Inflation Is Rewriting What’s for Dinner: Why Grocery Stores, Convenience Stores and Restaurants Must Rethink Value Before Consumers Walk Away

Inflation is not simply a pricing problem. It is a relevance problem, a meal-planning problem and, increasingly, a battle for the consumer’s next food dollar according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® and Founder of Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

Numerator’s September 2026 Consumer Goods Price Index (CGPI) delivers a warning that every grocery retailer, convenience-store operator and restaurant executive should take seriously: consumers are still paying substantially more for everyday purchases than they did just a few years ago, and the burden is not distributed equally across generations or income groups.

According to Numerator, everyday household goods prices increased 0.7% in September after declining 0.2% in August and 0.4% in July. Prices were up 2.1% year over year and had climbed 34% since January 2018.

Those numbers matter. But the most consequential finding for food retailers is this: quick-service restaurant prices have increased 53.3% since January 2018, compared with a 34% increase across the overall consumer basket.

That is a 19.3-percentage-point difference in cumulative price growth.

For consumers trying to answer the daily question, “What’s for Dinner?”, the economics of convenience are changing. A meal purchased at a drive-thru, a prepared entrée from a grocery deli, a ready-to-eat convenience-store offering or a restaurant takeout order may all compete for the same household food dollar.

Consumers do not necessarily see separate industry categories. They see dinner, a price, the portion, the flavor, the convenience and whether the purchase was worth it.

That is the Grocerant opportunity—and the competitive threat.

The inflation numbers tell only part of the story

Numerator reports that prices for everyday household goods have risen 34% since January 2018. For low-income consumers, the increase is 36%. For Gen Z consumers, it is 40.8%.

Gen Z has therefore experienced cumulative price growth 6.8 percentage points above the national average. Low-income consumers are 2 percentage points above that average.

The differences become more concerning when the September year-over-year figures are considered. Gen Z experienced 3.1% inflation, compared with 2.1% nationally.

Meanwhile, 39.6% of consumers surveyed by Numerator identified rising prices as their top concern for the coming year, approaching the August record of 40.5%.

These figures challenge the comfortable assumption that slowing inflation automatically restores consumer confidence. A slower rate of price increases does not reverse previous increases. When the price level remains high, shoppers must continue making trade-offs.

Numerator Senior Economist Paul Stanley also reported that wage growth slowed to 3% in September, its weakest pace in more than five years, and remained slightly below broader inflation for a fifth consecutive month.

There is an important distinction here. Numerator says everyday consumer goods inflation was 2.1% year over year, below the reported 3% wage-growth rate. That offers some relief in that category. But wage growth, overall inflation and household purchasing power are not interchangeable measures, and gains in one category do not guarantee relief across rent, utilities, transportation, insurance and foodservice spending.

For the food industry, the practical question is not whether a headline inflation rate looks better. It is whether the next meal delivers enough perceived value to earn the purchase.

Why the 53.3% increase in quick-service restaurant prices matters

Quick-service restaurants have long sold more than food. They sell time, accessibility, familiarity and freedom from meal preparation.

But a 53.3% cumulative increase in QSR prices since January 2018 puts pressure on that proposition.

When the price of a restaurant meal rises faster than the broader consumer basket, customers have greater reason to compare alternatives, reconsider add-ons, skip beverages or desserts, buy fewer restaurant meals or assemble dinner from several retailers.

These are possible consumer responses, not outcomes established by the CGPI figures alone. Nevertheless, they represent risks that foodservice operators should test against their own transaction, menu-mix and repeat-purchase data.

A grocery deli can compete with a burger chain without becoming a restaurant. A convenience store can compete with a quick-service breakfast outlet without duplicating its entire menu. A restaurant can compete with a grocery-prepared meal by offering a more compelling combination of flavor, portion, speed and price.

The competition is increasingly about the meal occasion rather than the traditional industry label.

Grocery stores: The prepared-food opportunity—and the execution risk

Grocery retailers already have an advantage: consumers visit their stores to buy food for the household. Fresh-prepared meals and meal components can turn that trip into an immediate dinner solution.

