Wonder Gets the Consumer. Why Are Restaurant Chains Still Stuck in Brand Silos?

 

There is something almost amusing about the restaurant industry's relationship with innovation according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

Give a restaurant chain a new piece of technology and executives will proudly announce that they are transforming the customer experience.

Give consumers the ability to order exactly what they want from multiple restaurant concepts in one transaction—and suddenly the old restaurant industry playbook starts looking very old.

That is what makes Wonder so interesting.

At FSTEC, Wonder executives described a future involving AI-generated meal planning, robotic food preparation, sophisticated sequencing software and drone delivery. The company says that, beginning as soon as next year, a Wonder location outside Dallas could combine its bowl-making robotics with Zipline drone delivery.

But from the perspective of the Grocerant Guru®, the robot isn't the biggest story.

The biggest story is that Wonder appears to understand something many legacy restaurant chains still don't: The consumer doesn't live in a restaurant-brand silo.

Restaurant Chains: The Consumer Has Left Your Building

For decades, restaurant chains have built their businesses around a simple proposition:

Pick our brand. Eat our menu. Buy our experience. Come back.

That worked beautifully when restaurant choice was relatively limited.

But today's consumer lives in a much more complicated food world.

The same consumer can buy breakfast at a convenience store, lunch from a restaurant, dinner from a grocery store's prepared-food department, snacks from a dollar store and groceries through an online platform—all in the same day or week.

And then the restaurant industry wonders why consumers aren't behaving according to the brand loyalty models created decades ago.

The consumer isn't confused. The industry is.

Wonder's Seven Grocerant Moves

1. Wonder lets consumers mix and match restaurant concepts

Wonder locations can offer as many as 30 restaurant concepts under one roof.

Think about how radical that is compared with the traditional chain restaurant model.

A consumer doesn't have to decide:

“Which restaurant am I going to?”

The consumer can essentially decide:

“What do I want?”

That is Grocerant thinking.

2. Wonder puts the meal ahead of the logo

Traditional chains spend enormous amounts of money building brand identity.

But the consumer doesn't necessarily want a brand.

Sometimes the consumer wants a burger.

Sometimes noodles.

Sometimes a salad.

Sometimes wings.

Sometimes a bowl.

Sometimes something completely different.

Wonder's model recognizes that the consumer's appetite can change faster than the consumer's brand loyalty.

3. Wonder is attacking the restaurant industry's sacred “one brand, one menu” model

For years, restaurant executives have optimized individual brands.

Wonder is asking a different question:

Why can't one physical location efficiently produce food from multiple concepts?

That is precisely the kind of question that traditional restaurant organizations have historically been reluctant to ask.

Why?

Because restaurant companies are structured around brands.

Consumers are structured around occasions.

That's a problem.

4. Wonder understands that families don't necessarily want the same food

This may be one of the most important parts of the model.

Families frequently disagree about what to eat.

One person wants Mexican.

Another wants Asian.

Someone else wants a burger.

Someone else wants a salad.

The traditional restaurant model says:

Pick one restaurant and compromise.

Wonder says:

Why compromise?

That is an extraordinarily simple consumer proposition.

And it is exactly the type of thinking that helped create the Grocerant niche.

5. Wonder connects “food for now” with “food for later”

Wonder owns Blue Apron and describes the businesses as “food for now” and “food for later.”

Traditional restaurant chains have spent years defining themselves by individual dayparts and restaurant occasions.

Wonder is thinking more broadly about the consumer's food life.

Breakfast.

Lunch.

Dinner.

Snacking.

Meal planning.

Prepared food.

Meal kits.

Potentially groceries.

That isn't a restaurant strategy.

That's a food-consumption strategy.

6. Wonder is trying to make variety economically manageable

Wonder says it has approximately 700 menu items and 1,000 SKUs and is developing automation to help manage that complexity.

That's where the robotics become strategically interesting.

The goal isn't simply:

“Let's replace a worker with a robot.”

The bigger goal is:

“Can technology allow us to offer consumers enormous variety without enormous operating costs?”

If Wonder can accomplish that, it attacks one of the biggest problems with restaurant variety:

Complexity costs money.

7. Wonder wants to own the “What's for dinner?” decision

This may ultimately be Wonder's biggest ambition.

The company has talked about using AI to create meal plans around consumers' tastes and dietary needs.

In other words, Wonder isn't simply waiting for the consumer to place an order.

It wants to potentially participate in deciding what the consumer should eat.

That is a fundamentally different relationship.

The restaurant industry has historically fought over the transaction.

Wonder appears to be thinking about the decision before the transaction.

