5 ms·
What I still don't understand about this whole situation is why McDonalds corporate would allow this to happen in the first place. Is the profiteering on the c
by ProfessorLayton 5y ago
What I still don't understand about this whole situation is why McDonalds corporate would allow this to happen in the first place.
Is the profiteering on the contracts with the vendor actually higher than the lost sales from having these machines unavailable so often?
Is it worth marring your reputation with unreliable service? One of the appeals of fast food is consistency, that's what the franchise is supposed to provide.
Is it worth ceding this product to your competitors, who don't have as many issues providing it?
I must be missing something here.
- DangitBobby 5y ago> Is it worth marring your reputation with unreliable service? McDonald's seems to be doing just fine. Even so, you know as well as I do that short term profits trump long term health of the company.
- ProfessorLayton 5y agoI wasn't trying to imply that this is hurting corporate as a whole, but questioning why take this particular hit in the first place. I'm also questioning if the status quo really is more profitable than actually selling the product. Is it really profitable to do this at all? Because the competition doesn't seem to be doing it.
- DangitBobby 5y agoThe franchise owners are the ones who primarily get hurt from not being able to move product, not corporate. As long as being a franchise owner is still perceived as a viable way to make a living and the kickbacms they get from the arrangement outweigh their percentage of lost sales volume, what does corporate care?
- avidiax 5y agoYes, or the franchise equipment team books lots of k̶i̶c̶k̶b̶a̶c̶k̶s̶ partner revenue and the customer satisfaction team can't or doesn't want to show that unavailable ice cream hurts sales.