But having a deli counter does not automatically make a grocery store relevant at 5:30 p.m.

Two risks stand out:

1. A price gap that makes the prepared meal difficult to justify. If a family sees a prepared entrée, two sides and a beverage costing more than its perceived value, it may return to ingredients, frozen meals or another retailer. Grocery operators must compare complete meal costs, not just the price of an individual entrée.

2. A failure to make dinner easy to assemble. A consumer who must search across departments for a protein, vegetable, starch and sauce is still doing the planning work. Clearly priced meal bundles, mix-and-match components, portion options and convenient packaging can reduce that friction.

The grocery deli should not simply ask, “What prepared food can we sell?” It should ask, “Which part of tonight’s dinner can we make easier, more affordable and more appealing?”

Convenience stores: Convenience must include food value

Convenience stores are well positioned to capture breakfast, lunch, snacks and selected dinner occasions. They offer accessible locations, extended hours and opportunities to purchase food while fueling a commute or running an errand.

However, convenience alone is not an unlimited license to charge more.

1. Premium pricing without a distinctive product. If a sandwich, pizza slice or hot snack costs more than a comparable alternative but offers no meaningful advantage in flavor, freshness, portion or speed, the customer has little reason to return.

2. A narrow assortment that misses the meal. Consumers looking for dinner may want a protein, a complementary side and a beverage rather than a single snack. Operators that develop coordinated meal combinations, recognizable price points and dependable availability have a better opportunity to capture the full occasion.

The challenge is to move beyond selling individual convenience foods and toward offering convenient meal solutions.

Restaurants: Menu engineering must go beyond raising prices

Restaurants face a difficult balancing act. Labor, occupancy, ingredients and other operating costs can pressure margins, but repeated price increases can weaken the perceived value that brings customers back.

1. Higher menu prices can expose weak differentiation. If customers cannot explain why a restaurant is worth the premium, its brand promise may not withstand comparison with grocery-prepared meals, convenience-store food or another restaurant.

2. Menu complexity can undermine the value proposition. Too many items, inconsistent execution and poorly designed combinations can make ordering slower and costs harder to control. A focused menu with distinctive flavors, appropriate portions and well-designed meal bundles may offer a stronger value proposition than indiscriminate discounting.

Restaurants need to protect profitability while giving consumers a compelling reason to choose them. Price increases alone are not a customer-retention strategy.

The intersection of meals, menus and “What’s for Dinner?”

The most important competitive shift may be the one that traditional industry reporting obscures.

A grocery store thinks in departments. A convenience store thinks in missions and transactions. A restaurant thinks in menu categories and dayparts.

Consumers think about what they want to eat, how much they want to spend, who they are feeding and how much time they have.

That difference creates the Grocerant marketplace: fresh-prepared and ready-to-eat meals, snacks and beverages competing across grocery, convenience, restaurant, takeout and delivery channels.

The winning operator may not be the one with the largest menu or the lowest individual price. It may be the one that makes it easiest for the consumer to build a satisfying meal at a price that feels fair.

Consider three practical applications:

·       Build the meal, not just the basket. Pair an entrée with complementary sides and beverages, while allowing customers to substitute components and control spending.

·       Make flavor discovery affordable. Introduce distinctive sauces, seasonings, regional flavors and limited-time offerings in accessible portions so customers can experiment without committing to an expensive full meal.

·       Make the value visible. Communicate portion size, ingredients, convenience, meal combinations and total cost clearly. A discount that is difficult to understand is a weaker selling proposition than an easy-to-recognize meal solution.

In a market where consumers are actively weighing alternatives, every component can influence the final purchase. The entrée may attract the customer, the side may complete the meal, the beverage may increase satisfaction and the total price may determine whether the transaction happens at all.

That is why menu strategy, merchandising, packaging and price communication must work together.

