Know your market

Sorry to my regular readers, this topic is something of an obsession of mine.

The piece that I wrote last week about the failure of Starbucks in Australasia got me thinking about Burger Fuel Worldwide [BFW] again.

Starbucks [SBUX] failed in Australasia partly because the model that the coffee giant has used in the United States and other regions across the world doesn't fit local tastes.

The "coffee culture" in this part of the world, especially in Melbourne and parts of New Zealand, is much more sophisticated than in the United States and we already have our favourite cafe's here, owned mostly by smaller operators who know their market well. They know what to sell them, how to price the product and where to put their stores. Their customers therefore are loyal to their local cafe and wont go within a lattes' roar of a Starbucks.

Consequently Starbucks failed.

Ho does this relate to Burger Fuel?

Well, Burger Fuel has a very strong local New Zealand culture. It also knows its customers very well, they have a strong youth appeal, it is trendy, upper end and loved by those who frequent it on a regular basis.

Like Starbucks though, a question one has to ask if one were to invest money in Burger Fuel shares is, how will Burger Fuel management successfully transport the culture that they have fostered in New Zealand to new international markets that might not fit the culture that has made the company such a success locally?

I mean, that is where Starbucks went wrong. Many other fast food chains that have entered this country have entered thinking they could just import an idea from the USA, without changing it to fit the local market, then expect to see the money roll in.

El Pollo Loco, the US chicken chain, a couple of taco chains and even Wendy's Burgers, who are now doing well here, all entered New Zealand in the 1980s and 90s and failed quickly.

They failed to adapt their franchise model to fit the local tastes. Assuming you know your market is one of the biggies when it comes to starting a business, get that wrong and you might as well forget the rest.

In the case of Burger Fuel, they have a concept; trendy high quality, high priced burgers with an edge.

In their first international market in Sydney Australia though, this concept has been well established for years and those operators have lengthy local knowledge, which as I have said above is all important when transporting a foreign business and expecting it to fly.

What have BF management done to fit local Australian tastes and expectations and how will they change that model to fit in when they begin business in their newest territory, Dubai?

I have previously shown an interest in investing in this company, at a lower than current share price, but given the Starbucks example that I have pointed out above and some more thinking, I would have to now completely ditch any ideas that I had of buying a stake at any price.

What was I thinking?

Its too tough a burger to bite on.


Burger Fuel @ Share Investor

Discuss this company at the Share Investor Forum

Stocks Id buy: At a price
Burger Fuel leaves investors hungry
Burger Fuel management cagey over company progress
Burger Fuel cooks up Dubai deal
NZX share trades with strings attached
Don't buy Burger Fuel, yet
Burger Fuel: Inside info?
Burger Fool IPO: Burger Fool?
Exclusive Interview with Burger Fuel's Josef Roberts
Burger Fuel's Daytime drama
Burger Fuel share price out of gas
Beefing up store numbers
Director explains share price drop
Burger Fuel slims down in value
Burger Fuel and Coke
Marketing Burger Fuel's future
Pumpkin Patch VS Burger Fuel
Burger Fuel results and commentary

c Share Investor 2008

Restaurant Brands: No reason for optimism in latest sales figures

Frankly if Van Arkel doesn't know why 2007 3rd quarter sales at Restaurant Brands Ltd [RBD.NZ] Pizza Hut are sliding and surmises that one reason might be that Pizza Hut customers are now shopping at KFC because of the marketing then I'm surprised if he knows what day of the week it is.

Has van Arcle ever ordered a Pizza from his own company?

I don't think so, because if he did he would find out the reason why Pizza Hut sales are doing a Hindenburg.

Its truly a horrible experience getting a pizza from this company. With phone customers there are inaccurate orders taken and the in-store experience with waiting times, if you can get past the surly staff, is quite often something akin to waiting for Led Zeppelin reform(OK, hang on they have, The Beatles then)

Customers are simply voting to go elsewhere, mostly Dominoes, where they get better food, service, prices and a ten minute wait.

A new "cheesy crust" pizza is picked to rescue sales in the coming quarter!

There is also talk of a "new look" for Pizza Hut next year. More capital expense and suffering shareholders as a result.

It really is the same crap from this management every sales/profit announcement, some lame excuse why sales are bad and promises that some new marketing scheme or food item will reverse fortunes.

