10 ms·

I mean, why not? Companies like Unilever have been doing this for far longer than anyone in the restaurant space. Churn out thousands of brands that supposedly

I mean, why not? Companies like Unilever have been doing this for far longer than anyone in the restaurant space. Churn out thousands of brands that supposedly "compete" with each other in the marketplace. If one of those brands has a reputation problem, shut it down and replace it. Rinse and repeat. If the practice is distasteful, then change the law, but beware the lobbyists.

spaceman_2020 4y ago
Its rampant across industries. Hotel chains have sub-brands, sometimes with suspiciously similar names. As far as industries go, the restaurant industry is probably one of the least consolidated in the world. For every chain restaurant, there are a dozen standalone restaurants.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  This is because, where regulations allow, people will literally set up a small restaurant with two plastic yard tables and a open top grill. In the US that type of setup is pretty much illegal everywhere. Chains were becoming more prevalent, but recently we’ve basically gone back to the same model with a food truck, which is tiny and takes up a parking spot. Usually taking off the wheels is illegal though.
  - bornfreddy 4y ago
    Cool, this is interesting... What makes the "two plastic yard tables and a open top grill" restaurant illegal? Sanitary requirements or some minimal size mandate? Otherwise I like the concept of food trucks, to me they are a perfect way for enthusiastic chefs to start their business with low(ish) money investment.
    - notsapiensatall 4y ago
      This sounds fun. Let's pick a state that is not known for onerous regulations...how about South Dakota? >Food employees must clean their hands in a handwashing lavatory and may not clean their hands in a sink used for food preparation or in a service sink or a curbed cleaning facility used for the disposal of mop water and similar liquid waste. >Food must be stored in a clean, dry location where it is not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination and is at least 15 centimeters (6 inches) above the floor >Sufficient refrigeration facilities or other effectively insulated facilities that are conveniently located must be provided to assure the maintenance of potentially hazardous food at required temperatures during storage. Each mechanically refrigerated facility storing potentially hazardous food must be provided with a numerically scaled indicating thermometer, accurate to ±1°C (2°F), located to measure air temperature in the warmest part of the facility. >Fruits and vegetables may be washed by using chemicals as specified in 21 C.F.R. 173.315, April 1, 1996. Any sink used to wash, prepare, store, or soak food must be indirectly connected to the sewer through an airbreak. >A ventilation hood system must be provided over all cooking equipment which produces steam, excessive smoke, grease vapors, or odors. >Perimeter walls and roof of a food establishment must effectively protect the establishment from the weather and the entry of insects, rodents, and other animals. It would be hard to meet those requirements with a grill and two tables, but the list goes on: https://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/Administrative/17361 https://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/Administrative/17361
      - throw1230 4y ago
        >Food employees must clean their hands in a handwashing lavatory and may not clean their hands in a sink used for food preparation or in a service sink or a curbed cleaning facility used for the disposal of mop water and similar liquid waste. So a restroom. >Food must be stored in a clean, dry location where it is not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination and is at least 15 centimeters (6 inches) above the floor. A shelf. >Sufficient refrigeration facilities or other effectively insulated facilities that are conveniently located must be provided to assure the maintenance of potentially hazardous food at required temperatures during storage. Each mechanically refrigerated facility storing potentially hazardous food must be provided with a numerically scaled indicating thermometer, accurate to ±1°C (2°F), located to measure air temperature in the warmest part of the facility. A fridge and a thermometer >Fruits and vegetables may be washed by using chemicals as specified in 21 C.F.R. 173.315, April 1, 1996. Any sink used to wash, prepare, store, or soak food must be indirectly connected to the sewer through an airbreak. This a U shaped a filter on the drain hose, you can self install and cost a few bucks. >A ventilation hood system must be provided over all cooking equipment which produces steam, excessive smoke, grease vapors, or odors. A hood a standard in every kitchen. >Perimeter walls and roof of a food establishment must effectively protect the establishment from the weather and the entry of insects, rodents, and other animals. Walls and a roof?. These are sanitary requirements but none of them are extra imo
        emiliobumachar 4y ago
        A restroom that's practical for the cook to wash hands every single time is a lot harder then a nearby walk-to restroom. These add up fast.
        bobthepanda 4y ago
        How many food trucks come with a restroom? Or 4 walls and a roof, assuming that’s required to cover a shelter? Or a connection to the sewer system (which sounds pretty tenuous for a food truck, you need to find a parking space with a open sewer connection?)
