Pizza’s Next Battle: Scale, Sales, Customer Frequency and the Toppings Consumers Crave

 

When you’re hungry for pizza, what makes you choose one over another—and what makes you come back? Is it the toppings you crave, the quality you can taste, the price that fits your budget, or the convenience of getting dinner on the table without another hassle?

Smithfield Culinary’s new research suggests consumers have strong opinions: 46% say toppings matter most, and 79% have gone out of their way to try a particular pizza. That tells the pizza business something important: consumers aren’t just buying a pie; they’re choosing an experience they believe is worth their money, time and appetite.

For national chains, neighborhood pizzerias, grocery delis and convenience stores alike, the challenge is clear: What makes your pizza the one consumers want tonight—and the one they choose again tomorrow?

From the perspective of the Grocerant Guru®, pizza's next chapter will be shaped by the intersection of brand scale, average unit volume, customer frequency, ingredient quality, convenience, portability and perceived value. Operators that connect those elements to evolving consumer expectations will be better positioned to capture the next meal occasion.

1. The Seven Pizza Chains: Size, Sales and Average Unit Volume

Understanding the competitive landscape requires looking at more than the number of locations. Systemwide sales indicate total sales generated across a chain's restaurant network, while average unit volume (AUV) measures average annual sales per location. Neither figure, on its own, reveals profitability or customer loyalty.

Industry reporting from the 2026 QSR 50 and PMQ's 2025 Pizza Power Report provides a basis for comparing major U.S. pizza chains. The figures below reflect different reporting sources and dates, so they should be treated as an industry snapshot rather than a perfectly standardized ranking.

Seven major pizza chains

1. Domino's

·       Reported U.S. systemwide sales: $9.953 billion.

·       Reported average unit volume: $1.385 million.

·       Reported U.S. locations: 7,186.

Domino's leads this group in reported U.S. sales and AUV. Its combination of digital ordering, delivery, carryout and national brand recognition supports a high-volume operating model. The challenge is to keep translating convenience and familiarity into repeat orders as consumers face changing budgets and more prepared-food choices.

2. Pizza Hut

·       Reported U.S. systemwide sales: $5.094 billion.

·       Reported average unit volume: $808,000.

·       Reported U.S. locations: 6,307.

Pizza Hut retains a substantial national footprint. However, reported unit declines and lower AUV than Domino's make restaurant productivity and the performance of existing locations important issues. A large footprint is an advantage only when locations continue to meet consumer expectations and generate sustainable sales.

3. Little Caesars

·       Estimated U.S. systemwide sales: approximately $3.700 billion.

·       Estimated average unit volume: approximately $950,000.

·       Reported U.S. locations: 4,374.

Little Caesars competes through affordability, convenience and a recognizable value proposition. Its larger location count relative to Papa John's demonstrates that a chain can build scale around a different combination of price, service and customer expectations.

4. Papa John's

·       Estimated U.S. systemwide sales: approximately $3.702 billion.

·       Estimated average unit volume: approximately $1.124 million.

·       Reported U.S. locations: 3,294.

Papa John's has fewer reported locations than Little Caesars but higher estimated AUV. That distinction illustrates why unit count alone is not an adequate measure of competitive strength. Sales productivity, average order value, operating costs and customer frequency all matter.

The reported sales estimates for Papa John's and Little Caesars are nearly identical, so the small difference should not be interpreted as a meaningful competitive gap.

5. Marco's Pizza

·       Reported U.S. systemwide sales: $1.094 billion.

·       Reported average unit volume: $832,000.

·       Reported U.S. locations: 1,184.

Marco's represents an important middle-market competitor. It has a smaller footprint than the four largest chains but enough scale to compete nationally. Its opportunity is to combine recognizable brand positioning with product differentiation and local execution.

6. Papa Murphy's

·       Reported U.S. locations: approximately 1,127 in the cited location ranking.

·       Comparable systemwide sales and AUV: not established in the cited figures.

