and food-away-from-home spending, emphasizing that food purchases shift in timing, composition and location rather than simply disappearing.

That is exactly how the Grocerant Niche works.

The restaurant isn't competing against another restaurant

An independent restaurant in Tacoma, Seattle, Dallas, Chicago or Atlanta isn't merely competing with the restaurant down the street.

It is competing with:

"What else can I do with $25 tonight?"

That could mean:

· A restaurant entrée

· A supermarket deli meal

· A rotisserie chicken

· A frozen meal

· A convenience-store foodservice offer

· Takeout

· Delivery

· A warehouse-club meal

· A meal assembled from several grocery items

That is why traditional restaurant segmentation is increasingly inadequate.

The consumer doesn't care whether the food originated inside a restaurant, supermarket or convenience store.

The consumer cares whether the food is worth the money.

Location still matters—but location cannot rescue mediocre food

There is another lesson here for independent restaurants and small chains.

Real estate matters.

A bad location can make a great restaurant invisible.

A high-rent location can make a successful restaurant economically fragile.

But location is not the first question the consumer asks after opening the menu.

The first question is:

"Does that food look good?"

The second may be:

"Is it worth the price?"

Then comes:

"Can I get it conveniently?"

And then:

"Will they treat me well?"

This is where many restaurant operators and brand managers continue to get the consumer equation backward.

They obsess over real estate.

They obsess over advertising.

They obsess over promotions.

They obsess over technology.

But the restaurant business remains fundamentally about food.

Food First. Local Location Second. Service tied to both.

The independent operator actually has an advantage here.

A local restaurant can understand its neighborhood.

It can change a menu quickly.

It can recognize local food preferences.

It can create relationships with customers.

It can become part of the community.

It can develop a signature item that customers cannot get from a national chain.

And it can make the restaurant feel relevant rather than corporate.

That matters because Bank of America's 2026 consumer spending analysis found that restaurant spending growth was strongest among independent and regional operators.

The opportunity is not to become a smaller version of McDonald's, Starbucks, Chipotle or another national chain.

The opportunity is to become more relevant than the national chain.

The 2026 restaurant battlefield is Price + Value + Service

The restaurant operator cannot simply say:

"My costs went up, so my prices went up."

Consumers don't owe restaurants a margin.

They owe themselves dinner.

That means operators must create a stronger relationship between price and perceived value.

The National Restaurant Association reported that restaurant menu prices continued rising in 2026, while grocery prices had increased more slowly. In August, restaurant menu prices increased 0.3% month-to-month, while grocery prices were unchanged for the second consecutive month; grocery prices were up 2.2% year-over-year.

That makes the restaurant's value proposition even more important.

A $15 meal isn't necessarily expensive.

A $15 meal that doesn't satisfy the customer is expensive.

A $25 meal isn't necessarily expensive.

A $25 meal that delivers memorable food, convenience and service can be perceived as valuable.

Price is what consumers pay.
Value is what consumers believe they received.

That distinction may determine which independent restaurants survive the next stage of the foodservice economy.

Three Insights from the Grocerant Guru®

1. FOOD FIRST

Independent restaurants should stop thinking that the solution to every problem is another promotion, another loyalty program or another advertising campaign.

Start with the food.

Does it taste great?

Does it look great?

Is it differentiated?

Does it travel well?

Is the portion appropriate?

Is it something consumers actually crave?

In the Grocerant Niche, food is the product and the product is the marketing.

2. LOCAL LOCATION SECOND

Location still matters—but relevance can make a location work harder.

The best location is not necessarily the most expensive intersection.

It is the location where the restaurant can become part of the customer's routine.

A neighborhood restaurant that understands its customers can compete against a national chain without matching the chain's advertising budget.

Be where the customer is. Understand who the customer is. Feed the customer what the customer wants.

3. SERVICE TIED TO FOOD AND LOCATION

Food gets the customer in the door.

Location makes access convenient.

Service makes the customer want to come back.

That is the equation independent restaurants should be building:

FOOD FIRST + LOCAL LOCATION + SERVICE = RELEVANCE

And relevance may be the most valuable currency an independent restaurant has in an economy where consumers are scrutinizing every food dollar.

The future of independent restaurants will not be determined solely by food inflation, rent, labor costs or the economy.

It will be determined by whether the operator can answer one deceptively simple question every time the consumer asks:

"What's for dinner—and why should I buy it from you?"

Stay Ahead of the Competition with Fresh Ideas

Is your food marketing keeping up with tomorrow’s trends—or stuck in yesterday’s playbook? If you're ready for fresh ideations that set your brand apart, we’re here to help.

At Foodservice Solutions®, we specialize in consumer-driven retail food strategies that enhance convenience, differentiation, and individualization—key factors in driving growth.

Email us at Steve@FoodserviceSolutions.us Connect with us on social media: Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter

Lidl Turns a $60 Loaf of Bread Into a $3.99 Lesson in PRICE, VALUE & SERVICE

2026-10-06T00:06:00.000-07:00

Sometimes the grocery business gets a marketing gift so obvious that you almost have to wonder whether somebody baked it on purpose according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

Enter the $60 loaf of bread.

A 1.5-kilogram organic sourdough rye loaf from Rye by Martin Auer in Manhattan became an internet sensation because, well, $60 is a lot of money for bread. The story quickly became a conversation about artisan food, luxury, inflation, consumer psychology and, most importantly, VALUE.

Lidl US saw the opening and moved quickly.

According to Supermarket News Executive Editor Bill Wilson, Lidl put a digital billboard truck outside the bakery carrying the message:

“$60 for bread? Way cheaper: $3.99.”

Then Lidl twisted the knife a little further:

“$60 also gets you 122 croissants at Lidl, at just 49 cents each.”

The campaign even directed consumers to Lidl's nearby Grand Street store with a QR code and walking map.

That isn't merely an advertisement.

It is PRICE-VALUE-SERVICE EQUILIBRIUM in action.

The $60 loaf isn't really the story

Let's be clear: the $60 loaf and Lidl's $3.99 bread are not necessarily the same product.

One is an artisan, organic sourdough rye positioned in a luxury-food environment. The other is a supermarket product designed around accessibility and everyday shopping.

But consumers don't live inside product categories.

Consumers compare.

They ask:

· What does it cost?

· What do I get?

· How good is it?

· How much does it feed?

· How convenient is it?

· Is it worth it?

· What else could I buy with that money?

That last question is where Lidl's marketing becomes particularly interesting.

122 croissants.

Lidl isn't just selling bread. It is selling a different interpretation of value.

And that matters enormously in October 2026.

Inflation may be cooling, but consumers haven't forgotten it

According to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data, food-at-home prices were up 2.2% year over year in August 2026. Cereals and bakery products were up 2.6%, bread was up 3.8%, fruits and vegetables were up 3.2%, and nonalcoholic beverages were up 3.7%.

Food overall increased 2.7%, while food purchased away from home increased 3.4%.

Those aren't the double-digit grocery increases consumers experienced during the worst inflationary period, but here's the problem for food marketers:

Consumers remember prices.

A lower inflation rate doesn't mean prices returned to where they were.

That's the distinction too many food executives continue to miss.

Inflation is a rate of change.

The price consumers actually pay is the price they remember.

And that creates an extraordinary opportunity for retailers capable of demonstrating value rather than simply talking about it.

PRICE: Lidl makes the comparison ridiculously simple

There is something brilliant about Lidl's $3.99 message.

It doesn't require a PowerPoint presentation.

It doesn't require a loyalty-program explanation.

It doesn't require a 30-second television commercial explaining the retailer's supply chain.

It says:

$60 versus $3.99.

That's price discovery.

And price discovery is becoming increasingly important because consumers have more ways than ever to compare food prices.

They can compare:

Grocery store vs. grocery store.

Restaurant vs. restaurant.

Restaurant vs. grocery prepared food.

National brand vs. private label.

Takeout vs. delivery.

Dinner at home vs. dinner away from home.

The old retail assumption that consumers shop within a single category is increasingly outdated.

The consumer's wallet doesn't have silos.

VALUE: Cheap isn't enough anymore

Here's where Lidl needs to be understood beyond the stunt.

Lidl says approximately 80% of its products are private label, and the company describes its strategy around curated assortment, sourcing, quality and efficiency.

That is important.

Private label isn't automatically value.

Private label becomes value when consumers believe the quality is good enough—or better than expected—for the price.

Lidl's U.S. strategy increasingly combines:

· Private-label products

· Imported foods

· Fresh produce

· Fresh meat and seafood

· Bakery

· Specialty foods

· Weekly promotions

· Loyalty rewards

· Convenient store layouts

Lidl says it operates more than 200 U.S. stores across nine East Coast states, while continuing to open new locations. Its September 2026 Manhattan announcement specifically highlighted private-label staples, fresh produce, international specialties and its bakery.

And the company's U.S. bakery strategy is particularly relevant.

That 49-cent croissant isn't merely a bakery item.

It is a value signal.

SERVICE: Don't overlook the third leg

The grocery industry frequently talks about price and forgets service.

But PRICE + VALUE + SERVICE increasingly defines the modern food-shopping experience.

Lidl's service proposition isn't necessarily white-glove service.

It is friction reduction.

Lidl emphasizes a simplified store layout, curated assortment and faster shopping. It also introduced Lidl Plus in the United States in July 2026, bringing personalized offers, rewards and member-exclusive promotions to shoppers. Lidl says the program already has more than 120 million users worldwide.

That's service in a different form.

The customer doesn't necessarily want someone asking, “May I help you?”

Sometimes the customer wants:

“Help me get dinner on the table without spending too much money or too much time.”

That is a very different definition of service.

And it is one that the Grocerant Guru® has argued the food industry needs to understand.

The $60 bread story is really about dinner

Here's where the grocery industry should be paying attention.

The consumer isn't simply purchasing bread.

The consumer is managing a food budget.

That budget might include:

· Breakfast

· Lunch

· Dinner

· Snacks

· Beverages

· Restaurant meals

· Takeout

· Delivery

· Prepared foods

· Grocery ingredients

The consumer decides how to allocate that money.

So when Lidl says $60 can buy 122 croissants, it is implicitly asking:

What else could $60 buy?

That is a much bigger question than bread.

It is the question behind today's entire food marketplace.