        4y ago
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      In the US any sort of restaurant establishment is most likely by zoning required to have some amount of parking. The cost of the land and asphalt for a parking space is $5-10k for a surface spot, $30k for an underground one. Two tables wouldn’t pay the interest rate on that, especially if multiple are required.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - tomByrer 4y ago
      Here in Kansas & I think MO people can sell things they cook at home. I know a caterer, baker & jelly canner who operate out of their home kitchens.
  - mbg721 4y ago
    The food-trucks seem to be doing pretty well. Within a mile of where I live, there are at least two taco trucks and one barbeque truck, all permanently parked there.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      There are a couple of inherent downsides to the model, namely the cost of maintaining a working motor vehicle, and the impossibility of connecting it to electric or sewer (so they all run off pretty dirty diesel generators.)
- swores 4y ago
  Hotel sub-brands are often (usually?) to differentiate significantly in quality / service / price. I think it would be much more reasonable for a restaurant to decide they want to cater to both fast food and fine dining (or less extreme ends of the spectrum) and to offer two experiences under different brands, than to just chuck up different brands on top of basically the same thing.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    >Hotel sub-brands are often (usually?) to differentiate significantly in quality / service / price. That's the idea anyway. There are also specific traveler personas that they target. For example, Courtyard was originally specifically designed for business travelers. Of course, a huge chain like Marriott has acquired other chains and many of its own brands have morphed over time for various reasons so a lot of the sub-brands end up looking pretty similar to each other. This isn't really hidden from consumers though. Certainly frequent travelers are well aware of the overarching company because of loyalty programs.
bhouston 4y ago
witeless brands inCanada is another example. Very often when you are comparison shopping for a cellphone plan you are just checking between the sub brands of 3 companies. No wonder the data plans in Canada are super expensive compared to everywhere else.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  It is the same in the US, and probably around the world. I do not see how it could be possible for more than 3 or 4 wireless networks to go around putting redundant towers up all around the country, especially big countries.
  - neurostimulant 4y ago
    It's possible. Indonesia has 7 cellphone carriers with their own infrastructure, and I think 5 of them have national coverage. Used to be more but the number got reduced over time due to mergers and acquisition. I won't be surprised if there would be only 4 major carriers left soon if the largest ones continue acquiring smaller players, which is a bad news because cellular plans used to be very expensive when there were only 3 major carriers and these smaller players brought competition which drastically reduce prices of cellular plans.
    - mango7283 4y ago
      It's possible... But then you go on to describe how it's ending due to consolidation ;)
  - gspr 4y ago
    You mandate that anyone who puts up a tower has to sell physical space and connectivity for base stations of competitors on those same towers at a fair price. Charging to recoup the cost of the infrastructure = ok. Charging more to force competitors out or to build their own, wholly redundant, towers = illegal.
    - scarface74 4y ago
JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
I guess we just hope and wish that a restaurant would have a "terroir" for a certain type of food or flavor they are good at or something authentic in any way. My soaps from Unilever will at least be different because the recipes are different, but something tells me those soups from that kitchen all taste the same.
- 867-5309 4y ago
  >those soups from that kitchen all taste the same this got me thinking - the photos of the store fronts are basically garages, with few or no tables and chairs, and few or no delivery vehicles. you'd expect in a massive city with 24/7 food services, and a large surface area to nab unsuspecting customers, there to be a fleet of mopeds awaiting outside. but instead the address given is probably just where the businesses are registered. box ticked, nothing checked. the actual "kitchen" and delivery mechanism could be based anywhere. e.g. the nearest/dirtiest friend/family/gang member to the delivery address. are we to trust that the one running this scam adheres to food safety standards? or any standards for that matter
achow 4y ago
"Why not"?! There is couple of fundamental difference to Unilever example: 1. Similar sounding names to existing brand is trademark infringement. Here this particular entity is deliberately copying the restaurant names to mislead people into selecting them (when original restaurants are closed). 2. Assumption is Unilever creates different brands with same exacting manufacturing standards, and it stands behind them (packages will follow federal labeling guidelines). It is for A/B testing of brand collaterals (name, packaging graphics, colors, copy etc.). Here obviously that is not the case. It is very obvious that deception is the end goal, so really don't understand "why not" remark.
