Here are my thoughts-

Chains arent’t inherently evil. They are a result of consumer demand and lifestyle. This may sound crazy, but most smart businesses will locate in an area where they will succeed. I fully support the rights of any business, either chain or individual, to operate in a marketplace.

Chains don’t drive out the Mom and Pop places directly. It’s a by-product of demand. It makes more sense to be angry at the perceived ignorance of those who consistently support chains then to be angry at the chain itself. The chain (or those running it) isn’t doing anything wrong by operating a business. In the end, you vote with your dollars. That’s it. The chain isn’t driving anyone out. People are making a conscious choice to leave one place and go to another. So they must want that. Chains don’t put a gun to anyone’s head.

Competition in business is healthy. It raises the overall quality of product and keeps prices lower. A good example is the U.S. car industry. The entry of better built foreign cars into the marketplace has resulted in increased quality of U.S. built cars at a more cost-effective level. I can give you tons of other examples if you’d like.

Chains may not be always of the highest quality, but it is the "consistency of the quality" that brings people in. They know what they are getting. If it’s crap, they can be pretty much be sure that they will get the same crap at another outlet of the same chain. But if it’s operating, there obviously is a demand for said crap, and business is all about taking advantage of a niche. So deal with it.

Part of the reasons that chains flourish is that quality and price vary within the local mom and pop places. Unfortunately, there are a lot of mom and pop joints that suck, and serve low quality food. I would say that in most towns, the crappy and mediocre local joints outnumber the good ones, and the stellar ones are few and far between. Any competition that drives out crappy places, whether or local or chain, is good.

If you are that angry about dining chains, at least be consistent and avoid the following chains- gas stations, department stores, Home Depots and Lowes, national banks and financial chains, etc. The by-product of the existence of all of these has been to eliminate the local purveyors as well. By patronizing these places, you are then supporting the very entity and activity that you claim to abhor. Although the products may differ, the execution and results are the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Greymo

quote:

Originally posted by mr chips

Yet I feel most of the arguements about chains on this site were more emotional and quasi-religious than intellectual. Posters such as Meowzart and Chezkatie hightailed it over to Roguefood with vigorous blasts against our supposed love and preferences for chains and with a fury that suggested folks who ate at chains were less intelligent, less sophisicated, and less tasteful than the people who eschewed chains. Ultimately eating at chains was an immoral act and people who said anything remotely nice about chains were acting in an immoral manner contrary to the purposes of this site.
I hope this is a fair assessment of the people who left and their opinions and no disrespect is intended.I will eat at some chains but prefer the local product when possible.

I have never read a post from any poster that ever suggested what you are saying. I think that you are a very unfair person in your evaluation of other people’s posts. But opionions are like a——s; eveyone has one.[:o)]

Meowzart(Debbie) referred to this site as"chain road food. com" in her farewell post and chezkatie spent most of her last 6 months’posts complaining that people were talking about chains and how this was contrary to roadfood principles. I mention this history because a number of the people who have posted in this forum were not around for these debates

quote:

Originally posted by Pwingsx

I think a lot of it is what’s termed "The Homogenization of America".

Is this such a bad thing? Consistency is good. What’s bad is this isn’t even GOOD FOOD. Is there anyone who’s eaten in a chain like McDonald’s who wouldn’t agree that 25 years ago, the food was much much better? Does anyone believe that quality hasn’t been sacrificed for quantity and the bottom line, lo these many years?

Trouble is, when you start with a range of quality, the achievement of consistency usually results in a product at the low end of the range because the better outlyers have been eliminated.

One possible reason quality has suffered in chains is that they have been relentless in the search for fool-proof product so that they can hire people capable of producing little else and pay them as little as possible. Does anyone think the nice kid behind the McD’s counter whose only English consists (if you’re lucky) of "big Mac" and "diet Coke" actually knows how to COOK? Of course not, but he she might have to to produce good food. To follow the chains "recipe for production of cow-based (or, as rumor would have it, kangaroo-based) hocky pucks" though, they don’t.

I think a lot of it is what’s termed "The Homogenization of America".

Is this such a bad thing? Consistency is good. What’s bad is this isn’t even GOOD FOOD. Is there anyone who’s eaten in a chain like McDonald’s who wouldn’t agree that 25 years ago, the food was much much better? Does anyone believe that quality hasn’t been sacrificed for quantity and the bottom line, lo these many years?

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear

Now, of course, if anyone wants to get into another discussion of Wal-Mart specifically, then we can all go off on that tangent again.

Let’s not and just say we did. [;)]

quote:

Originally posted by Scorereader

Some chains, do a lot of good in their communities and do lots to help local groups, and promote and sponsor local events. For example, some chain restaurants sponsor baseball and softball teams, support the Lions and Rotary clubs, support the local school, allow non-profits to hold monthy meetings at a table free of charge, etc.