Food retailers are competing with restaurants—and restaurants are competing with grocery

The BLS data makes the competitive landscape especially interesting.

In August, food-at-home prices were up 2.2% year over year, while food-away-from-home prices were up 3.4%. Full-service meals and snacks were up 3.5%, while limited-service meals and snacks were up 3.2%.

That creates an enormous opportunity for grocers.

The grocery retailer can say:

“Don't just compare us with another supermarket. Compare us with tonight's dinner alternatives.”

That's the Grocerant Niche.

The consumer doesn't wake up thinking:

“Today I am going to make a foodservice decision inside the grocery category.”

The consumer thinks:

“What's for dinner?”

And then the consumer discovers the answer.

Lidl understands something many legacy food brands still don't

Lidl didn't spend millions explaining the historical importance of rye bread.

It didn't debate whether $60 bread could be justified.

It found a culturally relevant conversation and inserted itself directly into it.

That's modern food marketing.

Be relevant where the consumer is already looking.

The viral bread story created attention.

Lidl converted that attention into price discovery.

And price discovery created a reason to visit Lidl.

That's a remarkably efficient marketing equation.

The bigger lesson for the food industry

The $60 loaf is an extreme example, but that's exactly why it works.

Today's consumer is increasingly asking:

“What am I getting for my money?”

Not simply:

“What does it cost?”

That distinction is critical.

A $60 loaf can be valuable to one consumer because of craftsmanship, ingredients, experience, status or novelty.

A $3.99 loaf can be valuable to another consumer because it solves a household food need economically.

Neither number independently defines value.

The consumer defines value.

That's why I continue to believe the food industry needs to think in terms of Price-Value-Service Equilibrium.

Price gets the consumer's attention.

Value earns consideration.

Service removes friction.

Together they create relevance.

And in an inflation-conscious America, relevance is becoming one of the most valuable currencies in food marketing.

Three Insights from the Grocerant Guru®

1. PRICE IS BACK IN THE MARKETING DRIVER'S SEAT.
For years, many food brands acted as though consumers would simply pay more for their favorite brands. Today's consumer has too many alternatives. Lidl's $3.99 response demonstrates the power of making the economic comparison immediate, visible and understandable.

2. VALUE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS CHEAP.
The $60 rye loaf proves that some consumers will pay dramatically more when they perceive craftsmanship, uniqueness or experience. Lidl's opportunity is different: demonstrate that quality, freshness and food discovery don't necessarily require a premium price. That's a much more sophisticated value proposition than simply saying “We're cheaper.”

3. THE FUTURE OF FOOD MARKETING IS PRICE + VALUE + SERVICE—WITHOUT SILOS.
Consumers don't care whether dinner comes from a restaurant, grocery store, convenience store, delivery platform or somewhere else. They care about what they can afford, what looks good, how much food they get, how convenient it is and whether the experience is worth it. The brands and retailers that understand that consumer decision process will remain relevant; those still marketing inside their old category silos risk becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The Grocerant Guru® Bottom Line:
Lidl didn't create the $60 bread conversation. It recognized it, hijacked it and turned it into a value conversation. That's the difference between advertising a grocery store and marketing to today's consumer.

From the App to the Text Thread: Why Customer Relevance Is Becoming the New Restaurant Battleground

2026-10-05T00:05:00.000-07:00

For decades, restaurant operators were taught that the brand was the destination. Build the brand. Build the menu. Build the loyalty program. Build the restaurant website. Then wait for the customer to come to you.

That model is being disrupted—not necessarily because consumers have stopped caring about brands, but because consumers increasingly expect brands to meet them where they already are according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

That is why DoorDash’s latest move matters.

DoorDash is moving ordering beyond the app and into the consumer’s everyday conversation through Text DoorDash, allowing customers to simply text what they want. The AI agent can find the food, construct the order, use stored preferences and payment information, and complete the transaction. Customers can also ask for recommendations rather than search through restaurant listings.

From the perspective of the Grocerant Guru®, this isn't really a story about texting.

It is a story about relevance.

And that distinction matters enormously to both independent restaurants and legacy restaurant chains.

The consumer doesn't live inside your brand silo

The restaurant industry has spent years talking about first-party versus third-party ordering.

But the consumer doesn't think that way.

Consumers think:

“What's for dinner?”

They don't necessarily think:

“Which restaurant's proprietary digital ecosystem should I enter before making my dinner decision?”

That's the Grocerant lesson.

The consumer's food decision increasingly crosses restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, delivery platforms, prepared foods, pickup, drive-thru and home delivery.

There are no silos in the consumer's mind.

And DoorDash is increasingly positioning itself directly inside that decision.

In 2024, DoorDash reported that 70% of surveyed consumers had ordered food delivery during the previous month, 86% ordered through third-party apps at least twice a month, and 67% of DoorDash users had ordered from a new store in Q1 compared with Q4 2023.

That's not simply delivery.

That's discovery.

DoorDash is moving from “Where do you want to order?” to “What do you want?”

That is a profound change.

The old digital restaurant experience asks consumers to:

Open → Search → Scroll → Compare → Click → Customize → Pay.

Text DoorDash is attempting to turn that into:

Ask → Recommend → Order.

The company says its new text-based experience can remember preferences and order a customer's usual meal without requiring them to navigate the marketplace. It can also make recommendations based on what the consumer asks for.

That's a fundamentally different consumer interface.

And it potentially makes relevance more important than visibility.

A restaurant doesn't necessarily have to be the biggest brand on the screen if an AI system believes it is the right answer to:

“I'm tired. What's something good nearby that I haven't tried?”

That's where independent restaurants become particularly interesting.

Restaurant Business reports that DoorDash says more than half of orders placed through Ask DoorDash go to restaurants the customer hasn't previously visited.

In other words:

AI-assisted discovery can break the traditional brand-recognition advantage.

The independent restaurant has something the chains cannot manufacture: local relevance

This is where third-party platforms become strategically important.

In 2024, DoorDash reported that 33% of consumers actively sought out local independent restaurants, while 86% of consumers ordered on third-party apps at least twice a month.

And DoorDash's 2025 research found that 46% of consumers preferred ordering delivery through third-party apps or websites, with ease of use and convenience among the principal reasons. Consumers averaged 4.6 third-party delivery orders per month, rising to 5.1 among Gen Z and 4.8 among Millennials.

That creates an important strategic opportunity.

A small restaurant doesn't have to build a technology company.

It doesn't have to develop its own AI.

It doesn't have to create a national delivery network.

It can partner with companies that already have those capabilities.

That is not surrendering relevance.

Used intelligently, it can be a way of renting relevance while building relationships.

And the data gets even more interesting in 2026

DoorDash's 2026 restaurant research found that 22% of consumers have already used AI to help choose a restaurant.

At the same time, only 39% of operators had updated their listings to improve their visibility in AI-generated recommendations, according to DoorDash's research. DoorDash also reports that third-party platforms account for more than 41% of sources cited by AI tools in restaurant-related queries, based on Yext research cited by DoorDash.

Think about that for a moment.

The restaurant industry spent years learning how to optimize for:

Google search.

Then:

Google Maps.

Then:

Facebook.

Then:

Instagram.

Then:

TikTok.

Now the restaurant industry is entering the age of:

“Ask AI.”

And AI needs information to make recommendations.

Menus.

Photos.

Descriptions.

Reviews.

Location.

Hours.

Availability.

Cuisine.

Price.

Dietary information.

Consumer preferences.

That makes the restaurant's presence on third-party platforms increasingly important because those platforms can become data infrastructure for discovery.

DoorDash is no longer simply delivering the restaurant

This may be the most important part of the announcement.

DoorDash is connecting Marketplace discovery with ordering, reservations, loyalty, marketing and customer management through DashOS. The stated goal is to allow restaurants to connect interactions that previously lived in separate systems.

That changes the strategic conversation.

The question isn't necessarily:

“Should restaurants use DoorDash?”

The more relevant question may be:

“How should restaurants use DoorDash, Uber Eats, Grubhub and other third-party platforms as part of a broader customer-relevance strategy?”

That's a very different question.

Because the third party may introduce the consumer.

The restaurant still has to earn the second order.

And the third.

And the dine-in visit.

And the loyalty relationship.

DoorDash's 2026 research found that 74% of consumers said a dine-in visit led them to later order delivery from that restaurant, while 62% said a delivery order led them to later dine in. It also found that 79% of delivery orders were with restaurants customers had previously tried.

That suggests delivery and dine-in don't necessarily have to be competing channels.

They can be different doors into the same customer relationship.

Third-party delivery is becoming third-party discovery

This is the real Grocerant Guru® takeaway.

In 2024, DoorDash said its platform handled 620 million orders in Q1 alone, up 21% year over year, while more than 70% of surveyed consumers reported ordering delivery during the prior month.

In 2025, DoorDash's U.S. economic impact report said merchants generated more than $60 billion in Marketplace sales, while more than 600,000 local merchants were connected to consumers through the Marketplace.

And in 2026, DoorDash says third-party delivery is now the top customer-acquisition channel identified by restaurant owners, cited by 30% of operators in its research.

Those numbers tell a larger story.

Third-party platforms are no longer merely transportation systems for food.

They are increasingly:

· discovery engines,

· recommendation engines,

· ordering engines,

· customer-acquisition engines,

· data platforms,

· loyalty connectors,

· and increasingly, AI interfaces.

That makes them part of the restaurant's relevance infrastructure.

But there is a warning for restaurant chains

This should not become another excuse for restaurants to outsource the customer relationship completely.

The objective isn't:

“Let DoorDash own the customer.”

The objective should be:

“Let DoorDash help us find the customer—and then give that customer reasons to come back.”

That's why DashOS is particularly interesting.

A consumer might discover a restaurant through DoorDash, order delivery, later join its loyalty program, receive an offer, make a reservation and eventually become a direct customer. DoorDash itself describes DashOS as connecting Marketplace, direct ordering, reservations, loyalty, guest management and marketing.

That's a very different model from simply paying someone to deliver a pizza.

The Grocerant lesson: Don't confuse ownership with relevance

This is where legacy restaurant thinking can get trapped.

A chain may say:

“We want customers ordering directly through our app.”

That's understandable.

But the consumer may say:

“I want dinner.”

