does making the big mac?
Sluggbugg
Does making the big mac .55 cents increase or lower it's value? Who knows?
Anthony Michael
Sluggbugg wrote:
> Does making the big mac .55 cents increase or lower it's value? Who
> knows?
It doesn't make it taste any better.
kurt_cobain
dan
Friend wrote:
>
> Sluggbugg (slug...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Does making the big mac .55 cents increase or lower it's value? Who knows?
>
> steadily for quite some time. McDonalds' attempt to increase sales by
> charging $0.55 for a Big Mac has failed misserably so I guess most people
> do not think the Big Mac holds more value because of its lower price.
It failed mainly because of the additional purchase requirements, not
because of the sandwich itself. As soon as we stopped the 55 cent
promotion and went to a 99 cent sandwich(Quarter pounder with cheese at
the current time) the amount of Quarters selling increased over the
amount we were selling when they were the 55 cent sandwich. The 55 cent
promotion was too confusing for most people, and those that did
understand it were only buying the smallest size fry and smallest size
drink which doesn't help sales at all. It did not have anything to do
with the perceived value of the sandwich, but with the perceived value
of the my size meal. S.R.
dan
ECC wrote:
>
> dan <s3...@ne.infi.net> wrote:
>
> BTW Dan,
>
> Please tell corp that the buns and Queing/nuking is ruining the
> quality of food, albeit, improving service times. Steam bath's for
> precooked meat patties? Copying BK? 30 minute holding times for
> scrambled (milk carton pasturized) eggs. Ray Kroc is rolling in his
> grave. I remember him saying that there would never be microwaves,
> public telephones, or newspaper racks on McD's property. Quinlin and
> co. went too far and everyone will suffer.
Where I work at two other stores in town have toasted buns and do not
use the Queing ovens with regular production. I was working at one of
those stores today and I can't wait until we get rid of the Queing
ovens at the store I'm normally at. S.R.
ECC
dan
ECC wrote:
>
> zig...@netgate.net (Tim Irvin) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 04:08:58 GMT, ec...@mindspring.com (ECC) wrote:
> >
> >>Oh come on, whenever I turn on the TV--whether local, national or
> >>stock market--the news has had a spot commenting on the bad sales and
> >>customer disgustitis (ie. ripoff, scam, con) resulting from this poor
> >>campaign. Any bad press means a temporary loss of customers--certainly
> >>not more. This is a fundamental lesson in marketing 101. Remember it
> >>will cost 8 cents advertising to bring in 1 cent of additional
> >>customers. Ask your field consultant to verify this...
> >
> >I'm not sure it's a scam or a ripoff, but there are some consumer
> >dynamics which this campaign clearly fizzled upon.
> >
> >Many people know that drinks are the profit center of a fast food
> >joint; a $1.19 soda has what, about 4 cents of product in it?
> >The trend, in this promotion and in "value meal" promotions, is
> >(IMO) clearly designed to get people to order drinks. Orders
> >"to go," for example, are often ordered without drinks. There
> >is likely less profit in selling a Big Mac and large fries for
> >$2.75 then there is a Big Mac value meal at $2.99.
> >
> >I think in some cases, there was a backlash against the
> >"buy fries and a soda" requirement in the special 55c (why
> >don't many keyboards have a "cent sign" key? They have
> >dollar signs...) price. it does make consumers feel a bit
> >manipulated, especially if they don't *want* fries or a
> >drink. They pay $1.69 for something a la carte which
> >someone else (who *wants* fries and drink) pays 55 cents.
> >As a consumer, that would irritate me a bit.
> >
> >Maybe if they would have reduced the price of the feature
> >sandwich for even those who *didn't* buy the other stuff--
> >55 cents with fries and a drink, 99 cents a la carte for
> >example--then maybe the backlash wouldn't have been so
> >strong. Then again, that would have likely defeated the
> >purpose of the campaign--to get people to buy the "cash
> >cows" of the fast food industry, the drinks.
> >
> >A classic example of this is when I was in college and
> >working for a drug store. We had a softball team and
> >wanted to raise about $500 for uniforms. We worked with
> >some of our suppliers to get the supplies. We were having
> >Pepsi on sale a few weeks later, and our Pepsi reps said we
> >could have *free* "wiener wagon" rental and 50 free cylinders
> >of Pepsi if we ordered at least 600 cases (six full pallets)
> >of Pepsi products for the ad. We did. A rep that handles
> >chips and other snacks gave up about 2000 free "mini-bags"
> >of potato chips. We found a supplier who sold us hot dogs
> >in huge quanitities for about 9 cents each. We bought
> >some buns from one of our baked goods suppliers for about
> >5 cents each.
