- Restaurant chains: why do they exist and develop? 
The chain restaurant business is easier to study using Kyiv as an example, since it is in the capital that chains are most widely represented.
In general, all food service chains can be divided into two types. The first are chains of similar, strictly standardized establishments. This typically applies to fast food and service establishments (I deliberately avoid the word "fast food," as many market operators dislike it): McDonald's, Shvydko, Mister Snack, Mac Smak, Celentano, etc., as well as Quick & Casual establishments like Dva Gusya, Puzata Khata, Domashnyaya Kukhnya, and others. Chains of the first type are often built on the principle: the first successful establishment—the second, third, tenth in the same city—leads to expansion into other cities and entry into foreign markets. Such enterprises are easily standardized, with all standards being prescribed: business processes; conceptual elements, interior design, staff, menu; often, pricing policy; and raw material base are the same for all establishments in the chain.
The second type of chain business is largely a virtual network, as it unites establishments of completely different types, price categories, and often located in different cities. Moreover, the establishments are often owned by different owners and may be linked, for example, only by a shared advertising campaign. In Kyiv, these include chains such as "Kozyrnaya Karta," "Mirovaya Karta," "Passe Paradiz," "XXI Vek," the Erika chain, and "Carte Blanche." Each of these structures has its own "network" policy; a network may include either only its own establishments or its own and "other" establishments. Therefore, the concept of "joining a network" applies only to those chains that work with third-party businesses, not just their own.
When a fast food restaurant becomes a chain, it's a natural development path, because each subsequent location strengthens the brand as a whole and creates a familiar image in people's minds: if a customer knows that they get a specific menu, this level of service, this interior design at one Shvydko, then they'll get the same thing at the same prices at any other location. The uniformity of such businesses has many advantages, as consumers are accustomed to trusting trusted brands, especially when it comes to food. For example, if you're visiting an unfamiliar country and don't know where to eat, to avoid a hassle later, it's better to go to McDonald's because there are no unpleasant surprises to be expected. Conclusion: if you're creating a fast food restaurant (or a Quick & Casual establishment), you need to plan ahead for its transformation into a chain.
- Who benefits from the network?
If all the restaurants in a chain are owned, then the chain-based approach is a natural fit. This is beneficial for both the owners and the restaurants themselves. Everything is under one control: financial reporting, supply chain management, human resources, and advertising campaigns. Suppliers offer discounts, and advertising space and time are purchased at lower prices. Staff can be easily transferred from one restaurant to another. And, importantly, the chain shares a common customer database, which provides corporate club cards that provide discounts at all restaurants in the chain. New restaurant openings follow a well-established pattern, leveraging existing staff, technologies, and suppliers. A weaker restaurant can be boosted by leveraging established brands: the customer database allows a new or simply less successful restaurant to attract customers from other restaurants within the chain.
If not all establishments in a chain are owned, it's impossible to definitively determine whether the network is beneficial to all its participants. I've roughly divided "foreign" establishments that are or could be part of such a network into three types:
Those who want to open a restaurant but don't know how. Then, turning to a chain is tantamount to hiring a consulting or development company. A future restaurant owner significantly reduces their risks by engaging professionals and building these relationships wisely. Of course, they can hire their own staff with restaurant experience and excellent references, but this naturally offers no guarantees. The future restaurateur won't be able to verify the qualifications of these employees right away, so any mistakes in the restaurant's creation will become apparent later, when it's too late to correct them.
Failed Restaurants. The owners of such restaurants, unable to see the expected profits, eventually fall into despair and begin searching for a panacea for their failures. A successful chain initially seems like just such a panacea; it seems that if you just join such a chain, customers will flock from other restaurants. Naturally, this doesn't happen, and can't happen, because a poorly designed establishment (in the wrong location, with the wrong cuisine and service, with the wrong prices) won't attract anyone just because it's part of a successful chain.
Good restaurants that don't believe in themselves. Perhaps because they simply don't have the strength. A restaurant's success is determined by its revenue and stable customer base. In this case, joining a chain will be a small boost, allowing them to increase sales by 10-20% (no more).
- So, if you do enter the chain, you should do it initially, so to speak, before opening a restaurant?
Yes. For networking to be truly profitable, it needs to be done at the concept stage.
- How profitable are restaurant chains for consumers? What are the advantages of visiting a chain restaurant compared to a non-chain restaurant?
When it comes to low-price categories, such as fast food or Quick & Casual, chains are beneficial and convenient for consumers. Moreover, they can become a significant driver of consumption. This is especially noticeable in food courts, where chain establishments are the most popular.
Regarding high-end and mid-range restaurant chains, it's worth noting: people don't go to chains; they GO TO RESTAURANTS. Few people will only frequent one chain, neglecting all others on principle. Typically, it's the other way around: people only like one or two, maybe three restaurants within a chain. The same number are found in other chains. Frequent restaurant patrons have club cards for every chain in the city. But a 10-20% discount at fifty restaurants across the city doesn't guarantee that the cardholder will be present at all of them.
On the other hand, it's very convenient to get a discount in advance at restaurants in the chain you've never even visited. Therefore, even out of simple curiosity, a consumer might visit new restaurants in the chain at least once (this is precisely what the promotion of these restaurants is built on). But on the other hand, if a person likes, for example, Mimino and enjoys Georgian cuisine, that doesn't mean they'll go to Lipsky Osobyan; they might simply not want to go there. If a consumer likes one restaurant in the chain, there's no guarantee they'll like others, so these benefits, discounts, and loyalty programs may be completely uninteresting. In principle, I don't know whether Mirovaya Karta, Kozyrnaya Karta, Carte Blanche, or other chains have such statistics—how often do the same customers return to different restaurants? Perhaps they don't have such statistics. For consumers, a chain, as such, doesn't have much significance, precisely because our people traditionally get used not even to a chain or a brand, but to a particular establishment, a particular cuisine, and even a particular dish or drink, and these are the ones that are interesting, while all the others that appear may be completely unattractive.
- Moreover, it is quite easy to get a discount in any chain today.
Speaking of discounts... Chains have done something very bad: they've corrupted restaurant customers with their discounts. Getting a 10% discount is now very easy—you just need to leave your contact information at any chain, for example. Four or five years ago, that 10%, let alone 15-20%, was quite difficult to obtain; you had to constantly visit the restaurant to get it. The very concept of a club has been completely negated, because consumers no longer feel like a privileged client, but one of five, seven, or ten thousand. Therefore, the value of club cards has fallen sharply. Although, given the markups of most chain restaurants, which are 300-400% or more, that 10% is truly a pittance; many consumers understand this and no longer react to such a discount.
Regarding the idea that chains are more important to their owners... A chain is always created with a purpose. Naturally, the most important is making money, which puts consumer interests first; the happier the customers, the greater the restaurant's profits. But a chain can also have another goal: selling the chain's brand and capitalizing on a certain image. In this case, unfortunately, consumer interests are no longer the primary focus; the brand's visibility and promotion are more important.
For consumers, the very concept of a chain isn't really all that important. That's why it's becoming fashionable to claim non-chain status. Recently, the restaurant "Nobel" proudly called itself "non-chain." I don't know whether this helped, but they've essentially caught on to the trend: there are so many chain restaurants in Kyiv that it's become irritating. Indeed, wherever you go, you'll end up at some chain. It feels like you're being forced to go to a certain restaurant simply because it's a chain and therefore trendy. And perhaps, in this spirit, claiming non-chain status is becoming fashionable.
