In the last decade, the foodservice and commercial real
estate industries have increasingly overlapped, especially as restaurant chains
falter under the weight of declining consumer relevance, rising operating
costs, and outdated models, according to Steven
Johnson Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice
Solutions®.
The key question facing investors today isn't whether the
struggling restaurant brand can be turned around—it often can't—but whether the
value lies in the locations themselves rather than the banner on the
front door. Examining food industry trends over the past ten years shows a
stark truth: most struggling restaurant brands are weak and stay weak, while
their prime locations remain an overlooked asset.
The Historical Picture: Floundering
Brands Stay Floundering
The narrative of restaurant brand failure isn't new. Over
the last decade, Sbarro, Friendly's, Quiznos, and Blimpie
are prime examples of brands once perceived as strong yet faltered due to –
among other reasons – poor management, lack of innovation, and a failure to
keep up with consumer dining preferences. For brands like these, even changes
in ownership failed to inspire enduring growth.
The harsh reality:
Most struggling brands don't possess the relevance to rebound. According to
Technomic's industry data, nearly 70% of restaurant brands that fall into
steep decline fail to regain market momentum, despite reorganization
efforts.
Why?
·
Consumer Migration: Customers are increasingly loyal to convenience, quality,
and value-driven competitors, such as fast-casual chains, grocerants, and
third-party meal delivery options.
·
Identity Loss: Brands too far removed from their original core identity
(think: inconsistent menus and uninspired innovations) lose emotional appeal.
·
Market Saturation: A once-beloved concept might fail not because it's
universally flawed, but because it became redundant among the dining landscape.
These brands remain locked in cycles of discounting and
‘revamped concepts’ that yield minor bumps but no sustained profitability. In
short: A bad brand doesn't age well.
The Power Is in the Locations
The locations that these struggling restaurants occupy,
however, tell a different story. While the banners above the doors fade, the
physical real estate remains a highly prized asset. Prime locations in areas of
strong foot traffic, suburban centers, and growing metropolitan corridors hold
value far beyond a legacy brand's diminished returns.
Consider this:
·
The National Restaurant Association
reported that 50% of restaurant visits over the last 5 years occur in
convenience-centric spots such as mixed-use developments or neighborhoods
experiencing demographic booms.
·
Well-positioned buildings with
drive-thru infrastructure remain particularly lucrative in the age of delivery
and off-premises dining, increasing value regardless of whether a restaurant
chain fails.
Key takeaway: Investors can often derive more profit from
the real estate redevelopment or repurposing of these spaces rather than
sinking funds into revitalizing a stagnant brand. A floundering concept may
only stand in the way of unlocking greater commercial potential.
Investor Pitfalls: The Skill Set
Problem
In many cases, groups acquiring struggling brands fail to
identify their weaknesses—either by overestimating their own ability to breathe
life into stale restaurant concepts or by ignoring emerging foodservice trends.
Two Major Realities:
1.
Lack of Operational
Expertise: Many buyers come from real estate,
finance, or outside sectors and lack the hands-on, forward-thinking expertise
to rejuvenate failing restaurants. A familiar name, historical familiarity, and
perceived nostalgia often trick investors into thinking a brand still holds
latent consumer appeal.
o Example: When Quiznos
franchises were acquired by investment groups, owners misread the consumer's
appetite for new, healthy QSR innovations, while Subway and Jimmy
John's surged ahead with agile branding strategies.
2.
Failure to Create
Consumer-Relevant Brands: Most struggling
brands falter precisely because they aren't meeting today's consumer
expectations. Acquiring firms without the vision to pivot to fresh, on-trend
dining models simply accelerate the brand's demise.
o Meanwhile, success stories like Sweetgreen, Shake
Shack, and Chipotle show how forward-thinking brands capitalize on
flavor innovation, pricing transparency, and frictionless delivery models.
In essence, many buyers fail to identify whether they're
truly purchasing a viable concept or merely saddling themselves with an
albatross.
Case Study Examples
·
Ruby Tuesday: Acquired several times over the last decade, Ruby
Tuesday's core weaknesses persisted—uninspired casual dining, bloated menus,
and neglected store upkeep. The high-value real estate that locations occupied
(near major retail hubs and suburban crossroads) became more valuable than
the brand itself. Buyers failed to capitalize on newer food trends,
accelerating its closure rate.
· Burger King Locations Redeveloped: In the wake of closures across declining markets, numerous Burger King franchises turned into profitable Starbucks or Chick-fil-A spots. Well-situated sites with high-volume traffic lived up to their potential, even when the Burger King banner had not.
The Future Outlook: Redevelop, Don't
Rescue
As restaurant industry competition intensifies and consumer
expectations evolve, underperforming restaurant brands will remain risky
purchases. However, for savvy buyers, the locations present strategic
advantages far exceeding their operational histories. When high-demand areas
meet physical spaces built for dining convenience—drive-thru, delivery access
points, and high-traffic areas—the opportunities multiply.
Consider this actionable framework for buyers:
1.
Prioritize Location
Metrics: Location value lies in high consumer
visibility and service capability, not in legacy nostalgia for old
brands.
2.
Redevelop for
Consumer Relevance: Convert failing locations into new
QSR concepts, mixed-use retail, or on-trend grocery partnerships (e.g., ghost
kitchens).
3.
Assess Market
Conditions Aggressively: Brands with sinking
operational metrics—plummeting comp sales, shrinking margins—indicate future
stagnation regardless of ownership.
Think About This: Real Estate Triumphs
Over Nostalgia
The last decade has cemented this fact: the restaurant
industry rarely rewards outdated concepts trying to claw their way back to
relevance. Many investors chase failed turnarounds for far too long—while
smarter players recognize the enduring value of prime real estate. Floundering
brands are risky ventures, but their locations can serve as fertile ground for
the next big concept.
Savvy investors don't ask whether they can revive an
underperforming chain. Instead, they ask: How much value can we unlock from
where that restaurant stands?
Invite Foodservice
Solutions® to complete a Grocerant ScoreCard, or for product positioning or
placement assistance, or call our Grocerant Guru®. Since 1991 Foodservice Solutions® of Tacoma, WA has been the global leader in the Grocerant niche.