From Baby Boomers to Gen Z: One inflation story, different meal decisions

Generational categories can help marketers frame hypotheses, but they should not be mistaken for uniform consumer behaviors. Numerator's reported inflation differences establish a clear result for Gen Z; they do not establish that every generation behaves the same way or that age alone explains food purchasing decisions.

Retailers should use generation as a starting point, then validate the conclusions against actual household, transaction and menu data.

Baby Boomers: Value, trust and manageable portions

Example 1: The meal that feels wasteful. A large restaurant combo may be unattractive to a customer who wants a smaller portion. Grocery delis and restaurants can offer appropriately sized entrées, half portions where practical and flexible side choices.

Example 2: Paying for convenience without receiving it. A prepared meal that is difficult to identify, order or carry may disappoint a customer who values straightforward service. Clear pricing, legible merchandising, dependable quality and easy-to-understand meal combinations can improve the experience.

These are testable opportunities, not claims that all Boomers prefer smaller meals or share the same service expectations.

Generation X: Household budgets and time pressure

Example 1: Dinner must work for multiple people. A household may need to accommodate different appetites and preferences without buying separate expensive meals. Family bundles and mix-and-match entrées can make the total cost easier to manage.

Example 2: Convenience loses value when it creates another task. A meal requiring extra preparation, multiple stops or complicated ordering may fail to solve the problem that prompted the purchase. Retailers can test ready-to-heat combinations, online ordering and reliable pickup against actual repeat-purchase rates.

Millennials: Convenience, flexibility and price transparency

Example 1: Delivery fees can change the decision. A meal that appears affordable on a menu may become less attractive after delivery charges, service fees and tips. Restaurants should communicate total costs early and offer pickup or direct-order bundles where appropriate.

Example 2: A single meal occasion can cross retail channels. A consumer may buy a prepared entrée from a grocery deli, add a fresh side and finish with a restaurant beverage or snack. Retailers that make complementary components easy to find can compete for more of that occasion.

Millennials should not be treated as a single lifestyle segment. Household composition, income, location and work schedules can matter as much as generation.

Generation Z: The strongest inflation warning in Numerator’s data

Gen Z is the most clearly exposed generation in the supplied figures: cumulative everyday-goods inflation of 40.8% since January 2018 and year-over-year growth of 3.1% in September 2026.

Example 1: The familiar quick-service meal becomes harder to justify. With QSR prices up 53.3% since January 2018, a young consumer watching available spending may reconsider add-ons, reduce visits or look for a grocery or convenience-store alternative. Operators should test entry-level meals and smaller, distinctive products rather than assuming the consumer will keep paying more.

Example 2: A low advertised price may not produce a repeat customer. An inexpensive item can generate trial, but poor portion value, inconsistent quality or a lack of flavor distinction can prevent repeat purchases. Retailers should measure repeat transactions and total meal spend, not just promotion-driven traffic.

Numerator's data also suggest that Gen Z's inflation experience is partly associated with greater QSR spending. That is an important finding, but it does not prove that restaurant spending is the sole cause of the group's higher inflation or that all Gen Z consumers have identical budgets.

Low-income households: The pressure cuts across generations

Income deserves separate attention because it can affect consumers at every age.

Example 1: Trading down can change the channel. A household may move from a restaurant dinner to a grocery-prepared entrée, a value-priced convenience-store meal or a combination of items prepared at home. Operators need to understand which occasions they can retain through price points and meal flexibility.

Example 2: Small price differences can determine the whole purchase. A customer comparing several dinner options may choose the one that provides enough food for everyone, even if another option offers a more premium ingredient or brand. Transparent meal pricing, practical portions and affordable add-ons can help retailers remain in consideration.

Numerator reports a 36% cumulative increase in everyday household-goods prices for low-income consumers since January 2018. That is evidence of a greater cumulative inflation burden, not proof that every low-income shopper has traded down or stopped buying restaurant food.

The marketing lesson across all generations is straightforward: segment by behavior, budget and meal occasion as well as age. Demographics can help identify opportunities; transaction data must establish what actually works.