- lovich 4y ago
  >1. Similar sounding names to existing brand is trademark infringement. Here this particular entity is deliberately copying the restaurant names to mislead people into selecting them (when original restaurants are closed). Can you define that difference? Wingstop and Thighstop for instance are incredibly close and not enough to trigger regulatory enforcement. There is the side note that they are owned by the same entity, but do regulators know that for a fact before they decide no to enforce penalties for what you are claiming is trademark infringement? >2. Assumption is Unilever creates different brands with same exacting manufacturing standards, and it stands behind them (packages will follow federal labeling guidelines). It is for A/B testing of brand collaterals (name, packaging graphics, colors, copy etc.). Here obviously that is not the case. > Assumption is Unilever creates different brands with same exacting manufacturing standards... Where did this assumption come from? That's a claim without any backing as far as I am aware. Do you honestly believe they only make different brands because they are testing how the sound of the brands name affects sales? Nothing around compartmentalizing the risk of them causing some backlash by cutting corners or getting people ill, and the ability to just cut off that one brand rather than their entire product line? >It is very obvious that deception is the end goal, so really don't understand "why not" remark. It is literally the opposite to me. It feels like deception is the main goal unless they make the "Product of X Conglomerate" a larger part of the packaging than the brands label, and not the minimum size required by law, or if its legally allowed, omitted entirely from the label
  - 4y ago
tamade 4y ago
That's not how CPG business models work. Unilever doesn't "churn out thousands of brands" to cannibalize their own portfolio. What they are doing is building brand equity and competing for sales and shelf space vs other CPG brands-- that costs a lot of money and takes years. The cloud kitchen model is more akin to putting lipstick on pigs...
- Rumudiez 4y ago
  What restaurants are doing is competing for sales and shelf space on online ordering sites
incompatible 4y ago
Another example is Luxottica for optometry.
- jhbadger 4y ago
  Although they are even worse because they are an example of "vertical integration" -- they own both the manufacturing of many of the major eyeglass frame brands as well as many of the chain eyeglass stores such as Lenscrafters and Pearle Vision as well as being the real owners of the optometry departments found in stores like Target and John Lewis.
alexvoda 4y ago
I propose a new and simple law: The branding of the parent entity must be more prominent than any subbrand on any packaging or promotional material.
- nine_k 4y ago
  There'd be no trouble opening a company per brand; the company would buy white-label products from Unilever and put its own brand, and market it.
otikik 4y ago
> If the practice is distasteful, then change the law Or, you know, use morals and conscience.
- kevincox 4y ago
  But some people don't have those so this is just unfairly disadvantaging the people who do. This is the same reason why murder us illegal even though most people wouldn't do it anyways.
scrollaway 4y ago
Maybe we should mandate that in labelling guidelines on consumer products, the name and logo of the ultimate parent owner of the company selling the product should be prominently featured alongside whatever the regular brand is. Many products already do it eg “TheThing: By TheParentCompany”. But yes maybe consumers should be aware who ultimately benefits from their purchase of a product, and easily be able to decide to buy more independent brands.
- cpursley 4y ago
  Can we so this with politicians, too? Make them wear patches of all their corporate sponsors like race car drivers?
  - scrollaway 4y ago
    That is more about sponsorship disclosures. A better parallel would be with disclosure of paid or sponsored material on broadcasts. But yes, I’d be all for that. If a bill is drafted, all the entities that had input into that draft should be listed. If a politician gives a speech at the request of a compensating entity, that should be disclosed at the beginning: “This speech was paid for in part by Audible. More on them at the end of the speech”
  - spaetzleesser 4y ago
    It’s more like publishing who actually wrote legislation. Often it’s lobbyists who write laws and politicians put their names on them.
- gruez 4y ago
  >the name and logo of the ultimate parent owner of the company selling the product should be prominently featured alongside whatever the regular brand is. How do you define "ultimate parent owner of the company"? In the case of Unilever, they own the brands directly, so it's straightforward to determine the "ultimate parent owner". But it's not hard to register a separate LLC for each brand, which makes the "ultimate parent owner" much murkier, especially if the LLC has weird ownership structures.
adhesive_wombat 4y ago