Those aren't necessarily the same thing.

The winning consumer experience may be the one that removes the most friction between need and fulfillment.

That's what the Grocerant Niche has been teaching for decades.

Consumers mix and match.

Restaurant food.

Grocery food.

Convenience food.

Prepared food.

Delivery.

Pickup.

Drive-thru.

Dine-in.

Heat-N-Eat.

Ready-to-Eat.

The consumer isn't protecting anybody's business model.

The consumer is solving a food occasion.

And increasingly, technology is helping solve that occasion.

From “What's for dinner?” to “Just order my usual.”

DoorDash's new text capability may look like another technology feature.

I see something bigger.

It represents the next step in the evolution from food discovery to food fulfillment.

First, consumers searched.

Then they scrolled.

Then algorithms recommended.

Now consumers can simply ask.

And when the consumer starts asking an AI agent instead of searching restaurant menus, customer relevance becomes the currency.

That is why independent restaurants and national chains alike should be thinking carefully about partnerships with DoorDash and other third-party platforms.

Not because third-party platforms are automatically better than first-party channels.

But because being absent from the places where consumers discover food can become far more expensive than paying a commission.

The real cost may be irrelevance.

Two Insights From the Grocerant Guru®

1. The restaurant industry is moving from “brand discovery” to “need discovery.”

The consumer isn't necessarily asking, “Which restaurant do I love?”

Increasingly, the question is:

“What should I eat right now?”

The restaurant that is discoverable, relevant and capable of satisfying that specific occasion has an opportunity—even if the consumer has never heard of the brand before.

2. Third-party platforms aren't the enemy of restaurant relevance—they can become the bridge to it.

Restaurants should use DoorDash and competing platforms strategically: find new customers, satisfy them, learn what makes them return, and then build the relationship across channels.

The restaurant that insists the consumer must enter its branded silo before it will become relevant may discover that the consumer has already moved on.

In the Grocerant Niche, there are no consumer silos. There are only consumer occasions—and whoever solves the occasion wins the order.

From the Wallet to the Table: What Can We Afford for Dinner?

2026-10-04T00:04:00.000-07:00

The consumer’s food budget—not the restaurant’s brand promise—is increasingly deciding what’s for dinner, according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

There is a question being asked in American households every day that restaurant marketers should be asking themselves far more often:

“What can we afford for dinner tonight?”

That question is becoming more important than Which restaurant do we like?

New consumer research from Popmenu, a restaurant technology company serving more than 12,000 restaurants globally, provides a remarkably clear look at how consumers are navigating today's restaurant economy. The study surveyed 3,000 U.S. consumers in three national surveys conducted in February, May and July 2026.

The headline is simple: consumers still want restaurants, but they are increasingly deciding what they can afford before deciding where they want to eat.

According to Popmenu, consumers currently spend an average of $100 per week on restaurants. That is an improvement from earlier in 2026, but it remains $15 below June 2025.

Even more revealing, 67% say they are spending less on restaurants than they did a year ago.

That is not a consumer abandoning restaurants.

It is a consumer reengineering the restaurant occasion.

And that distinction matters.

“Around 30% of monthly food budgets go to restaurants today, down from a high of 40% in 2022,” said Brendan Sweeney, CEO and Co-founder of Popmenu. “What that tells us is consumers are spending intentionally, not reluctantly.”

That may be the most important sentence in the entire report.

Consumers are not saying no to foodservice. They are saying “show me the value.”

The food dollar has become a battlefield

The pressure is not imaginary.

The USDA Economic Research Service reports that food-away-from-home prices were 3.4% higher in August 2026 than a year earlier, while food-at-home prices were up 2.2%. The USDA's September 2026 forecast calls for food-away-from-home prices to rise about 3.5% for the full year.

At the same time, USDA reports that U.S. consumers spent $2.51 trillion on food in 2025, with food away from home accounting for 56.3% of total food expenditures.

So this is not a small niche issue.

It is a massive food-market transformation.

And the consumer does not think about that $2.51 trillion as separate industry silos.

They think:

What should we eat?

Where should we get it?

How much will it cost?

How much food will we get?

How much work will it require?

And is it worth it?

That is the Grocerant consumer mindset.

The consumer is becoming the ultimate menu engineer

Popmenu's research shows just how creatively consumers are managing their restaurant budgets.

Among the tactics consumers report using:

· 52% drink water instead of purchasing a beverage.

· 50% pick up orders more frequently instead of ordering delivery.

· 48% use coupons or rewards points.

· 47% choose less expensive restaurants.

· 29% order an appetizer instead of a meal.

· 28% decrease alcohol purchases.

· 16% order kids' meals for adults.

Think about what that means.

Consumers are not necessarily leaving restaurants.

They are taking control of the restaurant check.

They are removing beverages.

They are eliminating delivery fees.

They are trading down.

They are using rewards.

They are changing meal occasions.

They are reducing alcohol.

They are even looking at the kids' menu as an adult value menu.

The consumer is effectively saying:

“I still want the experience. I just don't want to overpay for it.”

Dinner is where the pressure shows up first.

Popmenu reports that 60% of consumers are dining out less frequently.

Dinner is taking the biggest hit:

· 46% are cutting back on dinner.

· 37% are cutting back on lunch.

· 28% are cutting back on breakfast.

· 24% are cutting back on late-night snacking.

Why does dinner matter so much?

Because dinner is often the largest restaurant occasion of the day—and therefore the easiest place for consumers to make a budget adjustment.

Dinner can become takeout.

Takeout can become pickup.

Pickup can become grocery prepared food.

A restaurant meal can become a supermarket rotisserie chicken.

A restaurant entrée can become an appetizer shared at home.

A $70 family dinner can become a $25-$35 prepared-food solution.

The consumer doesn't care which industry's P&L statement records the transaction.

The consumer cares about the meal.

That is one of the foundational principles of the Grocerant niche.

The grocery store is not just competing with restaurants for groceries

The competitive set for restaurants is increasingly every place consumers can obtain a ready-to-eat or heat-and-eat meal.

USDA data shows that food-at-home sales reached approximately $1.10 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars in 2025, while food-away-from-home spending reached approximately $1.41 trillion.

And Circana's 2026 Eating Patterns in America research provides another important reminder: 86% of all food occasions are sourced from home. Americans are eating more meals away from home than in 2025, but still substantially fewer than in 2019.

That creates an enormous opportunity for grocers, convenience stores, warehouse clubs, dollar stores and other retailers selling prepared food.

The Grocerant question is not:

“Are consumers eating at restaurants or grocery stores?”

It is:

“Where will consumers assemble tonight's meal?”

That is a very different question.

Value is no longer just price

Popmenu found that 62% prefer restaurants offering affordable meal options and special deals, while 58% say they will spend more when there is a discount.

That is important.

A discount does not automatically create value.

Value is the intersection of price, quality, convenience, experience and trust.

That is why a $10 meal can feel expensive while a $15 meal can feel like a bargain.

The consumer is not buying the lowest possible price.

The consumer is trying to maximize the value of the entire food occasion.

The National Restaurant Association's Q3 2026 consumer research reinforces the point: 40% of consumers said they used more discounts or value promotions than they normally do, up from 35% in Q2. The Association also reports that half of consumers say it has become more difficult to cover household expenses than a year ago.

This is why restaurant operators should stop thinking of value as merely another promotion.

Value is becoming part of the product.

Convenience is becoming part of the brand

Popmenu also found that:

· 80% use Google and other search engines to find restaurants.

· 27% use AI tools such as ChatGPT.

· 80% are more likely to choose menus featuring photos, videos and reviews.

· 94% prefer ordering directly through a restaurant's own website rather than a third-party platform.

· 46% are more likely to choose restaurants with loyalty programs.

· 70% are willing to join a restaurant mailing list.

· 79% would download a restaurant app.

· 60% are comfortable with restaurants using AI to provide faster or better service.

This is where restaurant marketing is undergoing another important transition.

The restaurant's digital storefront is becoming the front door.

Consumers want to know the price.

They want to see the food.

They want to know what other customers think.

They want to know whether there is a deal.

They want to order without friction.

And they increasingly want to know all of that before they leave home.

That makes discoverability, menu transparency, photography, reviews, loyalty and direct ordering components of the restaurant value proposition—not merely marketing functions.

And then there is the tip

Popmenu found that 40% of consumers say they are tipping less this year, with 78% of those consumers specifically reducing tips at restaurants and bars.

The numbers become even more revealing by restaurant type.

For example, only 38% of consumers report tipping 20% at sit-down restaurants with servers, while tipping at carryout counters, coffee shops, QSRs and fast-casual restaurants is considerably more restrained.

The implication is larger than tipping.

Consumers are scrutinizing every incremental dollar attached to the meal.

The beverage.

The delivery charge.

The service fee.

The tip.

The add-on.

The upgrade.

The premium ingredient.

The extra side.

Everything is being evaluated against the question:

“Do I need this, or can dinner work without it?”

The restaurant industry needs to stop thinking in silos

This is where the Grocerant Guru® sees the biggest strategic issue.

Restaurant executives continue to define competition primarily by restaurant segment.

QSR versus QSR.

Fast casual versus fast casual.

Casual dining versus casual dining.

But consumers don't live in those silos.

A consumer can have McDonald's for lunch, a grocery-store prepared meal for dinner, Starbucks in the afternoon and Chili's on Friday.

The same consumer can buy a rotisserie chicken at a supermarket, add a deli salad, purchase dessert from a convenience store and call it dinner.

One consumer. One food budget. Multiple channels.

That is the Grocerant marketplace.

The $100 question

Popmenu's $100-per-week restaurant spending figure may ultimately prove more important than any individual restaurant statistic in the report.

Because $100 is a budget.

And once consumers establish a budget, every restaurant occasion competes for a share of it.

The question for restaurant operators is no longer simply:

“How do we get consumers into our restaurant?”

It is:

“Why should this meal get a share of the consumer's $100?”

That is a much harder question.

And it requires more than another limited-time offer.

It requires understanding the consumer's entire food journey—from the wallet to the table.

Three Insights from the Grocerant Guru®

1. The consumer is not leaving foodservice—consumers are shopping the foodservice occasion.
The Popmenu data show consumers changing how they dine rather than simply abandoning restaurants. Pickup replaces delivery. Water replaces beverages. Rewards replace full-price purchases. Appetizers replace entrées. The meal remains important; the economics of the meal are changing.

