The New Brunswick frozen yogurt wars end with a thud

[NotInRHouse]

Haha SOLT never heard that one. I would call that Uptown.

I agree with Matt...Shake Shack has lines at 10pm. They are in a league of their own. Personally, I liked the Habit better, but the market has spoken. Five Guys, nevermind all these others ones, don't have that following.

 

[Upstream]

Originally posted by lawmatt78:

Originally posted by Upstream:

Originally posted by bob-loblaw:
NIRH. I made your exact burger comment multiple times on a threads months ago. It's a dead trend. One by one, all the five guys are going the way of the muscle maker grill... Either being sold or shuttered.

All these burger places are a crock. While it's a nice concept, the reality is that you wind up paying $17 for a burger. I'd rather just go to stage left and get their burger for that price. At least I know they're using top notch ingredients.

Based on the results of Shake Shack's IPO, Wall Street doesn't agree that casual gourmet burgers are a dead trend

It could be that Wall Street feels they are best in class and well positioned for continued growth.

Best in class in a dead trend is still a dead trend. Obviously Wall Street doesn't see fast casual gourmet burgers as a dead trend. That doesn't mean all 5000 players in the market will survive, but it does mean that they see the market as continuing and sustainable.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

The real growth area of the restaurant/food industry is in two areas. One is how Danny Meyer classifies Shake Shack--fine casual. He eschews "fast casual" as he feels it misses the mark on the quality of ingredients AND the level of hospitality Shake Shack strives to provide. In reading this thread, obviously not everyone is a fan, and some may disagree. But that is a different conversation. Fine casual ideas that have legs will see tons of investor interest right now.

The second area is what is called "on demand dining." Sprig.com and munchery.com are 2 San Fran based start-ups in this space. It's a very interesting concept that is receiving tons of venture capital interest. Close to $350MM dollars have flowed into these two companies since founding less than 2 years ago. If anyone is interested, I can expound on the model. I could see it "potentially" working in a place like NB/Highland park. It is probably right on the border of the necessary population density and demographic numbers to make the idea viable there.

 

[Upstream]

Hudson -- What is the difference between "on demand dining" and takeout/delivery?

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by Upstream:

Hudson -- What is the difference between "on demand dining" and takeout/delivery?

Fundamentally, a few things depending on which perspective--operator and customer.

From the operator's standpoint:

1. Traditional "take out" was created to provide a second revenue stream to support a brick and mortar storefront. The dine on demand model eliminates the store front (and all the fixed costs that come with it).

2. The margins are much higher as them scope of the menu is more limited, your ability or need, to balance the roast chicken (with low food costs) against the aged rib eye (exorbitant food costs) is managed better. The menu options are scaled down, but need not be limited.

From the customer's standpoint:

1. Very, very few operators offer seamless app based ordering and the ability to select a delivery time several hours into the future. You still need to call a human being at the restaurant, get put on hold, asked to repeat yourself several times to get your order correct, give your CC number and still very little ability to have that delivered (correctly) at some point in the future (hours from now). In this model, you make any modifications or substitutions in writing via the app, your CC info is stored via secure ordering mechanism (makes ordering say on your bus ride home feasible as you aren't reading your CC # out over your phone on a crowded bus), and allows you say at 4:30pm to tell the place you want it delivered between 7:15-7:30. It answers the "what's for dinner" question more efficiently than traditional take-out.

2. Potential for menus that transcend types of cuisine. I say potential, because of the 2 firms in the space right now, one sorta does this, the other has a much more scaled down menu. One offers about 9 choices plus some upsells of soups, salads, desserts and drinks and the other only offers about three. But, in theory, this model eliminates that. Hey, you want Italian tonight? ummm no I don't. In theory, a dine on demand might have a pasta dish, a vegetarian dish from India, some southern comfort food and say grilled chicken with steamed veggies for those trying to eat to a diet plan. This runs the risk of spreading yourself too thin, obviously, but most chefs are capable or hitting the high notes of multiple cuisines relatively easily. It's done by top notch catering companies every day.

That is just a few of the differences, depending on what side of the transaction you're on

 

[Korbermeister]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
The real growth area of the restaurant/food industry is in two areas. One is how Danny Meyer classifies Shake Shack--fine casual. He eschews "fast casual" as he feels it misses the mark on the quality of ingredients AND the level of hospitality Shake Shack strives to provide. In reading this thread, obviously not everyone is a fan, and some may disagree. But that is a different conversation. Fine casual ideas that have legs will see tons of investor interest right now.

The second area is what is called "on demand dining." Sprig.com and munchery.com are 2 San Fran based start-ups in this space. It's a very interesting concept that is receiving tons of venture capital interest. Close to $350MM dollars have flowed into these two companies since founding less than 2 years ago. If anyone is interested, I can expound on the model. I could see it "potentially" working in a place like NB/Highland park. It is probably right on the border of the necessary population density and demographic numbers to make the idea viable there.

According to the above, The Counter would then be classified as fine casual. It's nothing like burgerfi or 5Guys

 

[bob-loblaw]

Shake shack is the best in class and became that way by marketing themselves properly, delivering a good product and not opening a new store in every suburban strip mall in the country. There's a sustainability in a company like that. They also started in the early 2000s. They became a leader in their industry over a decade ago.