In theory, this is actually a functional service that can be useful. I hardly ever eat out because the cost and hassle compared to the food is far, far from being a reasonable trade to me. On a daily basis, I don't want "fancy" plates of food creations, just simple but fresh and relatively healthy food like I would (or, rather, do) make for myself. However, having a kitchen churning out fresh food, a bit like a canteen but with a delivery step (doesn't have to be direct, a "round" would work too as long as the food stays approximately fresh and arrives within a reasonable slot). There's no need for this to happen in a restaurant with tables and tills. The most efficient system is probably a big central kitchen and a bunch of electric delivery vehicles. The economies of scale that such an operation could bring over me buying a few portions at a time, slicing single cucumbers and heating my little oven or pans to cook a few items day in day out seem like they could plausibly be favourable to outweigh the downsides (cost of delivery, lack of control over the food ingredients, quality, portion size etc). Of course such a system, if it became dominant over others would probably very quickly fall victim to MBA syndrome as corners are cut and it ends up being school/prison slop (with a much much more expensive premium option that is basically what we already have). And I imagine people don't like the idea of a "remote canteen" vs the romantic idea of a chef lovingly assembling a dish and carefully handing it to a courier. So my options are to do it myself or pay multiples.
- usrusr 4y ago
  That's all nice and well, and I'd go one step further: instead of door delivery, have the vehicle put down anchor (or some temporary vending-machine like container) at some pick-up spot in walkable distance. Great opportunity for WFH isolatees to connect. But that's all not an excuse to hide behind a fleet of faux-boutique identities. When you do that it's borderline scam. Or not borderline at all, once you accept that most of the money we spend on getting food cooked for is not about the calories and not even about the taste.
  - idontwantthis 4y ago
    Are you describing a diner?
aaron695 4y ago
chrisseaton 4y ago
> If the practice is distasteful, then change the law, but beware the lobbyists. Lobby to change the law but beware lobbying?
- ectopod 4y ago
  Not lobbying, lobbyists. lobbyist: A person who is paid to lobby politicians and encourage them to vote a certain way or otherwise use their office to effect a desired result. Emphasis on paid. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/lobbyist https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/lobbyist
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Yes you normally need to pay a lobbyist to lobby - because you need permission to access the lobbies. Lobbying isn’t a bad thing. Charities, unions, NGOs all lobby, and they use lobbyists to do it.
Ensorceled 4y ago
"New bad thing is similar to existing bad thing so we should consider it good" is a distressingly common argument.
maxerickson 4y ago
Ultimately the why not will be because the platforms won't tolerate it. Having a kitchen so bad that it doesn't want a reputation listed lots of times isn't helping their customers any.
- expensive_news 4y ago
  This is what baffles me the most. A few years ago I was ordering a fair amount off Postmates. One night I ordered something that was decently expensive. When it came the food looked nothing like the picture and was so bad it was borderline inedible. I threw it away in disbelief that a restaurant could possibly be this bad and after a bit of research I discovered that this wasn’t a ‘real’ restaurant - it’s one of these converted buildings that operate on a delivery only basis through the apps. I tried to complain to Postmates but they ignored me, gave me copy/paste e-mail responses and didn’t do anything. So I never used Postmates again, and likely never will. A lot of these businesses are run to try to make quick profits at the expense of establishing long-term trust and they will ultimately fail.
KingOfCoders 4y ago
I realized this with contact lens cleaners. Huge selection, very small number of vendors.
shp0ngle 4y ago
You will be glad to know that Unilever is also in the ghost kitchen business. https://www.icecreamshopus.com/ https://www.icecreamshopus.com/
sireat 4y ago
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi This applies to pretty much all areas of life: Food delivery, Web scraping, personal relationships, insider trading, nation building, you name it. Also intent/appearance of sincerity matters: "When Two Do The Same Thing, It Is Not The Same Thing After All."
wpietri 4y ago
I strongly disagree with the notion that anything profitable and technically legal is fine. The whole premise of this site is that words matter. That communities matter. That applies here too.
- pvillano 4y ago
  mosquitos evolved naturally, within the rules of the universe. doesn't mean they shouldn't be eradicated
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    This is jarringly orthogonal to the point you are replying to, did you mean to reply to another comment?
    - pvillano 4y ago
      it was a poorly explained parallel to "anything profitable and technically legal is fine."
  - wpietri 4y ago
    That is the naturalistic fallacy. What is natural doesn't tell us what's good, and vice versa. Blind, amoral evolution delivered us to the point where we can make moral judgments about evolution's results, especially as it pertains to human behavior. And on the basis of those judgements, we can make choices about how we treat one another.

