a thread that got started a month or two back (that I admit my cursory search effort could not unearth - what is wrong with the search function of this MB?) produced so many old-time and/or charter LTH members who became so very chippy and provincial about a less active member starting a thread critiquing things he (or she) did NOT like in the way of restaurants.

Griz, you lost me what thread you mean, this one or some other. Just curious...

I used to get annoyed at the pages and pages of irrelevant results turned up by the search function, but after a while I grew to appreciate it. It sent me off on all sorts of interesting tangents I never would have come across otherwise.

Chain restaurants don't have much of an impact on my day-to-day life as a city resident (though I too am perplexed by the proliferation of suburban chain eateries - is it really a sign of a great cultural divide that happens like magic as you pass Howard or McCormick, or something entirely other? I think I have discovered my senior thesis project.....) Occasionally, I find myself craving something from a chain, Taco Bell, McDonald's fries, etc. It's a specific craving, not something that could be satisfied by El Presidente or the Candlelite. I suppose it's all for the best that I am invariably thwarted by location when I develop these desires.

What really frustrates me is the fast-food zone that lines the highway to Memphis, a trip we make a few times a year. Mile after mile of Subway, Burger Kings, Pizza Huts...the food is so depressing and awful it is incomprehensible to me that people actually seek it out and consume it day after day.

I guess I'm the only one here who is sorry to see a restaurant close because that means probably 30-40 people are then out of a job.

I guess I'm also the only one here who feels that more choices is never a bad thing, and fewer choices is never a good thing. Nothing specific to Romano's Macaroni Grill - I've never been to one - but I think of restaurants in terms of a free market economist. IOW, the more choices the merrier, give people as many restaurants as possible, and let them figure out which ones to give their business to, based on preference for taste, budget, etc. Hopefully, the really good ones will survive and thrive. And more often than not, they do.

I see this more as something that doesn't affect me - same as if, say, a sushi restaurant opened or closed, because I don't like sushi, or if a golf course opened or closed, because I don't golf. It doesn't affect my life, but I'm sorry for its effect on those who enjoyed it (their taste is different from mine, so what), and I'm sorry for its effect on those who lost their jobs. I don't see any benefit in taking pleasure in the misfortune of others. And more often than not, what happens to the location is that it sits idle (which doesn't help anyone) or becomes something else that doesn't affect me either.

Different strokes...

JimInLoganSquare wrote:

Grizzly wrote:Cheers to all of you, especially "Them".

I thought the comment was referencing Van Morrison.

nsxtasy wrote:I guess I'm the only one here who is sorry to see a restaurant close because that means probably 30-40 people are then out of a job.

I guess I'm also the only one here who feels that more choices is never a bad thing, and fewer choices is never a good thing.

Just because a restaurant has people that work at it and people like their food, doesn't necessarily mean that that restaurant has a net positive impact.

I believe that massive chains like Macaroni Grill and The Olive Garden do us harm, regardless of the fact that they employ people and my aunt likes to eat at them. I believe that they're homogenizing the American palate and culture, harming our local farmers, diluting our culinary traditions, and insulting craftsman and artisans by selling watered-down imitations of their work. I believe they have a negative net impact on our culinary culture and our diets.

This is a culinary chat site. The reason I participate here is not to champion every restaurant, simply because it exists. I participate here because I believe in culinary tradition, artistry, and creativity. (And I think this feeling is shared by most LTHForum members.)

Large nationwide chains, in many cases, dilute the culianary world that I hold dear. I'm happy when they close.

Best,
Michael

nsxtasy wrote:Nothing specific to Romano's Macaroni Grill - I've never been to one - but I think of restaurants in terms of a free market economist. IOW, the more choices the merrier, give people as many restaurants as possible, and let them figure out which ones to give their business to, based on preference for taste, budget, etc. Hopefully, the really good ones will survive and thrive. And more often than not, they do.

