Inside track by Mark Wingett
It is not every day that you get to quote Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson in M&C Report, but here goes: “I want the truth”…“You can’t handle the truth”. Why the reference to the famous court scene in A Few Good Men?
The answer lies in the attitude of some in the sector to adopting lower-calorie options on its menus and the findings of the recent study carried out across a number of leading restaurant chains in the US on the impact doing so has on their bottom line. You want the truth about how one leads to another, the Hudson Institute’s findings are the first to provide some proof.
A great deal has been done by the sector over the past few years in reacting to the shift in consumer needs on lower calorie options and Government prompting through its Responsibility Deal. Indeed, another nudge came this morning through the latest study on levels of obesity in the UK and further calls by doctors to tax fizzy drinks and ban junk food ads. However, many operators remain accused of paying lip service to the issue.
Yes there has been plenty of research into consumer attitudes, with most returning the line “would like more information to be provided, but would also like to be allowed to make my own choices”. But now concrete evidence has been brought forward to suggest that sales can be negatively impacted, by -5.5% on a like-for-like basis, for those operators with fewer lower-calorie options on their menus.
What the UK faces is operators wanting to do the right thing when it comes to providing calorie information, against an austere environment where money-squeezed consumers are looking for cheaper, more indulgent offers.
From its experience of having calories on the menu from March 2011 to March 2012 across its c200-strong Harvester estate, Mitchells & Butlers observed that total calorie intake per person (which included starters, sides, sauces, extras and desserts) reduced by approximately nine calories vs last year to 1,112 calories per sitting, around a 0.8% fall. Average main meal calorie intake (which includes a side and a sauce) has dropped by approximately 14 calories to 908, a drop of 1.5%.
It said: “Despite an insignificant reduction in calorie consumption from this initiative, we know that on balance, our Harvester customers are in favour of calories on the menu and those who are interested find it of genuine value. Therefore, we will continue to publish calories on the menu in Harvester, as well as providing full nutritional information on the website. We will also continue to explore additional ways of enabling and encouraging our customers to make healthier choices and reduce calorie consumption over time.”
The decision to put calories on a menu has so far been based, quite rightly, on giving customers a sense of increased flexibility and choice, as well as increasing transparency and putting the customer in control. Add in that its good for the bottom line, and you have a potent mix that cannot be ignored.
Before the horse bolts
Something that no one could have ignored over the past few weeks is the furore surrounding the “horsemeat scandal”, which has again highlighted the consequences of weak links in the supply chain.
Several operators have made moves, including TRG and Spirit, in response to the issue, with a number of operators embarking on DNA testing programmes to ensure all its beef products remain free from contamination.
Whitbread, the Brewers Fayre and Beefeater Grill operator, has already pulled two of its beef products after traces of horsemeat were found, while Tragus and Pret A Manger are amongst those awaiting test results. Major sector supplier Brakes has also moved to recall a branded lasagne. More testing will surely follow.
The blame game has already started, with the finger pointed at suppliers, local councils and supermarkets, which are under pressure to keep prices down. While this is happening consumer confidence in food is being eroded.
Mark Price, chief executive of Waitrose, cut to the central point over the weekend: “The question is, 'Who can sell the cheapest stuff?’, I’m afraid it is inevitable that there will be a slackening of product specifications - even if, not as concerning as the current situation, it’s less mint in spearmint gum or not quite as thick a layer of chocolate on your biscuit.
“If something good comes of the current scandal I hope it is the opening up of a debate around the true economics of food and a determination on the part of everybody in the food industry to apply renewed rigour to their processes and testing regimes to ensure that customers can relax and enjoy the food they buy.”
According to a couple of surveys over the weekend, almost one in three Britons have stopped eating ready meals following the revelations that some processed products contained up to 100% horsemeat, while at the same time farm shops and independent butchers have reported a 75% increase in sales.
As retailers look to regain the trust of the consumer, perhaps here is an opportunity for operators who are ahead on the “field to fork” issue, to claim some ground back on the “dine in for two” culture that is currently one of the biggest challenges to the sector.
Before that happens, the horsemeat issue has underlined one golden rule – know your suppliers. They should act as an extension of your business and be treated as such.
Ultimately, keeping tight processes in place will protect your reputation and that of those around you in the future. People always want the truth, make sure you and your business are capable of providing it.