Papa Murphy's take-and-bake model serves a different meal occasion from conventional delivery and carryout. Consumers finish preparing the pizza at home, allowing the brand to compete for the family dinner occasion through a different service model.

7. Godfather's Pizza

·       Reported U.S. locations: approximately 583 in the cited location ranking.

·       Comparable systemwide sales and AUV: not established in the cited figures.

Godfather's Pizza remains a recognizable competitor with a smaller footprint than the leading national chains. Its position reinforces the importance of distinguishing between national scale and the ability to maintain relevance within particular markets.

The sales and AUV figures above draw on the 2026 QSR 50 and PMQ's 2025 Pizza Power Report. Because reporting dates, estimates and location definitions can vary, the figures for these seven brands should not be interpreted as a single, audited ranking across every measure.

What about customer frequency?

Customer frequency is a critical part of pizza economics, but public information does not provide a consistent, current, apples-to-apples frequency ranking for all seven chains.

Industry surveys have reported that Americans consume pizza several times a month. Those category-level figures demonstrate pizza's recurring role in the American diet, but they do not establish how frequently customers visit a particular chain.

For operators, that distinction matters. A chain can increase AUV through more frequent orders, larger baskets, higher prices or a combination of these factors.

Without customer-level frequency, average ticket, repeat-purchase and retention data, sales figures alone cannot explain the complete consumer story.

The Grocerant Guru® perspective is straightforward: measure how often customers return, not just how many locations you operate.

2. Smithfield Culinary's Findings: Seven Food Marketing Signals

Smithfield Culinary's Guest Check survey, conducted among 2,000 U.S. adults who order restaurant pizza at least monthly, examines what consumers say makes a great pizza. The findings provide useful direction for menu development and marketing, although stated preferences do not automatically translate into purchases or repeat visits.

Here is my assessment of seven important food marketing signals in the findings.

1. Toppings are the leading product differentiator

Forty-six percent of respondents identify toppings as the most important component of a great pizza. Crust ranks first for 30%, sauce for 13%, and cheese for 11%.

Grocerant Guru® rating: A

This is a strong menu-development signal. Toppings give operators an opportunity to create recognizable signature products, limited-time offers and premium combinations without rebuilding an entire menu.

However, the other 54% remind operators that toppings are not everyone's first priority. Crust quality, sauce and cheese remain essential parts of the product experience.

2. Ingredient quality beats piling on more

Thirty-seven percent of respondents prioritize topping quality, compared with 18% who prioritize quantity.

Grocerant Guru® rating: A

This is an important value proposition. Consumers do not necessarily want the heaviest pizza; they want a pizza whose ingredients justify its price.

Better seasoning, appealing textures, consistent portions and recognizable ingredient quality may create more value than simply adding more meat. Operators should test whether customers will pay a premium for those attributes and whether the resulting sales justify the added costs.

3. Destination pizza can create brand advocacy

Nearly eight in ten respondents say they have made a special effort to try a particular pizza, including taking detours, making day trips, waiting in lines or incorporating pizza into travel plans. One-quarter report traveling at least 25 miles to eat pizza or visit a particular pizza restaurant.

Grocerant Guru® rating: A

A compelling pizza can become the destination rather than just the dinner solution.

Operators should develop products worth talking about, signature offerings that customers remember, and regional identities that consumers cannot easily reproduce elsewhere. The opportunity is not to make every pizza expensive; it is to give consumers a reason to choose yours.

4. Pepperoni remains a powerful menu anchor

More than nine in ten respondents say pepperoni will never go out of style. Among the reported pepperoni pairings, sausage leads at 49%, followed by extra cheese at 30%, bacon at 27% and mushrooms at 27%.

Grocerant Guru® rating: A

Familiar favorites reduce the risk of menu experimentation. Pepperoni can anchor a core offering, while sausage, bacon and other complementary ingredients help create a more differentiated premium option.

Operators should test combinations against food cost, customer uptake and repeat orders rather than relying on popularity claims alone.