So to reiterate, they were at this almost 15 years ago. The yahoos opening now are that far behind the eight ball. That's what I'm getting at when I say it's a dead trend. It's at or near it's apex currently. Unless you were involved early on in the trend-- 8+ years ago you're just another burger place & will be labeled as such. And unless you're doing something groundbreaking, you just won't stand out.

On the other side of the spectrum, look at a place like destination dogs. They opened a hot dog place, instead of a burger joint when they opened several years ago. They could have very easily bandwagoned into opening a burger spot, but developed a semi-unique concept. Should they decide to expand and dogs become the new thing, they're leaders in their respective industry and will have staying power if they expand.

Regarding jsbbq, it's all reheated meat. Same with 95% of bbq in nj. Yawn.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by bob-loblaw:
Shake shack is the best in class and became that way by marketing themselves properly, delivering a good product and not opening a new store in every suburban strip mall in the country. There's a sustainability in a company like that. They also started in the early 2000s. They became a leader in their industry over a decade ago.

So to reiterate, they were at this almost 15 years ago. The yahoos opening now are that far behind the eight ball. That's what I'm getting at when I say it's a dead trend. It's at or near it's apex currently. Unless you were involved early on in the trend-- 8+ years ago you're just another burger place & will be labeled as such. And unless you're doing something groundbreaking, you just won't stand out.

On the other side of the spectrum, look at a place like destination dogs. They opened a hot dog place, instead of a burger joint when they opened several years ago. They could have very easily bandwagoned into opening a burger spot, but developed a semi-unique concept. Should they decide to expand and dogs become the new thing, they're leaders in their respective industry and will have staying power if they expand.

Regarding jsbbq, it's all reheated meat. Same with 95% of bbq in nj. Yawn.

I don't necessarily agree with how you're getting to your destination.

Shake Shack started as a hot dog cart--literally. It was parked in Madison Square park and was "supported" by the kitchens of Eleven Madison Park and Tabla--both Danny Meyer (Union Square Hospitality) restaurants. The cart was meant as a joke at first. Initially, the proceeds of the cart were given to the Madison Square Park Conservancy. About 3-4 years later, the city put out for bids on a concession in the park. Meyer and USHG submitted a plan to convert the cart to the Shack. They agreed to a lease on the land and the construction of the first "Shack" on the southeast corner of the park. At that point, the viability and support of the park was still primary to the model. There was a heavy kick back to the city, in order to fund park improvements, when they opened.

They didn't open a second location until 2010, when they opened 2 more in the city. By 2012, they began to realize that they had a winning concept on their hands and proof of concept. Sales of the 3 locations were averaging more than $4MM annually. Those are HUGE numbers for a fast casual.

But it is safe to say that the concept was never spawned with the idea that it would evolve into an international chain. Even up until the time of the first expansions, Meyer was still very much considering USHG to be in the fine dining business. Shake Shack was just this off-shoot that didn't really fit into their portfolio. Once they realized that Vegas, Miami, Jersey were viable options, they began to work on a franchising model and a global supply chain.

It's safe to say that SS happened pretty much by accident.

I'd also add that burgers are not a dead trend. There will always be burger concepts at all price points. There is plenty of market share for 3-4 major players in each category. There was a saturation of the market and those weaker play will die. That doesn't mean that the ones who come to dominate the market are at the top of a dead trend.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

Originally posted by bob-loblaw:
Shake shack is the best in class and became that way by marketing themselves properly, delivering a good product and not opening a new store in every suburban strip mall in the country. There's a sustainability in a company like that. They also started in the early 2000s. They became a leader in their industry over a decade ago.

So to reiterate, they were at this almost 15 years ago. The yahoos opening now are that far behind the eight ball. That's what I'm getting at when I say it's a dead trend. It's at or near it's apex currently. Unless you were involved early on in the trend-- 8+ years ago you're just another burger place & will be labeled as such. And unless you're doing something groundbreaking, you just won't stand out.

On the other side of the spectrum, look at a place like destination dogs. They opened a hot dog place, instead of a burger joint when they opened several years ago. They could have very easily bandwagoned into opening a burger spot, but developed a semi-unique concept. Should they decide to expand and dogs become the new thing, they're leaders in their respective industry and will have staying power if they expand.

Regarding jsbbq, it's all reheated meat. Same with 95% of bbq in nj. Yawn.

I don't necessarily agree with how you're getting to your destination.

Shake Shack started as a hot dog cart--literally. It was parked in Madison Square park and was "supported" by the kitchens of Eleven Madison Park and Tabla--both Danny Meyer (Union Square Hospitality) restaurants. The cart was meant as a joke at first. Initially, the proceeds of the cart were given to the Madison Square Park Conservancy. About 3-4 years later, the city put out for bids on a concession in the park. Meyer and USHG submitted a plan to convert the cart to the Shack. They agreed to a lease on the land and the construction of the first "Shack" on the southeast corner of the park. At that point, the viability and support of the park was still primary to the model. There was a heavy kick back to the city, in order to fund park improvements, when they opened.

They didn't open a second location until 2010, when they opened 2 more in the city. By 2012, they began to realize that they had a winning concept on their hands and proof of concept. Sales of the 3 locations were averaging more than $4MM annually. Those are HUGE numbers for a fast casual.