Never a finger pointing at bad service, at themselves.

Increased KFC sales through the "transformation" of stores are being disingenuous to say the least.

Management are siting "record" sales at its fried chicken restaurants but the facts are that the year they might be comparing this latest result to, 2002, KFC did $177.1 million in sales.

If you add the 2007 cumulative 3 quarter total of $151.8 Million to say a generous $48 million final quarter, you are still just shy of $200 million, an approximate 12% rise in dollar sales since 2002. Factoring in a generous 3% annual inflation since then though and sales are 3% down since their record listed year in 2002.

If you add in the increased wages bills, power, ingredients and store refurbishment costs you can see management are still way behind the 8 ball.

And they have Red Rooster, Nandos and Oporto nipping at their heals. Red Rooster will be a big problem for them in the future as their food and service levels are far higher in my experience and they are a full service QSR, with drive through takeaway and sit down.

What can one say about their Starbucks units. Sales are increasing but still yet to turn a profit on top of horrendous overheads, especially lease arrangements.

Regular readers of my columns on this subject will have heard this before. Restaurant Brands needs a clean our from the top, a new head and associated management and a new service focused direction.

Dressing up stores is only going to last song long, putting the S back in service will keep customers coming back for more.

On a more positive note for the company, its shares were up by 1c today to 91c.



Restaurant Brands @ Share Investor

Finger Lick'n Good Management
Chart of the Week: Restaurant Brands Ltd
Long Term View: Restaurant Brands Ltd
Stock of Week: Restaurant Brands Ltd
Restaurant Brands: Buy or Sell ?
Pizza Hut sell-off provide opportunities all-round
Danny Diab & Restaurant Brands
2008-2009 KFC sales figures mislead investors
KFC Finally Flying
Starbuck's New Zealand Cup doesn't runneth over
RBD gives KFC a push
McDonald's playing chicken with KFC
Restaurant Brand's Pizza Hut faces increasing competition
RBD sales analysis
RBD saga continues: CEO leaves
The secret recipe is out
2007 FY profit analysis
Delivering increased profit in October 2007
No reason for optimism in latest sales figures

Discuss RBD @ Share Investor Forum

Download RBD company reports

Related Amazon Reading



Secret Recipe: Why KFC Is Still Cooking After 50 Years by Robert Darden
Buy new: $15.95 / Used from: $8.52
Usually ships in 24 hours






c Share Investor 2007

Restaurant Brands: Delivering increased profit in October 2007

The profit season in New Zealand rolls on, and by and large things look good company wise considering the sad state of the economy. One company set to announce their profit in October, Restaurant Brands Ltd [RBD.NZ] the operator of the KFC, Pizza Hut and Starbucks brands in New Zealand looks set to show an increase in its earnings.

Of course this wouldn't be difficult considering the bad results they have been posting these last 24 months.

RBD's KFC unit has shown another re-growth because of vast sums of shareholder money being thrown at it but it is still off its all-time sales figures way back in the 20th century, still, having said that KFC is still the main and only profit driver for the restaurant group and it is the greasy stuff that will give RBD another shot at breaking its $1 share price barrier again-it listed in 1997 at $2.20 and briefly once touched that price in 2002.

The main problem for RBD though, apart from bad management and poor service, is the competition from its smarter and more motivated rivals.

KFC's position as the number one purveyor of chicken product is being plucked at by several rival chains. Red Rooster and Nandos are picking off KFCs customers piece by piece.

Starbucks has always struggled here and is basically a tax right-off for the company and it has never turned a profit since arriving on these shores in 1999. Operating costs are way too high and revenue hasn't yet matched these expenses.

The biggest threat to RBD though and its Pizza Hut brand, are the inroads that Dominos has made on its sales and profit. In a profit announcement by Dominos today its CEO Don Meij stated:

However, New Zealand EBITDA improved, growing from $1.5 million to $2.7 million. "In New Zealand, Domino's Pizza continues to go from strength to strength, with its EBITDA contribution up 80 per cent during the year."

October's announcement will probably see another big dip in sales for Pizza Hut and everything management have done so far to compete with Dominos has been a dismal failure.

Hopefully shareholders will also find out whether the board have managed to find a new head for the company. Vicki Salmon was pushed out at the beginning of the year and the company dearly need a new direction, any direction really so they can move forward and make some drastically needed changes in operations at head office down all the way down to store level.