5. Meat-forward pizza has a defined audience

Twenty-seven percent of respondents identify as “Meat Maximalists,” and the survey says this preference appears across generations. The release also reports that 59% have experienced someone taking a slice of their meat-topped pizza after ordering a vegetarian pizza.

Grocerant Guru® rating: B+

Meat-forward options are worth testing, but a defined segment is not the entire market. A balanced lineup should retain vegetarian choices and allow customization.

Operators should also manage portions carefully. Ingredient appeal must translate into sustainable margins, and menu choices must reflect the needs of different households and occasions.

6. Regional identity can turn pizza into an experience

One-quarter of respondents seek regional pizza styles when traveling. Meanwhile, 82% of Gen Z respondents say they have participated in a friendly debate over which pizza style is best.

Grocerant Guru® rating: A−

Regional styles offer a way to create local relevance, storytelling and limited-time menus. The opportunity is to give customers something distinctive while preserving the consistency national chains need.

A regional product should be authentic enough to interest enthusiasts and accessible enough for mainstream customers. Operators should also consider whether regional offerings attract incremental visits instead of simply shifting customers away from existing menu items.

7. Pizza's competition extends beyond pizza chains

The 2026 Convenience Store News Foodservice Study, cited in the Smithfield Culinary release, reports that 76% of retailers offer pizza.

Grocerant Guru® rating: A

This is a significant channel signal. Consumers can encounter pizza in convenience stores, supermarkets, restaurants and other retail environments.

These channels compete for different occasions, price points and levels of convenience. A convenience-store customer seeking a quick individual meal has different needs from a family ordering several pizzas for dinner.

Pizza operators are no longer competing only with the pizzeria down the street. They are competing for the same meal occasion across an expanding range of foodservice and retail channels.

The grades in this analysis are my editorial assessments of each finding's usefulness for food marketing and menu strategy. They are not ratings assigned by Smithfield Culinary or measured consumer-satisfaction scores.

3. What Smithfield Culinary Gets Right—and What Operators Still Need to Prove

Smithfield Culinary makes a persuasive case for putting more thought into toppings. But from a food marketing perspective, the strongest opportunity is not simply to sell more meat. It is to turn a product preference into a repeatable, profitable customer occasion.

Three distinctions matter.

First, stated preference is not purchase behavior.

Saying toppings matter most does not tell us whether consumers will pay $2 more for premium sausage, switch brands for a specialty pizza or order that product a second time.

Operators need transaction data, menu-item sales, attachment rates and repeat-purchase measurements to establish those connections.

Second, quality must be visible and credible.

If a chain advertises premium ingredients but delivers an inconsistent product, the promise becomes a liability. Portion standards, preparation procedures and ingredient consistency must support the marketing claim.

Quality should be experienced, not just described.

Third, consumer value is larger than the pizza itself.

Price, quality, service, convenience and portability all shape the overall experience. A delicious pizza that arrives late, travels poorly or costs more than the household planned may not earn another order.

Even the largest chains must keep earning consumer business. Scale, brand recognition and digital ordering are advantages, but they do not eliminate the need to demonstrate value on every occasion.

The real question is not whether pizza is popular. It is whether a specific operator can convert that popularity into profitable, repeatable demand.

4. The Grocerant Guru® Consumer Challenge

Here is the test I would put to every pizza-chain executive and independent operator:

If a customer can buy pizza almost anywhere, what makes your pizza worth choosing, worth paying for and worth ordering again?

I would measure the answer through five practical indicators.

Trial: Are signature toppings, regional styles or new combinations bringing new customers into the brand?

Conversion: Do customers who see the offer actually purchase it?

Basket size: Does the new pizza increase the total order, or simply replace another menu item?

Frequency: Do customers return more often after trying it?

Profitability: Does the incremental margin justify the ingredients, labor, promotion and operational complexity?

These measures connect culinary creativity to business performance. They also help operators avoid a common mistake: assuming that a product with strong social-media appeal will necessarily become a reliable source of sales.

Pizza's advantage is its versatility. It can be a family dinner, an individual meal, a game-day centerpiece, a travel discovery, a workplace lunch or a convenient prepared-food purchase.