> >
> >We "packaged" these meals for 50 cents each. (Some people only
> >wanted a drink, which we sold for 25 cents a la carte
> >despite it costing us *nothing*!) People were commenting
> >all weekend, as we worked the stand just outside our store,
> >about what a great deal it was! (Incidentally, the
> >McDonald's in that shopping center threatened us, but as
> >we bought a *lot* of lunches from McD's and we "counter-
> >threatened" to boycott them if they took action, they
> >relented.) Little did these people know that we were
> >making 34 cents profit on the deal, for a nearly 70%
> >profit margin! (There was some cost for the condiments
> >and napkins, but we estimated these at no more than one
> >cent per sale.) We sold hot dogs alone for 35 cents.
> >Some thought that was a ripoff based on the cost of the
> >entire package, but the fact was that the hot dog was
> >100% of our total cost. The other stuff was pure
> >profit. No wonder fast-food joints are doing whatever
> >they can to encourage the purchase of them!
> >
> >--
> >Tim Irvin, zig...@netgate.net
> >http://www.netgate.net/~ziggy29
>
> Way to go Tim. I have seen McD's O/O bully the small guy who offers a
> good deal. There are a few greedy O/O out there who take competion to
> the extreme. They usually counter with unusually low sales prices on
> similar products to pull customers back. Especially when a competitor
> is about to open a new store next door.
> You are also correct in your response to Dan/S.R. As for my previous
> replys to other posts, "Dan", you need to comprehend my message
> accurately.
> 1) Re: To all who really give a damn- I am in favor of toasters and
> not in favor of queing. Yes, old stores are easy for retrofitting
> toasters but, not ss easy for pizza ovens and queing as electrical and
> space problems exist. We won't even discuss the investment drain on
> the small operators or McD financial aid which is another version of
> locking up an operator to be a puppet.
> 2) Re: Does making a Big Mac... I know customers who visit McD's once,
> twice and three times-a-day aren't going to be affected as much as
> sporatic visitors. That wasn't my argument. My argument concerned the
> bottomline, overall, net effect, which includes the whole customer
> base.
I do not argue that the 55 promotion cost the stores money, while we may
have had the same number of customers a day the amount of the sales
dropped inspite of the sale of the drinks and the fries with the
sandwich. Those customers that understood the promotion would mainly buy
the smallest fry and drink. The amount of the average check dropped as
so did the sales per manhour.
From stock market reports, McD's profits haven't been tracking
> too well which would reflect lousy performance somehow. I wonder why?
> As far as trial marketing goes, McD's made the same mistake before
> trying local promotions on a national scale. Remember the McLean and
> McDLT. Worked well in Texas but not everywhere else.
That's because the McDLT was created in Texas, and I used to work for an
O/O that was involved in it's creation. But trial marketing does not
always mean nationwide mistake.
They test new
> sandwiches, pizzas in select targeted ares just to measure the
> results. But in the end, it is still a risky prospect nationwide as
> tastes vary.
> On a final note to Dan, you remind me of me when I supervised 4 McD's
> averaging $1 mill+ back in the early 80's. The words "in denial" are
> an accurate description.
What am I denying? I have never said the 55 cent promotion was good for
Mcd's. I know it has costs stores money and I am glad that the one I
work at does not participate in the 55 cent promotion anymore. But I do
not believe it chased lots of people away, it just did not attract the
extra customers needed to make it a success. Those that did buy did not
see it necessary to buy the larger sizes where the greater profit would
have been from.
I held McD's in the highest regard and would
> defend any mistake or error in judgement by corp. But after I was able
> to read between the lines, hear many O/O negative comments about how
> corp treated them, watched many 25 year O/O sell there business out of
> frustration and saw how corp abused its authority, was the turning
> point for me and I totally dropped out of the business. Full field
> inspections were a political tool, inconsistently applied and a losing
> battle due to a sorry employee base. BTW, did you ever read the book,
> "Behind The Golden Arches"? It may awaken you to the reality.
> One lesson I learned outside of the system; you hear much more
> negative comments from people who don't know you were associated with
> McD's (and those who knew about my past career).
I have read that book, and have not noticed that being employed at a
Mcd's keeps people from saying negative things about Mcd's, I have
experienced the exact opposite. Only young children in a school seeing
the arch on my shirt are in awe of my place of employment. S.R.
I appreciate the
> learning experience from McD's but don't like to be associated with it
> anymore due to its downfall in QSC. Before you reply, I try not to
> appear as though I have a biased opinion from sour grapes. On the
> contrary, I couldn't be happier because I know I am out of an
> "unwinable war." I don't have to worry about call-ins anymore either.
> HAHA.