But it is safe to say that the concept was never spawned with the idea that it would evolve into an international chain. Even up until the time of the first expansions, Meyer was still very much considering USHG to be in the fine dining business. Shake Shack was just this off-shoot that didn't really fit into their portfolio. Once they realized that Vegas, Miami, Jersey were viable options, they began to work on a franchising model and a global supply chain.

It's safe to say that SS happened pretty much by accident.

I'd also add that burgers are not a dead trend. There will always be burger concepts at all price points. There is plenty of market share for 3-4 major players in each category. There was a saturation of the market and those weaker play will die. That doesn't mean that the ones who come to dominate the market are at the top of a dead trend.

I was still a fireman in Manhattan back then and I remember it well.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

Originally posted by Upstream:

Hudson -- What is the difference between "on demand dining" and takeout/delivery?

Fundamentally, a few things depending on which perspective--operator and customer.

From the operator's standpoint:

1. Traditional "take out" was created to provide a second revenue stream to support a brick and mortar storefront. The dine on demand model eliminates the store front (and all the fixed costs that come with it).

2. The margins are much higher as them scope of the menu is more limited, your ability or need, to balance the roast chicken (with low food costs) against the aged rib eye (exorbitant food costs) is managed better. The menu options are scaled down, but need not be limited.

From the customer's standpoint:

1. Very, very few operators offer seamless app based ordering and the ability to select a delivery time several hours into the future. You still need to call a human being at the restaurant, get put on hold, asked to repeat yourself several times to get your order correct, give your CC number and still very little ability to have that delivered (correctly) at some point in the future (hours from now). In this model, you make any modifications or substitutions in writing via the app, your CC info is stored via secure ordering mechanism (makes ordering say on your bus ride home feasible as you aren't reading your CC # out over your phone on a crowded bus), and allows you say at 4:30pm to tell the place you want it delivered between 7:15-7:30. It answers the "what's for dinner" question more efficiently than traditional take-out.

2. Potential for menus that transcend types of cuisine. I say potential, because of the 2 firms in the space right now, one sorta does this, the other has a much more scaled down menu. One offers about 9 choices plus some upsells of soups, salads, desserts and drinks and the other only offers about three. But, in theory, this model eliminates that. Hey, you want Italian tonight? ummm no I don't. In theory, a dine on demand might have a pasta dish, a vegetarian dish from India, some southern comfort food and say grilled chicken with steamed veggies for those trying to eat to a diet plan. This runs the risk of spreading yourself too thin, obviously, but most chefs are capable or hitting the high notes of multiple cuisines relatively easily. It's done by top notch catering companies every day.

That is just a few of the differences, depending on what side of the transaction you're on

Are these like Uber (i.e. basically a contracting app for part time chefs) or just a restaurant without a front end. Neither will succeed long term (low barriers to entry will ensure a race to the bottom if the idea takes off), but at least the Uber one limits the investor risk (as you are really just investing in the app development and advertising).


And yes - burgers are dying, at least as a tred. Thats not to say there wont be burger places. There will be Americans love burgers - and America as a whole seems to have enough money that it wont accept McDs/Wendys/Burger King level burgers as their only options. But the explosion of burger places, like all of these trends will come to an end in good time. It will settle down into a couple of places duking it out with increasingly mediocre products (just look at the amount of fries you get at a Five Guys compared to five years ago), as they move from the exciting growth phase, to the just trying to preserve share price stage.


This post was edited on 2/2 8:53 AM by derleider

 

[bob-loblaw]

Tell me burgers aren't dead 2-3 years from now when a lot of these places are for sale...


Maybe you can open a baseball card shop in 1993
Or the 11th beanie baby store in a mall in 1997
Opening a faux Starbucks in 2001
Or the 80th cupcake shop downtown in 2004
Or your towns 3rd froyo stand in 2011
Or another burger place in 2014/2015

It's all the same. And the fate is always the same. Opening a business based on a trend is a recipe for failure.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by bob-loblaw:
Tell me burgers aren't dead 2-3 years from now when a lot of these places are for sale...


Maybe you can open a baseball card shop in 1993
Or the 11th beanie baby store in a mall in 1997
Opening a faux Starbucks in 2001
Or the 80th cupcake shop downtown in 2004
Or your towns 3rd froyo stand in 2011
Or another burger place in 2014/2015

It's all the same. And the fate is always the same. Opening a business based on a trend is a recipe for failure.

Depends on when you sell out doesnt it.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by bob-loblaw:
Tell me burgers aren't dead 2-3 years from now when a lot of these places are for sale...


Maybe you can open a baseball card shop in 1993
Or the 11th beanie baby store in a mall in 1997
Opening a faux Starbucks in 2001
Or the 80th cupcake shop downtown in 2004
Or your towns 3rd froyo stand in 2011
Or another burger place in 2014/2015

It's all the same. And the fate is always the same. Opening a business based on a trend is a recipe for failure.

By this logic, lawyering is a dead trend...

so, maybe you're right.

Look, there is a fundamental difference between opening the 4th yogurt shop in a town, and saying that a segment of the fast food economy, represented by close to a $100B in sales, is a "dead trend." Burgers, as a food item, aren't going anywhere. The accompaniments to burgers--crispy fries, frozen milk shakes, beers--are not conducive to being delivered by an off-site model (ala your baseball card store example). Even if Amzaon litters the sky with drones, a burger, fries and a shake are not going to be dropped at your door in perfect eating condition in a timely enough fashion. 3D printing? I mean I guess. But then EVERY dine outside your home food trend is dead.