I hadn't thought about this angle, but now that you did, I find it persuasive. There's no way that "bad" chain restaurants can drive "good" independent restaurants out of a market, if those "good" independent restaurants offer something that people prefer. (And if they don't, I'd question whether they merit the term "good.")

Of course, "good" encompasses more than food quality. It includes it at the top of the list, but goes on to include things like equitable price, pleasing service, consistency, cleanliness, etc. As long as independents deliver these attributes at least as well as chains, the capacity of chains to do evil will be limited.

riddlemay wrote:There's no way that "bad" chain restaurants can drive "good" independent restaurants out of a market, if those "good" independent restaurants offer something that people prefer. (And if they don't, I'd question whether they merit the term "good.")

Large corporations can leverage resources to get their names out there, use economies of scale to work more efficiently, and even underprice the smaller guys until the smaller guys simply cannot compete and close.

There are lots of ways that bad can drive good out of the market. How did VHS beat Beta? Not through superior quality.

David Hammond wrote:Large corporations can leverage resources to get their names out there, use economies of scale to work more efficiently, and even underprice the smaller guys until the smaller guys simply cannot compete and close.

There are lots of ways that bad can drive good out of the market. How did VHS beat Beta? Not through superior quality.

Well, now I'm persuaded by that, too. I'm so easy!

I guess where I come out is believing that in most cases, if a Chili's (let's say) is doing really well when a down-the-street independent Mexican place isn't, it's because the Chili's is offering something to people that the independent place isn't, something that people want.

David Hammond wrote:

riddlemay wrote:There's no way that "bad" chain restaurants can drive "good" independent restaurants out of a market, if those "good" independent restaurants offer something that people prefer. (And if they don't, I'd question whether they merit the term "good.")

Large corporations can leverage resources to get their names out there, use economies of scale to work more efficiently, and even underprice the smaller guys until the smaller guys simply cannot compete and close.

There are lots of ways that bad can drive good out of the market. How did VHS beat Beta? Not through superior quality.

Not to mention the chains are not funneling the bottom line revenues away from the community where the chain-restaurant exists - to their corporate headquarters. Save the servers and kitchen workers, it's not the same economic impact of a mom&pop joint.

But I get nxtasy's point - people did lose their job. Yet I'm not broken up by it, because one area that our current economy still exibits opportunity is the service/restaurant industries.

HI,

For whatever it is worth, not every franchise location is owned by a corporation.

For example, there are McDonalds owned by the company itself and many, many more privately owned. Many of those privately owned McDonalds are effectively small businesses, who pay fees to get under the great McDonald's tent of uniform food, advertising and good will.

When a small business goes under, there is usually a family whose savings just went down the drain. I take no comfort or glee in this situation.

I don't avoid McDonalds, I even go there more often than some here would like. It is a choice amongst many others.

I've never been to a Macaroni Grill, though again I have the will to express my choice and I do.

Regards,

eatchicago wrote:I believe that massive chains like Macaroni Grill and The Olive Garden do us harm, regardless of the fact that they employ people and my aunt likes to eat at them.

I understand your argument. You don't like chains and you're happy when they close. Got it.

But there are flip sides to that argument (in addition to the employment issue, which affects the lives of employees far more than those of the general public). One is, this means less choice for your aunt, or anyone else who might have gone there. And less choice isn't a good thing, IMHO.

The other flip side is, you are saying that places that you like should close, because this will make you happy. What about someone who likes different kinds of places from you? Should they be happy when places they don't like close? Let's say you love that little mom-and-pop sushi restaurant around the corner from your home. According to your argument, since I don't like sushi, I should be happy if that place closes, even though it has zero effect on my life, and even though it deprives you of a place you like and your life is less enjoyable as a result, and even though that mom and pop no longer have a livelihood. Heck, I could even believe that sushi places do us harm, because I don't like sushi. This is the exact same logic as yours; it's just a difference of opinion regarding which places you like or dislike, and which places someone else likes or dislikes.

riddlemay wrote:I guess where I come out is believing that in most cases, if a Chili's (let's say) is doing really well when a down-the-street independent Mexican place isn't, it's because the Chili's is offering something to people that the independent place isn't, something that people want.