2. “What's for dinner?” has become “What can we afford for dinner?”
That is a profound difference. Restaurant brands that answer only what do we serve? are asking the wrong question. The better question is: What combination of price, quality, convenience, portability and experience can we deliver that makes this particular meal worth the consumer's money?

3. The Grocerant consumer does not recognize your industry silos—and neither should your brand strategy.
Restaurants, supermarkets, C-stores, warehouse clubs, delivery platforms and other retailers are all competing for the same food occasion. The consumer has one wallet and one dinner decision. The future belongs to the companies that understand the meal occasion rather than merely defending the restaurant category.

Elevate Your Brand with Expert Insights

For corporate presentations, regional chain strategies, educational forums, or keynote speaking, Steven Johnson, the Grocerant Guru®, delivers actionable insights that fuel success.

With deep experience in restaurant operations, brand positioning, and strategic consulting, Steven provides valuable takeaways that inspire and drive results.

Visit GrocerantGuru.com or FoodserviceSolutions.US Call 1-253-759-7869

The Grocery Aisle Is Not One Demographic: Baby Boomers Put the Wrench in the Favorite-Grocer List

2026-10-03T00:03:00.000-07:00

Why Boomers, Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z Can Walk Into the Same Grocery Store Looking for Four Different Things. Leave it to Baby Boomers to say, “Ah, not so fast.”

A new look at grocery-store preferences by generation demonstrates something food marketers have known for years but too often forget: there is no such thing as the American grocery shopper. There are American grocery shoppers according to Steven Johnson Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

And they are not necessarily shopping for the same reasons, responding to the same messages, discovering food in the same places or defining value the same way.

The latest YouGov grocery research provides an excellent example. Overall, Aldi ranked No. 1 in the referenced study, while the generations disagreed about their favorite grocers. Millennials and Generation X put Aldi at the top, while Baby Boomers selected Trader Joe's.

That difference is not a footnote.

It is the story.

Food retailers and food marketers that lump four generations into one demographic are potentially marketing to an imaginary consumer.

The four major generations—Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials and Generation Z—may share the same grocery aisle, but they don't necessarily share the same shopping journey.

And the data from 2024, 2025 and 2026 makes that increasingly clear.

1. BABY BOOMERS: TRUST, VALUE AND THE POWER OF THE FAMILIAR

Baby Boomers deserve to go first because they are the demographic that most clearly demonstrates why brand trust still matters.

In YouGov's 2025 grocery research, Baby Boomers were particularly responsive to special offers: 84.7% said they are always on the lookout for special offers, compared with 80.5% of consumers overall. At the same time, 74.7% said they are usually looking for the lowest prices.

But Boomers aren't simply "cheap shoppers."

In fact, the same research showed that Boomers were more loyal to their primary store than younger consumers. Research from RRD found 61% of Baby Boomers said they tend to stay loyal to the store they shop at most often, compared with 55% overall.

That is important.

Price matters. Value matters. But trust can turn value into loyalty.

The 2026 YouGov research on brand values makes that even more compelling. Among Baby Boomers, 84% said honesty is the most important brand value, compared with 66% of Gen Z. Across all Americans, honesty and trustworthiness ranked as the two most important brand values.

And Boomers aren't technologically disconnected shoppers, either.

FMI reported in 2024 that 57% of Boomers use smartphones to look for grocery deals, while 52% use digital coupons.

So the stereotype of the Boomer who simply walks into the neighborhood supermarket and buys the same brands every week is increasingly outdated.

The better description is:

A value-conscious, trust-sensitive shopper who is perfectly willing to use technology—but doesn't necessarily need technology to discover everything.

FMI's 2026 beverage research found that 41% of Boomers discover new beverages through in-store shelf signage and 35% simply notice products while shopping.

For Boomers, the store itself remains a media channel.

That helps explain why Trader Joe's can resonate differently with Boomers than Aldi does with younger generations. The issue isn't simply price. It can be the combination of familiarity, perceived authenticity, discovery, product uniqueness and trust.

2. GENERATION X: THE VALUE-HUNTING BRIDGE GENERATION

Generation X may be the most interesting demographic sitting between the traditional supermarket shopper and the digitally enabled consumer.

YouGov's 2025 data found 78% of Gen X shoppers said they are usually looking for the lowest prices, the highest percentage among the four generations in that measurement. And 82.1% said they are always on the lookout for special offers.

Gen X also isn't waiting for the retailer to tell them where the deal is.

FMI's 2024 research found 67% of Gen X shoppers use smartphones to look for deals, while 66% use digital coupons.

That creates an important marketing lesson:

Gen X can be reached digitally, but the message still has to make economic sense.

They are also highly capable of switching among channels.

The 2025 grocery research showed consumers increasingly shop multiple retailers to optimize value, while FMI reported that 44% of shoppers were shopping at multiple stores to obtain the best value.

For Gen X, the grocery store is less likely to be a single destination and more likely to be part of a shopping portfolio.

3. MILLENNIALS: PRICE IS IMPORTANT, BUT VALUE HAS MORE DIMENSIONS

Millennials are where traditional food marketing gets particularly complicated.

They are highly price-conscious—but price isn't necessarily the entire definition of value.

The 2024 FMI research found that shoppers increasingly define value beyond price and quality to include relevance, convenience and experience.

And Millennials are particularly open to switching.

RRD's 2024 research found 50% of Millennials were willing to change stores for greater savings, compared with 45% overall.

That matters enormously to legacy brands.

A 30-year relationship with a retailer or food brand doesn't automatically protect it when consumers can discover another product, another retailer or another price with a few taps.

The 2025 EY Future Consumer Index found that U.S. consumers were increasingly prioritizing price and quality over brand familiarity. The same research found that 55% of consumers who try private-label products eventually switch back to national brands—but nearly half of those returning cite better quality, taste or performance.

That tells food marketers something important:

Private label isn't merely a cheap substitute anymore.

It can become a legitimate competitor to the national brand on the very dimensions—quality, taste and performance—that legacy brands traditionally used to defend their premium.

4. GENERATION Z: DISCOVERY HAS LEFT THE AISLE

If Baby Boomers demonstrate the continuing power of trust and in-store discovery, Gen Z demonstrates what happens when discovery begins before the shopping trip.

FMI's 2024 research found Gen Z shoppers were significantly more likely than average to seek additional information about products and stores before shopping. Forty-five percent of Gen Z used their phones to make grocery lists, compared with 29% overall.

By 2026, the behavior had accelerated.

FMI reported that 92% of Gen Z beverage shoppers use social media to discover new beverages, with 58% using TikTok and 55% Instagram.

And FMI's broader 2026 grocery research found that Gen Z shoppers visit an average of 6.7 retailers per month, more than any other generation. Nine out of 10 use at least one digital tool to plan grocery trips.

That is not traditional brand loyalty.

That is continuous discovery.

The product doesn't necessarily have to be discovered on the shelf. It can be discovered through a recipe, creator, social video, search result, AI tool, friend, review or digital promotion—and then purchased somewhere else.

The implications for legacy food brands are enormous.

BUT HERE IS THE BIG DEMOGRAPHIC COMMON DENOMINATOR: PRICE MATTERS TO EVERYBODY

This is where the data gets particularly interesting.

Food marketers sometimes talk about younger shoppers as though they are driven by experiences while older shoppers are driven by price.

The data doesn't support such a simple division.

Price matters across generations.

YouGov's 2025 grocery research found that 75.9% of U.S. consumers said they are usually looking for the lowest prices. The generational numbers were:

· Gen X: 78.0%

· Millennials: 75.7%

· Gen Z: 76.4%

· Baby Boomers: 74.7%

That's remarkably close.

And FMI's 2026 research reinforces the point: low pricing was the most frequently cited influential factor in choosing a grocery store, at 71%. Seventy-three percent of consumers reported adopting new shopping habits during the previous year to cope with rising costs, while 42% regularly visited multiple grocery stores to find lower prices.

So, yes:

Food discovery matters to every generation.

Price matters to every generation.

But how consumers discover and how they define value can be radically different.

That is the demographic opportunity.

FOOD DISCOVERY IS UNIVERSAL—THE DISCOVERY ENGINE IS NOT

This may be one of the most important findings for food marketers.

The consumer wants discovery.

But the discovery mechanism changes with age.

Boomer discovery:
Shelf signage, in-store merchandising, familiarity, trusted recommendations and the physical shopping experience.

Gen X discovery:
In-store merchandising combined with digital coupons, smartphone research, promotions and practical value.

Millennial discovery:
Digital information, social media, convenience, recommendations, price comparison, new products and experiences.

Gen Z discovery:
Social media, TikTok, Instagram, creators, digital communities, recipes, reviews, AI and peer recommendations.

FMI's 2026 research says shoppers still visit stores because they want to select products themselves: 48% said that is what they would miss most if they couldn't grocery shop in person. Discovery itself was cited by 17%.

So the physical store isn't dead.

Digital discovery simply means the shopping journey starts earlier.

TRUST MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT WORD IN FOOD MARKETING IN 2026

Now comes the bigger issue.

TRUST.

YouGov's 2026 research found that 74% of Americans consider honesty an important brand value and 71% cite trustworthiness, while 60% value consistency between what a brand says and what it does.

For Baby Boomers, trust is even more powerful.

But trust isn't simply an emotional concept.

In food marketing, trust can mean:

Is the price honest?

Is the package honest?

Is the portion honest?

Is the promotion honest?

Is the food what the brand says it is?

Is the quality consistent?

Is the retailer treating the shopper fairly?

And in today's economic environment, consumers are scrutinizing those questions more closely.

FMI's 2025 research found 70% of shoppers were extremely or very worried about rising grocery prices, while 44% were shopping multiple stores to find better value. Another FMI report said 90% of shoppers expressed concern about rising food prices and 78% were concerned about the impact of tariffs.

That is where economic uncertainty and government-policy uncertainty intersect with brand value.

Consumers don't need a political lecture from a food brand.

They need something much more basic:

Tell me what it costs. Tell me what I'm getting. Give me a fair value. And then deliver what you promised.

That is trust.

