La Vita è Bella Life is Beautiful. La Vita es Bonita. 美麗人生　

242愛的鼓勵 7訂閱站台

去年在不景氣時，各家速食業者緊縮支出，但是麥當勞去增加了7%的廣告預算成為最大的贏家。

在已開發國家，素食餐廳的成長都已經面臨的瓶頸，或者根本是已經到頂了。所以開發中國家成為今後成長主要的來源，其中中國是最被看好的市場。另外早餐也是被看好的一項市場區隔。

20年前上行銷課時，特別提到麥當勞的行銷策略是這個品牌成功的主因－－一般餐廳在思考如何維持客戶一再光臨總是想到增加菜單，但是McDonald's卻是很少用這個方法，總要好幾年才增加一項新產品在菜單上。根據英國經濟學人的報導，McDonald's明年將開始賣麥片粥。

除了兒童餐送玩具受到挑戰，在英國經濟學人的訪談節目(Podcast)"The Economics of the Fast Food"（在下面最後一個連結可以聽到這場訪談）裡也提及：政府打算對汽水與可樂這種沒有營養，又富高熱量的飲料課稅或是健康捐，這也是一項挑戰。



肯德基兒童餐 不送玩具了
【聯合報╱記者陳若齡／台北報導】　　2010.06.26 05:32 pm
 
  
麥當勞附贈的可愛玩具，曾多次掀起收藏熱，並陪伴無數小朋友成長。
記者陳柏亨／攝影

速食兒童餐送玩具受到挑戰，繼今年四月美國加州聖塔克拉拉縣通過法案，禁止高熱量兒童餐隨餐附贈玩具或贈品，台灣肯德基率先宣布，自七月五日起新推出的兒童餐不再附送玩具，降價廿元，但麥當勞及漢堡王都表示不會跟進。

肯德基公共事務部經理古玟禎表示，許多小朋友已有很多玩具，速食店的附贈玩具往往淪為資源回收，很不環保，不如實際降價回饋消費者。

不附送玩具的肯德基兒童餐將從八十九元降為六十九元，並且每賣一份會捐出一元支持台灣世界展望會。這項政策目前僅在台灣實施，並非全球策略。

麥當勞公關部協理周怡寧表示，兒童餐提供玩具，是為了提供小朋友愉快的用餐經驗；麥當勞兒童餐售價從六十九元到八十九元不等，視配餐而定。漢堡王也表示，目前不跟進，未來是否不附贈玩具尚在評估中。

近年歐美為速食店兒童餐附送玩具爭議不斷，認為此行銷手法使兒童肥胖問題日趨嚴重，玩具本身也不時傳出安全疑慮。

如日前美國大眾利益科學中心（CSPI），指控麥當勞以玩具引誘孩童購買兒童餐，違反麻州、德州、新澤西州、加州和哥倫比亞特區的消費者保護法，並使兒童養成不良飲食習慣及提高飲食相關疾病風險。

當時麥當勞發言人惠特曼曾反駁，兒童餐有健康選擇，例如以果汁或牛奶取代碳酸飲料；對於玩具的安全風險，台灣麥當勞表示，每年均投入百萬元以上通過美國安全委員會和台灣ST安全玩具的認證工作。

今年四月聖塔克拉拉縣通過法案，規定熱量超過四百八十五卡、含鹽量超過六百毫克的速食店兒童餐，禁止隨餐贈送玩具促銷，今年夏天生效，此為美國首條相關法例；國內五月時立委蔣乃辛也擬提案立法禁止兒童餐送玩具。




The changes facing fast food
Good and hungry
More than menus need to be revamped if fast-food firms want to keep growing

Jun 17th 2010 | NEW YORK


FAST-FOOD firms have to be a thick-skinned bunch. Health experts regularly lambast them for peddling food that makes people fat. Critics even complain that McDonald’s, whose golden arches symbolise calorie excess, should not have been allowed to sponsor the World Cup. These are things fast-food firms have learnt to cope with and to deflect. But not perhaps for much longer. The burger business faces more pressure from regulators at a time when it is already adapting strategies in response to shifts in the global economy.

Fast food was once thought to be recession-proof. When consumers need to cut spending, the logic goes, cheap meals like Big Macs and Whoppers become even more attractive. Such “trading down” proved true for much of the latest recession, when fast-food companies picked up customers who could no longer afford to eat at casual restaurants. Traffic was boosted in America, the home of fast food, with discounts and promotions, such as $1 menus and cheap combination meals.

As a result, fast-food chains have weathered the recession better than their pricier competitors. In 2009 sales at full-service restaurants in America fell by more than 6%, but total sales remained about the same at fast-food chains. In some markets, such as Japan, France and Britain, total spending on fast food increased. Same-store sales in America at McDonald’s, the world’s largest fast-food company, did not decline throughout the downturn. Panera Bread, an American fast-food chain known for its fresh ingredients, performed well, too: its boss, Ron Shaich, claims this is because it offers higher-quality food at lower prices than restaurants.

