It’s a common saying in the food industry: location, location, location. But what happens when a restaurant, even a fast food spot, gets the location wrong? A recent online discussion highlighted a critical lesson about restaurant viability, particularly relevant to the fast-paced world of fast food. The discussion revolved around a seemingly simple question about why a restaurant failed, and the answers reveal a lot about the nuances of choosing the right spot, especially when outdoor seating is involved. Let’s break down the scenario and understand why getting the details right is crucial for any food business, especially those serving fast food.
The core of the problem wasn’t simply about outdoor seating being unpopular. One of the proposed answers suggested that people dislike eating outside due to exhaust fumes. This is a key distinction. It’s not that people universally hate eating outdoors; it’s the condition of the outdoor environment that matters. Imagine a fast food restaurant setting up tables right next to a busy road. The appeal of enjoying a quick meal outdoors quickly diminishes when you’re also inhaling car exhaust. This highlights that outdoor seating isn’t inherently bad, but it’s heavily dependent on the surrounding environment. A fast food place in a park or pedestrian zone with outdoor seating might thrive, while the same concept next to heavy traffic is likely to struggle.
Another incorrect answer brought up the idea of bank loans and restaurant failures, suggesting that banks shouldn’t lend money to restaurants without indoor seating. This misses the point entirely. The discussion wasn’t about financial advice or banking practices. It was about understanding why a restaurant in a specific situation failed. Furthermore, assuming that lack of indoor seating is automatically a business risk is flawed. Many successful fast food establishments operate with limited or no indoor seating, especially in areas with pleasant climates or where takeaway is the primary model. Again, the issue isn’t the absence of indoor seating itself, but the context.
The conversation also touched upon the idea of success versus failure being binary. The reality is more nuanced. A restaurant isn’t simply successful or unsuccessful; there’s a spectrum. A fast food restaurant might just barely survive, struggling to make a profit, or it could be wildly successful and profitable. The original question focused on the reasons for failure, not the ingredients for guaranteed success. It’s important to understand what factors contribute to a negative outcome, like choosing a location where outdoor seating is compromised by unpleasant surroundings.
Finally, one answer incorrectly stated that outdoor seating itself is the problem. This overlooks the crucial detail: the lack of indoor seating in combination with problematic outdoor seating is the real issue. If a fast food restaurant has a comfortable indoor dining area and also offers outdoor seating, the outdoor option becomes an addition, not a necessity. Customers have a choice. However, if the only option is outdoor seating, and that outdoor seating is unpleasant due to fumes or noise, then the restaurant is setting itself up for failure. A more accurate statement would be: “A fast food place in a busy urban area is likely to fail if it only has outdoor seating and that seating is exposed to exhaust fumes.”
The correct takeaway is that context is paramount. For fast food restaurants, which often rely on quick turnover and convenient locations, choosing the right spot is even more critical. Outdoor seating can be a valuable asset, attracting customers who enjoy al fresco dining. However, if that outdoor seating is located in an environment that detracts from the dining experience, and there’s no indoor alternative, then even the best fast food offerings are unlikely to overcome a fundamentally flawed location. Understanding these location nuances is essential for anyone in the fast food business looking to thrive, not just survive.