spaceman_2020 4y ago

Its rampant across industries. Hotel chains have sub-brands, sometimes with suspiciously similar names. As far as industries go, the restaurant industry is probably one of the least consolidated in the world. For every chain restaurant, there are a dozen standalone restaurants.

bobthepanda 4y ago
This is because, where regulations allow, people will literally set up a small restaurant with two plastic yard tables and a open top grill. In the US that type of setup is pretty much illegal everywhere. Chains were becoming more prevalent, but recently we’ve basically gone back to the same model with a food truck, which is tiny and takes up a parking spot. Usually taking off the wheels is illegal though.
- bornfreddy 4y ago
  Cool, this is interesting... What makes the "two plastic yard tables and a open top grill" restaurant illegal? Sanitary requirements or some minimal size mandate? Otherwise I like the concept of food trucks, to me they are a perfect way for enthusiastic chefs to start their business with low(ish) money investment.
  - notsapiensatall 4y ago
    This sounds fun. Let's pick a state that is not known for onerous regulations...how about South Dakota? >Food employees must clean their hands in a handwashing lavatory and may not clean their hands in a sink used for food preparation or in a service sink or a curbed cleaning facility used for the disposal of mop water and similar liquid waste. >Food must be stored in a clean, dry location where it is not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination and is at least 15 centimeters (6 inches) above the floor >Sufficient refrigeration facilities or other effectively insulated facilities that are conveniently located must be provided to assure the maintenance of potentially hazardous food at required temperatures during storage. Each mechanically refrigerated facility storing potentially hazardous food must be provided with a numerically scaled indicating thermometer, accurate to ±1°C (2°F), located to measure air temperature in the warmest part of the facility. >Fruits and vegetables may be washed by using chemicals as specified in 21 C.F.R. 173.315, April 1, 1996. Any sink used to wash, prepare, store, or soak food must be indirectly connected to the sewer through an airbreak. >A ventilation hood system must be provided over all cooking equipment which produces steam, excessive smoke, grease vapors, or odors. >Perimeter walls and roof of a food establishment must effectively protect the establishment from the weather and the entry of insects, rodents, and other animals. It would be hard to meet those requirements with a grill and two tables, but the list goes on: https://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/Administrative/17361 https://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/Administrative/17361
    - throw1230 4y ago
      >Food employees must clean their hands in a handwashing lavatory and may not clean their hands in a sink used for food preparation or in a service sink or a curbed cleaning facility used for the disposal of mop water and similar liquid waste. So a restroom. >Food must be stored in a clean, dry location where it is not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination and is at least 15 centimeters (6 inches) above the floor. A shelf. >Sufficient refrigeration facilities or other effectively insulated facilities that are conveniently located must be provided to assure the maintenance of potentially hazardous food at required temperatures during storage. Each mechanically refrigerated facility storing potentially hazardous food must be provided with a numerically scaled indicating thermometer, accurate to ±1°C (2°F), located to measure air temperature in the warmest part of the facility. A fridge and a thermometer >Fruits and vegetables may be washed by using chemicals as specified in 21 C.F.R. 173.315, April 1, 1996. Any sink used to wash, prepare, store, or soak food must be indirectly connected to the sewer through an airbreak. This a U shaped a filter on the drain hose, you can self install and cost a few bucks. >A ventilation hood system must be provided over all cooking equipment which produces steam, excessive smoke, grease vapors, or odors. A hood a standard in every kitchen. >Perimeter walls and roof of a food establishment must effectively protect the establishment from the weather and the entry of insects, rodents, and other animals. Walls and a roof?. These are sanitary requirements but none of them are extra imo
      - emiliobumachar 4y ago
        A restroom that's practical for the cook to wash hands every single time is a lot harder then a nearby walk-to restroom. These add up fast.
      - bobthepanda 4y ago
        How many food trucks come with a restroom? Or 4 walls and a roof, assuming that’s required to cover a shelter? Or a connection to the sewer system (which sounds pretty tenuous for a food truck, you need to find a parking space with a open sewer connection?)
        4y ago
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    In the US any sort of restaurant establishment is most likely by zoning required to have some amount of parking. The cost of the land and asphalt for a parking space is $5-10k for a surface spot, $30k for an underground one. Two tables wouldn’t pay the interest rate on that, especially if multiple are required.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomByrer 4y ago
    Here in Kansas & I think MO people can sell things they cook at home. I know a caterer, baker & jelly canner who operate out of their home kitchens.
- mbg721 4y ago
  The food-trucks seem to be doing pretty well. Within a mile of where I live, there are at least two taco trucks and one barbeque truck, all permanently parked there.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    There are a couple of inherent downsides to the model, namely the cost of maintaining a working motor vehicle, and the impossibility of connecting it to electric or sewer (so they all run off pretty dirty diesel generators.)
swores 4y ago
Hotel sub-brands are often (usually?) to differentiate significantly in quality / service / price. I think it would be much more reasonable for a restaurant to decide they want to cater to both fast food and fine dining (or less extreme ends of the spectrum) and to offer two experiences under different brands, than to just chuck up different brands on top of basically the same thing.
- ghaff 4y ago
  >Hotel sub-brands are often (usually?) to differentiate significantly in quality / service / price. That's the idea anyway. There are also specific traveler personas that they target. For example, Courtyard was originally specifically designed for business travelers. Of course, a huge chain like Marriott has acquired other chains and many of its own brands have morphed over time for various reasons so a lot of the sub-brands end up looking pretty similar to each other. This isn't really hidden from consumers though. Certainly frequent travelers are well aware of the overarching company because of loyalty programs.