And that is where the Grocerant Guru® has been watching the industry for decades.

Meanwhile, Back at the Legacy Restaurant Chains...

Here's where things get uncomfortable.

Restaurant companies continue to talk about brand equity, restaurant identity, loyalty programs, digital engagement and same-store sales.

All important.

But consumers aren't sitting around thinking about the organizational structure of Restaurant Brand X.

They are thinking:

“What's for dinner?”

And sometimes the answer is:

“I want something from three different places.”

The grocery industry figured this out.

Convenience stores figured this out.

Delivery platforms figured this out.

Virtual restaurants figured this out.

And now Wonder is attempting to build the entire operating system around it.

The Restaurant Industry's Great Contradiction

Restaurant chains say they are obsessed with the consumer.

Yet many still organize their businesses around the needs of the brand.

The consumer wants choice.

The brand wants consistency.

The consumer wants personalization.

The brand wants standardization.

The consumer wants multiple cuisines.

The brand wants one menu.

The consumer wants convenience.

The brand wants the consumer to enter its particular funnel.

See the problem?

The industry keeps asking consumers to behave like brands.

Consumers keep behaving like consumers.

Are Legacy Brand Managers the Neanderthals of the 1800s?

Here's the deliberately provocative question:

Are some legacy restaurant brand managers becoming the Neanderthal brand managers of the 1800s?

Not because they lack intelligence.

Because they may still be operating from an industrial-era assumption:

Control the product. Control the distribution. Control the customer. Control the brand.

But the modern consumer doesn't necessarily want to be controlled by a brand.

The consumer wants to be served.

There is a profound difference.

The old model says:

“Come to us because we are Brand X.”

The emerging model says:

“Tell us what you want, and we'll figure out how to deliver it.”

That is a much more consumer-centric proposition.

Four Questions Every Major Restaurant Chain Should Answer

1. Why does the consumer have to choose only one of your brands?

If a family wants four different meals, why should the consumer have to make four separate decisions, four separate orders and potentially pay four separate delivery charges?

2. Why are restaurant companies still protecting brand silos that consumers never created?

The consumer doesn't see your corporate organizational chart.

Why should the consumer experience it?

3. If Wonder can put 30 restaurant concepts under one roof, why can't the major chains rethink what a restaurant actually is?

Is a restaurant still a 3,500-square-foot box dedicated to one brand?

Or is it becoming a food-production and fulfillment platform?

4. What happens when the consumer becomes more loyal to convenience and choice than to your logo?

That may be the question restaurant executives should fear most.

Because a consumer can love your brand and still order something else.

Brand loyalty does not eliminate hunger.

Wonder's Biggest Threat Isn't Its Robots

McDonald's doesn't have to lose customers because Wonder has better robots.

Starbucks doesn't have to lose customers because Wonder has drones.

Subway doesn't have to lose customers because Wonder has 30 concepts under one roof.

The threat is more fundamental.

Wonder is challenging the assumption that the restaurant brand should be the center of the consumer's food decision.

That is a much bigger threat.

Because once the consumer becomes the center, everything changes.

The menu changes.

The kitchen changes.

The location changes.

The labor model changes.

The technology changes.

The delivery model changes.

And perhaps most importantly:

the brand's role changes.

The Grocerant Guru® View

The restaurant industry's greatest competitive mistake may be assuming that its biggest competitors are other restaurants.

They aren't.

The consumer has already demonstrated that the competitive set includes:

restaurants + grocery stores + C-stores + delivery + meal kits + prepared foods + virtual restaurants + increasingly automated food platforms.

There are no silos in the consumer's mind.

There are only eating occasions.

Wonder appears to understand that.

The question is why so many legacy restaurant companies still don't.

Three Insights From the Grocerant Guru®

1. STOP ASKING “WHICH RESTAURANT?”

The better question is:

“What does the consumer want to eat?”

The company that can answer that question most effectively may have an advantage over the company with the biggest logo.

2. THE RESTAURANT BOX IS NOT THE BUSINESS

A restaurant is increasingly becoming a food-production, merchandising, fulfillment and consumer-engagement platform.

The smartest operators won't ask how to protect the traditional restaurant.

They will ask how to make the restaurant more useful to the consumer.

3. THE NEXT COMPETITION IS NOT BRAND VS. BRAND—IT'S SILO VS. CONSUMER

Legacy restaurant companies built enormous businesses by creating powerful brands.

Now those same brands may become constraints if management begins protecting the brand architecture instead of following consumer behavior.

Wonder's most important innovation may not be the robot.

It may be recognizing that the consumer should sit at the center of the food ecosystem—not the restaurant brand.

