Ryan is an attorney and valuation specialist residing in Chicago. He chronicles his thoughts and research on FranchisePundit.com. You may reach him by email ryanknoll@gmail.com or mobile telephone 312-212-3423.
My previous post highlight the not-so-obvious hurdles of co-branding. The omnipotent FuwaFuwaUsagi sent in photos of Brown’s Chicken attempts at co-branding. See his Brown’s Chicken photos below.
Brown’s Chicken is trying to do the Chicago street food theme plus mexican. It offers everything from pasta, ice cream, pizza, fried chicken, sausages, pasta, mexican, italian beef, and hot dogs. The problem is not necessarily the menu, but the execution, presentation and customer experience. It looks utterly silly to have so many brands in one cheap-looking tiny store.
Offering multiple unknown brands under one roof requires significant investment in the seating, presentation and overall customer experience. I’ve only seen one successful Chicago street food restaurant and it is Portillo’s / Barnelli’s combination. When you enter one of the premium stores you feel as though you have entered an old-fashioned carnival era. It is plain fun and food is quite good.
The below photos provide a great illustration of what to do and what not to do – stuffing too many confusing brands under one roof.
WRONG WAY TO CO-BRAND:
RIGHT WAY TO CO-BRAND:
Similar Posts:
- Nando’s and the Peri Peri Chicken
- Qdoba Wants to Expand Despite Lack of Franchisees
- Customer Experience, Franchising, and Resources
- The Hurdles of Co-branding
- Bruster’s Ice Cream franchise warms to idea of co-branding with Nathans Hot Dogs
It should be noted you can click on the pictures of “the wrong way to brand” to enlarge them. Note their is a commentary in the title bar of your browser when you do this that gives you a little insight into what you are seeing.
The most significant is to look at the parking lot photo and realize these were taken close to prime dinner hours (6:30pm or so I think).
My understanding is this place has far more curb appeal than indoor ambiance. Which is to say the outside is the well thought out part of this interesting approach to co-branding.
FuwaFuwaUsagi
What’s wrong with having more options on the menu board? Miami Subs in Florida has a massive selection and cobrands.
Devon writes:
What’s wrong with having more options on the menu board? Miami Subs in Florida has a massive selection and cobrands.
My reply:
My experience has been mixed with this. One the one hand the sale that enters your door because of the variety of options you offer is a good thing. On the other hand menu items that simply cannibalize sales you would have had anyways may or may not be a good thing.
I have relayed this story before, but at one time I operated a hotdog business. And business was good. I expanded my menu and it was a HUGE mistake. I had inventory issues related to spoilage, and more importantly my throughput went way down as people stood in line contemplating the wonderful combinations I had, asking a question here and there, and I simply ended up with dramatically lower customer counts per man hour each day and higher food costs as a result.
If you have a sit down concept more options may work out; if you have a bewildering array of items to choose from and the line builds, it will most likely cost you customers. If customer turnover is important to your concept then I suspect a limited menu is to your advantage.
Regards,
FuwaFuwaUsagi