When you look at trends within the food industry and analyze winners and losers, you can almost always point to a strategic or operational mistake which results in something like 5 Guys (perhaps, as their fate isn't exactly sealed yet) losing and something like Smashburger or Shake Shack winning. It's not as simple as "this is a dead trend." And if you're all in for $17 bucks a person at Shake Shack, it's apples and oranges to compare that to getting a burger at a sit down in New Brunswick. Add the beer...add the tip. Yes, the burger might be better. However, at the moment of decision making, there are other factors at play that will drive people to SS in droves. Am I with my kids? Am I in a hurry? What time of day is it? Can I get a table at the proper restaurant? Consumer decisions at the SS price point are rarely made on price. That's sorta the point. They are made on some of the factors I describe. SS strategic moment of truth will come in expansion. They have the global supply chain figured out. They have the operational issues figured out. They have the marketing figured out. What they need to figure out is what the optimal geographic density to support top line growth is, while not cannibalizing their own existing units. Paramus will be a real test case for them. They opened on Rt 17 about 2 years ago and just recently opened inside the Garden State Plaza mall. If you see same store sales for the existing unit take a major nose dive, your take away is that even the hassle of dealing with dining at the largest mall in the state (and the parking nightmare that comes with it) is not enough to keep people away to support the sales of the existing unit 1.5 miles up the highway.

I don't dine in downtown NB frequently enough to know how many burgers are available and their respective quality. I will say that Brother Jimmy's appears to be making it serving some of the worst food I've ever eaten. Is this new place you speak of getting there first enough to keep a SS out? No idea. Can they both survive? Probably not. If SS wants in, they will likely win. Unless this place can create a campaign around the notion of "not selling out to the phony corporate burger giant" sorta like mom and pop coffee shops do against Starbucks.

Der, the dine on demand model has relatively high barriers to entry. To succeed at it, it's a logistics play. Stealing a guy from Fed Ex or UPS would be more crucial to your success than hiring the best food operator in the country. The food is the easy part. Logistics and supply chain efficiencies drive the success of the model. The 2 companies that are doing it on the west coast are using the bulk of their start-up funding (close to $400MM) on engineers and developers to create the software that will drive the optimal delivery decision making process. And the scalability of the model is impressive. It doesn't take long to see how one can scale the model to the most lucrative zip codes, in the top 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 markets in the country.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

I guess my point is, a baseball card shop actually is a dead trend. You can't possibly hope to open a trading card shop and hope to make money and be viable in the long term, no matter how good of an operator or capitalized you are.

That is not the case in the burger world.

If you gathered 100 of your rich friends and raised me $10MM, with the promise of more after I delivered you a profitable unit, I would personally guarantee you that I could give you a completely viable, scalable burger concept. The problem with the mom and pop attempts at it, is that they rarely have the combination of being run by experienced operators AND adequate capitalization. In many cases, they have neither.

 

[derleider]

yes - it doesnt take long to see that. Which is why others will see it too. Its not like delivery routing is some new thing.

But ultimately all that money spent on delivery routing wont matter if the next guy (with slightly less efficient routing) is charging a dollar less per plate, or offering food that is worth a dollar more. Which is why the barriers to entry are relatively low. This isnt UPS where timeliness and reliability are the main factors.


As for burgers - maybe SS survives. Maybe they get squeezed between real sit down places that serve burgers (and other things - thus reaching a larger market at a similar price point) and fast food burger places (which also generally hit a larger market - there are more people willing to pay $7-9 for a crappy burger meal than $15 for a good one). But over all the burger trend is dying - i dont think thats deniable. The number of new burger places will slow and then reverse at some point (at least relative to population.) just like it has for Yogurt and cupcakes and chain Italian dinner places.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all, or most, of the new NB burger places all chains? Burgerfi, this new one from Cali, 5 napkin burger, etc...I imagine there's a five guys somewhere in there...

So I don't think it's mom and pops so much as people with sizeable business backing.

I think in an area with a lot of students and yuppies you'll probably have more burger places than normal, but I think it's too much versus a shortage, in my opinion, of other types of restaurants than can do even better. Inevitably, some are not going to survive.

Case in point, Qdoba closed when Chipotle opened across the street. Qdoba did well for many years too. One fast casual Mexican place was enough.

Shake Shack is a different animal because it's a very high demand place. I've been to the one in Madison Park. It was like 10pm and there was a line and it was full of European tourists. In N Out is another one on the West coast- it's as if you're an East Coaster and you're going to Cali and not eating there and taking a pic, it's like you never went.

Shake Shake has been very specific in location scouting. I don't think they've closed any restaurants. And they know that by opening in Paramus, people are going to come from everywhere north of 195 who don't like getting into the city to go there.

I'm a big eater and I took a lot of heat for not trying Shake Shack sooner. Everyone knows I'm in NB a lot, and I've never been told to try this or that burger place. The dynamic is just different. And I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it- Shake Shack was good, but I don't go out of my way to go there. I liked the Habit better, and that place was packed when I went there in Orange County.

 

[bob-loblaw]

Talk to me in three years when most of the places are shuttered.

 

[Jonny S]

Five Guys is not in NB, a few around here have closed actually, I think they expanded too fast. 25 Burgers is a local chain, they have one in Bound Brook. Diesel and Duke's is an original, not sure if it's from the same people that owned Tido's.

