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

Restaurants Are Social Settings Stop Thinking of Them as Places That Just Sell Food

 

The restaurant's most valuable product may not be on the menu according to Steven Johnson, Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

Man is a social being.

That simple observation has enormous implications for restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores and every other food retailer competing for today's consumer.

The pandemic changed where consumers ate. It accelerated delivery, takeout, drive-thru, digital ordering and eating at home.

But something else happened.

Consumers discovered that convenience has a limit.

People still want to get out.

They want to see people.

They want to be seen.

They want to meet friends.

They want to celebrate.

They want to discover a new food, flavor, beverage or restaurant.

They want to sit across the table from someone and talk.

And increasingly, they want the restaurant to give them a reason to do it.

That is why I believe restaurants should stop thinking of themselves simply as places that sell food.

Restaurants are social settings.

And that may become one of their greatest competitive advantages.

 

The Consumer Can Eat Anywhere

Let's start with the uncomfortable truth.

Consumers have never had more ways to get food.

They can cook it.

They can order it.

They can have it delivered.

They can pick it up.

They can use a drive-thru.

They can buy Ready-2-Eat or Heat-N-Eat food at a grocery store.

They can grab a meal at a convenience store.

They can eat in their car.

They can eat at their desk.

They can eat in front of a 65-inch HDTV.

So why leave home?

That is the question every restaurant operator should be asking.

Because if the only reason to visit a restaurant is the food, somebody else can eventually sell the consumer something similar—and perhaps cheaper, faster and closer to home.

But if the restaurant provides food + atmosphere + discovery + hospitality + human connection, the competitive equation changes.

The restaurant becomes an experience.

 

2026: The Data Says Consumers Still Want to Gather

The newest data makes the point remarkably well.

OpenTable's 2026 dining research found that 78% of Americans agree that dining out is a way to feel connected to others. Group dining involving six or more people was up 11% year over year, while 36% of consumers said they wanted more group and private dining in 2026.

Read that again.

Dining out is a connection business.

Not just a food business.

And the evidence goes even further.

OpenTable reports that experiential dining increased 46% year over year in 2025, while 37% of Americans said they wanted more experiential dining in 2026. Nearly half—48%—said they were more likely to dine at a restaurant hosting a pop-up, collaboration or other special experience.

Why?

Because consumers cannot duplicate that experience simply by opening the refrigerator.

The experience is the product.

 

The Restaurant Is Becoming the New Social Media

For decades, restaurant operators worried about location.

Then came websites.

Then online reviews.

Then Facebook.

Then Instagram.

Then TikTok.

Now the restaurant itself has become a form of media.

The food is photographed.

The beverage is photographed.

The dining room is photographed.

The décor is photographed.

The customer photographs the table.

The customer photographs the menu.

The customer photographs the experience.

OpenTable reports that 79% of Millennials and 68% of Gen Z consider a restaurant's Instagram/TikTok-worthiness important when deciding where to dine.

That is a remarkable transformation.

The restaurant is no longer simply the place where the marketing happens.

The restaurant has become the marketing.

Every table can become a billboard.

Every handheld can become an advertisement.

Every unusual beverage can become content.

Every interesting service interaction can become a story.

This is what I call Hand-Held Marketing—and today the consumer's hand may be holding both the food and the smartphone.

 

Consumers Want Discovery

My original thinking about young adult consumers was built around the idea that they wanted to explore.

That idea has not gone away.

It has become more important.

Consumers want something they have not experienced before.

A new flavor.

A new sauce.

A new beverage.

A new handheld.

A new preparation.

A new restaurant.

A new collaboration.

A new way to share food.

A new reason to gather.

In 2026, OpenTable reports that 54% of consumers are willing to pay a premium for a one-of-a-kind dining experience, while local charm and unique restaurant environments are increasingly important elements of restaurant design.

That is the opportunity.

Different does not have to mean expensive.

It means memorable.

 

Convenience Didn't Die—It Changed

Now here is where restaurant operators can get themselves into trouble.

They can hear "social experience" and conclude that consumers suddenly want slow service, complicated menus and leisurely dining every time they eat.

Wrong.

Convenience is still king when convenience is what the consumer wants.

The National Restaurant Association has continued to document the enormous importance of off-premises dining, particularly among younger consumers.

Consumers want restaurants to accommodate their lifestyles.

Sometimes that means:

“Get me in and out.”

Sometimes it means:

“Bring it to my house.”

Sometimes it means:

“I'm eating in my car.”

And sometimes it means:

“Give me a table where I can sit with my friends for two hours.”

The consumer isn't inconsistent.

The occasion is different.

That is an important distinction.

Speed of Service and Socialization Can Coexist

The smartest operators understand that speed and socialization are not opposites.

They are different consumer needs.

A commuter wants speed.

A parent between activities may want convenience.

A teenager may want a place to hang out.

A couple may want a date-night experience.

A group of friends may want a table.

A family may want food everyone can agree upon.

A senior may want conversation.

A businessperson may want lunch and Wi-Fi.

One consumer.

Multiple occasions.

That is why I have long argued that there are no silos in the consumer mind.

The consumer does not wake up and say:

“Today I am a restaurant consumer.”

They simply ask:

“What's for dinner?”

Or lunch.

Or breakfast.

Or a snack.

Or coffee.

Or something to share.

 

The Price-Value Equation Just Got Bigger

There is another critical issue.

Consumers still care about price.

In fact, they care enormously about price.

But price is not the same thing as value.

OpenTable's 2026 research identifies happy hour and value promotions as the No. 1 dining trend restaurateurs expect to see in 2026, while 51% of Americans said they wanted more happy-hour and value promotions.

