McDonalds and its shifting market

Global fast food giant McDonalds is in a bind as markets, society and production methods move against its business

“No business or brand has a divine right to succeed,” said McDonald’s CEO Steve Easterbrook last May.

As McDonalds’ management desperately try to adapt to a changed marketplace, Bloomberg Business spoke to some of those bearing the greatest risks – the fast food chain’s franchisees.

The expansion of menu items and the shift to more custom produced burgers is creating problems for franchisees and store managers as equipment and procedures designed for simpler times struggles with varying demands.

McDonalds is in a terrible bind as the company faces a society-wide shift in consumption that leaves its business model stranded at the same time that the market is wanting more customised products.

The latter is an aspect that many businesses whose success and profitability is based on mass production are now facing as customised products become easier and cheaper to produce.

While McDonalds isn’t likely to go out of business soon, the broader trends aren’t running in its favour. That’s bad news for both the company and its franchisees.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

McDonalds and the end of the Franchise era

McDonalds and the declining franchising model of fast food chains are another symptom of a changing economy and society

One of the biggest business innovations of the late Twentieth Century was the franchising model. Now as technology changes that way of working isn’t necessarily the force it was a quarter century ago.

While the concept itself wasn’t new – The East India Company at the beginning of the Seventeen Century was a type of franchise – the model really took off in modern business with the automotive industry where different manufacturers granted franchises to their brands.

After World War II it was the fast food industry that developed the franchise model into a tightly controlled, procedure driven way of doing business.

Building the fast food franchise

The fast food franchise model worked well for everybody; for the brand, it meant they could expand without huge layouts of capital while for budding local entrepreneurs purchasing a franchise meant buying into a proven business model with a known brand name.

McDonalds was the leader in the fast food franchising sector; the company expanded across the US and then globally on the back of the procedures first developed by the founding brothers then expanded by Ray Croc as he sought to roll out an industrial scale burger chain where a cheeseburger in Arkansas tasted the same as one in Alaska.

To achieve this, he chose a unique path: persuading both franchisees and suppliers to buy into his vision, working not for McDonald’s, but for themselves, together with McDonald’s.  He promoted the slogan, “In business for yourself, but not by yourself.” His philosophy was based on the simple principle of a 3-legged stool: one leg was McDonald’s, the second, the franchisees, and the third, McDonald’s suppliers. The stool was only as strong as the 3 legs.

Croc’s concept was fantastically successful as the franchisees took the operational risks and stumped up most of the capital while McDonalds providing the branding, procedures and supplies.

Many other industries, and fast food chains, copied Croc’s idea and the modern franchise model spread from hamburgers to lawn mowing to industrial safety services. During the 1970s and 80s, a smart, hard working entrepreneurs could do very well buying one of the bigger franchises.

Wobbling franchises

Around the turn of the century though that model started to wobble; during the 1990s the sharks began to move into the franchising industry with many sub-standard systems. McDonalds and the other fast food chains compounded the problem of poor performance by selling too many franchises in a mad dash for growth.

Young entrepreneurs have changed as well; rather than raising several hundred thousand dollars to pay franchise fees to be constrained by a strict set of procedures, today’s keen young go getters are more interested in the opportunities of building new businesses from scratch as startups.

Access to capital is also a problem as today its harder to raise money from a bank unless a business owner has ample home equity or other real assets to secure lending; the risk adverse nature of banks is making it harder for these capital intensive businesses.

Technological change

The killer though for the franchise model seems to have technological and social change; as consumer lifestyles and preferences changed, so too has the underlying demand for both franchises and their products.

McDonalds’ fading in the United States illustrates this change as companies like Chipotle take over from the once dominant chain as technology has made it more efficient to standardise procedures and customise food service.

Once McDonalds was an investor in Chipotle and Quartz Magazine describes how the relationship foundered with one of the key points of friction being differences over the franchising model.

“What we found at the end of the day was that culturally we’re very different,” Chipotle founder and co-CEO Steve Ells said. “There are two big things that we do differently. One is the way we approach food, and the other is the way we approach our people culture. It’s the combination of those things that I think make us successful.”

Just as technology – the automobile created the increasing suburbanisation of America – drove McDonalds’ growth so too is it now contributing to the chain’s demise as chains like Chipotle can cater to a market with different expectations and deliver a product that doesn’t need the mass production techniques of the 1950s.

As a consequence, the big procedure driven model of franchising isn’t so necessary any more. While the concept of franchising remains sound, what worked in the post World War II years isn’t so compelling today.

It’s fashionable to think of companies like newspapers as being the victims of technological change but the truth is most of the businesses we think as being dominant today are the result of advances over the last 150 years, the evolution of McDonalds and the franchising model is just another chapter.

Similar posts:

Common interests

A successful business partnership relies upon respecting each party

KFC is booming in the world’s emerging markets. From Shanghai, China to Accra, Ghana, crowds are lining up to eat and the fast food chain is opening new outlets across the world.

Yet in KFC’s home market, the United States, the chain is shutting outlets and infuriating franchisees.

A Bloomberg BusinessWeek profile looks at the success of Yum! foods, KFC’s parent company, and the contradiction of overseas success while their domestic business fades.

One thing is absolutely clear, Yum Food’s vainglorious Chief Executive David Novak and his board have made a clear decision to focus on expanding the core business of deep fried chicken in emerging markets while making little effort to adapt to changes in their domestic operations.

At least Yum are keeping their US based KFC operations, many of their other brands are being sold off as the company responds to changes US tastes and economic circumstances.

For the US KFC franchisees, this is a difficult process as their interests are not the same as those of Yum’s management.

At the heart of every business agreement are people acting in their own interests. The most successful partnerships are those where everybody’s interests are recognised and respected.

In their US operations, the big question is how long Yum can neglect their US franchisees and markets without affecting their international operations.

For Yum’s international operations it’s going to be fascinating to see how the partnerships and joint ventures underpinning their expansion in emerging market evolve.

Yum will probably find in some of these markets that their local partners don’t share their interests. Then they may find themselves in the same position of their US franchisees.

Similar posts: