Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It costs $10k to ‘own’ a Chick-fil-A franchise

thehustle.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 233 posts

Re: It costs $10k to ‘own’ a Chick-fil-A franchise

#191

Post by int_19h »

rukittenme wrote: post #142
cryptoz wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Editing to remove accurate but aggressive words is a common piece of advice you hear on HN. I stand by original comment and my edit. > They help 23 million people a year, without any type of discrimination. This is false. > They have at least one dorm exclusively for transgender individuals. Their charity services literally benefit millions of LGBTQ individuals every year. Good acts do not undo bad acts. > But if you…

You gave yourself three chances to defend your position and each time you failed to attempt it. I understand two things about the Salvation Army. They serve the most vulnerable in their community(-ies) and they hold religious beliefs which run against the politics of the day. That second point may give you some sense of justification. But consider this, on the Salvation Army's website, one of their top line issues is…

> They serve the most vulnerable in their community

This is kinda part of the problem. Because Salvation Army is in this business, it's an excuse for others to not be - and especially so for governments, since "just leave it to the charity" is a very common take on welfare on the conservative right. So then when they discriminate, the people they discriminate against often have nowhere else to go. They have to either accept the religious mores forced on them in exchange for food and roof over their head, or they starve. And SA knows that full well when they turn such people away from their kitchens and shelters.

And no, they aren't a pinnacle of tolerance. There are numerous recorded instances of them refusing to alleviate the homelessness and hunger on the basis that acceptance of LGBTQ is counter to their religion.

Re: It costs $10k to ‘own’ a Chick-fil-A franchise

#192

Post by asdff »

Nextgrid wrote: post #2

I always found franchise initial startup costs to be predatory, as they get paid either way regardless of whether the franchisee actually succeeds. In my opinion they should be abolished and franchisors should only rely on royalties, so that they have an incentive to help the franchisee succeed if they want to make money.

Chick fil a at least can be run pretty passively. I got to know an owner at a local franchise. He owned other franchises and gas stations, had a massive house in a gated community, and had time to lecture at a very good business school in town.

He had managers on every shift running day to day so he never really needed to visit the store, but he did a couple times a week anyway to show face with the staff and even step onto the line and bag orders if it got swamped while he was there, simply to lighten the load on the staff.

If this had been an independent restaurant, he might have been doing things like cooking in the back 12 hours a day to lower his payroll. Predatory is not the word I would use for most franchises these days; passive income is the word I would use.

Re: It costs $10k to ‘own’ a Chick-fil-A franchise

#193

Post by asdff »

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #187
asdff wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name a fast food chain besides popeyes that can pull off a better spicy chicken sandwich. Even chick fil a's isn't heavenly (my preference is for a thai take on the sandwich from a local place albeit 3x the cost), but it is head and shoulders above any other chain in that market. There is also something powerful about the spicy chicken sandwich in particular. Every brewpub offers some nashville styled whatever cut of…

> Name a fast food chain besides popeyes that can pull off a better spicy chicken sandwich. shrug ... every other chain that offers one? I guess this is all subjective, but I don't taste any quality difference between Chick-fil-A and other fast food chain chicken sandwiches. It seems like hype to me.

Chic fil a offers actual chicken cuts. The nuggets and tenders are actually ripped pieces of breasts, the sandwiches are actual filets that are seasoned and breaded in the store the day you ordered it.

You go to a wendys or a mcdonalds and order a dozen nuggets, you will see they come in exactly 4 shapes—ground whatever parts of chicken pressed into a mold of one of 4 randomly chosen shapes, breaded and flash frozen at a factory, and flash fried in store. Taste is subjective of course, but the quality of meat difference here is actually pretty objective.

Re: It costs $10k to ‘own’ a Chick-fil-A franchise

#194

Post by rexf »

asdff wrote: post #185
irrational wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They opened up the first one near me in a Portland Oregon suburb. The place was packed whenever they were open with drive-thru cars spilling out into the street. I thought the madness would end after a few days/weeks, but it's been years and they still have a huge draw. I went in there once just to try it. It was good, but not the best thing I've ever had. I wonder if it is nostalgia from people from the SE USA that…

The draw is that it's the only fast food place besides popeyes that can make a decent spicy chicken sandwich for only $4. The wendy's spicy sandwich costs more while being cafeteria food tier and is barely seasoned. BK and mcdonald's offerings aren't much better. Not sure who else is even in this spicy chicken game, but it is a massive game to get into. There is a reason why popeyes still can't keep their sandwiches…

Howlin' Ray's is not relevant (only one current location open), and it is definitely not your typical fast food layout (drive through or easy parking). It's in the Far East Plaza.

Re: It costs $10k to ‘own’ a Chick-fil-A franchise

#195

Post by Reedx »

asdff wrote: post #183
privateSFacct wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting some decades ago I think McDonald's did a study that led to something called the 4 minute McDonald's universe which was a distance they found people would go for spur of the moment purchasing. Obviously impractical, but this idea of optimizing for total revenue has been around for a bit I think.