Even local franchises put less money back into the local economy than an independent business owned by local community member. The percentages are shocking – I’ll see if I can find the stat.

Still, I do understand that it’s part of the way of business, and I’m not mortally opposed to the concept of a big-box store/restaurant. But if the product is inferior, or the company is so bottom-line driven that they are willing to skirt laws or behave in an ethically dubious manner, I dislike that individual "big business"…

Scorereader–I think that you may be "comparing apples & oranges" if you are relating chain retail stores to chain restaurant operations. If I buy a box of, let’s say, Oreos in a chain store (whether it is Kroger, A & P, Wal-Mart, etc.) those Oreos are the same product that I could buy at the Mom & Pop grocery store or the local bodega. The only likely difference is the price.

On the other hand, with food preparation, a well-run independently owned and operated non-chain restaurant has the ability to create the level of quality with a product (lets say..a hamburger) that they desire. It would be possible for them to serve hamburgers that are of lower quality than McD’s, for example, or–more likely, for them to serve a superior burger. The McD’s quality may be fairly consistent from one location to another, but that quality is not exactly going to be mouthwatering.

I believe that most people on this board seek out the non-chain eating establishments because of the higher quality of the ingredients and the more personalized food preparation that they are likely to find at the non-chain places. I am one of those people.

However, I will go to the chain retailer of food (Kroger, Shop-Rite, A & P, etc.) because of the greater selection and the invariably lower prices that these establishments charge for the exact same packaged products that form the bulk of their business.

For bulk of my supermarket purchases, a chain has no downside that I can perceive, versus the Mom & Pop grocer. (Or conversely, the Mom & Pop place has no significant advantage that I can perceive.)

Now, of course, if anyone wants to get into another discussion of Wal-Mart specifically, then we can all go off on that tangent again.

quote:

Originally posted by mr chips

Yet I feel most of the arguements about chains on this site were more emotional and quasi-religious than intellectual. Posters such as Meowzart and Chezkatie hightailed it over to Roguefood with vigorous blasts against our supposed love and preferences for chains and with a fury that suggested folks who ate at chains were less intelligent, less sophisicated, and less tasteful than the people who eschewed chains. Ultimately eating at chains was an immoral act and people who said anything remotely nice about chains were acting in an immoral manner contrary to the purposes of this site.
I hope this is a fair assessment of the people who left and their opinions and no disrespect is intended.I will eat at some chains but prefer the local product when possible.

I have never read a post from any poster that ever suggested what you are saying. I think that you are a very unfair person in your evaluation of other people’s posts. But opionions are like a——s; eveyone has one.[:o)]

quote:

Originally posted by Tony Bad

I too think WJ’s comments are excellent, but as I have pointed out before, local places can and will survive if they have something special to offer. I can (and have) listed many examples of places that have thrived in the face of chain invasion and have outlasted some of the competition!

There’s a lot of evidence that this really isn’t true as often as it is false. Chains, by their very nature, can offer their food less expensively than an independent. They have buying power that one restaurant can’t have. Independents pay more per pound for meat, seafood, produce than corporations. To too many people today, the price is the most important factor. Mom and Pops get forced out of business even if their product is special, even if its superior because it’s too expensive. That’s a part of my "chain-hate".

My bigger "chain hate" (although I’m not a pure hater) is that consistency always outweighs quality in a multi-location operation. That’s why the food at most chains is consistently mediocre. It’s better to be consistently mediocre than for one location with a fantastic prep cook to be great and another be mediocre because the prep cook is only mediocre. That’s why most chains don’t make their own sauces or soups; one restaurant in the concept just couldn’tget the sauces or soups right and because that one location wasn’t as good, all of them had to go to pre-made, cryovacked soups, that come out of the bag and go into the kettle.

I’d rather take my chances on a local independent or small chain than go to even PF Chang’s, California Pizza Kitchen, McCormick & Schmick’s. All of those use high quality ingredients, do a decent job, but could be fantastic if consistency wasn’t so freaking important. I’d almost rather eat an awful meal that was obviously home-cooked than a mediocre meal that was "Open the cryovac, throw it on the grill, slap it on a plate."