The Grocerant Guru® has been saying for years:

There are no silos in the consumer's mind.

Wonder appears to be building a business around that idea.

The question for legacy restaurant chains is simple:

Are you going to follow the consumer—or continue asking the consumer to follow your brand?

Are you ready for some fresh ideations? Do your food marketing ideas look more like yesterday than tomorrow? Interested in learning how our Grocerant Guru® can edify your retail food brand while creating a platform for consumer convenient meal participation, differentiation and individualization?  Email us at: Steve@FoodserviceSolutions.us or visit: us on our social media sites by clicking one of the following links: Facebook,  LinkedIn, or Twitter

Circle K Builds a Foodservice Frankenstein: Does More Branding Mean More Value

 

There is an old saying in the restaurant business: If at first you don't succeed, try again. That may be the philosophy behind Circle K's newest strategy. However, according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions® this bet on the past just might become a learning lesson not a path forward.

The convenience-store giant, together with The Briad Group, is preparing to open what it calls its first multi-brand Circle K travel center in Binghamton, New York. The 6,800-square-foot facility at 265 Court Street is designed to combine a Circle K convenience store, eight fuel pumps, two dedicated drive-thru lanes, Dunkin', Wendy's and a nontraditional Papa Johns offering. A second location in Watertown, New York, is under construction and is expected to open in January 2027. Briad says it ultimately could develop as many as 40 locations under its long-term Circle K agreement.

On paper, it sounds like the future of the convenience-store foodservice business.

From the historical perspective of the Grocerant Guru®, however, it also sounds remarkably familiar.

And that deserves a closer look.

Co-branding isn't new. The industry has been trying it for decades.

Restaurant companies discovered co-branding decades ago.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, the basic proposition was seductive: Put two restaurant brands under one roof, share real estate and infrastructure, capture more consumer occasions, expand dayparts and give customers more choices.

Yum Brands became perhaps the industry's most famous practitioner, combining KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, A&W and Long John Silver's in various combinations.

A 2005 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly analysis found that Yum's co-branding strategy had, at that point, typically generated sales approximately 30% higher than comparable single-brand units. But the research also identified an important problem: operational complexity.

That distinction matters.

Co-branding can increase the number of things a consumer can buy without necessarily increasing the value of the host brand.

And restaurant history provides several cautionary examples.

1. KFC + A&W

KFC and A&W represented an early attempt to put different restaurant propositions under the same roof.

The idea was logical: chicken plus burgers/root beer creates more choice.

But eventually A&W became one of the brands Yum Brands decided no longer fit its long-term strategy.

In 2011, Yum sold A&W and Long John Silver's. Yum reported $86 million in pretax losses and other costs, primarily associated with closures and impairment, related to those divestitures.

The lesson isn't that putting two brands together can never work.

The lesson is that more brands don't automatically create a stronger business.

2. Long John Silver's + other Yum brands

Long John Silver's was another component of Yum's multibranding experiment.

The company eventually concluded that both A&W and Long John Silver's no longer fit its long-term growth strategy and sold the brands in 2011.

The historical irony is striking.

The same corporate portfolio that once promoted multibranding as a way to make restaurant real estate more productive ultimately simplified the portfolio.

Today, Yum's principal concepts are KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and Habit Burger & Grill.

3. Dual-concept KFC/Taco Bell locations

KFC/Taco Bell became one of the industry's best-known co-branded combinations.

But even where the combination remained viable, franchise documents demonstrate one of the industry's recurring problems: dual-concept restaurants can require larger buildings, additional equipment, more signage and greater remodeling costs.

One franchise company's SEC filing specifically noted that a dual-concept restaurant generally required more equipment and a larger building, increasing costs when franchise standards changed.

And that is the part of co-branding that consumers never see.

They see more logos.

Operators see more systems.

4. McDonald's + Krispy Kreme

The most recent example is particularly relevant because it occurred in the middle of today's consumer environment.

McDonald's and Krispy Kreme launched a major partnership in 2024, putting Krispy Kreme doughnuts into McDonald's restaurants.

But the program struggled to scale. By May 2025, fewer than 20% of McDonald's locations were selling Krispy Kreme doughnuts, and Krispy Kreme paused further expansion. The companies ultimately ended the partnership in 2025 after Krispy Kreme concluded it was not profitable enough to sustain.

The problem wasn't awareness.

Everybody knew McDonald's.

Everybody knew Krispy Kreme.

The problem was economics, logistics and consumer demand.

That's an important warning for Circle K.

So why is Circle K recycling the co-branding template?