The challenge is to match the right product, portion, price and service model to each occasion.

Three Grocerant Guru® Insights on How the Pizza Sector Is Evolving

Insight 1: The next pizza battle is about differentiated value, not topping overload.

Smithfield Culinary's finding that 37% prioritize topping quality compared with 18% who prioritize quantity gives operators a reason to rethink premiumization.

The winning offer may be a carefully composed sausage-and-pepperoni pizza with excellent execution rather than an overloaded pie that raises food costs without increasing perceived value.

Test the premium, measure the repeat purchase and let consumers—not the chef's ego—decide.

Insight 2: Pizza is becoming an occasion-driven foodservice platform.

Traditional delivery and carryout remain important, but convenience stores and other retailers are competing for quick meals, snacks and immediate consumption.

Prepared pizza can serve a different need from a made-to-order family dinner. Operators should develop products and service formats around the occasion, considering portion size, holding time, packaging and speed instead of assuming every customer wants the same pizza experience.

This creates opportunities for both national chains and retailers that understand how consumers shop across foodservice channels.

Insight 3: Consumer loyalty will be earned one evolving occasion at a time.

The willingness to travel for pizza and the interest in regional styles show the potential for destination-worthy products. Yet frequency and convenience still matter.

Chains should pair reliable everyday favorites with distinctive regional offerings, limited-time products and digital ordering that makes repeat business easy.

Independent operators can compete through local identity and product character rather than trying to outspend national chains.

The challenge for every operator is to keep evolving without losing the core attributes that earned customer trust in the first place.

The Final Word from the Grocerant Guru®

The U.S. pizza sector is large, highly competitive and increasingly defined by more than store count.

Scale creates reach. Average unit volume helps measure sales productivity. Customer frequency helps reveal loyalty. Culinary differentiation creates a reason to choose one operator over another.

Smithfield Culinary's research adds an important message: toppings are a major opportunity, and consumers say quality matters more than simply piling on ingredients. But the business opportunity lies in connecting those preferences to actual behavior.

At Foodservice Solutions® in Tacoma, Washington, my perspective is straightforward: consumers are dynamic, not static. Their expectations, budgets, meal occasions and definitions of value evolve. The pizza operators that keep pace will be those that continuously test what consumers want, verify what they buy and measure whether they return.

A great pizza can earn a first order. A consistently great experience, delivered at the right price and for the right occasion, is what earns the next one.

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

Can A Voice-AI Kiosk: Win the Next Meal Occasion—or Just Cut the Cost of Taking an Order?

 

The Grocerant Guru® Consumer Test: Will Square’s new voice-AI kiosk make customers more likely to choose a restaurant, spend confidently, and come back—or will it simply help operators take orders with fewer employees?

Square says its new voice-AI kiosk can deliver the speed of self-service without sacrificing the hospitality of a good server. That is the promise. The Grocerant Guru® wants proof.

Here is the consumer test: Will customers order more confidently, discover meals they actually want, spend more wisely, receive better service, and return more often—or will Square simply help restaurants do more with fewer employees?

The survey numbers cited in the announcement should give operators pause. According to Technomic survey data referenced in the press release, 35% of consumers find kiosk ordering unappealing, while 46% say voice AI in the drive-thru is unappealing. Meanwhile, ordering at the counter with an employee remains the most popular method, at 46%.

Those numbers expose the central challenge: Just because technology can take an order does not mean consumers want to give one to a machine.

Square and its restaurant customers must prove that voice AI improves the experience where it matters most: convenience, menu discovery, order accuracy, perceived value, and customer loyalty. They must also demonstrate that labor savings translate into a better overall operation—not longer waits, frustrated customers, or lost opportunities for meaningful human interaction.

The ultimate test is simple: Does Square’s kiosk give consumers a compelling reason to choose that restaurant again? If the measurable benefits accrue primarily to the operator while customers receive no meaningful improvement, that is labor optimization—not consumer innovation.