LEGACY BRANDS: THE REAL RISK ISN'T THAT CONSUMERS HATE YOU

The real risk is that consumers no longer need you.

For decades, legacy food brands benefited from familiarity.

Consumers knew the name.

They knew the package.

They knew where to find it.

They knew what it tasted like.

They trusted it.

But today's consumer has dramatically more opportunities to discover alternatives.

FMI's 2026 private-brand research found that 92% of U.S. grocery shoppers currently have store-brand products in their homes, while private-brand dollar sales increased 2.8% year over year, ahead of national-brand growth. Nearly half of shoppers increased their private-brand purchases during the previous year.

That changes the competitive equation.

The question for a legacy brand is no longer:

"Does the consumer know us?"

The consumer probably does.

The better question is:

"Why should the consumer choose us today?"

That's a very different marketing question.

And the answer can't simply be:

"Because we've been around for 75 years."

THE GROCERANT GURU® VIEW: THERE ARE NO DEMOGRAPHIC SILOS IN THE CONSUMER'S MIND

From my perspective as the Grocerant Guru®, the biggest mistake food marketers can make is assuming that demographic differences mean consumers live in separate marketing silos.

They don't.

A 72-year-old Baby Boomer may buy a prepared meal at a grocery store.

A 45-year-old Gen Xer may grab dinner at a convenience store.

A 34-year-old Millennial may order restaurant delivery and pick up groceries on the same trip.

A 22-year-old Gen Zer may discover a food product on TikTok, compare its price online and buy it at a mass retailer.

That's the Grocerant consumer.

The consumer doesn't care which organizational silo produced the food.

They care about price, quality, taste, convenience, portability, discovery, trust and the experience.

And that means the real competition isn't simply Kroger versus Aldi or Trader Joe's versus Whole Foods.

It is every food occasion competing for the consumer's next food dollar.

Three Insights from the Grocerant Guru®

1. DEMOGRAPHICS MATTER—BUT CONSUMER OCCASIONS MATTER MORE.

Boomers, Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z clearly behave differently. But they can all want the same thing at 6:00 p.m.: "What's for dinner?"

The winning retailer or foodservice operator will understand the demographic without allowing the demographic to become a silo.

2. PRICE GETS YOU INTO THE CONSIDERATION SET. TRUST KEEPS YOU THERE.

The data shows that price matters across generations. But price alone is not a sustainable brand strategy.

Consumers increasingly want proof that the value equation is fair: price + quality + convenience + experience + trust.

3. LEGACY FOOD BRANDS SHOULD STOP MARKETING TO THEIR HISTORY AND START MARKETING TO THE CONSUMER'S PRESENT.

Your brand's history may explain why consumers know you.

It doesn't necessarily explain why they should buy you tomorrow.

In an environment of economic uncertainty, expanding private label, digital discovery, AI-assisted shopping and increasingly sophisticated consumers, trust has to be earned at every transaction.

The grocery consumer isn't disappearing.

The old definition of the grocery consumer is.

And that may be the most important demographic fact in food marketing today.

Success Leaves Clues—Are You Ready to Find Yours?

Want to strengthen your brand’s connection with today’s consumers? Let’s talk. Call 253-759-7869 for more information.

Stay Ahead of the Competition with Fresh Ideas

Is your food marketing keeping up with tomorrow’s trends—or stuck in yesterday’s playbook? If you're ready for fresh ideations that set your brand apart, we’re here to help.

At Foodservice Solutions®, we specialize in consumer-driven retail food strategies that enhance convenience, differentiation, and individualization—key factors in driving growth.

Email us at Steve@FoodserviceSolutions.us Connect with us on social media: Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter

Wonder Gets the Consumer. Why Are Restaurant Chains Still Stuck in Brand Silos?

2026-10-02T00:02:00.000-07:00

There is something almost amusing about the restaurant industry's relationship with innovation according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

Give a restaurant chain a new piece of technology and executives will proudly announce that they are transforming the customer experience.

Give consumers the ability to order exactly what they want from multiple restaurant concepts in one transaction—and suddenly the old restaurant industry playbook starts looking very old.

That is what makes Wonder so interesting.

At FSTEC, Wonder executives described a future involving AI-generated meal planning, robotic food preparation, sophisticated sequencing software and drone delivery. The company says that, beginning as soon as next year, a Wonder location outside Dallas could combine its bowl-making robotics with Zipline drone delivery.

But from the perspective of the Grocerant Guru®, the robot isn't the biggest story.

The biggest story is that Wonder appears to understand something many legacy restaurant chains still don't: The consumer doesn't live in a restaurant-brand silo.

Restaurant Chains: The Consumer Has Left Your Building

For decades, restaurant chains have built their businesses around a simple proposition:

Pick our brand. Eat our menu. Buy our experience. Come back.

That worked beautifully when restaurant choice was relatively limited.

But today's consumer lives in a much more complicated food world.

The same consumer can buy breakfast at a convenience store, lunch from a restaurant, dinner from a grocery store's prepared-food department, snacks from a dollar store and groceries through an online platform—all in the same day or week.

And then the restaurant industry wonders why consumers aren't behaving according to the brand loyalty models created decades ago.

The consumer isn't confused. The industry is.

Wonder's Seven Grocerant Moves

1. Wonder lets consumers mix and match restaurant concepts

Wonder locations can offer as many as 30 restaurant concepts under one roof.

Think about how radical that is compared with the traditional chain restaurant model.

A consumer doesn't have to decide:

“Which restaurant am I going to?”

The consumer can essentially decide:

“What do I want?”

That is Grocerant thinking.

2. Wonder puts the meal ahead of the logo

Traditional chains spend enormous amounts of money building brand identity.

But the consumer doesn't necessarily want a brand.

Sometimes the consumer wants a burger.

Sometimes noodles.

Sometimes a salad.

Sometimes wings.

Sometimes a bowl.

Sometimes something completely different.

Wonder's model recognizes that the consumer's appetite can change faster than the consumer's brand loyalty.

3. Wonder is attacking the restaurant industry's sacred “one brand, one menu” model

For years, restaurant executives have optimized individual brands.

Wonder is asking a different question:

Why can't one physical location efficiently produce food from multiple concepts?

That is precisely the kind of question that traditional restaurant organizations have historically been reluctant to ask.

Why?

Because restaurant companies are structured around brands.

Consumers are structured around occasions.

That's a problem.

4. Wonder understands that families don't necessarily want the same food

This may be one of the most important parts of the model.

Families frequently disagree about what to eat.

One person wants Mexican.

Another wants Asian.

Someone else wants a burger.

Someone else wants a salad.

The traditional restaurant model says:

Pick one restaurant and compromise.

Wonder says:

Why compromise?

That is an extraordinarily simple consumer proposition.

And it is exactly the type of thinking that helped create the Grocerant niche.

5. Wonder connects “food for now” with “food for later”

Wonder owns Blue Apron and describes the businesses as “food for now” and “food for later.”

Traditional restaurant chains have spent years defining themselves by individual dayparts and restaurant occasions.

Wonder is thinking more broadly about the consumer's food life.

Breakfast.

Lunch.

Dinner.

Snacking.

Meal planning.

Prepared food.

Meal kits.

Potentially groceries.

That isn't a restaurant strategy.

That's a food-consumption strategy.

6. Wonder is trying to make variety economically manageable

Wonder says it has approximately 700 menu items and 1,000 SKUs and is developing automation to help manage that complexity.

That's where the robotics become strategically interesting.

The goal isn't simply:

“Let's replace a worker with a robot.”

The bigger goal is:

“Can technology allow us to offer consumers enormous variety without enormous operating costs?”

If Wonder can accomplish that, it attacks one of the biggest problems with restaurant variety:

Complexity costs money.

7. Wonder wants to own the “What's for dinner?” decision

This may ultimately be Wonder's biggest ambition.

The company has talked about using AI to create meal plans around consumers' tastes and dietary needs.

In other words, Wonder isn't simply waiting for the consumer to place an order.

It wants to potentially participate in deciding what the consumer should eat.

That is a fundamentally different relationship.

The restaurant industry has historically fought over the transaction.

Wonder appears to be thinking about the decision before the transaction.

And that is where the Grocerant Guru® has been watching the industry for decades.

Meanwhile, Back at the Legacy Restaurant Chains...

Here's where things get uncomfortable.

Restaurant companies continue to talk about brand equity, restaurant identity, loyalty programs, digital engagement and same-store sales.

All important.

But consumers aren't sitting around thinking about the organizational structure of Restaurant Brand X.

They are thinking:

“What's for dinner?”

And sometimes the answer is:

“I want something from three different places.”

The grocery industry figured this out.

Convenience stores figured this out.

Delivery platforms figured this out.

Virtual restaurants figured this out.

And now Wonder is attempting to build the entire operating system around it.

The Restaurant Industry's Great Contradiction

Restaurant chains say they are obsessed with the consumer.

Yet many still organize their businesses around the needs of the brand.

The consumer wants choice.

The brand wants consistency.

The consumer wants personalization.

The brand wants standardization.

The consumer wants multiple cuisines.

The brand wants one menu.

The consumer wants convenience.

The brand wants the consumer to enter its particular funnel.

See the problem?

The industry keeps asking consumers to behave like brands.

Consumers keep behaving like consumers.

Are Legacy Brand Managers the Neanderthals of the 1800s?

Here's the deliberately provocative question:

Are some legacy restaurant brand managers becoming the Neanderthal brand managers of the 1800s?

Not because they lack intelligence.

Because they may still be operating from an industrial-era assumption:

Control the product. Control the distribution. Control the customer. Control the brand.

But the modern consumer doesn't necessarily want to be controlled by a brand.

The consumer wants to be served.

There is a profound difference.

The old model says:

“Come to us because we are Brand X.”

The emerging model says:

“Tell us what you want, and we'll figure out how to deliver it.”

That is a much more consumer-centric proposition.

Four Questions Every Major Restaurant Chain Should Answer

1. Why does the consumer have to choose only one of your brands?

If a family wants four different meals, why should the consumer have to make four separate decisions, four separate orders and potentially pay four separate delivery charges?

2. Why are restaurant companies still protecting brand silos that consumers never created?

The consumer doesn't see your corporate organizational chart.

Why should the consumer experience it?

3. If Wonder can put 30 restaurant concepts under one roof, why can't the major chains rethink what a restaurant actually is?