Fast Casual is a growing segment. There are lots of other better burgers that aren't around here that I've seen in NYC/North Jersey. And it's growing in other areas too. Right next to 25 Burgers is Chipp's which tries to be Chipotle for Pizza, and I've seen similar concepts in North Jersey.

Oh, and the Shake Shack in Paramus has to be the worst place in the universe to visit. That might be why I hate it so.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by derleider:
yes - it doesnt take long to see that. Which is why others will see it too. Its not like delivery routing is some new thing.

But ultimately all that money spent on delivery routing wont matter if the next guy (with slightly less efficient routing) is charging a dollar less per plate, or offering food that is worth a dollar more. Which is why the barriers to entry are relatively low. This isnt UPS where timeliness and reliability are the main factors.


As for burgers - maybe SS survives. Maybe they get squeezed between real sit down places that serve burgers (and other things - thus reaching a larger market at a similar price point) and fast food burger places (which also generally hit a larger market - there are more people willing to pay $7-9 for a crappy burger meal than $15 for a good one). But over all the burger trend is dying - i dont think thats deniable. The number of new burger places will slow and then reverse at some point (at least relative to population.) just like it has for Yogurt and cupcakes and chain Italian dinner places.

Timeliness and reliability aren't the main factors associated with a take out food model?

Pretty counterintuitive to everything I've learned in the food business over 10+ years and in getting a MBA the last two.

Care to share what would be main factors associated with a take out food model? Like high quality plastic sporks?

It would be my guess that getting what I ordered correct and delivered to me when I want to eat actually are pretty high on the import list.

Perhaps I'm not explaining things properly but I don't think you understand the model very well.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

Originally posted by derleider:
yes - it doesnt take long to see that. Which is why others will see it too. Its not like delivery routing is some new thing.

But ultimately all that money spent on delivery routing wont matter if the next guy (with slightly less efficient routing) is charging a dollar less per plate, or offering food that is worth a dollar more. Which is why the barriers to entry are relatively low. This isnt UPS where timeliness and reliability are the main factors.


As for burgers - maybe SS survives. Maybe they get squeezed between real sit down places that serve burgers (and other things - thus reaching a larger market at a similar price point) and fast food burger places (which also generally hit a larger market - there are more people willing to pay $7-9 for a crappy burger meal than $15 for a good one). But over all the burger trend is dying - i dont think thats deniable. The number of new burger places will slow and then reverse at some point (at least relative to population.) just like it has for Yogurt and cupcakes and chain Italian dinner places.

Timeliness and reliability aren't the main factors associated with a take out food model?

Pretty counterintuitive to everything I've learned in the food business over 10+ years and in getting a MBA the last two.

Care to share what would be main factors associated with a take out food model? Like high quality plastic sporks?

It would be my guess that getting what I ordered correct and delivered to me when I want to eat actually are pretty high on the import list.

Perhaps I'm not explaining things properly but I don't think you understand the model very well.

When you pick a Chinese place - do you go by the fact that one place will deliver in 14 instead of 15 minutes? Or do you go by which place has the best or cheapest food (or some combo - value if you will). Reliability and timeliness are the key for UPS - its what they do. They dont make things. If the package is dmanaged or late, they get the blame. If it turns out you dont like the new iPhone UPS isnt to blame.

That is not the same for takeout. There are clearly thresholds for timeliness, and probably even stricter ones for reliability - but otherwise, basically it comes down to value.

But thats not even my main point. My main point is - if they are successful, everyone will copy them (these are apps - its very hard to come up with one that cant be copied), and then its back to food value as the main determinant - not the success of your routing app.

Also - oredering food when you want it isnt new. Its basically as old as online food ordering - which Papa Johns among others has had for the better part of a decade at least.

Thats not to say someone cant make money. Uber is making a killing now because its still in the - everyone hasnt quite caught up to us phase. But its facing more and more issues, as people figure out how to make similar car hailing apps - then it basically comes down to price and reliability (which end up being at odds - if you charge less you attract fewer drivers and are less likely to have someone near a potential pickup.)

My basic contention is - not having half a billion to invest in routing software isnt really a a huge barrier to entry.
This post was edited on 2/3 12:41 PM by derleider

 

[Upstream]

Der --

I get the point you are trying to make. In the world of take out and delivery as we know it now, being slightly more efficient in logistics isn't a game changer or barrier to entry. But in a paradigm shift (which Hudson alluded to in his description of on-demand dining), logistics could be a barrier to entry.

But (based on their websites), I don't think the examples of on-demand dining that Hudson provided are really much different than any current take-out option.

Sprig.com seems to differentiate itself from typical pizza and Chinese food delivery by offering food choices that it claims are healthier, tastier, and socially responsible. Other than that, it is really just ordering from their limited menu, within a limited delivery area, and getting ready-to-eat food within 20 minutes. Other than the food choices (and a wider than typical delivery area), there doesn't seem to be anything unique about it.

Munchery.com offers ready-to-heat meals delivered within a 1-hour time window. So if I expect to get home from work at 6 pm, I can place an order early in the afternoon and have a ready-to-heat meal delivered sometime between 6:15 and 7:15. But to me, that time window seems way too wide, especially considering I have to heat the meal after it is delivered. If I get home from work at 6, and might not be eating a meal from Munchery.com until 7:45, I might as well just stop at Wegmans on my way home, get home 15 minutes later, but start eating an hour earlier. (Or Wegmans can certainly offer delivery without a huge entry barrier and hit a 1 hour delivery window.)