The Grocerant Guru® bottom line: Consumers do not reward restaurants simply for adopting AI. They reward restaurants that make the next meal easier to find, worth the price, and satisfying enough to repeat.

What Square Is Bringing to the Ordering Experience

Square, the Oakland-based point-of-sale provider owned by Block, has introduced a kiosk designed to let restaurant customers order by voice, touchscreen, or a combination of both.

The device features a 21.5-inch display and built-in voice AI trained on the restaurant’s menu. According to the announcement, customers can ask questions about spice levels, allergens, and popular food pairings. The kiosk can also detect when a customer approaches and welcome them to begin ordering.

James Schonzeit, Square’s head of food and beverage, says the objective is to combine the efficiency of self-service with the guidance customers receive from a good server. Thomas Templeton, Block’s head of hardware, argues that voice makes some menu questions easier to handle than navigating multiple touchscreen menus.

The concept has merit. Traditional kiosks can require customers to tap through several screens to identify ingredients, explore options, or customize an order. A conversational interface could make those tasks more natural.

But the critical distinction is between a technology that works and a technology customers want to use.

Square says customers can turn off the voice feature, continue ordering by touch, and request employee assistance when the AI cannot answer a question. Those options matter because consumer preferences differ. A commuter seeking speed may welcome voice ordering, while another customer may prefer a touchscreen or a conversation with an employee.

Choice is part of hospitality. Forcing every customer into one ordering method is not personalization.

1. Voice AI Could Make Menu Discovery Easier

Square’s kiosk is designed to answer questions using the restaurant’s menu information. That could reduce friction for customers who need help understanding ingredients, flavors, or combinations.

Consider three potential applications.

Quick-service restaurants: A customer deciding between two sandwiches could ask which is spicier, what comes with each, or which side complements the meal. A well-designed system could reduce uncertainty and help customers make a confident choice.

Convenience stores: A shopper selecting a freshly prepared sandwich, hot snack, or ready-to-eat meal could benefit from clearer ingredient information and suggestions for combining food and beverages. That could help transform an individual purchase into a more complete meal occasion.

Grocery delis: A customer choosing among prepared entrees, sides, and heat-and-eat options could use conversational guidance to assemble dinner for one person or an entire family. Better discovery could make the deli more useful as a destination for tonight’s meal.

These are potential applications, not proven outcomes from Square’s new kiosk.

Accuracy is essential, especially when customers ask about allergens. AI should use verified restaurant information, avoid guessing, and refer customers to a trained employee when an answer cannot be confirmed. A confident but incorrect answer can damage trust and create serious safety concerns.

The larger opportunity is to make menus easier to understand and meals easier to assemble. That is more valuable than simply moving the ordering process from a counter to a screen.

2. Hospitality Is More Than Taking an Order

Square’s goal of combining speed and hospitality is strategically sound. However, hospitality means more than a friendly greeting followed by a completed transaction.

A good employee can explain a menu, recognize a special request, resolve a problem, recommend a relevant item, and help a customer feel understood. Voice AI may replicate some of these functions, but it cannot assume every customer wants the same experience.

Consider three distinct meal occasions:

·       The commuter wants a fast, predictable transaction and may appreciate voice ordering if it reduces screen navigation.

·       The family ordering dinner may need ingredient clarification, substitutions, multiple meals, and reassurance that every item is correct.

·       The customer exploring a new menu may value an employee’s recommendation, an explanation of an unfamiliar flavor, or help understanding portion sizes.

One ordering interface will not necessarily serve all three equally well.

Square’s decision to preserve touchscreen ordering and provide an option to turn off voice is therefore important. Customers should be able to choose how they order rather than being forced into a technology experience they do not want.

For operators, the question is whether AI allows employees to spend more time helping customers and preparing food—or simply removes opportunities for employees to create a better experience.

Technology should strengthen hospitality, not redefine hospitality downward to mean merely completing a transaction.

3. Labor Savings Need a Sales-and-Service Scorecard

Square’s kiosk is priced at $1,999, with a reported $99 monthly software fee per device. The announced price includes a mount for counter, wall, or floor installation.