Is a restaurant still a 3,500-square-foot box dedicated to one brand?

Or is it becoming a food-production and fulfillment platform?

4. What happens when the consumer becomes more loyal to convenience and choice than to your logo?

That may be the question restaurant executives should fear most.

Because a consumer can love your brand and still order something else.

Brand loyalty does not eliminate hunger.

Wonder's Biggest Threat Isn't Its Robots

McDonald's doesn't have to lose customers because Wonder has better robots.

Starbucks doesn't have to lose customers because Wonder has drones.

Subway doesn't have to lose customers because Wonder has 30 concepts under one roof.

The threat is more fundamental.

Wonder is challenging the assumption that the restaurant brand should be the center of the consumer's food decision.

That is a much bigger threat.

Because once the consumer becomes the center, everything changes.

The menu changes.

The kitchen changes.

The location changes.

The labor model changes.

The technology changes.

The delivery model changes.

And perhaps most importantly:

the brand's role changes.

The Grocerant Guru® View

The restaurant industry's greatest competitive mistake may be assuming that its biggest competitors are other restaurants.

They aren't.

The consumer has already demonstrated that the competitive set includes:

restaurants + grocery stores + C-stores + delivery + meal kits + prepared foods + virtual restaurants + increasingly automated food platforms.

There are no silos in the consumer's mind.

There are only eating occasions.

Wonder appears to understand that.

The question is why so many legacy restaurant companies still don't.

Three Insights From the Grocerant Guru®

1. STOP ASKING “WHICH RESTAURANT?”

The better question is:

“What does the consumer want to eat?”

The company that can answer that question most effectively may have an advantage over the company with the biggest logo.

2. THE RESTAURANT BOX IS NOT THE BUSINESS

A restaurant is increasingly becoming a food-production, merchandising, fulfillment and consumer-engagement platform.

The smartest operators won't ask how to protect the traditional restaurant.

They will ask how to make the restaurant more useful to the consumer.

3. THE NEXT COMPETITION IS NOT BRAND VS. BRAND—IT'S SILO VS. CONSUMER

Legacy restaurant companies built enormous businesses by creating powerful brands.

Now those same brands may become constraints if management begins protecting the brand architecture instead of following consumer behavior.

Wonder's most important innovation may not be the robot.

It may be recognizing that the consumer should sit at the center of the food ecosystem—not the restaurant brand.

The Grocerant Guru® has been saying for years:

There are no silos in the consumer's mind.

Wonder appears to be building a business around that idea.

The question for legacy restaurant chains is simple:

Are you going to follow the consumer—or continue asking the consumer to follow your brand?

Circle K Builds a Foodservice Frankenstein: Does More Branding Mean More Value

2026-10-01T00:01:00.000-07:00

There is an old saying in the restaurant business: If at first you don't succeed, try again. That may be the philosophy behind Circle K's newest strategy. However, according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions® this bet on the past just might become a learning lesson not a path forward.

The convenience-store giant, together with The Briad Group, is preparing to open what it calls its first multi-brand Circle K travel center in Binghamton, New York. The 6,800-square-foot facility at 265 Court Street is designed to combine a Circle K convenience store, eight fuel pumps, two dedicated drive-thru lanes, Dunkin', Wendy's and a nontraditional Papa Johns offering. A second location in Watertown, New York, is under construction and is expected to open in January 2027. Briad says it ultimately could develop as many as 40 locations under its long-term Circle K agreement.

On paper, it sounds like the future of the convenience-store foodservice business.

From the historical perspective of the Grocerant Guru®, however, it also sounds remarkably familiar.

And that deserves a closer look.

Co-branding isn't new. The industry has been trying it for decades.

Restaurant companies discovered co-branding decades ago.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, the basic proposition was seductive: Put two restaurant brands under one roof, share real estate and infrastructure, capture more consumer occasions, expand dayparts and give customers more choices.

Yum Brands became perhaps the industry's most famous practitioner, combining KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, A&W and Long John Silver's in various combinations.

A 2005 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly analysis found that Yum's co-branding strategy had, at that point, typically generated sales approximately 30% higher than comparable single-brand units. But the research also identified an important problem: operational complexity.

That distinction matters.

Co-branding can increase the number of things a consumer can buy without necessarily increasing the value of the host brand.

And restaurant history provides several cautionary examples.

1. KFC + A&W

KFC and A&W represented an early attempt to put different restaurant propositions under the same roof.

The idea was logical: chicken plus burgers/root beer creates more choice.

But eventually A&W became one of the brands Yum Brands decided no longer fit its long-term strategy.

In 2011, Yum sold A&W and Long John Silver's. Yum reported $86 million in pretax losses and other costs, primarily associated with closures and impairment, related to those divestitures.

The lesson isn't that putting two brands together can never work.

The lesson is that more brands don't automatically create a stronger business.

2. Long John Silver's + other Yum brands

Long John Silver's was another component of Yum's multibranding experiment.

The company eventually concluded that both A&W and Long John Silver's no longer fit its long-term growth strategy and sold the brands in 2011.

The historical irony is striking.

The same corporate portfolio that once promoted multibranding as a way to make restaurant real estate more productive ultimately simplified the portfolio.

Today, Yum's principal concepts are KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and Habit Burger & Grill.

3. Dual-concept KFC/Taco Bell locations

KFC/Taco Bell became one of the industry's best-known co-branded combinations.

But even where the combination remained viable, franchise documents demonstrate one of the industry's recurring problems: dual-concept restaurants can require larger buildings, additional equipment, more signage and greater remodeling costs.

One franchise company's SEC filing specifically noted that a dual-concept restaurant generally required more equipment and a larger building, increasing costs when franchise standards changed.

And that is the part of co-branding that consumers never see.

They see more logos.

Operators see more systems.

4. McDonald's + Krispy Kreme

The most recent example is particularly relevant because it occurred in the middle of today's consumer environment.

McDonald's and Krispy Kreme launched a major partnership in 2024, putting Krispy Kreme doughnuts into McDonald's restaurants.

But the program struggled to scale. By May 2025, fewer than 20% of McDonald's locations were selling Krispy Kreme doughnuts, and Krispy Kreme paused further expansion. The companies ultimately ended the partnership in 2025 after Krispy Kreme concluded it was not profitable enough to sustain.

The problem wasn't awareness.

Everybody knew McDonald's.

Everybody knew Krispy Kreme.

The problem was economics, logistics and consumer demand.

That's an important warning for Circle K.

So why is Circle K recycling the co-branding template?

That is the question I would ask.

Why does Circle K believe that a restaurant co-branding formula that has repeatedly encountered operational and economic challenges will suddenly become a winning formula inside convenience retail in 2026?

Perhaps the answer is that Circle K isn't actually trying to build a traditional co-branded restaurant.

Perhaps it is trying to build something different:

a convenience-store travel destination.

That distinction matters.

The Binghamton project isn't simply a KFC/Taco Bell-style shared restaurant. It combines fuel + convenience retail + multiple restaurant brands + drive-thru access.

Briad says the building was specifically engineered around the partnership, with Circle K, Dunkin', Wendy's and Papa Johns integrated into one facility.

That's different architecture.

But architecture doesn't automatically create consumer value.

What is Circle K going to do differently?

This is where the strategy needs to be tested.

Circle K should be able to answer five very simple questions:

1. What does Circle K own in the consumer's mind?

If the consumer comes for Dunkin' coffee, Wendy's lunch and Papa Johns pizza, does the consumer remember Circle K—or simply remember the restaurant brands?

2. What is the Circle K reason to visit?

If three national restaurant brands are doing the food marketing, what unique food proposition does Circle K create?

3. Does the customer experience become easier or more complicated?

Three restaurant brands can mean three menus, three operating systems, three sets of expectations and potentially three different customer journeys.

4. Does co-branding increase Circle K's basket—or merely rent Circle K's real estate to other brands?

That's a critical distinction.

5. What happens when consumers stop thinking in restaurant categories?

That last question may be the most important of all.

The consumer has already moved beyond the industry's silos

The modern consumer doesn't necessarily think:

"I need to visit a convenience store."

Or:

"I need to visit a restaurant."

Or:

"I need to visit a grocery store."

Consumers increasingly think in terms of occasions.

Breakfast.

Lunch.

Dinner.

Snack.

Coffee.

A cold drink.

Something portable.

Something fresh.

Something fast.

Something affordable.

That's the foundation of the Grocerant Niche.

The consumer doesn't care which industry supplied the food.

The consumer cares about the food, price, value, quality, convenience and experience.

That is why I have argued for decades that there are no silos in the consumer's mind.

The restaurant industry can divide itself into QSR, fast casual, convenience, grocery, foodservice and retail.

Consumers don't have to.

The real Circle K opportunity isn't co-branding

Circle K already possesses something extremely valuable:

a consumer relationship built around convenience.

Fuel.

Cold beverages.

Coffee.

Snacks.

Fresh food.

Prepared food.

Impulse purchases.

Speed.

Location.

Extended hours.

Those are assets.

Adding recognizable restaurant logos doesn't necessarily strengthen those assets.

It may actually create a branding paradox.

If Wendy's is the destination for burgers, Dunkin' is the destination for coffee and Papa Johns is the destination for pizza, what is Circle K's food identity?

That's the question.

And it becomes even more important as convenience retailers increasingly build their own fresh-food identities.

The competitive battlefield isn't simply:

Circle K vs. Wendy's.

It is:

Who owns the consumer's food occasion?

Three Insights from the Grocerant Guru®

1. Co-branding adds logos; it doesn't necessarily add value.

The history of restaurant co-branding demonstrates that putting recognizable brands under one roof can create incremental sales, but it can also create operational complexity, higher costs and conflicting brand priorities. Yum's experience with A&W and Long John Silver's and the McDonald's-Krispy Kreme partnership demonstrate that famous brands alone don't guarantee sustainable economics.

2. The 2026 consumer is buying occasions—not restaurant brands.

The consumer has moved toward a Mix-and-Match Meal Component mentality.

Coffee from one brand.

A breakfast sandwich from another.

A beverage from the convenience store.

A snack from a different section.

Dinner assembled from multiple sources.

The consumer doesn't need Circle K to put three restaurant brands under one roof.