bhouston 4y ago

witeless brands inCanada is another example. Very often when you are comparison shopping for a cellphone plan you are just checking between the sub brands of 3 companies. No wonder the data plans in Canada are super expensive compared to everywhere else.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
It is the same in the US, and probably around the world. I do not see how it could be possible for more than 3 or 4 wireless networks to go around putting redundant towers up all around the country, especially big countries.
- neurostimulant 4y ago
  It's possible. Indonesia has 7 cellphone carriers with their own infrastructure, and I think 5 of them have national coverage. Used to be more but the number got reduced over time due to mergers and acquisition. I won't be surprised if there would be only 4 major carriers left soon if the largest ones continue acquiring smaller players, which is a bad news because cellular plans used to be very expensive when there were only 3 major carriers and these smaller players brought competition which drastically reduce prices of cellular plans.
  - mango7283 4y ago
    It's possible... But then you go on to describe how it's ending due to consolidation ;)
- gspr 4y ago
  You mandate that anyone who puts up a tower has to sell physical space and connectivity for base stations of competitors on those same towers at a fair price. Charging to recoup the cost of the infrastructure = ok. Charging more to force competitors out or to build their own, wholly redundant, towers = illegal.
  - scarface74 4y ago

JohnJamesRambo 4y ago

I guess we just hope and wish that a restaurant would have a "terroir" for a certain type of food or flavor they are good at or something authentic in any way. My soaps from Unilever will at least be different because the recipes are different, but something tells me those soups from that kitchen all taste the same.

867-5309 4y ago
>those soups from that kitchen all taste the same this got me thinking - the photos of the store fronts are basically garages, with few or no tables and chairs, and few or no delivery vehicles. you'd expect in a massive city with 24/7 food services, and a large surface area to nab unsuspecting customers, there to be a fleet of mopeds awaiting outside. but instead the address given is probably just where the businesses are registered. box ticked, nothing checked. the actual "kitchen" and delivery mechanism could be based anywhere. e.g. the nearest/dirtiest friend/family/gang member to the delivery address. are we to trust that the one running this scam adheres to food safety standards? or any standards for that matter

achow 4y ago

"Why not"?! There is couple of fundamental difference to Unilever example: 1. Similar sounding names to existing brand is trademark infringement. Here this particular entity is deliberately copying the restaurant names to mislead people into selecting them (when original restaurants are closed). 2. Assumption is Unilever creates different brands with same exacting manufacturing standards, and it stands behind them (packages will follow federal labeling guidelines). It is for A/B testing of brand collaterals (name, packaging graphics, colors, copy etc.). Here obviously that is not the case. It is very obvious that deception is the end goal, so really don't understand "why not" remark.