Those figures offer a starting point for evaluating the investment, but they do not establish whether the system will pay for itself.

At the announced pricing, one kiosk would cost $3,187 over its first 12 months: $1,999 for the hardware plus $1,188 in software fees. That excludes any additional installation labor, maintenance, downtime, or other operating expenses.

Restaurants need to determine whether the kiosk creates incremental economic value.

They should measure:

1.       Order throughput: Are more customers served during peak periods, and do actual wait times decline?

2.       Labor productivity: Are employees freed to perform higher-value tasks, or must they spend time troubleshooting the kiosk and assisting customers?

3.       Order accuracy: Do modifications, substitutions, and special requests reach the kitchen correctly?

4.       Average check: Does the system increase purchases without making customers feel pressured?

5.       Repeat business: Do customers return because the experience is genuinely better?

A restaurant might process more kiosk transactions while losing opportunities to connect personally with customers. It might also increase order volume only to create kitchen bottlenecks that erase the gains at the front counter.

The appropriate metric is not how many customers speak to a machine. It is whether the entire operation becomes more productive while customers receive better service.

Operators should also distinguish between shifting orders from employees to kiosks and generating genuinely incremental sales. Moving an existing transaction to a different interface does not automatically create new revenue.

4. The Real Opportunity Is Meal Building, Not Just Order Taking

The most promising application of voice AI may be helping customers decide what to eat.

Foodservice operators increasingly compete for meal occasions that cross traditional channel boundaries. A consumer deciding what to eat may consider a restaurant, a convenience-store prepared meal, a grocery deli entree, takeout, or delivery.

Consumers do not necessarily organize these choices according to industry categories. They want food that fits the occasion, budget, schedule, and appetite.

Imagine a customer asking, “What can I get for lunch that is spicy, filling, and under $12?” If the restaurant’s menu data supports that request, the kiosk could narrow the choices and make ordering easier.

Another customer might ask which available entree pairs well with a particular side. The system could help build a more complete meal without requiring the customer to navigate several screens.

These examples illustrate the potential rather than verified capabilities or results of Square’s announced product.

For operators, the strategic lesson is clear: Design technology around consumer needs rather than merely digitizing an existing menu.

A screen that reproduces a paper menu has limited strategic value. An interface that helps customers solve the problem of what to eat could have considerably more value.

The same principle applies to grocery delis and convenience-store foodservice. Make meals easier to discover, assemble, purchase, and enjoy.

5. Upselling Must Deliver Value, Not Just Add Items

Square says its voice AI will not proactively upsell customers initially, although upselling will remain part of the on-screen ordering process. The company is also working toward allowing operators to customize the voice.

These details matter because the way a recommendation is presented influences how customers perceive the experience.

A relevant suggestion can improve a meal. An irrelevant prompt can slow the transaction and undermine trust.

Consider three examples:

·       A sandwich customer receives a suggestion for a side and beverage that create a convenient lunch combination at a clear price.

·       A family ordering several entrees sees an appropriate bundle that reduces the cost of assembling dinner.

·       A customer ordering a spicy entree receives a suggestion for a complementary side or beverage that fits the flavor profile.

The commercial objective should be to help customers discover something they genuinely want—not simply maximize the number of items added to an order.

Operators should track attachment rates, average checks, promotion redemption, customer satisfaction, and repeat visits together. An increase in average check is less impressive if it comes with longer waits, abandoned orders, or declining customer loyalty.

The best recommendation delivers value to the customer while generating profitable sales for the operator.

6. A $1,999 Kiosk Is Not Automatically the Right Investment for Every Operator

Square says the device is intended for businesses ranging from single-location coffee shops to large restaurant chains.

The announced price may make the hardware accessible to a broad range of operators, but the total investment involves more than purchasing a screen.

Independent restaurants must consider the software subscription, installation, available space, menu-data quality, employee training, and time required to maintain the system. They must also determine whether customer volume and ordering patterns justify the expense.