That is not surprising.

Consumers want to know:

“What am I getting for my money?”

And increasingly the answer isn't just ounces of food.

It can include:

Food + service + atmosphere + convenience + entertainment + discovery + socialization.

That is a much larger definition of value.

A restaurant can therefore compete on value without simply becoming the cheapest restaurant in town.

The goal isn't always to lower the price.

Sometimes the goal is to increase what the consumer believes the experience is worth.

 

The Dining Room Has Become a Product

For years, restaurant operators treated the dining room as an operating expense.

I believe they should increasingly treat it as a product.

What does the consumer see?

What does the consumer hear?

Where do people sit?

Can people see other people?

Is the room inviting?

Can groups comfortably gather?

Is there counter seating?

Is there bar seating?

Can someone dine alone without feeling alone?

Can two people have a conversation?

Can six people celebrate?

Can a family spread out?

Can consumers discover something happening around them?

OpenTable reports that counter seating increased 26% and bar seating 23% year over year in its 2025 data.

That isn't simply furniture.

That's social architecture.

The way a restaurant is designed influences whether people interact with the environment around them.

 

The Best Restaurant May Give Consumers Something to Talk About

The old restaurant question was:

“Did you like the food?”

The new question should be:

“What did you experience?”

Was the burger different?

Was the beverage interesting?

Did the server make you laugh?

Was there a special event?

Did you discover something?

Was the dining room exciting?

Did you see something you had never seen before?

Did your friends enjoy it?

Did you take a picture?

Did you tell somebody about it?

That final question is critical.

Because when a consumer tells someone else about a restaurant, the consumer becomes the restaurant's salesperson.

That is powerful marketing.

And it doesn't require a television commercial.

Restaurants Are Selling "Together"

This may be the biggest opportunity of all.

The restaurant industry has spent decades selling:

Breakfast.

Lunch.

Dinner.

Snacks.

Beverages.

Desserts.

But perhaps the most important thing restaurants sell is:

Together.

Together with friends.

Together with family.

Together with coworkers.

Together on a date.

Together for a birthday.

Together after a game.

Together before a concert.

Together because nobody wanted to cook.

Together simply because people wanted to see other people.

OpenTable's 2026 research shows that birthdays were the most popular celebration associated with dining out in 2025, while anniversary dining generated 40% more spending per person than an ordinary restaurant visit.

That is the occasion economy.

And restaurants are perfectly positioned to own it.

 

The Grocerant Opportunity Is Bigger Than Restaurants

Here is where this becomes bigger than restaurants.

The same consumer behavior applies to:

Grocery store service delis.

Convenience stores.

Food halls.

Dollar stores.

Retail prepared foods.

Virtual restaurants.

Takeout.

Drive-thru.

Home delivery.

The consumer does not care who owns the kitchen.

The consumer cares about getting the right food for the right occasion at the right price with the right amount of convenience.

That is the Grocerant Niche.

The grocery store can become a restaurant.

The convenience store can become a café.

The restaurant can become a retailer.

The retailer can become a foodservice operator.

And the consumer simply moves between them.

No silos in the consumer mind.

 

The New Restaurant Question

So I would challenge every restaurant operator, foodservice executive and food retailer with one question:

If I removed your food from the equation, would consumers still want to be there?

If the answer is no, you have a food product.

If the answer is yes, you may have a destination.

That distinction matters.

Because food can be copied.

Menus can be copied.

Promotions can be copied.

Prices can be copied.

Even technology can be copied.

But community, atmosphere, hospitality and human connection are much harder to copy.

That is the restaurant's moat.

 

Three Insights From the Grocerant Guru®

1. Stop Selling Meals. Start Selling Reasons to Gather.

The consumer has never had more convenient ways to get food.

Therefore, convenience alone is not a sustainable competitive advantage.

The restaurant needs to answer:

“Why should I leave home for this?”

If the answer includes food, discovery, hospitality, atmosphere and people, you have created something that delivery cannot fully duplicate.

 

2. The Dining Room Is a Marketing Channel.

Restaurant operators should stop thinking about four walls, tables and chairs as simply operating costs.

The dining room is media.

What consumers see, photograph, experience and share becomes part of the restaurant's marketing.

Make the food visual.

Make the environment inviting.

Make the experience memorable.

Give consumers something worth talking about.

Let the customer help market the restaurant.

 

3. The Future Belongs to the Restaurant That Understands the Occasion.

Tuesday at 5:15 p.m. may require speed.

Friday at 7:00 p.m. may require atmosphere.

Saturday afternoon may require family convenience.

A birthday may require celebration.

A business lunch may require efficiency.

A group of friends may require a social setting.

Same consumer. Different occasion.

The winning operator doesn't ask:

“Who is our customer?”

The winning operator asks:

“What does our consumer want to accomplish with this meal?”

That is the difference between selling food and understanding the consumer.

And that, ultimately, is what the Grocerant Guru® has been saying for decades:

The consumer is not looking for a food category.

The consumer is looking for a solution to an occasion.

Restaurants that understand that will sell more than meals. They will become places people want to be.

And in an increasingly connected but increasingly isolated world, being a place where people want to be may be the most valuable product a restaurant can sell.

Success Leaves Clues—Are You Ready to Find Yours?

One key insight that continues to drive success is this: "The consumer is dynamic, not static." This principle is the foundation of our work at Foodservice Solutions®, where Steven Johnson, the Grocerant Guru®, has been helping brands stay relevant in an ever-evolving market.

Want to strengthen your brand’s connection with today’s consumers? Let’s talk. Call 253-759-7869 for more information.