But not all fast-food companies have been as fortunate. Many, such as Burger King, have seen sales fall. In a severe recession, while some people trade down to fast food, many others eat at home more frequently to save money. David Palmer, an analyst at UBS, a bank, says smaller fast-food chains in America, such as Jack in the Box and Carl’s Jr., have been hit particularly hard in this downturn because at the same time they are “slugging it out with a global powerhouse” in the form of McDonald’s, which ramped up spending on advertising by more than 7% last year as others cut back.
Some fast-food companies also cannibalised their own profits by trying to give customers better value. During the recession companies set prices low, hoping that once they had tempted customers through the door they would be persuaded to order more expensive items. But in many cases that strategy backfired. Last year Burger King franchisees sued the company over its double-cheeseburger promotion, claiming it was unfair for them to be required to sell these for $1 when they cost $1.10 to make. In May a judge ruled in favour of Burger King. Nevertheless, the company may still be cursing its decision to promote cheap choices over more expensive ones because items on its “value menu” now account for around 20% of all sales, up from 12% last October.

Analysts expect the fast-food industry to grow modestly this year. But the downturn is making them rethink their strategies. Many companies are now introducing higher-priced items to entice consumers away from $1 specials. KFC, a division of Yum! Brands, which also owns Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, has launched a chicken sandwich that costs around $5. And in May Burger King introduced barbecue pork ribs at a hefty $7 for eight.


More cheeseburgers

Companies are also trying to get customers to buy new and more items, including drinks. McDonald’s started selling better coffee as a challenge to Starbucks. Its “McCafé” line now accounts for an estimated 6% of sales in America. Others are testing a similar strategy. Starbucks has sold rights to its Seattle’s Best coffee brand to Burger King, which will start selling it later this year. McDonald’s is now rolling out frappé coffees and smoothies.

As fast-food companies shift from “super size” to “more buys” they need to keep customer traffic high throughout the day. Many see breakfast as a big opportunity, and not just for fatty food. McDonald’s will start selling porridge in America next year. Breakfast has the potential to be very lucrative, says Sara Senatore of Bernstein, a research firm, because the margins can be high. Fast-food companies are also adding midday and late-night snacks, such as blended drinks and wraps. The idea is that by having a greater range of things on the menu, “we can sell to consumers products they want all day,” says Rick Carucci, the chief financial officer of Yum! Brands.


Yet growth opportunities in America are limited because the market is considered to be “saturated”, not so much in fats but outlets. China is the place where most fast-food chains, like so many industries, see big expansion. Mr Carucci, for one, thinks China will be “the biggest growth opportunity for the industry this century”. If so, then Yum!, which has the greatest presence in China of any Western fast-food company, will be celebrating. Already around 30% of the company’s profits come from China, and in the next five years this is expected to grow to 40%. India also looks like a succulent opportunity. Others plan to serve up more business in Russia and elsewhere in Europe. Given that around 75% of fast-food companies’ revenue in Europe comes from people eating in the restaurants (compared with half in America), older European outlets are being done up to make them more attractive places.


Getting chunky

The recession also proved the importance of size in competing for customers, which means that more consolidation is likely. Wendy’s and Arby’s, two American fast-food chains, merged in 2008. On June 11th their shares surged following news that a buyer was interested in the company. Smaller chains may catch the eye of private-equity firms, just as CKE Restaurants did earlier this year when Apollo Management, a buy-out firm, purchased it.

But what about those growing waistlines? So far, fast-food firms have nimbly avoided government regulation. By providing healthy options, like salads and low-calorie sandwiches, they have at least given the impression of doing something about helping to fight obesity. These offerings are not necessarily loss-leaders, as they broaden the appeal of outlets to groups of diners that include some people who don’t want to eat a burger. But customers cannot be forced to order salads instead of fries.

In the future, simply offering a healthy option may not be good enough. “Every packaged-food and restaurant company I know is concerned about regulation right now,” says Mr Palmer of UBS. America’s health-reform bill, which Congress passed this year, requires restaurant chains with 20 or more outlets to put the calorie-content of items they serve on the menu. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, which tracked the effects on Starbucks of a similar calorie-posting law in New York City in 2007, found that the average calorie-count per transaction fell 6% and revenue increased 3% at Starbucks stores where a Dunkin Donuts outlet was nearby—a sign, it is said, that menu-labelling could favour chains that have more nutritious offerings.

In order to avoid other legislation in America and elsewhere, fast-food companies will have to continue innovating. Walt Riker of McDonald’s claims the makeover it has given to its menu means it offers more healthy items than it did a few years ago. “We probably sell more lettuce, more milk, more salads, more apples than any restaurant business in the world,” he says. But the recent proposal by a county in California to ban the golden arches from including toys in its high-calorie “Happy Meals”, because legislators believe it attracts children to unhealthy food, suggests there is a lot more left to do.

http://www.economist.com/node/16380043?story_id=16380043




The economics of the fast food  by The Economist  (Jun. 17, 2010)
Healthy choices, dollar meals, pricey ribs, free wifi and calorie labels fill today's fast food eateries
http://www.mixcloud.com/economist/the-economics-of-fast-food/