The consumer needs Circle K to make the entire food occasion faster, easier, fresher and more valuable.

3. Circle K should build the Circle K food brand—not become a billboard for everybody else's brands.

This is the biggest strategic question.

If consumers enter a Circle K travel center and immediately think Dunkin', Wendy's and Papa Johns, then Circle K has created a terrific location for three restaurant brands.

But if consumers enter and think:

"Circle K is where I can get whatever food I want, quickly, affordably and conveniently,"

then Circle K has created something much more powerful.

That's the difference between co-branding and brand building.

And from the perspective of the Grocerant Guru®, that distinction could determine whether Circle K's 2026 multi-brand travel-center strategy becomes a genuine next-generation convenience model—or simply the industry's latest attempt to make an old co-branding formula work in a new building.

For international corporate presentations, educational forums, or keynotes contact: Steven Johnson Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions. His extensive experience as a multi-unit restaurant operator, consultant, brand / product positioning expert and public speaking will leave success clues for all. For more information visit www.GrocerantGuru.com, www.FoodserviceSolutions.us or call 1-253-759-7869

When Bots Do the Buying, Who Gets the Advertising Dollar?

2026-09-30T00:30:00.000-07:00

The grocery store, C-store and restaurant may still own the customer relationship—but increasingly, the AI agent may own the decision. That changes the economics of food advertising according to Steven Johnson Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

For decades, food marketers have understood a simple proposition: get in front of the consumer at the right moment, create desire, influence the choice and convert that choice into a purchase.

Retailers learned to monetize that proposition through circulars, endcaps, displays, loyalty programs, email, apps, sponsored search and, most recently, retail media networks.

Now comes the uncomfortable question:

What happens to the advertising business when the shopper stops doing the shopping?

That is the question being raised by Instacart's announcement that Meta's new Muse AI agent will connect to Instacart's grocery infrastructure. Instacart already has connectors involving ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Google's AI Mode. Its own Clementine AI assistant can turn a prompt such as “high-protein dinners for two” into a shoppable cart based on real-time store inventory.

This isn't simply another digital-shopping feature.

It is a potential change in who makes the purchase decision.

And that should make every grocery CEO, C-store CEO, restaurant CEO and CPG marketing executive ask a very different question:

If the bot is making the buying decision, who is the retailer selling advertising to?

The grocery industry has spent billions building the advertising machine

The retail media opportunity is enormous.

Instacart says its advertising ecosystem now reaches 55+ million consumers, more than 100,000 storefronts, 2,200+ retail banners and 310+ retail media networks and marketplaces.

GeekWire has been documenting the evolution of this business for years.

In 2022, GeekWire reported on Seattle-based grocery technology company Swiftly, which helped brick-and-mortar grocers collect customer data and monetize it through advertising. At that time, Swiftly said more than 80% of retail transactions still occurred in physical stores and roughly 90% of grocery shopping took place in brick-and-mortar stores rather than through an app or browser.

Then the advertising opportunity expanded beyond the store.

GeekWire reported in 2024 that Seattle-area adtech company Symbiosys was targeting a retail-media market estimated at $45 billion, helping retailers sell advertising beyond their own websites and apps.

And in 2025, GeekWire reported that DoorDash's advertising business had crossed a $1 billion annualized revenue rate, while its acquisition of Symbiosys was intended to expand off-platform advertising capabilities for brands and restaurants.

So the food industry has been building something extremely valuable:

First-party data + consumer intent + media inventory + transaction data + closed-loop measurement.

But AI agents introduce a new intermediary between the brand and the buyer.

The advertising problem: The bot doesn't need to be persuaded

This is where the food industry needs to rethink the word advertising.

A human shopper might see:

TYSON CHICKEN — $5.99

and think:

"That's a good deal. I'll buy Tyson."

An AI agent may instead process:

· price

· package size

· nutrition

· dietary requirements

· availability

· promotions

· previous purchases

· delivery time

· retailer

· product ratings

· household preferences

· substitution rules

and then select the product.

That is a fundamentally different purchasing environment.

Deloitte describes the emerging “algorithmic shelf” as an environment in which AI agents increasingly analyze data and verifiable claims rather than responding to traditional marketing persuasion. Deloitte reported in June 2026 that 55% of consumers were starting shopping journeys through large language models, according to its cited research.

Circana reported another important 2026 data point: 25% of consumers surveyed had used an AI recommendation to purchase a CPG product.

And Deloitte's 2026 retail outlook says AI-chat referrals already account for 15%–20% of total referrals for some retailers, while some industry estimates suggest AI agents could handle as much as 25% of global e-commerce sales by 2030.

The direction is unmistakable:

The consumer may increasingly tell the machine what they want—and let the machine figure out what to buy.

Then comes Meta's Muse problem

Meta says Muse is a personal AI agent designed to actually perform tasks, including opening browsers, filling out forms and completing purchases with user approval.

But here is the important distinction.

Meta says Muse does not share a person's conversations or data in its virtual machine with Meta's advertising systems.

That doesn't mean advertising disappears from the economy.

It means something potentially more important:

The agent's purchasing decision is not necessarily another conventional advertising impression.

That creates a strategic question for retail media.

Suppose a consumer tells Muse:

“Order chicken breasts, vegetables and something easy for dinner tonight for under $25.”

The old advertising model says:

Show Tyson.

The agentic-commerce model says:

Find the product that best satisfies the consumer's criteria.

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

So why would Tyson advertise on Kroger?

This is where the industry needs to separate retail media from AI-mediated commerce.

Tyson might still have excellent reasons to advertise on a retailer's platform.

The advertising can:

1. Reach human shoppers before they delegate the purchase.

2. Build brand awareness.

3. Influence a consumer's future preferences.

4. Promote a new product.

5. Drive trial.

6. Communicate price or promotion.

7. Reach shoppers inside a retailer's physical and digital ecosystem.

8. Produce measurable sales attribution.

But if an AI agent increasingly determines which chicken goes into the basket, the value proposition of the ad changes.

The question becomes:

Is Tyson paying Kroger to persuade the consumer—or paying Kroger to make Tyson more visible and machine-readable inside an increasingly algorithmic marketplace?

That is a much bigger strategic question.

What about Tastykake on Wawa?

The same issue appears in convenience stores.

Wawa has enormous foodservice traffic, beverage traffic and impulse-purchase occasions.

A traditional consumer sees:

Tastykake → display → recognition → craving → purchase.

That is classic food marketing.

But an AI agent doesn't walk through the Wawa store experiencing the smell of coffee, seeing the pastry case and remembering childhood.

The agent receives a request.

“Get me breakfast and a snack.”

Now the competitive battlefield can become:

price + availability + preference + nutrition + convenience + previous purchase behavior + product data.

That doesn't eliminate the value of the Tastykake brand.

It potentially changes where the brand must establish its value.

And Budweiser on TGI Fridays?

This example illustrates another important distinction.

Restaurants are not merely grocery shelves.

A restaurant has:

· atmosphere

· social interaction

· menu engineering

· server recommendations

· food photography

· smell

· presentation

· entertainment

· occasions

· group behavior

· impulse purchases

A Budweiser sponsorship, promotion or menu placement at a restaurant can influence a social occasion, not simply a product search.

That makes restaurants potentially different from grocery retail.

But even restaurants are moving toward digital ordering, loyalty, delivery, mobile ordering and AI-assisted discovery.

DoorDash's advertising expansion demonstrates how foodservice platforms are already becoming media businesses as well as transaction businesses.

The restaurant of the future may therefore have two customers:

the human customer—and the algorithm that helps determine what the human orders.

The biggest mistake would be killing advertising too early

Here is where the Grocerant Guru® sees an important distinction.

AI does not make advertising irrelevant.

It makes bad advertising less relevant.

There is a difference.

If the consumer says:

“I want something inexpensive, high-protein, ready in 10 minutes and under 600 calories.”

the food company that has the best machine-readable product information, price/value proposition, availability, nutrition information and verified attributes may have an advantage.

Deloitte calls this competition for the “algorithmic shelf.”

That means the next generation of food marketing may require two strategies:

Marketing to people

Brand + emotion + craving + experience + value

and

Marketing to machines

Data + attributes + price + availability + relevance + proof

The winning food marketer may need both.

Retail media must prove what it is actually selling

Retailers should be asking a harder question than:

“How much advertising revenue can we generate?”

They should ask:

“What decision are we influencing?”

That distinction becomes critical.

If an advertisement appears on Kroger's website and a human sees it, that is one type of value.

If an AI agent bypasses the ad and directly creates a basket from inventory, the retailer may still generate transaction revenue—but the advertising impression becomes less important.

And that could eventually put pressure on retail-media economics.

Instacart itself is already preparing for this transition. Its three-layer AI strategy includes:

· Clementine, its native AI shopping experience;

· Cart Assistant, which retailers can put on their own websites and apps;

· Connectors, which allow outside AI platforms to access Instacart's grocery infrastructure.

At the same time, Instacart is aggressively expanding its advertising ecosystem. It reported more than $1 billion in advertising and other revenue in 2025.

That juxtaposition is fascinating:

The company is simultaneously building the advertising business and the technology that could help consumers shop without traditional browsing.

That is not necessarily a contradiction.

It may be the beginning of the next retail model.

The Grocerant opportunity: Stop thinking in silos

The Grocerant Niche has always challenged the industry's artificial boundaries.

Consumers don't necessarily think:

Grocery.

Restaurant.

C-store.

Delivery.

Retail media.

They think:

“What's for dinner?”

And increasingly they may tell an AI agent:

“Figure it out.”

That creates a massive opportunity for grocery stores, C-stores and restaurants.

The future competitive advantage may not simply be having the biggest advertising network.

It may be having the best answer to the consumer's prompt.

That means a grocery store needs to know:

· what is available right now;

· what is fresh;

· what is ready-to-eat;

· what is heat-and-eat;

· what can be bundled;

· what is on promotion;

· what fits the consumer's budget;

· what complements another product;

· what can be delivered;

· and what can solve the consumer's meal problem.

That's Grocerant thinking.

Mix-and-Match Meal Component Bundling becomes AI-ready

This is where Mix-and-Match Meal Component Bundling becomes even more important.

A human might see:

rotisserie chicken + salad + bread + dessert

and construct a meal.