What retailers should measure before changing their strategy

The CGPI provides an important external signal, but it is not a substitute for a retailer's own operating data. Numerator says the index covers approximately 20% of the consumption basket captured by the broader Personal Consumption Expenditures price index and closely tracks the PCE Food & Beverage index.

That makes it a useful indicator of consumer price experience. It does not mean the index directly measures every restaurant meal, grocery-deli transaction or convenience-store purchase.

Retailers should pair the inflation signal with five measures:

1.       Transaction frequency: Are customers visiting less often?

2.       Units and meal components per transaction: Are they dropping sides, beverages or desserts?

3.       Average transaction value versus transaction count: Is revenue growth coming from higher prices rather than stronger demand?

4.       Repeat-purchase rates: Do trial and promotions produce lasting customer behavior?

5.       Complete-meal affordability: How does the total cost of a satisfying dinner compare across the retailer's own offerings and credible alternatives?

These measures help separate inflation-driven revenue from genuine customer growth. A higher average check can disguise fewer transactions or a shrinking number of items per basket. Conversely, a well-designed meal bundle can improve perceived value while helping protect profitable sales.

The objective is not to win every price comparison. It is to understand the occasions that matter, establish a compelling value proposition and earn the next purchase.

Three Grocerant Guru® Insights

1. Follow the consumer's meal, not your industry's boundaries. Grocery stores, convenience stores and restaurants compete for overlapping food occasions. Consumers can switch channels whenever price, flavor, portion or convenience changes the equation. Build strategies around “What's for Dinner?” rather than assuming customers will remain loyal to a traditional retail category.

2. Make value tangible before raising the price. Consumers need to see what they receive for their money: a satisfying portion, distinctive flavor, dependable quality, convenient packaging and a fair total price. Use mix-and-match meal components, accessible entry prices and transparent bundles to protect relevance without relying exclusively on discounting.

3. Evolve with the economics of every generation—or risk losing market share. Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z do not share identical needs, but every group can reconsider a purchase when the value equation breaks down. Test offers against actual transaction and repeat-purchase data, refine menus and merchandising, and adapt quickly when customer behavior changes.

The bottom line: Inflation may be moderating in some categories, but the accumulated cost of everyday living continues to shape the dinner decision. The operators that recognize the intersection of meals, menus, price and convenience—and make it easier for consumers to solve “What's for Dinner?”—will be better positioned to earn repeat business. Those that depend on legacy habits, automatic loyalty or price increases without a stronger value proposition risk surrendering sales to competitors that understand the consumer's changing needs.

Tap into the Foodservice Solutions® team for greater understanding of New Electricity or for a Grocerant Program Assessment, Grocerant ScoreCard, or for product positioning or placement assistance, or call our Grocerant Guru®.  Since 1991 www.FoodserviceSolutions.us of Tacoma, WA has been the global leader in the Grocerant niche. Contact: Steve@FoodserviceSolutions.us or 253-759-7869 

Wendy’s Franchise Fight Raises a Bigger Question: Why Aren’t Franchisees Fighting Harder to Make the Brand Relevant Again?

 

A franchise agreement should be more than a license to display a familiar logo. It should be an investment in a brand that continually earns consumer attention, delivers compelling food, justifies its price, and gives customers a reason to return according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® Founder, at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

Yet the Chapter 11 battle involving Wendy’s and one of its largest franchisees, Meritage Hospitality Group, raises a question that reaches well beyond bankruptcy court: Why are franchisees spending so much energy fighting over which restaurants to close when the industry needs an equally serious fight over how to make the restaurants worth visiting in the first place?

According to the supplied report, Meritage entered Chapter 11 after a difficult financial period, with additional restaurant closures under consideration and a dispute with Wendy’s over franchise terminations, potential damages, and which underperforming locations should shut down. Meritage’s restructuring team argues that keeping deeper-loss restaurants open undermines the purpose of its closure program. Wendy’s, meanwhile, argues that its preferred closures would better serve the overall restaurant portfolio.

Both parties have financial arguments to make. But from the perspective of the Grocerant Guru®, the larger strategic issue is what happens when a legacy brand’s consumer proposition fails to generate enough sales to support the economics of the franchise system.