But a game changer would be allowing the customer to place an order early in the afternoon and get a hot, ready-to-eat meal within a 20-30 minute prescheduled window. That is a game-changer, since most restaurants are unable to schedule take-out or delivery. You call, and they estimate how long it will take to cook your meal based on how busy the kitchen is. They don't have the capability to schedule your meal for 6:15 delivery when you call at 2 pm. At that point, logistics becomes important. They need to know how long it will take to get the food from the kitchen to your door. They also need to have the kitchen scheduled to cook your food so it is cooked when the driver is ready for delivery. I would imagine the kitchen logistics would be more difficult than the delivery logistics (especially if the menu is wide enough for people to come back repeatedly night after night, and they have the ability to customize their orders to meet their dietary desires).

 

[derleider]

The kitchen logistics would be more difficult - but no too much so - after all - they already have to deal with getting food out quickly with varying levels of customers in the restaurant. The question is - could they ever be precise enough to get it to you within say a 15 minute window. I suspect so - within the limits of traffic.

The real game changer would be to disaggregate chefs from restaurant at all. Uber for cooks. This would be hard to work on an on demand model - but wouldnt be particularly hard with a preorder model.

In both of those cases though - the real good long term play would be simply to create the apps and sell them to restaurants (so like Micros or Microsoft for that matter), rather than develop the app and own the restaurants at the same time.

 

[Upstream]

Originally posted by derleider:

The real game changer would be to disaggregate chefs from restaurant at all. Uber for cooks. This would be hard to work on an on demand model - but wouldnt be particularly hard with a preorder model.

something like this? http://www.scarletmenus.com/

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by Upstream:

Originally posted by derleider:

The real game changer would be to disaggregate chefs from restaurant at all. Uber for cooks. This would be hard to work on an on demand model - but wouldnt be particularly hard with a preorder model.

something like this? http://www.scarletmenus.com/

No. This is more like hotels.com for food.

Uber for food would basically allow people to post what foods they are willing to make, and you would order them - the app would coordinate pickup and delivery of the finished product. Think of it as kitchen and cooking skills sharing. I am short on time and cooking skills but have money. You have extra time, and cooking skills and need money. But you dont have enough extra time to be a fully employed cook.

Of course Im sure the health inspectors wouldnt like this idea.

Otherwise - there isnt much new under the sun. Lots of place allow online ordering including ordering for the specific time when you want the food. Thats not new at all.

 

[retired711]

There is one institutional problem that needs to be resolved to make DerLeider's suggestions work: that of insurance. Will insurance companies be prepared to insure cooks preparing food for other households? Already there is a problem with insuring those who rent out their homes on the internet. Insurance companies are not known for innovation.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I did read that some home insurance carriers are becoming accommodating (with premium of course) to Air Bnb.

Uber has insurance, I know this for a fact. So I'm quite confident a chef uber could.

 

[Leonard23]

FYI, Shake Shack is coming to Bridgewater.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[ruhudsonfan]

The paradigm shift comes along the line of what Upstream is suggesting--and I thought what I alluded to somewhere above.

If I can open an app at 2pm while on a bus, browse a menu, confirm ingredients, confirm allergies, place my order, not have to worry about having cash, made modifications, order across a variety of cuisines and have it delivered within a 15 minute window at the time of my choosing, yeah, that is a paradigm shift. That turns the take-out model on its head.

As for sprig and munchery's limited roll out. That is rather obvious, no? This isn't software. There aren't economies of scale right out of the box. You launch your product in a limited space (in this case, a limited geography). You prove your concept works. You secure additional funds. You secure more space. Add more geography. Rinse and repeat. The scalability is almost unfathomable.

Think about one example.

munchery is selling 2,500-3,000 meals per dinner period. The are doing it with marginally higher labor cost (due to the advantages of selling the meals cold and using a cooking to scale process) and off the charts lower occupancy costs (on a s/f basis).

It's not hard to see why the two companies have received close to $500MM worth of funding.

As for an Uber for chefs. It has existed and has failed. Not to say it can't work, but the problem you have is retaining a quality bench of chefs and ensuring they are in an inspected kitchen.

 

[lawmatt78]

Getting back to "gourmet" burgers for a second, I had the misfortune to eat at a Red Robin last night. I normally wouldn't have thought to go there, but this whole burger chain discussion got me wondering if they were any good.

What an unmitigated disaster. This place was Exhibit A in corporate food schlock. Waiter (straight out of Chotchkie's in Office Space) comes over and asks if I want to try [some salty grease bomb appetizer] or a margarita. He then proceed to get me the incorrect beer. Then, when I ordered my burger, he asks me if I want it "well done." Seriously? He then brings me fries instead of the Ceasar I asked for instead. He then disappears for an absurd length of time. Finally, he screws up the check and overcharges us. Oh, and he never brought us water.

The burger was OK (not horrendous). But what a joke.

Of course, this was primarily my fault. Why would I go to this hellhole in a city full of good and unique places? Shame on me.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I like Red Robin. I think the one by RU has pretty good service.

