Lynsi Torres says In-N-Out unlikely to go nationwide

Discussion in 'General Discussion | Dining' started by viguera, Feb 26, 2013.  |  Print Topic

  1. viguera
    Original Member

    viguera Gold Member

    Messages:
    4,737
    Likes Received:
    6,913
    Status Points:
    4,745
    Everyone that likes them always wonders why there are so few restaurants, but I guess (in her mind) it makes sense...

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/torres-496945-company-snyder.html

    According to the article from the OC Register, Torres believes that by holding fast against franchising they can keep better control over food quality and their overall image.
     
    uggboy and iolaire like this.
  2. iolaire
    Original Member

    iolaire Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,510
    Likes Received:
    5,767
    Status Points:
    4,170
    The article will not load for me, but some time back I read that they want to be very close to their meat packing, maybe 300 miles, so that limits their growth. I also recall something like they have created their own meat packing plant to support one of their expansions?
     
  3. uggboy
    Original Member

    uggboy Gold Member

    Messages:
    50,181
    Likes Received:
    133,438
    Status Points:
    20,020
    It's maybe a good thing, keeps the quality high and directly controlled by the company. Looking at all the food scandals encircling the world, this decision makes sense.
     
  4. viguera
    Original Member

    viguera Gold Member

    Messages:
    4,737
    Likes Received:
    6,913
    Status Points:
    4,745

    Well I think that's probably a good strategy, but some might call it narrow-minded. I mean, if nothing else, size helps you absorb those types of scandals, I would think. Whether it's Burger King and the horse meat debacle or E. coli in (whatever product this week), none of the truly large chains have gone out of business because of it.

    In-N-Out might take pride in controlling everything end to end, but at the end of the day being that centralized can be a bad thing... if you have a single distributor or a couple of meat packing plants, those are very specific points of failure that can do you in when you least expect it.

    IMO, for a billion dollar company to not want to become a $10-20 billion company is just ridiculous.



    Yeah they had a couple of locations in Texas and when they opened about a dozen restaurants or so they just went ahead and built a patty production / distribution center there, in spite of them crying about how it would be difficult and quality would suffer.

    I guess at the end of the day money talks. :)
     
    HaveMilesWillTravel likes this.
  5. autolycus

    autolycus Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,136
    Likes Received:
    7,321
    Status Points:
    5,000
    It's commendable for them to want to maintain the quality of their product. I am not sure that the lack of franchisees is a necessary part of that. Chick-fil-a has become a national chain and has primarily been run by franchisees for much of its history as a true chain restaurant--beyond just the early Dwarf House locations. Yet somehow the quality of their locations is incredibly consistent from my experiences. Employees are friendly and helpful, lines move quickly, food is hot and generally prepared correctly to the customer's order, etc. It's a corporate culture that works. In-n-Out is surely capable of achieving a similar corporate/franchise culture that maintains the same quality across the entire country. They have chosen to not try, to the disappointment of many easterners.
     
    iolaire likes this.
  6. Bay Pisco Shark
    Original Member

    Bay Pisco Shark Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,557
    Likes Received:
    2,072
    Status Points:
    1,270
    No, it is not. For a successful billion dollar private company that has a working recipe for success to expand 500 to 1000%, the entire business model needs to change, with necessary delegation and resulting loss of direct oversight some of the first things to go. CFA has an entirely different model.

    There is nothing wrong with a privately held company to decide "we're happy, we make a lot of money, we like the system as it currently runs, we're happy with limited and controlled growth" etc etc etc. It is not ridiculous. Yet sooner or later, someone in the ownership structure (with a voice) will cause a fracture and then all bets are off.
     
  7. skyvan

    skyvan Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,044
    Likes Received:
    3,688
    Status Points:
    2,045
    Remember it is privately held so there is no chance of a large shareholder making public their desire for a company to expand which happens in many cases to public companies when a large investor is not happy with the handling of the company.
     

Share This Page