In a related matter, Burger Fuel Worldwide [BFW.NZ] the recently listed "gourmet" burger maker, has failed to have its shares traded at all for the last 5 days. We wait in anticipation for a movement soon.

RBD shares closed down 1c to NZ 84c today.


Restaurant Brands @ Share Investor

Finger Lick'n Good Management
Chart of the Week: Restaurant Brands Ltd
Long Term View: Restaurant Brands Ltd
Stock of Week: Restaurant Brands Ltd
Restaurant Brands: Buy or Sell ?
Pizza Hut sell-off provide opportunities all-round
Danny Diab & Restaurant Brands
2008-2009 KFC sales figures mislead investors
KFC Finally Flying
Starbuck's New Zealand Cup doesn't runneth over
RBD gives KFC a push
McDonald's playing chicken with KFC
Restaurant Brand's Pizza Hut faces increasing competition
RBD sales analysis
RBD saga continues: CEO leaves
The secret recipe is out
2007 FY profit analysis
Delivering increased profit in October 2007
No reason for optimism in latest sales figures

Discuss RBD @ Share Investor Forum




c Share Investor 2007

Share Investor: Takes a Bite-KFC

A very interesting article below about Warren Buffetts approach to brand names got me thinking about its local significance and Restaurant Brands Management of its KFC brand:


Brand names

Commodity companies
Warren Buffet distinguishes between commodity companies and non-commodity companies.

Commodity companies sell products or services that are undistinguishable from the products and services of other companies. Here the customer generally buys on price.

Take soap, for example. Different companies sell soap but their ordinary product is generally the same. The customer will buy from habit or personal choice but can swiftly change brands where there is a price advantage.

This makes the seller vulnerable to the trading practices of competitors and it has a limited ability to increase profits by raising prices. To stay alive, it must respond to its competitors.

Warren Buffett on commodity companies

In 1982, Warren Buffett said this about commodity companies, particularly those in industries that have surplus capacity:

‘Businesses in industries with both substantial over-capacity and a "commodity" product (undifferentiated in any customer-important way by factors such as performance, appearance, service support etc) are prime candidates for profit troubles.’

Non-commodity companies - continuing competitive advantage

Other companies produce a product or service that is so different from its competitors, or so special, that the customer, and the distributor, cannot do without it. This allows the company what Mary Buffett and David Clark call a "continuing competitive advantage". They liken a competitive advantage to a moat surrounding a castle. The moat stops enemies attacking the castle; the brand name stops competitors taking away customers.

Having a brand name is not enough. The brand name, according to Mary Buffett and David Clark, must be lasting – it will go on into the foreseeable future without costly maintenance. There is no real competition for the product. This is a sustainable brand name.

The Coke brand name

A good example of a continuing competitive advantage of this kind is Coca Cola. The customer generally asks for a Coke by name; they do not buy a ‘cola’. Coca Cola is a long time investment of Berkshire Hathaway and one that Warren Buffet has constantly said is never for sale.

Some companies can obtain a continuing competitive advantage by having a monopoly, or being part of a marketing structure that operates as a monopoly. A good example of this is Freddie Mac, The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, established by Congress to buy and securitize mortgages, reselling them to investors as guaranteed mortgage pass-through certificates. This was an earlier investment of Warren Buffett.

Brand name companies

There are also some companies that market commodity products so well that they distinguish their commodity product from that of their competitors and so put their own special ‘brand’ upon their product. They can achieve this by marketing, continuous improvement, by quality production and service, or in many other ways.

McDonalds sells hamburgers and, if truth be known, their hamburgers are no better than those of their competitors. McDonalds has made itself a brand name primarily through marketing, uniformity of product, and accessibility.

Gillette sells razor blades, not a unique product. It has become dominant in the market, and a brand name, because it markets itself well, continually improves its product – track the progress of the shaving tool) – and its products are reliable.

Warren Buffett on competitive advantage

In 1993, Warren Buffett had this to say about companies with a continuing competitive advantage:

‘Is it really so difficult to conclude that Coca Cola and Gillette possess far less business risk over the long term than, say, any computer company or retailer? Worldwide, Coke sells about 44 % of all soft drinks, and Gillette has more than a 60% share (in value) of the blade market.’ Leaving aside chewing gum, in which Wrigley is dominant, I know of no other significant businesses in which the leading company has long enjoyed such global power.’