Closing restaurants can reduce losses. It does not, by itself, rebuild consumer relevance.

The real question is whether franchisors and franchisees are working together aggressively enough to create more reasons for consumers to choose the brand, more often, at a price they believe is worth paying.

The numbers tell a story beyond bankruptcy

The figures in the supplied report illustrate the challenge facing Meritage and the broader strategic question facing Wendy’s.

The report states that Meritage was closing 41 additional restaurants across five groups, following 60 earlier closures. The 41 locations in the current closure process reportedly averaged $1.15 million in annual sales while losing approximately $127,000 per restaurant over the preceding 12 months.

Wendy’s proposed alternative list reportedly averaged $1.07 million in annual sales and lost approximately $114,000 per restaurant over the same period. The report also puts Wendy’s national average annual restaurant sales at approximately $2 million through 2025.

Those figures are reported numbers, not independently audited conclusions presented here. Nevertheless, the gap deserves attention.

If the figures are comparable, the restaurants under discussion are generating substantially less revenue than the reported systemwide average. That is a signal to investigate location economics, local competition, operating execution, consumer demand, and the strength of the brand proposition in each market.

The figures alone do not prove that Wendy’s brand messaging, food, pricing, or service caused those restaurants to underperform. Restaurant-level results can also reflect occupancy costs, labor expenses, traffic patterns, management, competition, and other market-specific factors.

But the strategic question remains: When a restaurant generates substantially less sales than the system average, what is the plan to make it more relevant to the consumer before the only remaining plan is to close it?

That question deserves just as much attention as the closure schedule.

1. Brand messaging: Familiarity is not the same as relevance

Wendy’s has a recognizable brand, a distinctive square hamburger, a long-standing fresh-beef message, and a history of irreverent advertising. Those are assets. But legacy brand equity is not a permanent guarantee of consumer preference.

Consumers do not buy a brand’s history. They buy what the brand delivers today.

Wendy’s own management acknowledged the need for change when it introduced Project Fresh on October 9, 2025. The plan called for strengthening brand positioning, improving marketing effectiveness, assessing the U.S. restaurant system, elevating the customer experience, and prioritizing average unit volume growth. The company specifically identified a need to connect more effectively with the next generation of customers..

That announcement is significant. It demonstrates that brand relevance and restaurant productivity are not simply complaints raised by struggling franchisees; they are issues Wendy’s corporate leadership has publicly identified as priorities.

The performance numbers add urgency. Wendy’s reported U.S. same-restaurant sales declined 5.6% for full-year 2025, following growth of 1.4% in 2024 and 3.7% in 2023. U.S. franchised restaurant average unit volume also declined, from approximately $2.086 million in 2024 to $1.984 million in 2025..

These results do not establish that advertising or messaging alone caused the decline. They do establish that a recognized national brand experienced a meaningful reversal in sales momentum.

The question for franchisees is straightforward: Are they getting the brand-building, marketing, menu innovation, and customer traffic support they need to compete effectively in their own markets?

Franchisees should demand measurable answers, not simply more promotional calendars.

They should ask corporate leadership to demonstrate which campaigns generate incremental visits, which messages convert younger customers, which promotions bring in new customers rather than discount existing purchases, and which marketing investments produce sustainable increases in restaurant-level sales.

A franchisee paying royalties and contributing to marketing funds should expect more than brand awareness. The objective is to generate profitable transactions.

2. Product: Does the menu fit the way consumers eat today?

The burger business has changed. Consumers still buy burgers, but they also compare chicken, snacks, beverages, breakfast, customizable meals, delivery options, and food that fits a particular occasion.

That is where the Grocerant Guru® perspective becomes important. Consumers increasingly construct meals across multiple channels and formats. A restaurant is not competing only with the burger restaurant across the street. It competes with convenience stores, supermarket prepared foods, delivery platforms, and other destinations offering quick, portable meal solutions.