lovich 4y ago
>1. Similar sounding names to existing brand is trademark infringement. Here this particular entity is deliberately copying the restaurant names to mislead people into selecting them (when original restaurants are closed). Can you define that difference? Wingstop and Thighstop for instance are incredibly close and not enough to trigger regulatory enforcement. There is the side note that they are owned by the same entity, but do regulators know that for a fact before they decide no to enforce penalties for what you are claiming is trademark infringement? >2. Assumption is Unilever creates different brands with same exacting manufacturing standards, and it stands behind them (packages will follow federal labeling guidelines). It is for A/B testing of brand collaterals (name, packaging graphics, colors, copy etc.). Here obviously that is not the case. > Assumption is Unilever creates different brands with same exacting manufacturing standards... Where did this assumption come from? That's a claim without any backing as far as I am aware. Do you honestly believe they only make different brands because they are testing how the sound of the brands name affects sales? Nothing around compartmentalizing the risk of them causing some backlash by cutting corners or getting people ill, and the ability to just cut off that one brand rather than their entire product line? >It is very obvious that deception is the end goal, so really don't understand "why not" remark. It is literally the opposite to me. It feels like deception is the main goal unless they make the "Product of X Conglomerate" a larger part of the packaging than the brands label, and not the minimum size required by law, or if its legally allowed, omitted entirely from the label
- 4y ago

tamade 4y ago

That's not how CPG business models work. Unilever doesn't "churn out thousands of brands" to cannibalize their own portfolio. What they are doing is building brand equity and competing for sales and shelf space vs other CPG brands-- that costs a lot of money and takes years. The cloud kitchen model is more akin to putting lipstick on pigs...

Rumudiez 4y ago
What restaurants are doing is competing for sales and shelf space on online ordering sites

incompatible 4y ago

Another example is Luxottica for optometry.

jhbadger 4y ago
Although they are even worse because they are an example of "vertical integration" -- they own both the manufacturing of many of the major eyeglass frame brands as well as many of the chain eyeglass stores such as Lenscrafters and Pearle Vision as well as being the real owners of the optometry departments found in stores like Target and John Lewis.

alexvoda 4y ago

I propose a new and simple law: The branding of the parent entity must be more prominent than any subbrand on any packaging or promotional material.

nine_k 4y ago
There'd be no trouble opening a company per brand; the company would buy white-label products from Unilever and put its own brand, and market it.

otikik 4y ago

> If the practice is distasteful, then change the law Or, you know, use morals and conscience.

kevincox 4y ago
But some people don't have those so this is just unfairly disadvantaging the people who do. This is the same reason why murder us illegal even though most people wouldn't do it anyways.

scrollaway 4y ago

Maybe we should mandate that in labelling guidelines on consumer products, the name and logo of the ultimate parent owner of the company selling the product should be prominently featured alongside whatever the regular brand is. Many products already do it eg “TheThing: By TheParentCompany”. But yes maybe consumers should be aware who ultimately benefits from their purchase of a product, and easily be able to decide to buy more independent brands.

cpursley 4y ago
Can we so this with politicians, too? Make them wear patches of all their corporate sponsors like race car drivers?
- scrollaway 4y ago
  That is more about sponsorship disclosures. A better parallel would be with disclosure of paid or sponsored material on broadcasts. But yes, I’d be all for that. If a bill is drafted, all the entities that had input into that draft should be listed. If a politician gives a speech at the request of a compensating entity, that should be disclosed at the beginning: “This speech was paid for in part by Audible. More on them at the end of the speech”
- spaetzleesser 4y ago
  It’s more like publishing who actually wrote legislation. Often it’s lobbyists who write laws and politicians put their names on them.
gruez 4y ago
>the name and logo of the ultimate parent owner of the company selling the product should be prominently featured alongside whatever the regular brand is. How do you define "ultimate parent owner of the company"? In the case of Unilever, they own the brands directly, so it's straightforward to determine the "ultimate parent owner". But it's not hard to register a separate LLC for each brand, which makes the "ultimate parent owner" much murkier, especially if the LLC has weird ownership structures.