Brand name advantages

Time, of course, has moved on since 1993 – market shares change and, arguably, computer companies may have entered the brand name field (for example, Microsoft). However, Warren Buffet’s point is that there are big advantages in having a brand name like Coke, or Gillette:

The customer knows the name and the product that the name represents
Distributors have to stock the product (can you imagine a supermarket without Coke) 

The company can keep pace with inflation (or even jump ahead of it) with price rises; 

The competitive advantage of a brand name company is also enhanced if the product needs continual replacement; food and beverages, razor blades, newspapers.

A brand name in itself is no guarantee of investment success. Conversely, a company can be successful without having a brand name.


May I pull out a paragraph for closer scruitiny that is relevant and an indication of how RBD "manage." the brands that they do:


‘Businesses in industries with both substantial over-capacity and a "commodity" product (undifferentiated in any customer-important way by factors such as performance, appearance, service support etc) are prime candidates for profit troubles.’

I would argue that RBDs brands are not the "non-commodity" businesses that Buffett continues on with in the following paragraph, simply because RBD management are not doing any of the above:


Non-commodity companies - continuing competitive advantage
Other companies produce a product or service that is so different from its competitors, or so special, that the customer, and the distributor, cannot do without it. This allows the company what Mary Buffett and David Clark call a "continuing competitive advantage". They liken a competitive advantage to a moat surrounding a castle. The moat stops enemies attacking the castle; the brand name stops competitors taking away customers.

KFC would sneak in on its uniqueness for sure but its "moatability" (I just love new words) if you like, is countered by RBD managements treating their brands in a commodity type way, that is to say, neglecting them.

It is clear to most what happens when you treat any company in a cavalier fashion and in the case of a "moat" company like RBD and its brands they have managed to break the dam down and the water is rotting those brands from the inside out.

The dominance factor that Buffett talks about really only applies to KFC. Pizza Hut and Starbucks are not dominant in their niche as they have many local and international competitors that consumers will go to. Product isnt that unique to these two food brands.

KFCs dominance though has and is being taken for granted by management. How can RBD let such a global brand with such an ingrained status in New Zealand culture to the current point of diminishing returns. For goodness sake they have a potential cash cow here.

Pizza Hut is sadly going into terminal decline in this country and its competitors look set to cut it into Ponsonby like peices of the pizza it throws at its customer.

Starbucks is muddling along at a snails pace compared to its interantional brothers but seems to be stuck in a rut.

I wont go into those two here.

How does one resurrect a brand?

KFC is currently in the process of being given yet another re-vamp. We all remember the most famous revamp over ten years ago, Kentucky Fried Chicken became KFC and we all forgot about the F word.

We didnt of course but that revamp worked for a time, then logos were changed, stores remodled several times for new "looks" and menus were changed.

My point is these things all worked, for a time, and it is clear they only work for a finite time because the keepers of the brand have had to continue to revamp and window dress.

What I think is lacking though is these things that Buffett talks about:

‘Businesses in industries with both substantial over-capacity and a "commodity" product (undifferentiated in any customer-important way by factors such as performance, appearance, service support etc) are prime candidates for profit troubles.’

Even with a business moat, a dominance in the industry and an identifiable brand in KFC . It just isnt going to work if you run your brand like a commodity product and therefore tarnish its image and therefore its cache.

At present they are focused on everything but the basics of maintaining a brand and in the process slowly killing it. Only KFCs uniqueness as a food product is keeping the punters coming through the door.

Great brands are made but they can also die if they are neglected.

Too much has been taken for granted by those at Restaurant Brands head office and all they need to do to resurrect the KFC brand is to treat it like the brand it is.