A high-volume quick-service restaurant with recurring lunchtime queues may have a different business case from a neighborhood restaurant where customers value conversation and personal menu guidance.

For a small operator, the question is not whether a competitor has installed a kiosk. It is whether the technology solves a specific operational or consumer problem at a cost the business can justify.

Large chains may have more resources to test different configurations and compare results across locations. Smaller businesses may need a disciplined pilot before committing.

Technology adoption is not a strategy by itself. Consumer relevance and profitable execution are the strategy.

7. The Industry Needs Evidence, Not Just a Better Demonstration

Square’s kiosk combines a large 21.5-inch display with voice-enabled ordering. It can detect when a customer approaches and offer a welcome. If the AI cannot answer a question, the system is designed to bring an employee into the interaction.

These features may make ordering more approachable. But a polished demonstration cannot substitute for real-world performance.

Restaurant operators should pilot the system in comparable locations and evaluate results against an established baseline. They should also examine performance across different dayparts, menu categories, customer types, and levels of restaurant busyness.

The evaluation should include customers who prefer touchscreens, those who try voice ordering, and those who still want to order with an employee.

Operators should ask:

·       Did customers complete orders faster?

·       Were fewer orders abandoned?

·       Did order accuracy improve?

·       Did the system increase profitable sales?

·       Were employees able to spend more time helping customers and preparing food?

·       Did customers report a better experience and indicate that they would return?

Square expects the experience to improve as AI develops and customers become more comfortable with it. That may happen, but operators should not treat future improvements as present-day results.

The technology must earn its place through evidence.

The Grocerant Guru® Bottom Line

Square’s voice-AI kiosk addresses a legitimate challenge: how to combine operational efficiency with a better ordering experience. Its ability to answer menu questions, support both voice and touch, and involve an employee when necessary could make it more useful than a conventional self-service terminal.

Yet the consumer research cited in the announcement signals a warning. Some diners do not find kiosks appealing, and even more express reservations about voice AI in the drive-thru. Those attitudes should shape the rollout rather than be dismissed as resistance to change.

The broader foodservice opportunity is not to replace every human interaction with artificial intelligence. It is to use technology where it improves convenience, discovery, accuracy, and value while preserving human assistance where consumers want it.

Restaurants, grocery delis, and convenience stores all compete for the same underlying prize: becoming a relevant, trusted answer to the consumer’s next meal occasion.

Square may have created a useful new tool. The market will decide whether it creates a better meal experience.

Three Grocerant Guru® Insights

1. Labor savings are not consumer value.

Square must demonstrate that voice AI does more than reduce the cost of taking an order. Faster transactions, fewer errors, easier menu navigation, and better service must translate into a demonstrably better customer experience. If the savings never benefit the consumer, operators should not confuse internal efficiency with customer value.

2. Menu discovery is the real opportunity.

Consumers are not simply looking for a way to place an order; they are trying to decide what’s for dinner, lunch, or their next snack. Voice AI could help customers navigate flavors, ingredients, meal combinations, and price points. The competitive advantage belongs to operators that use AI to make choosing a meal easier—not merely to automate checkout.

3. Repeat business is the ultimate scorecard.

A kiosk can process transactions, but only consumers determine whether the experience deserves another visit. Restaurants must measure customer satisfaction, order accuracy, profitable add-on sales, repeat visits, and loyalty alongside labor productivity. Consumers are dynamic, not static. Technology must evolve with their expectations, not force them to adapt to the operator’s preferred way of doing business.

The Grocerant Guru® challenge: Don’t ask how many orders Square’s AI can take. Ask how many customers it can win, satisfy, and bring back. That’s the difference between installing technology and building consumer relevance.

For international corporate presentations, educational forums, or keynotes contact: Steven Johnson Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions.  His extensive experience as a multi-unit restaurant operator, consultant, brand / product positioning expert and public speaking will leave success clues for all. For more information visit www.GrocerantGuru.com , www.FoodserviceSolutions.us or call    1-253-759-7869