That is the question I would ask.

Why does Circle K believe that a restaurant co-branding formula that has repeatedly encountered operational and economic challenges will suddenly become a winning formula inside convenience retail in 2026?

Perhaps the answer is that Circle K isn't actually trying to build a traditional co-branded restaurant.

Perhaps it is trying to build something different:

a convenience-store travel destination.

That distinction matters.

The Binghamton project isn't simply a KFC/Taco Bell-style shared restaurant. It combines fuel + convenience retail + multiple restaurant brands + drive-thru access.

Briad says the building was specifically engineered around the partnership, with Circle K, Dunkin', Wendy's and Papa Johns integrated into one facility.

That's different architecture.

But architecture doesn't automatically create consumer value.

What is Circle K going to do differently?

This is where the strategy needs to be tested.

Circle K should be able to answer five very simple questions:

1. What does Circle K own in the consumer's mind?

If the consumer comes for Dunkin' coffee, Wendy's lunch and Papa Johns pizza, does the consumer remember Circle K—or simply remember the restaurant brands?

2. What is the Circle K reason to visit?

If three national restaurant brands are doing the food marketing, what unique food proposition does Circle K create?

3. Does the customer experience become easier or more complicated?

Three restaurant brands can mean three menus, three operating systems, three sets of expectations and potentially three different customer journeys.

4. Does co-branding increase Circle K's basket—or merely rent Circle K's real estate to other brands?

That's a critical distinction.

5. What happens when consumers stop thinking in restaurant categories?

That last question may be the most important of all.

The consumer has already moved beyond the industry's silos

The modern consumer doesn't necessarily think:

"I need to visit a convenience store."

Or:

"I need to visit a restaurant."

Or:

"I need to visit a grocery store."

Consumers increasingly think in terms of occasions.

Breakfast.

Lunch.

Dinner.

Snack.

Coffee.

A cold drink.

Something portable.

Something fresh.

Something fast.

Something affordable.

That's the foundation of the Grocerant Niche.

The consumer doesn't care which industry supplied the food.

The consumer cares about the food, price, value, quality, convenience and experience.

That is why I have argued for decades that there are no silos in the consumer's mind.

The restaurant industry can divide itself into QSR, fast casual, convenience, grocery, foodservice and retail.

Consumers don't have to.

The real Circle K opportunity isn't co-branding

Circle K already possesses something extremely valuable:

a consumer relationship built around convenience.

Fuel.

Cold beverages.

Coffee.

Snacks.

Fresh food.

Prepared food.

Impulse purchases.

Speed.

Location.

Extended hours.

Those are assets.

Adding recognizable restaurant logos doesn't necessarily strengthen those assets.

It may actually create a branding paradox.

If Wendy's is the destination for burgers, Dunkin' is the destination for coffee and Papa Johns is the destination for pizza, what is Circle K's food identity?

That's the question.

And it becomes even more important as convenience retailers increasingly build their own fresh-food identities.

The competitive battlefield isn't simply:

Circle K vs. Wendy's.

It is:

Who owns the consumer's food occasion?

Three Insights from the Grocerant Guru®

1. Co-branding adds logos; it doesn't necessarily add value.

The history of restaurant co-branding demonstrates that putting recognizable brands under one roof can create incremental sales, but it can also create operational complexity, higher costs and conflicting brand priorities. Yum's experience with A&W and Long John Silver's and the McDonald's-Krispy Kreme partnership demonstrate that famous brands alone don't guarantee sustainable economics.

2. The 2026 consumer is buying occasions—not restaurant brands.

The consumer has moved toward a Mix-and-Match Meal Component mentality.

Coffee from one brand.

A breakfast sandwich from another.

A beverage from the convenience store.

A snack from a different section.

Dinner assembled from multiple sources.

The consumer doesn't need Circle K to put three restaurant brands under one roof.

The consumer needs Circle K to make the entire food occasion faster, easier, fresher and more valuable.

3. Circle K should build the Circle K food brand—not become a billboard for everybody else's brands.

This is the biggest strategic question.

If consumers enter a Circle K travel center and immediately think Dunkin', Wendy's and Papa Johns, then Circle K has created a terrific location for three restaurant brands.

But if consumers enter and think:

"Circle K is where I can get whatever food I want, quickly, affordably and conveniently,"

then Circle K has created something much more powerful.

That's the difference between co-branding and brand building.

And from the perspective of the Grocerant Guru®, that distinction could determine whether Circle K's 2026 multi-brand travel-center strategy becomes a genuine next-generation convenience model—or simply the industry's latest attempt to make an old co-branding formula work in a new building.

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