Tim Irvin
Ken Beard
Amen!! Wasn't all that in the O&T manual back then(about
telephones,etc.)? BTW, I worked at McHell from '86 til '96. Caught the
tail end of the good McD's and saw them sink slowly down to their
current sad state. I can't think of a single mgr or crewperson that
thought Q-Ing would be a good idea, to most people microwave=leftovers.
And with a piece of meat sitting for 25 minutes (and we know how well
holding times are observed <g>) and then nuked, that's what ya got.
I think, somehow, all this came from a very bad interpertation of Kroc's
"if you're green, you're growing" quote. The current management think
this means you have to re-invent the wheel at every opportunity, instead
of refining the old system. Double booth drive thru is a good idea, an
evolution of the original drive thru, I think that's what Ray had in
mind, not what they're doing now. Couldn't ever figure out why we
chased #2 and #3 BK and Wendy's so much. Guess Quinlan et al will get
their wish when McD's "catches" them. <BG>
REALLY loved in some of the business section articles I've read about
the "55" disaster, where analysts were quoted as saying that maybe new
management will be needed to right this ship, and also singled out food
quality!
Ken - glad to no longer be a 1st Asst.
P.S. I bet ole Ray is doing about 7-8000 RPM!!
dan
ECC wrote:
>
>
> Hey Ken,
>
> I will bet money that Dan will still try to fight for McD's side in
> that the 55 cent deal wasn't bad for sales, as well as other issues.
When have I said the 55 cent deal was good for McD's? I have stated that
I am GLAD the store I work at does NOT participate in the 55 cent
promotion anymore. It did not increase the sales, and did not bring in
more business. Better give Ken that money. S.R.
ECC
Ken Beard <bdkb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Hey Ken,
I will bet money that Dan will still try to fight for McD's side in
that the 55 cent deal wasn't bad for sales, as well as other issues.
One day, he too (like us) will wake up and smell the coffee. BTW, do
you think that a double booth manned with today's crew will work? I
know it did in '84 but doubt it today, since I rarely see both windows
open simultaneously.
I remember Ed Rensi during a McD's O/O convention in Oak Brook. He was
such a standoffish personality and most of the other execs were put
out during the questions and answers session. Those pictures of Rensi
smiling all of the time in the mgr newsletter reminded me of the "wolf
in sheep's clothing." That was an executive who should have never been
promoted. Many of the regional VP were also puppets. McD's needs to
recruit educated, responsible, realistic and demanding execs who were
like Ray and Lee Iacocca. I think a revolving-plan house cleaning is
in order.
As for DT's, I've seen every other way to run a DT. The most creative
use was at one store in Atlanta at 8 PM with one cash register open on
the front counter used for both DT and instore sales. I guess they
don't care to track DT percentages at that store after 8. It did
create panic for the mgr (cashier) when a handful of customers lined
up on the register and in DT.
As for BK, they have made inroads on McD's market share. They are
really giving them a run. Remember the fried burger vs. charbroiled
campaign. BK is tagging McD harder now than they were back then with
the .99 cent Whopper.
dan
ECC wrote:
>
> dan <s3...@ne.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >ECC wrote:
> >>
> >> dan <s3...@ne.infi.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> but it definately did not bring in more customers more frequently.
> >> S.R.
> >>
> >> I think your above response is what I was betting my money on.
> Again, my response was referring to your earlier reply. I think your
> half-assed reply not to admit to the loss of customers was the case
> nationally- maybe not in your store. I don't care about your store.
> Key word: nationally!>
>
Key word: OPINION: It is my OPINION that there was not the loss of
customers like you have the OPINION there was.
> >How in the world did you think that response was a positive backing of
> >the 55 cent promotion?
>
> The mere fact that you will not accept the campaign flopped and hurt
> McD's certainly leads one to think you supported it.
When I have said I was GLAD that the store I work at NO longer
PARTICIPATES in the 55 cent promo, didn't that clue you in that I do not
have a positive view of that promotion. Just because you are too dense
to figure that out I will put it into words that you CAN comprehend:
THE 55 CENT PROMOTION IS A FLOP!!!!!!! I AM SO HAPPY THE STORE I WORK AT
DOES NOT PARTICPATE IN IT ANYMORE! Now do you get it?
> > I think
> >> I'll keep my money and watch your argumentative self keep trying to
> >> avoid acknowledging that you are wrong.
> >
> >What did I say that was wrong? I saw the response to the 55 cent
> >promotion from actually being in the store. That is were I got that
> >response from. While the customer count stayed approximately the same,
> >the amount of sales dropped.
> Your store may not represent the entire population (stores) so your CC
> theory may be an invalid argument.
>
Again YOUR opinion.