Or, as Hammond points out, the smaller independant Mexican place doesn't have the massive advertising budget that a chain like Chili's has and as a consequence is drowned out by the noise of "I want my baby backs baby backs baby backs".

nsxtasy wrote:You don't like chains and you're happy when they close. Got it.

I think that's a gross oversimplification of my position.

nsxtasy wrote:But there are flip sides to that argument (in addition to the employment issue, which affects the lives of employees far more than those of the general public). One is, this means less choice for your aunt, or anyone else who might have gone there. And less choice isn't a good thing, IMHO.

This was part of your original point.

nsxtasy wrote:The other flip side is, you are saying that places that you like should close, because this will make you happy. What about someone who likes different kinds of places from you? Should they be happy when places they don't like close? Let's say you love that little mom-and-pop sushi restaurant around the corner from your home. According to your argument, since I don't like sushi, I should be happy if that place closes, even though it has zero effect on my life, and even though it deprives you of a place you like and your life is less enjoyable as a result, and even though that mom and pop no longer have a livelihood. Heck, I could even believe that sushi places do us harm, because I don't like sushi. This is the exact same logic as yours; it's just a difference of opinion regarding which places you like or dislike, and which places someone else likes or dislikes.

You've missed my point by a very wide margin. It has nothing to do with taste. I'm not going to re-hash it.

Best,
Michael

Cathy2 wrote:For whatever it is worth, not every franchise location is owned by a corporation.

That's right, of course, but beside point. Independent McDonald's owner/operators gain from all the leverage, massive resources, and marketing presence of the brand. Even though your neighborhood McDonald's is perhaps family-owned, it is not in any sense what we mean when we refer to a "mom and pop" operation.

I guess where I come out is believing that in most cases, if a Chili's (let's say) is doing really well when a down-the-street independent Mexican place isn't, it's because the Chili's is offering something to people that the independent place isn't, something that people want.

Or, as Hammond points out, the smaller independant Mexican place doesn't have the massive advertising budget that a chain like Chili's has and as a consequence is drowned out by the noise of "I want my baby backs baby backs baby backs".

But if you and I are capable of "seeing through" the advertising and making intelligent choices in favor of locally-owned places despite this (and of course we are), what is it about the denizens of Chili's that makes us believe they're not capable of doing the same?

David Hammond wrote:

Cathy2 wrote:For whatever it is worth, not every franchise location is owned by a corporation.

That's right, of course, but beside point. Independent McDonald's owner/operators gain from all the leverage, massive resources, and marketing presence of the brand. Even though your neighborhood McDonald's is perhaps family-owned, it is not in any sense what we mean when we refer to a "mom and pop" operation.

I reiterate, I take no glee or satisfaction from someone else's sorrows.

Regards,

Cathy2 wrote:

David Hammond wrote:

Cathy2 wrote:For whatever it is worth, not every franchise location is owned by a corporation.

That's right, of course, but beside point. Independent McDonald's owner/operators gain from all the leverage, massive resources, and marketing presence of the brand. Even though your neighborhood McDonald's is perhaps family-owned, it is not in any sense what we mean when we refer to a "mom and pop" operation.

I reiterate, I take no glee or satisfaction from someone else's sorrows.

Regards,

Nor do I. C2, we're not arguing for or against schadenfreude, but if my local Long John Silver were to go under and be replaced by, oh, I don't know, Hagen's, I'd be downright delirious. Not because one business failed, but because one I liked a lot better opened.

riddlemay wrote:what is it about the denizens of Chili's that makes us believe they're not capable of doing the same?

Consider cost and convenience factors:

Why should I go to the local Italian kitchen that charges $5 for a salad and $4 for breadsticks when The Olive Garden gives me as much as I want for free! And they have a huge parking lot so it's really easy to get to.