adhesive_wombat 4y ago

In theory, this is actually a functional service that can be useful. I hardly ever eat out because the cost and hassle compared to the food is far, far from being a reasonable trade to me. On a daily basis, I don't want "fancy" plates of food creations, just simple but fresh and relatively healthy food like I would (or, rather, do) make for myself. However, having a kitchen churning out fresh food, a bit like a canteen but with a delivery step (doesn't have to be direct, a "round" would work too as long as the food stays approximately fresh and arrives within a reasonable slot). There's no need for this to happen in a restaurant with tables and tills. The most efficient system is probably a big central kitchen and a bunch of electric delivery vehicles. The economies of scale that such an operation could bring over me buying a few portions at a time, slicing single cucumbers and heating my little oven or pans to cook a few items day in day out seem like they could plausibly be favourable to outweigh the downsides (cost of delivery, lack of control over the food ingredients, quality, portion size etc). Of course such a system, if it became dominant over others would probably very quickly fall victim to MBA syndrome as corners are cut and it ends up being school/prison slop (with a much much more expensive premium option that is basically what we already have). And I imagine people don't like the idea of a "remote canteen" vs the romantic idea of a chef lovingly assembling a dish and carefully handing it to a courier. So my options are to do it myself or pay multiples.

usrusr 4y ago
That's all nice and well, and I'd go one step further: instead of door delivery, have the vehicle put down anchor (or some temporary vending-machine like container) at some pick-up spot in walkable distance. Great opportunity for WFH isolatees to connect. But that's all not an excuse to hide behind a fleet of faux-boutique identities. When you do that it's borderline scam. Or not borderline at all, once you accept that most of the money we spend on getting food cooked for is not about the calories and not even about the taste.
- idontwantthis 4y ago
  Are you describing a diner?

aaron695 4y ago

chrisseaton 4y ago

> If the practice is distasteful, then change the law, but beware the lobbyists. Lobby to change the law but beware lobbying?

ectopod 4y ago
Not lobbying, lobbyists. lobbyist: A person who is paid to lobby politicians and encourage them to vote a certain way or otherwise use their office to effect a desired result. Emphasis on paid. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/lobbyist https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/lobbyist
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Yes you normally need to pay a lobbyist to lobby - because you need permission to access the lobbies. Lobbying isn’t a bad thing. Charities, unions, NGOs all lobby, and they use lobbyists to do it.

Ensorceled 4y ago

"New bad thing is similar to existing bad thing so we should consider it good" is a distressingly common argument.

maxerickson 4y ago

Ultimately the why not will be because the platforms won't tolerate it. Having a kitchen so bad that it doesn't want a reputation listed lots of times isn't helping their customers any.

expensive_news 4y ago
This is what baffles me the most. A few years ago I was ordering a fair amount off Postmates. One night I ordered something that was decently expensive. When it came the food looked nothing like the picture and was so bad it was borderline inedible. I threw it away in disbelief that a restaurant could possibly be this bad and after a bit of research I discovered that this wasn’t a ‘real’ restaurant - it’s one of these converted buildings that operate on a delivery only basis through the apps. I tried to complain to Postmates but they ignored me, gave me copy/paste e-mail responses and didn’t do anything. So I never used Postmates again, and likely never will. A lot of these businesses are run to try to make quick profits at the expense of establishing long-term trust and they will ultimately fail.

KingOfCoders 4y ago

I realized this with contact lens cleaners. Huge selection, very small number of vendors.

shp0ngle 4y ago

You will be glad to know that Unilever is also in the ghost kitchen business. https://www.icecreamshopus.com/ https://www.icecreamshopus.com/

sireat 4y ago

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi This applies to pretty much all areas of life: Food delivery, Web scraping, personal relationships, insider trading, nation building, you name it. Also intent/appearance of sincerity matters: "When Two Do The Same Thing, It Is Not The Same Thing After All."

wpietri 4y ago

I strongly disagree with the notion that anything profitable and technically legal is fine. The whole premise of this site is that words matter. That communities matter. That applies here too.

pvillano 4y ago
mosquitos evolved naturally, within the rules of the universe. doesn't mean they shouldn't be eradicated
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  This is jarringly orthogonal to the point you are replying to, did you mean to reply to another comment?
  - pvillano 4y ago
    it was a poorly explained parallel to "anything profitable and technically legal is fine."
- wpietri 4y ago
  That is the naturalistic fallacy. What is natural doesn't tell us what's good, and vice versa. Blind, amoral evolution delivered us to the point where we can make moral judgments about evolution's results, especially as it pertains to human behavior. And on the basis of those judgements, we can make choices about how we treat one another.