Independents vs. National Chains

An article in today's New York Times' Dining & Wine section serves up a pieces of sobering news: "Even restaurants that say they're doing fine... can no longer afford to play hard to get." Turns out, many restaurants are noticing more customers "sharing appetizers, buying cheaper wine, ordering less wine and fewer courses, or just not showing up as much."

As a result, these traditionally high-end eateries are being forced to employ some tricks their lower-brow cousins have been using for a while -the value menu and happy hours to name two. Guess this just shows that even "rich and lavish" isn't quite the same these days.

But I think the most interesting point the article brings up is which restaurants are better equipped to weather the storm: independently-owned restaurants or national chains. Those arguing that the independents hold the upper hand say that their flexibility to adapt to changing customer preferences will keep them from suffering the same fate as national chains that have recently claimed bankruptcy. Chain restaurants and franchises, on the other hand, have more hoops to jump through to add or change menu items or specials.

In the other corner, those arguing that national chains have the stronger chance point to their larger advertising budgets and sheer size as advantages. They can hold more sway in negotiations with vendors and have better chances of scoring prime real estate.

Personally, I think there's opportunity for contenders in both categories to win in the long run. As I've seen both locally and nationally, the big dogs AND the small fries have suffered losses. It'll all come down to who can best anticipate and meet changing customer demands.

What do you think? Small and nimble wins the race? Big and steady takes it all? Leave a comment.