But I like Red Robin for what it is...it's not supposed to be fancy. It's just a place to get a probably better than the usual chain restaurant burger. I think Cheeburger Cheeburger among others, for NJ places, is better.

I go there after RU games sometimes, because parking in NB is a pain. In terms of Stelton choices, it's one of the better ones.

 

[Leonard23]

Red Robin is weak but not terrible. Houlihans has better burgers.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
The paradigm shift comes along the line of what Upstream is suggesting--and I thought what I alluded to somewhere above.

If I can open an app at 2pm while on a bus, browse a menu, confirm ingredients, confirm allergies, place my order, not have to worry about having cash, made modifications, order across a variety of cuisines and have it delivered within a 15 minute window at the time of my choosing, yeah, that is a paradigm shift. That turns the take-out model on its head.

As for sprig and munchery's limited roll out. That is rather obvious, no? This isn't software. There aren't economies of scale right out of the box. You launch your product in a limited space (in this case, a limited geography). You prove your concept works. You secure additional funds. You secure more space. Add more geography. Rinse and repeat. The scalability is almost unfathomable.

Think about one example.

munchery is selling 2,500-3,000 meals per dinner period. The are doing it with marginally higher labor cost (due to the advantages of selling the meals cold and using a cooking to scale process) and off the charts lower occupancy costs (on a s/f basis).

It's not hard to see why the two companies have received close to $500MM worth of funding.

As for an Uber for chefs. It has existed and has failed. Not to say it can't work, but the problem you have is retaining a quality bench of chefs and ensuring they are in an inspected kitchen.

So what is the paradigm shift hudson. PapaJohns has had that ability for a decade. So the paradigm shift is that its moved beyond pizza and that they dont have a storefront?

 

[Upstream]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
The paradigm shift comes along the line of what Upstream is suggesting--and I thought what I alluded to somewhere above.

If I can open an app at 2pm while on a bus, browse a menu, confirm ingredients, confirm allergies, place my order, not have to worry about having cash, made modifications, order across a variety of cuisines and have it delivered within a 15 minute window at the time of my choosing, yeah, that is a paradigm shift. That turns the take-out model on its head.

As for sprig and munchery's limited roll out. That is rather obvious, no? This isn't software. There aren't economies of scale right out of the box. You launch your product in a limited space (in this case, a limited geography). You prove your concept works. You secure additional funds. You secure more space. Add more geography. Rinse and repeat. The scalability is almost unfathomable.

Think about one example.

munchery is selling 2,500-3,000 meals per dinner period. The are doing it with marginally higher labor cost (due to the advantages of selling the meals cold and using a cooking to scale process) and off the charts lower occupancy costs (on a s/f basis).

It's not hard to see why the two companies have received close to $500MM worth of funding.

As for an Uber for chefs. It has existed and has failed. Not to say it can't work, but the problem you have is retaining a quality bench of chefs and ensuring they are in an inspected kitchen.

So what is the paradigm shift hudson. PapaJohns has had that ability for a decade. So the paradigm shift is that its moved beyond pizza and that they dont have a storefront?

I don't want to put words in Hudson's mouth, but the paradigm shift is to move the capability beyond single-item fast food and into higher-quality made-to-order food. Getting a choice of bad pizza toppings or wing sauce doesn't really answer the average person's question of what to have for dinner tonight. It will be a paradigm shift when Papa Johns is able to do the same thing when order grilled chicken with artichoke hearts and mushrooms and saffron rissoto on the side with a fresh-tossed salad, no carrots, and my wife can get grilled salmon with a mustard sauce,wild rice, and sauteed broccoli rabe, with a caesar salad and we split tiramisu for dessert, and the food is good and delivered on time at the right temperature.

 

[derleider]

I wouldn't really call that a paradigm shift. Its an expansion of existing capabilities basically because consumer tastes are changing (we want better food, we collectively have the money to do it, and without kids we dont have a huge incentive to save money by doing it ourselves - its not a coincidence that its starting out in rich, liberal, and single SF). Its like saying their was a paradigm shift in your towns dining options when they opened a decent restaurant.

The shift is in fact in not having a storefront. But thats not as big of a deal as it seems. Most Chinese places and places like PapaJohns have storefronts, but do very little sit down business. Basically the storefront is more or less advertising - they have a place - they dont need all of the room for the kitchen, so they devote some area to chairs and tables, and a small amount of the staffs time to cleaning that area.

But again - my main point is - does any of this create a barrier to entry. Does not having something better than Google Maps for directions and some simple scheduler put you at such a competitive disadvantage to this company and its half a billion in investment that you are seriously unlikely to survive without it. And if it is - will the open source or relatively cheap non-custom option do the job.

This might change the food industry. But I dont think this place is gonna rule the world, and if its not spending money on maintaining food quality as it expands, it wont even rule the SF high end delivery scene in five years. On the other hand, it might get bought out by Google or Amazon just for the software team, which is probably what the investors are chasing anyway.

 

[Jonny S]

DJ's Dessert Shop (which replaced Cluck U after approx. 10000x premature reports of Cluck U closing) didn't even last 6 months. Can't imagine whatever possessed them to open right next door to Thomas Sweet. It was quickly replaced by a new Burrito place. That could do okay since there aren't really a lot of Mexican options on Easton.