Also consider familiarity and corporate quality control:

I know that my Tuscan Chicken Breast is going to taste exactly the same in every branch across the country on any given day. I don't want to taste anything new or different or risk my dining dollars at a place that might be out of my favorite dish.

-I'd be hard pressed to think that reasonable people are happy to see anyone out of work. Businesses of all sorts close everyday-I, and I would hazard a guess that most people, are emotionally affected when it involves themselves, someone they know, or there is special media coverage.
-Maybe it makes me a bad guy, but it wouldn't occur to me to be concerned about a place I wasn't somehow connected to. Anyway, employees of chains shouldn't have much problem finding a new job-as was mentioned above.
-I would have to say that more chains doesn't equal more choices, and further-we have enough chains. Very often I feel we have too many restaurants-period. It is probably harder than ever for a decent place to exist with all the so-called "hot lists" of restaurants. (often a case of the emperor's new clothes)
-Chains too often are spewing out the trans-fats, saturated fats, bad carbs, and plastic vegetables that have helped make us an obesity statistic. (Of course responsibility must be taken by the individual, or parent, and an otherwise healthy lifestyle must be in place, etc.) We really don't need to be too concerned when a few fail. Everybody's aunts will still have tons of places to go to.

HI,

I am aware of a Chef-owner of a French restaurant, who sold it to work at an Italian Garden. Why? He had a family to raise and wanted a more secure income flow. Should he give up his toque because he made an economic decision to favor his family?

I go to Italian Garden from time to time to make my Moms happy, which favors their wishes. I usually get the endless salad and soup.

Regards,

I know that my Tuscan Chicken Breast is going to taste exactly the same in every branch across the country on any given day. I don't want to taste anything new or different or risk my dining dollars at a place that might be out of my favorite dish.

Even better, I know that it's going to taste almost exactly the same as the Ranchero Chicken Breast at On the Border and the Cajun Irish Chicken Breast O'Brien at Paddy McBeausoleil's Shrimpery & Alumni Club. I need never fear tasting something new at all.

Mike,
who takes great glee in closing bad restaurants through the exercise of the Dark Arts

Rehashing the old Chowhound battles ... yawn.

Personally, I thought that Macaroni Grill's food was far BETTER than ANY of the Little Italy independents in Cleveland by a wide margin. However, the schtick with the crayons and all that garbage was so absolutely annoying (and condescending) that I would not return to the place.

Having been in the business, good independents thrive and make a lot of money. Good chains thrive and make a lot of money.

Weak independents prefer to blame chains for what is usually weakness in their business plan or their performance or their location. It is like my friend that opens his "dream" coffee shop (since closed). His hours were 9-5 M-Sat and he wondered why his place never caught on.

Or like the Jamaican couple that opened a jerk place in Algonquin. The place was carry-out only and you wait twenty minutes to get your food. Great food but how many people have the time to wait on pick-up food? They should have had a steamtable and some seating up front.

One of the problems that a lot of the independents have in this area is retaining staff because they don't offer benefits. My favorite bakery clerk is working in the bakery at Wal-Mart because she $3/hr more PLUS medical benefits. (She feels terribly exploited having to carry home a bigger paycheck and having medical coverage OF ANY SORT for the first time in 10 years.) And one of my places that I frequented have turned their entire staff twice as their staff is demanding benefits (and the owners have not met that need).

...what is it about the denizens of Chili's that makes us believe they're not capable of doing the same?

Consider cost and convenience factors:

Why should I go to the local Italian kitchen that charges $5 for a salad and $4 for breadsticks when The Olive Garden gives me as much as I want for free! And they have a huge parking lot so it's really easy to get to.

Also consider familiarity and corporate quality control:

I know that my Tuscan Chicken Breast is going to taste exactly the same in every branch across the country on any given day. I don't want to taste anything new or different or risk my dining dollars at a place that might be out of my favorite dish.

I agree with your examples, and would assert that those are perfectly rational calculations on the part of consumers. While they lead to a different choice than you or I would make, they should be honored.