That’s why I’m not as bothered by the chain groceries and department stores. The products they sell (for the most part) come out of the cases they were delivered in, go on a shelf, go into my cart and onto my shelves. There’s little manipulation to them – I get the same moisturizer whether I buy it at Giant Eagle, Walgreen’s, Target, or the Shur-Save near me. (I won’t buy it at Wal-Mart even though they’d be cheapest; I don’t shop there.) When possible I’ll go to that Shur-Save since it’s owned by a neighbor, even if it’s a few pennies more per item, but I won’t buy produce from him. The produce is crap compared to Giant Eagle… He can’t afford to buy the same quality stuff the larger chain can buy…

For me it’s the quality. If a chain restaurant supercedes the consistency pothole (and there are a few that do) I’m happy to eat there. But if the food is mediocre, what’s the point? I’m not as politically opposed as many of the other "chain haters" but I don’t particularly like them either. I’ve seen the wrong side of a restaurant becoming a chain and it’s not pretty.

All Wal-Mart stores are company owned. They are not locally franchised. Same with Target and Home Depot.

quote:

Originally posted by Tony Bad

I had also read a point/counter point discussion regarding the evil empire of starbucks. It pointed out that many of the "mom & pop" coffee places supposedly put out of business by starbucks only existed because of starbucks. Before starbucks brought the "coffee house" to places they didn’t exist, these mom & pop places didn’t exist. They came about because they saw a good idea, and closed up when the big pusher of that concept finally caught up with them. Not passing judgement on whether this is right or wrong…I just found it interesting.

Nationally, this may be true, but in my hometown, San Francisco, it absolutely isn’t. There have been "coffee shops" here since the first Italian immigrant stepped off the boat to look for gold. This book lists over a hundred independents:

And many of them still thrive, but Starbucks has made it tough for a few and I regret the loss of any. It’s true, the independents are mostly in residential neighborhoods where they function as auxilliary living rooms and study halls with warn furniture and a homey atmosphere whereas Starbucks has mostly established itself in the downtown business district where its "clean as a whistle" glitz makes the office commuters feel more at home. But in a few places they compete directly and I wish they’d pack up and go back to Seattle where that’s the case. Even downtown, I (and most people here) prefer the local chain, Peet’s.

I too think WJ’s comments are excellent, but as I have pointed out before, local places can and will survive if they have something special to offer. I can (and have) listed many examples of places that have thrived in the face of chain invasion and have outlasted some of the competition!

I had also read a point/counter point discussion regarding the evil empire of starbucks. It pointed out that many of the "mom & pop" coffee places supposedly put out of business by starbucks only existed because of starbucks. Before starbucks brought the "coffee house" to places they didn’t exist, these mom & pop places didn’t exist. They came about because they saw a good idea, and closed up when the big pusher of that concept finally caught up with them. Not passing judgement on whether this is right or wrong…I just found it interesting.

This is a topic that used to discussed ad naseum with much fire and anger. Wj’s post is a very good intellectual encapsulation of the arguements about why chains are bad and why they should be opposed vigorously. Wj has expressed these opinions for many years and I respect him and agree with him for the most part.
Yet I feel most of the arguements about chains on this site were more emotional and quasi-religious than intellectual. Posters such as Meowzart and Chezkatie hightailed it over to Roguefood with vigorous blasts against our supposed love and preferences for chains and with a fury that suggested folks who ate at chains were less intelligent, less sophisicated, and less tasteful than the people who eschewed chains. Ultimately eating at chains was an immoral act and people who said anything remotely nice about chains were acting in an immoral manner contrary to the purposes of this site.
I hope this is a fair assessment of the people who left and their opinions and no disrespect is intended.I will eat at some chains but prefer the local product when possible. BT can speak with some knowledge of my dislike of Wal-Mart so I am not perfectly consistent.
I enjoy the opinions of most who post here( and most who post on Roguefood) and look forward to continuing our conversations.

Listen, if I had a lot of good "real food" choices around here, I’d use them. I don’t, but in this area, the chains that came in didn’t force out smaller restaurants. They built these shopping centers, and the houses, and so on, on farm land, for the most part. Fifty years ago, my county was a sleepy farm community. I’m sure a few mom and pop places closed, but it’s not like the chains came in and wiped everyone out. More often, what I see is a chain going out of business (like the Friendlys around here) and replaced by another chain.

And there’s no way a mom and pop could afford to come into this area without a huge amount of capital anyway. It’s just too damned expensive. So I do my "roadfooding" up in Baltimore, where small, good places abound.

quote:

Originally posted by dreamzpainter

If you are what you eat, then, I’m fast, cheap and easy!

it’s easy to stop at Sonny’s for a take out of pulled pork when leaving HD or Sonic’s when leaving the OTHER nearby HD. And sometimes there’s just a craving for a sackfull of Krystal sliders.

It’s possible to be selective, even among chains, and the two you mentioned are IMHO among the better ones. Frankly, the quality of the BBQ in the Bay Area is so pathetic that it would be improved if Sonny’s would open (but Fat Boy’s would be even better–once I was a regular at their Gainesville establishment: http://www.fatboysbbq.com/ ).