The National Restaurant Association's 2025 off-premises research reported that nearly 75% of restaurant traffic occurred off-premises, including takeout, delivery, and drive-thru occasions. Its research also identified convenience, quality, and price as important considerations when customers choose off-premises meals..

That is a major consumer behavior signal. A brand must deliver more than a recognizable product. It must make the product easy to purchase, transport, eat, and justify economically.

Wendy’s has taken steps in this direction. In February 2025, the company outlined plans to expand chicken and beverage offerings, strengthen its Biggie Bag value platform, improve loyalty engagement, and continue breakfast innovation. Restaurant Dive reported that Wendy’s SpongeBob-themed Krabby Patty promotion produced a 20% same-store sales lift at its peak, according to company commentary.

That promotion offers an important lesson: a distinctive product-and-marketing combination can generate a measurable traffic response. It does not prove that every promotion will work or that the effect will persist after the promotion ends. It does show why franchisees should insist on a pipeline of relevant products and compelling reasons to visit.

Three product questions franchisees should push corporate leadership to answer:

·       Which menu innovations produce repeat purchases and incremental traffic, rather than a brief promotional spike?

·       How quickly can local operators test products that respond to regional tastes, emerging meal occasions, and competitive gaps?

·       Does the menu offer enough flexibility for consumers seeking affordable combinations, portable snacks, chicken, breakfast, and beverages throughout the day?

A franchisee should not have to accept a stagnant consumer proposition simply because the brand has a famous hamburger.

3. Price: Value is what customers receive, not just what they pay

Price competition is unavoidable. But discounting without a clear value proposition can weaken margins while failing to build loyalty.

The National Restaurant Association's 2025 industry outlook found that 47% of limited-service customers said their dining experience mattered more than price. The same report said 47% of restaurant operators planned to introduce new discounts, deals, or value promotions to attract traffic.

These findings point to a tension: affordability matters, but price is not the entire experience.

For Wendy’s, the challenge is to communicate why its food deserves the customer's money while offering price points that make sense for different budgets and occasions. A value meal must feel like a genuine solution, not a complicated calculation involving add-ons, app restrictions, or an offer that disappears before the customer can use it.

This is where franchisees should demand a better balance between national promotional strategy and local restaurant economics.

A corporate offer can produce more transactions and still leave the franchisee with insufficient incremental profit if food costs, labor, discounts, and transaction mix are not properly accounted for. Conversely, a well-designed combination can improve perceived value, increase attachment rates, and encourage customers to purchase more than a single item.

Franchisees should insist that promotional evaluations include:

·       Incremental transactions and repeat visits.

·       Average check and food-cost impact.

·       Profit contribution after discounts and labor.

·       New-customer acquisition versus subsidizing existing purchases.

·       Performance by daypart, market, and customer segment.

The objective should be to grow profitable unit sales, not simply to advertise a low price or defend market share.

4. Service: The promise is made at the drive-thru window

Brand messaging creates an expectation. Product delivers the promise. Price frames the value. Service determines whether the customer wants to repeat the experience.

A national advertising campaign cannot compensate indefinitely for inaccurate orders, inconsistent food, long waits, or an unfriendly interaction.

Wendy’s itself placed customer experience and operational execution among the priorities in its Project Fresh plan. Its investor-day strategy also emphasized more consistent execution, digital convenience, and improved hospitality..

That matters because service is not merely an expense to manage. It is part of the product the customer buys.

Franchisees should push for store-level reporting that connects speed, order accuracy, food quality, customer complaints, digital ordering, and repeat visits. They should also have a voice in determining whether corporate initiatives make operations easier or add complexity during already difficult service periods.

Three practical tests should be applied to every major operating change:

1.       Does it make ordering easier for the customer?

2.       Does it help employees deliver a more consistent experience?

3.       Does it increase repeat business or profitable transactions enough to justify the cost?

If the answer is no, the system should reconsider the change.

The important point is not to demand fewer standards. It is to demand standards that improve the customer experience and the economics of the restaurant together.