Cathy2 wrote:HI,

I am aware of a Chef-owner of a French restaurant, who sold it to work at an Italian Garden. Why? He had a family to raise and wanted a more secure income flow.

That is the type of shame that, in our own small way, LTH Forum is hopfully working to eliminate. Stories like these are all the more reason we should help champion the independently owned restaurants that are turning our a good product but are under the radar of the masses. It's yet another reason that I find endorsing a chain or chain-like establishment out of the question...even if I may patronize one at times to accommodate others.

Honored? That's a bit tall. Tolerated is surely enough.

As Mencken said on a similar subject, "We should respect the other fellow's religion, but only to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children intelligent."

This just off the wire: Applebee's closes 24 restaurants:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/21/news/companies/applebees.reut/index.htm?postversion=2007032111

A nation mourns.

nsxtasy wrote:I guess I'm also the only one here who feels that more choices is never a bad thing, and fewer choices is never a good thing. Nothing specific to Romano's Macaroni Grill - I've never been to one - but I think of restaurants in terms of a free market economist. IOW, the more choices the merrier, give people as many restaurants as possible, and let them figure out which ones to give their business to, based on preference for taste, budget, etc. Hopefully, the really good ones will survive and thrive. And more often than not, they do.

Exactly right, but I think you misunderstand.

Speaking at least for myself, the joy is not in seeing a mediocre restaurant fail (I'm speaking generally... never eaten at a Macaroni Grill), but rather in what the failure of that restaurant might indicate about the changing tastes of those who frequent it.

We're not talking about denying people choices here, are we? If the chains have closed, it's because market conditions weren't right for them to succeed. I see nothing untoward about celebrating a market that supports independents and discourages chains.

Haven't people made their choice?

eatchicago wrote:Consider cost and convenience factors:

Why should I go to the local Italian kitchen that charges $5 for a salad and $4 for breadsticks when The Olive Garden gives me as much as I want for free! And they have a huge parking lot so it's really easy to get to.

Also consider familiarity and corporate quality control:

I know that my Tuscan Chicken Breast is going to taste exactly the same in every branch across the country on any given day. I don't want to taste anything new or different or risk my dining dollars at a place that might be out of my favorite dish.

And Michael, don't forget that Chef Neri and staff are always hard at work researching new dishes for us in the Culinary Institute Tuscany (in Menlo Park)... yum-o stuff like chicken scampi! Now that's Hospitaliano!




Sorry, folks... all kidding aside, I too take no pleasure in the thought that a bunch of people are out of work on account of the closure of that macaroni spill, but it's a problem or perhaps even tragedy at a personal level. At the societal level, I do not believe chains are good for a variety of reasons but I believe there are some older threads in which that stuff has been hashed and thrashed out and which ended in massive nastiness. In any event, the one point I'd like to make here is that I find it ironic that chains are being considered as part of the wonderful smorgasbord of choice for us all. In a way, of course, they are that... in a sense and to a degree... sort of... but their entire business model is such that they are committed to reducing consumer choices. And part of their ever-expansive strategy is to force their competition out of business, starting with the small places that are more likely to have some culinary value and aren't designed with the principal goal being to expand as much as possible. So then, if some of them fall prey to market forces that they were doing their best to control to put other people out of business, I can only feel bad in an abstract sort of a way for the personal problems of the individuals who lost jobs, but at the societal level, let's celebrate.

One other thing; the advantage through advertising has been mentioned above but there are many other competitive advantages that chains have over small, local and esp. family operations, including the cheaper products that they sell which are prepared centrally in factories, not by actual chefs in kitchens.

The chains are obviously popular and at one level, one can legitimately argue that they thus fill a good and necessary rôle. But there are a number of other ways to look at the issue and in the eyes of some, the negatives far outweigh the positives.

Once I resolve that problem, I will clear up the issue of world peace...

Antonius

Apologies for the postscript, but I should probably note that I'm not trying to bash chains. Chain or independent is totally immaterial to me. Quality is all that matters.