An AI agent can potentially do the same thing—provided the retailer's data infrastructure understands the relationships among those products.

That creates an interesting shift:

Yesterday's merchandising strategy becomes tomorrow's machine-readable meal architecture.

The retailer isn't simply selling four products.

It is selling:

Dinner.

And that is a much more valuable proposition.

The new food advertising equation

The old equation was essentially:

Attention → Advertising → Desire → Purchase

The emerging equation could be:

Intent → AI interpretation → Product comparison → Recommendation → Purchase

Advertising doesn't necessarily disappear.

But its location—and its job—changes.

The food marketer may increasingly have to influence the inputs that AI uses to make decisions, while simultaneously maintaining enough human brand equity that consumers will recognize, request or approve the recommendation.

That's a very different marketing challenge.

And it could make product data, value and availability the new hand-held marketing.

Three Insights from the Grocerant Guru®

1. The advertising impression is not the purchase decision.

Retailers have spent years monetizing the consumer's attention. AI agents may increasingly monetize the consumer's intent instead.

The next retail-media question isn't simply “Did someone see the ad?”

It is:

“Did the product get selected?”

2. The algorithmic shelf is becoming as important as the physical shelf.

Tyson can win the physical shelf with packaging, placement and promotion.

Tastykake can win the impulse occasion with visibility.

Budweiser can win a social occasion with restaurant merchandising.

But the AI shelf requires something different:

relevance, value, availability and verifiable product information.

The brands that prepare their data for AI may discover that machine visibility becomes a new form of shelf placement.

3. The Grocerant winner will sell the solution—not the silo.

The consumer doesn't care whether dinner originated in the grocery store, C-store, restaurant, deli or delivery platform.

The consumer wants Price + Quality + Social + Portability = Value.

And increasingly, the consumer may simply tell an AI:

“What's the best dinner for me tonight?”

The retailer, restaurant, C-store and food brand that can provide the best answer—not merely the loudest advertisement—may be building the next generation of food marketing.

That's the Grocerant Guru® view: In an AI-powered food world, the most valuable media may not be the advertisement the consumer sees. It may be the product the algorithm chooses.

Sources: GeekWire, Meta, Instacart, Circana and Deloitte, with 2022–2026 data and reporting cited above.

Is Starbucks’ CEO Hoodwinking Wall Street—or Is the Turnaround Really Working

2026-09-29T00:29:00.000-07:00

The Grocerant Guru® asks: Is Starbucks really getting “Back to Starbucks,” or is Wall Street being handed a familiar restaurant turnaround script that sounds better than the consumer reality?

Let's be clear from the beginning: “hoodwinking” is a question, not an accusation. There is no evidence presented here that Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol is intentionally misleading investors.

But there is a legitimate food-marketing question worth asking.

When a restaurant company is under pressure, there is an old playbook: close underperforming stores, remodel the remaining stores, simplify the operation, improve service, invest in employees, refresh the menu, increase marketing—and then tell Wall Street that the turnaround is working.

That playbook can work.

But consumers don't buy turnaround plans.

Consumers buy coffee, food, convenience, experience and value.

And that's where the Starbucks story becomes considerably more interesting.

Starbucks announced September 24 that it would close approximately 250 additional North American coffeehouses, about 1% of its more than 18,000 North American locations. The company says the closures involve locations that cannot consistently deliver the desired customer and partner experience or that lack a path to acceptable financial performance. Starbucks also says it is accelerating toward 1,500 coffeehouse “uplifts.”

That sounds like classic portfolio management.

But the bigger question for Wall Street is:

Is Starbucks fixing stores—or is the coffee consumer changing faster than the Starbucks playbook?

Four food-marketing facts Wall Street should examine

1. Coffee consumers are increasingly buying specialty coffee—but that does not automatically mean Starbucks

The National Coffee Association's 2025 data found that 66% of American adults drank coffee on the previous day, while specialty coffee reached a record 48% of adults, up from 37% in 2021.

Even more interesting, specialty coffee drinkers were more likely than traditional coffee drinkers to have coffee prepared outside the home.

That's a huge opportunity.

But it is an opportunity for the coffee category, not necessarily a guarantee for Starbucks.

Consumers have more choices than ever: independent coffee shops, drive-thru specialists, convenience stores, regional chains, fast-food restaurants and increasingly sophisticated foodservice programs.

The coffee consumer is not waiting for one brand to tell them where to drink coffee.

2. Convenience has become part of the coffee product

Coffee isn't simply coffee anymore.

It is coffee + speed + location + portability + customization + food + technology.

NCA data reported in 2025 showed that 85% of past-day coffee drinkers consumed coffee at breakfast, 82% consumed it at home, and the average coffee drinker consumed nearly three cups per day.

That means Starbucks isn't competing only with another coffeehouse.

It is competing for one of the consumer's daily beverage occasions.

And that competition increasingly comes from places that were never historically defined as coffee companies.

That is the Grocerant Guru's no-silos consumer principle:

Consumers don't see restaurant, grocery, convenience-store and coffee-company silos. They see a coffee occasion.

3. Starbucks' own numbers show that transactions—not just higher tickets—matter

Here is where the Starbucks turnaround deserves credit.

In Q3 fiscal 2026, Starbucks reported U.S. comparable-store sales growth of 7.9%, consisting of 4.2% transaction growth and 3.6% average-ticket growth. North American comparable sales increased 8.1%, with transactions up 4.5%. Starbucks also reported that food attachment and beverage modifications contributed to the result.

That is important.

It means the current Starbucks story cannot fairly be dismissed as simply raising prices.

Customers were coming through the doors more frequently.

Earlier in fiscal 2026, Starbucks reported U.S. comparable transactions up 4.3% in Q2, after declines in the prior-year comparison.

So, if Wall Street wants evidence that the turnaround has traction, transactions are one of the most important pieces of evidence.

But that also creates the next question:

Can Starbucks maintain transaction growth after the easiest turnaround gains have been harvested?

That is a very different question from whether a quarter looks better than the previous year.

4. Look at what the fast-growing coffee competitors are actually building

The most revealing comparison may not be Starbucks versus Starbucks.

It may be Starbucks versus the emerging coffee occasion economy.

Dutch Bros reported Q2 2026 revenue growth of 32.5% to $550.9 million, opened 48 shops during the quarter and posted 8.3% company-operated same-shop sales growth. Systemwide same-shop sales increased 5.8%. The company finished the quarter with 1,225 shops.

Scooter's Coffee reached approximately 900 stores across 32 states in early 2026 after adding 83 stores during 2025, a 10% increase following 16% growth in 2024. Its model is heavily built around drive-thru convenience, speed, menu variety and franchise-led expansion.

And 7 Brew has been expanding at extraordinary speed, reaching more than 700 locations across 38 states in 2026, according to reporting on the company's expansion.

These brands are not simply selling coffee.

They are selling a coffee occasion designed around the way consumers increasingly live.

Fast.

Portable.

Customizable.

Drive-thru friendly.

Highly beverage-focused.

And increasingly accompanied by food and snack occasions.

The Starbucks problem may not be coffee

This is where the Grocerant Guru sees the bigger food-marketing issue.

Starbucks has a powerful brand.

It has enormous scale.

It has technology.

It has loyalty.

It has thousands of locations.

And its 2026 operating results show genuine improvement.

But the competitive landscape is changing.

The consumer is increasingly asking:

“Where can I get what I want, when I want it, at a price and experience that feels worth it?”

That is the same consumer question driving the Grocerant niche.

Ready-2-Eat.

Heat-N-Eat.

Foodservice.

Convenience.

Drive-thru.

Delivery.

Coffee.

Snacks.

Breakfast.

Lunch.

Dinner.

The consumer doesn't care which corporate department owns the occasion.

The old restaurant playbook versus the new consumer playbook

The old playbook says:

Close weak stores.

The new consumer playbook says:

Why was the store weak?

The old playbook says:

Remodel the store.

The new consumer playbook says:

What does the customer actually want from the experience?

The old playbook says:

Improve the menu.

The new consumer playbook says:

Build the menu around occasions, cravings, portability and value.

The old playbook says:

Increase the average ticket.

The new consumer playbook says:

Increase the frequency of visits and the consumer's perception of value.

That distinction matters.

Starbucks itself says its 2026 North American improvement has been helped by faster service, greater consistency, warmer coffeehouses, food attachment and beverage modifications.

Those are meaningful improvements.

But they aren't proprietary.

Competitors can copy speed. Competitors can copy menu innovation. Competitors can copy loyalty. Competitors can build drive-thru units.

What cannot be copied overnight is a consumer habit.

And that is the real Wall Street question.

The Grocerant Guru's bottom line

Brian Niccol's “Back to Starbucks” strategy is producing measurable results in 2026. Starbucks has reported four consecutive quarters of comparable-sales growth, and Q3 U.S. transaction growth was positive.

So this is not a story about Starbucks simply failing.

It is a story about whether Starbucks' improvement is being confused with a fundamental change in consumer behavior.

There is a difference.

A turnaround can make an existing business better.

A consumer migration can change the competitive landscape.

And coffee is increasingly part of a much larger food-and-beverage occasion.

The Grocerant Guru's Three Questions for Wall Street

1. Are Starbucks' improving transactions evidence of sustainable consumer migration—or are they primarily the first fruits of a successful turnaround investment cycle?

2. If consumers are increasingly choosing coffee based on speed, portability, customization, food attachment and perceived value, is remodeling Starbucks stores enough to defend the brand against drive-thru specialists and nontraditional coffee competitors?

3. When Dutch Bros, Scooter's and 7 Brew are expanding their footprints while building businesses around convenience and beverage occasions, should Wall Street measure Starbucks primarily by remodeled stores—or by the consumer's next coffee occasion?

That's the question.

Because Wall Street may invest in companies, but consumers invest in habits.

And in the food business, consumer habits—not corporate presentations—ultimately write the next chapter.

Are you ready for some fresh ideations? Do your food marketing ideas look more like yesterday than tomorrow? Interested in learning how our Grocerant Guru® can edify your retail food brand while creating a platform for consumer convenient meal participation, differentiation and individualization? Email us at: Steve@FoodserviceSolutions.us or visit: us on our social media sites by clicking one of the following links: Facebook, LinkedIn, or Twitter