5. Why don't more franchisees demand a growth strategy?

The Meritage dispute illustrates a fundamental imbalance in franchising. Operators may invest their capital, hire employees, manage local execution, pay occupancy and operating costs, and absorb the consequences when customer traffic weakens. The franchisor controls important parts of the brand identity, national advertising, menu direction, franchise standards, and systemwide strategy.

That division of responsibility can create tension when results deteriorate.

In Meritage's case, the supplied report describes a legal fight over termination, approximately $147 million in asserted claims, and competing views about which restaurants should close. Those claims and the parties' legal positions remain disputed; they should not be mistaken for final judicial findings.

But the broader lesson is clear: Franchisees need a stronger voice in the strategic decisions that determine whether their restaurants can succeed.

Why should operators settle for defending their share of a shrinking or stagnant market when they could demand a credible plan to expand consumer demand?

Market share is not the same as market growth. A brand can maintain its share while the category weakens. It can also gain share while individual restaurants struggle with unprofitable sales, excessive costs, or poor local execution.

The better measure is whether the brand is winning more relevant occasions, increasing repeat visits, and generating sustainable average unit volume and restaurant-level profitability.

Franchisees should organize around common business objectives rather than waiting until financial distress forces them into individual disputes. Within their contractual and legal rights, they can press for transparent performance reporting, franchisee advisory participation, evidence-based marketing tests, product-development input, and clear accountability for systemwide growth initiatives.

They should also ask corporate leadership to report progress against measurable goals, including:

·       Same-store sales and transaction growth.

·       Average unit volume by comparable market and restaurant cohort.

·       Customer satisfaction, order accuracy, and service speed.

·       New-product trial and repeat-purchase performance.

·       Promotional return on investment and franchisee profitability.

·       Digital engagement that converts into profitable visits and orders.

Not every weak restaurant can be saved. Some locations have structural disadvantages that no campaign can overcome. Nor should a franchisor be expected to preserve every unit regardless of its economics.

But closing restaurants should be part of a comprehensive strategy, not a substitute for one.

The goal should be to distinguish restaurants that need operational improvement, restaurants that need a stronger consumer proposition, restaurants that need local market repositioning, and restaurants that genuinely need to close.

That is a much more useful conversation than arguing only over which locations disappear first.

The Grocerant Guru® bottom line: Fight for relevance, not just survival

Wendy’s has publicly acknowledged the need to strengthen brand positioning, improve the customer experience, and increase average unit volume. Its reported 2025 U.S. same-store sales decline demonstrates why those priorities matter.

For franchisees, the Meritage situation is a reminder that contractual rights and financial restructuring are important, but they cannot replace consumer demand.

The brand they bought must continue to earn its place in the consumer's consideration set. It must communicate a relevant promise, deliver compelling food, provide credible value, and make the experience worth repeating.

Franchisees should not accept market share as the ultimate measure of success. They should push for a brand that grows transactions, strengthens customer loyalty, and improves unit economics.

Three Grocerant Guru® Insights

1. Relevance drives the visit; value helps close the sale.

Consumers do not owe a legacy brand their loyalty. They reward brands that meet current needs with the right food, price, convenience, and experience. Franchisees should demand evidence that marketing investments turn relevance into repeat purchases and profitable sales.

2. A closure plan is not a consumer-growth plan.

Closing money-losing restaurants may be necessary, but it does not answer why consumers are choosing competitors. Every turnaround should distinguish between a bad location, poor execution, an outdated offer, and a brand that is losing relevance in a particular market.

3. Franchisees bought a business opportunity, not a museum piece.

A legacy brand's history is an asset only when it helps attract today's customers. Franchisees should push harder for better products, sharper messaging, credible pricing, stronger service, and measurable unit-sales growth. The objective is not merely to defend a share of the market. It is to make the brand more relevant to an evolving consumer and grow the business profitably.

Steven Johnson is the Grocerant Guru® and founder of Tacoma, Washington-based Foodservice Solutions®. His perspective focuses on the convergence of restaurants, grocery prepared foods, convenience retail, and evolving consumer meal occasions.