> Example: Those that would have bought an EVM prior to the promotion
> opted to buy the sandwich with the small fry
> >and drink more often than with larger fry and drinks. That was nearly
> >one dollar less per meal ordered than before the promotion. Over the
> >course of a day the dollars lost adds up real quick.
>
> Agreed, but how many upset customers turned around and left because
> they thought the advertising was misleading regardless of their
> studipity?
Since I can only speak from what happened where I work at, I did not see
people getting upset and walking out because they couldn't buy the
sandwich by itself for 55 cents. But when my O/O suddenly dropped that
promotion( I was off the day that was decided), I took an order the next
day for 2 quarters in DT and told the customer that in order to get the
sandwiches for 55 cents he would have to purchase fries and drinks for
both sandwiches. He did drive off in a huff, and just after he did I was
told about the change to 99 cent sandwiches and then realized that is
why he drove off. I never saw that with during the 55 cent promo, just
afterwards.
Another fact that I didn't list as leading to customer
> "disgustitis" was many O/O's raised the price of small fries and
> drinks to cover the lost profit from customers taking the route you
> use in your example.
I do not doubt that, where I'm at wage reviews coincided with the start
of the promotion and prices would have went up with or without the 55
cent promo.
Some customers just wanted to order a burger and
> fries but when they noticed their usual fare increased, they stopped
> ordering and went to BK. Finally, all of the news reports are wrong
> about the negative impact on McD and you are right - NOT.
And what's your proof that only BK benefited from this? I did not say
that the news reports were wrong about the negative impact.
> >
> > I have noticed that you don't
> >> respond to the other numerous issues that I have brought up that
> >> negatively portray McD's. What's a matter, can't disagree?
> >>
> >Just because my opinion was not like yours does not make me wrong, and
> >why do I have to disagree with everything negative about Mcd's that you
> >bring up?
> >
> As for defending the fact that you said nothing wrong, you
> inadvertantly missed my point (or twisted it by indirectly responding
> to it). My original intention about your lack of response to other
> negative issues with McD's was intended as a joke. Don't try to
> portray me as an elitest or arogant know-it-all by "assuming" that I
> expect your opinion to equal mine.
You have portrayed yourself as elitest or arogant(your spelling)
know-it-all ALL by yourself.
I am glad your opinion is not the
> same as mine judging from your peon, whiny sidetracking-the-issue
> responses. Deal with the fact that mistakes happen and McD's is not
> where it used to be in QSC. One day, maybe you will reach burnout and
> then smell the coffee.
>
I know mistakes happen and I know that this promo was one of them, like
I said I am glad that the store I work at is NOT participating in it
anymore. Have you got it yet?
> >> It seems that you are always right especially in your "lie" saga.
> >
> >I haven't lied and you know it.
> >
> >> What a waste of time on that matter. You missed your calling; you
> >> should have been a lawyer. Take a deep whiff of that coffee. :))
>
> >If it is such a waste of time then why did you even bother with it? S.R.
>
> I did not read the entire "lie" saga and don't know who lied about
> what. I was just curious in the beginning about "the post with so many
> replies"-what was so interesting?
I was not part of that point of that specific reply. That was between
Chris and Molly.
I don't care who is the liar. BTW,
> the word "saga" is a generalization that is not meant to imply you as
> a liar-just to identify the conversation and the waste-of-time
> argument "game" that is taking place.
It clearly looked as if you called me a liar, and through my email I
have told Chris that his "Liar, liar, pants on fire" replies are rude
and inconsiderate, but he doesn't see it that way. So why don't you take
it up with him on what a waste of time he is to you?
The fact that you keep defending
> yourself over and over is your stupid reaction. Reminds me of a childs
> "did not, did to..." response. Ignore the crap if it's just a game and
> you are right. Continue the game and you become percieved as an idiot
> like the other players, hence my label of you as argumentative.
>
Face it you're playing the game, too.
> As for continuing this thread or who can get the last word in, I
> really don't care to deal with it anymore. The promotion hurt McD's--
> bottomline--end of discussion, which was my original point I tried to
> convey but you interject with indirect qualifiers such as customer
> counts and to try and confuse the whole logic. Customer counts are
> like statistics in that they can mislead.
If people were running away from Mcds like you have said then customer
count is affected and it is relevent to the discussion. But even if it
stays the same but less is bought per order, sales drop, average check
drops, sales per manhour drops. That is the point I have been arguing
all along.
I hope you noticed I didn't
> use the word "lie" which is normally in place of the word mislead. I
> didn't want you to "assume" I was insinuating that you are a liar.
Since you brought it up, you were obviously trying imply something that
you wanted the entire ng to notice. S.R.
> Remember what assume means: you make an ass out of you and me.
>
>