 

[Sir ScarletKnight]

Originally posted by Jonny S:
DJ's Dessert Shop (which replaced Cluck U after approx. 10000x premature reports of Cluck U closing) didn't even last 6 months. Can't imagine whatever possessed them to open right next door to Thomas Sweet. It was quickly replaced by a new Burrito place. That could do okay since there aren't really a lot of Mexican options on Easton.

Bubbakoos is pretty good, and they've already gotten to work on integrating themselves int Rutgers. You go in, and they already have some Rutgers stuff, plus they're working on getting RU-Express. They're also pushing fundraisers, which is smart because of the amount of organizations at RU. I predict they're going to need to look at their prices though, especially if Surf Taco comes to town. Surf Taco has more NJ loyalty and they don't charge extra for chips.

 

[Sir ScarletKnight]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
The paradigm shift comes along the line of what Upstream is suggesting--and I thought what I alluded to somewhere above.

If I can open an app at 2pm while on a bus, browse a menu, confirm ingredients, confirm allergies, place my order, not have to worry about having cash, made modifications, order across a variety of cuisines and have it delivered within a 15 minute window at the time of my choosing, yeah, that is a paradigm shift. That turns the take-out model on its head.

As for sprig and munchery's limited roll out. That is rather obvious, no? This isn't software. There aren't economies of scale right out of the box. You launch your product in a limited space (in this case, a limited geography). You prove your concept works. You secure additional funds. You secure more space. Add more geography. Rinse and repeat. The scalability is almost unfathomable.

Think about one example.

munchery is selling 2,500-3,000 meals per dinner period. The are doing it with marginally higher labor cost (due to the advantages of selling the meals cold and using a cooking to scale process) and off the charts lower occupancy costs (on a s/f basis).

It's not hard to see why the two companies have received close to $500MM worth of funding.

As for an Uber for chefs. It has existed and has failed. Not to say it can't work, but the problem you have is retaining a quality bench of chefs and ensuring they are in an inspected kitchen.

Part of your idea is somewhat similar to Grubhub, which is completely functional with the app. The 15 minute window is pretty much the trickiest part.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by Sir ScarletKnight:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
The paradigm shift comes along the line of what Upstream is suggesting--and I thought what I alluded to somewhere above.

If I can open an app at 2pm while on a bus, browse a menu, confirm ingredients, confirm allergies, place my order, not have to worry about having cash, made modifications, order across a variety of cuisines and have it delivered within a 15 minute window at the time of my choosing, yeah, that is a paradigm shift. That turns the take-out model on its head.

As for sprig and munchery's limited roll out. That is rather obvious, no? This isn't software. There aren't economies of scale right out of the box. You launch your product in a limited space (in this case, a limited geography). You prove your concept works. You secure additional funds. You secure more space. Add more geography. Rinse and repeat. The scalability is almost unfathomable.

Think about one example.

munchery is selling 2,500-3,000 meals per dinner period. The are doing it with marginally higher labor cost (due to the advantages of selling the meals cold and using a cooking to scale process) and off the charts lower occupancy costs (on a s/f basis).

It's not hard to see why the two companies have received close to $500MM worth of funding.

As for an Uber for chefs. It has existed and has failed. Not to say it can't work, but the problem you have is retaining a quality bench of chefs and ensuring they are in an inspected kitchen.

Part of your idea is somewhat similar to Grubhub, which is completely functional with the app. The 15 minute window is pretty much the trickiest part.

GrubHub delivers you 3rd party food. Shitty 3rd party food. And as GrubHub chases topline revenue growth to satisfy Wall Street, they will price smaller sellers out--losing their variety in the process. And you can't order on GrubHub right now, for Wednesday's dinner.

 

[Jonny S]

Forget Surf Taco, Shaka is already there, and arguably Papa Grande is doing something similar too.

 

[Sir ScarletKnight]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

Originally posted by Sir ScarletKnight:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
The paradigm shift comes along the line of what Upstream is suggesting--and I thought what I alluded to somewhere above.

If I can open an app at 2pm while on a bus, browse a menu, confirm ingredients, confirm allergies, place my order, not have to worry about having cash, made modifications, order across a variety of cuisines and have it delivered within a 15 minute window at the time of my choosing, yeah, that is a paradigm shift. That turns the take-out model on its head.

As for sprig and munchery's limited roll out. That is rather obvious, no? This isn't software. There aren't economies of scale right out of the box. You launch your product in a limited space (in this case, a limited geography). You prove your concept works. You secure additional funds. You secure more space. Add more geography. Rinse and repeat. The scalability is almost unfathomable.

Think about one example.

munchery is selling 2,500-3,000 meals per dinner period. The are doing it with marginally higher labor cost (due to the advantages of selling the meals cold and using a cooking to scale process) and off the charts lower occupancy costs (on a s/f basis).

It's not hard to see why the two companies have received close to $500MM worth of funding.

As for an Uber for chefs. It has existed and has failed. Not to say it can't work, but the problem you have is retaining a quality bench of chefs and ensuring they are in an inspected kitchen.

Part of your idea is somewhat similar to Grubhub, which is completely functional with the app. The 15 minute window is pretty much the trickiest part.

GrubHub delivers you 3rd party food. Shitty 3rd party food. And as GrubHub chases topline revenue growth to satisfy Wall Street, they will price smaller sellers out--losing their variety in the process. And you can't order on GrubHub right now, for Wednesday's dinner.

I dunno, that Papa Grande's mango chicken burrito is pretty good.