Stand behind it and back it 200%


Restaurant Brands @ Share Investor

Finger Lick'n Good Management
Chart of the Week: Restaurant Brands Ltd
Long Term View: Restaurant Brands Ltd
Stock of Week: Restaurant Brands Ltd
Restaurant Brands: Buy or Sell ?
Pizza Hut sell-off provide opportunities all-round
Danny Diab & Restaurant Brands
2008-2009 KFC sales figures mislead investors
KFC Finally Flying
Starbuck's New Zealand Cup doesn't runneth over
RBD gives KFC a push
McDonald's playing chicken with KFC
Restaurant Brand's Pizza Hut faces increasing competition
RBD sales analysis
RBD saga continues: CEO leaves
The secret recipe is out
2007 FY profit analysis
Delivering increased profit in October 2007
No reason for optimism in latest sales figures

Discuss RBD @ Share Investor Forum




c Share Investor 2007

Restaurant Brands 2007 Sales Analysis

The latest sales release from RBD can be described best as, same crap different year.

Lets have a closer look:

KFC

KFC ended the financial year with the highest total sales ever at $182.7m, an increase of 6.3 per cent over the prior year. Same store sales increased 7.1 per cent for the full year, the highest annual same store sales growth.

In pure dollar terms yes KFC is 5m ahead of sales figures of 2002 , less than a 3% increase but when you factor in inflation, at a generous figure to RBD of 3%, that increase in sales is more than wiped out in one year. Extrapolate that 3% out over 5 years and you can see KFC is still hurting badly. I'm being generous to KFC and disregarding increased wages, utilities, raw product costs.

"The transformation of KFC is clearly gaining momentum as we combine store revamps with some innovative new products and a successful promotional calendar," she said today.

Now where did I hear that word "transformation" before. Yes! it was on the cover of the 2000 annual report, That was the buzz word for the year-looks like it was Vicki's' idea because she has wheeled it out again this year.

Transformation, specifically related to KFC in the 2000 report:

"..transformation of KFC with the introduction of innovative burger and snack products and store upgrades..."

AND

"...the KFC brand has been re-inventing itself...the continued store upgrade...provide(s) customers with the excitement of a vibrant,fast moving brand..."

All sounds eerily familiar to today's statement.

Vicki has a focus on marketing even in her press releases, I cant wait for this years report for some new buzz words.

Watch KFC in the face of competition from other chicken chains, notably Red Rooster. KFC is now offering whole roast chickens, as RR has always done. I put the idea of providing roast chickens to the head of KFC 7 years ago but he told me it wasn't viable because of the costs involved-oh how times change.


Pizza Hut

Not much to be said really, the figures speak for themselves:

For the full year, total Pizza Hut New Zealand sales were down 10.5 per cent to $79.7m, with same store sales declining 11.8 per cent.

In the face of competition from Domino's, complacent RBD management have let this brand suffer so much the amount of dough in their pizzas can now be seen from space. I remember Vicki saying something like "...we are not worried about the competition..." when Domino's first came on the scene. Look at Domino's now, we have never been back to PH since Domino's opened and sales figures suggest alot of others have done the same.


Starbucks

Ironically this brand used to be the straggler, now sales are increasing and all looks good. Except it still operates at a loss because operating costs are too high. Rent of some of those CBD outlets of theirs is killing the very reason for them being in business.


Summary

The focus by Vicki and her troupe on style over substance-brand image is just that if there is trouble in the kitchen: high management cost, poor service. There was no mention, and there should be, of service levels and what they are doing to make them acceptable, so we can only assume by the service in front of house that they are doing a big fat nothing.

In the face of competition RBD is an immovable feast: complacent at best and slow to react . Witness the demolition of Pizza Hut by Domino's and then wonder what might happen to KFC in the face of a bigger Red Rooster or Church's Chicken of America(cover your eyes it ain't going to be pretty)

Looking through nearly ten years of RBD reports, one must come to the conclusion that RBD, while going up and down in fortune, as QSRs do, it keeps going further down when it is down and never quite reaching the previous peak when its fortunes are up.

The future does not look good and recent talk of takeover activity(doubtful according to todays spin) may only happen when the next valley RBD gets into is unable to be got out of by spending more shareholders money on a new marketing plan, when it is the S in QSR that is sadly missing from RBD management's secret recipe.


Restaurant Brands @ Share Investor

KFC finally flying
Starbuck's New Zealand Cup doesnt runneth over
RBD gives KFC a push
McDonalds playing chicken with KFC
Restaurant Brand's Pizza Hut faces increasing competition
RBD sales analysis
RBD saga continues: CEO leaves
The secret recipe is out
2007 FY profit analysis
Delivering increased profit in October 2007
No reason for optimism in latest sales figures





c Share Investor 2007