And it's not limited to mcdonalds. Starbucks is getting notorious for this. Here is an area by me with three starbii: https://goo.gl/maps/qR2XLLVYmqiyrHtLA One in the vons, directly across the street from one in the ralphs, and if you head north on vermont in this street view you will hit a burger king. Today that is a freestanding starbucks. Three starbucks locations in less than a square mile.

There's a spot in SF where two Starbucks are about a 30 second walk apart, depending on your luck with the walk sign. https://www.google.com/maps/search/starbucks/@37.7843267,-12...

They're so close that I've switched locations depending on the length of the line. Sometimes both are packed though.

Re: It costs $10k to ‘own’ a Chick-fil-A franchise

#196

Post by all_blue_chucks »

_jasper wrote: post #141
markovbot wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please elaborate on why those groups aren't "anti-gay"? I've never heard of "Fellowship of Christian Athletes", but the Salvation Army is absolute anti-gay.

For me personally, the phrase "anti-gay group" muddies the waters because although Salvation Army (1) does (or did) have some anti-gay policies, and (2) is a "group", its main purpose is to be a food or shelter charity; not to pursue the disenfranchisement of gays through say, political compaigning. To illustrate, I might refer to an organization under religion X as an "anti-women religious group" because perhaps rel…

There's no reason to try to make this complicated. You either treat gay people with equality or you don't. If you don't treat them as equals you are anti-gay.

If your primary goal is to harm gays you are a hate group.

There is no ambiguity here.

Re: It costs $10k to ‘own’ a Chick-fil-A franchise

#197

Post by fooker »

chrismcb wrote: post #119
adaisadais wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extremely well put. I completely concur. My first cousin is in the process of getting his “own” store now. While it has been a grind (he often worked the mythical 100+ hour week while in the Leadership Development Program) it will pay off handsomely. The best part of Chic-Fil-A (in my opinion) is not the food but their total devotion to the customer. The level of service you receive at a Chic-Fil-A freestanding store…

I don't eat at Chic fil a because I had a manager tell me my opinion is wrong and basically they don't care about the customers opinion. So it appears to me that they have absolutely zero devotion to the customer.

Was your opinion wrong?

Re: It costs $10k to ‘own’ a Chick-fil-A franchise

#198

Post by javagram »

Pfhreak wrote: post #150
forrestthewoods wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> extremely, violently anti-gay Nice edit. They help 23 million people a year, without any type of discrimination. They have at least one dorm exclusively for transgender individuals. Their charity services literally benefit millions of LGBTQ individuals every year. But if you want to call that "extremely", "violently", or "intensely" anti-gay then I certainly can't stop you.

> without any type of discrimination The Salvation Army is a church, and is regulated as a church. They can inquire about your religious or personal beliefs when hiring or before providing services. They threatened to close in NYC if they had to support gay partner's benefits in the city. There's a laundry list of discriminatory behavior from the Salvation Army, it's patently absurd to say they operate "without any f…

> They threatened to close in NYC if they had to support gay partner's benefits in the city.

FYI, while true as a historical matter (this was done in 2010 according to a google search), I believe this is outdated. https://www.wsj.com/articles/progressives-ambush-the-salvati... notes in 2019: ‘Yet the organization says it doesn’t consider sexual orientation in hiring and now provides “the same benefits to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.”’

They are a church as you note and I’m not sure what their doctrine for their followers is. On the other hand, isn’t it anti-religious bias to attack someone for donating to a church? In US law, religion is protected on the same level as any other protected characteristic (sex, race, etc.) due to the long history of discrimination against minority religions for their political or moral views.

In general attacking CFA for donating to a mainstream christian church seems only a step away from demanding that followers of Christianity who attend or donate to their churches must be fired from their jobs or otherwise discriminated against...

Re: It costs $10k to ‘own’ a Chick-fil-A franchise

#199

Post by _jasper »

all_blue_chucks wrote: post #196
_jasper wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me personally, the phrase "anti-gay group" muddies the waters because although Salvation Army (1) does (or did) have some anti-gay policies, and (2) is a "group", its main purpose is to be a food or shelter charity; not to pursue the disenfranchisement of gays through say, political compaigning. To illustrate, I might refer to an organization under religion X as an "anti-women religious group" because perhaps rel…

There's no reason to try to make this complicated. You either treat gay people with equality or you don't. If you don't treat them as equals you are anti-gay. If your primary goal is to harm gays you are a hate group. There is no ambiguity here.

I think there’s plenty of nuance here. Taking your position consistently, would you be comfortable referring to any christian X as “anti-gay X” or any muslim Y as “anti-women Y”? I think the label would be out of place in most cases, and needlessly divisive.

Re: It costs $10k to ‘own’ a Chick-fil-A franchise

#200

Post by all_blue_chucks »

_jasper wrote: post #199
all_blue_chucks wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason to try to make this complicated. You either treat gay people with equality or you don't. If you don't treat them as equals you are anti-gay. If your primary goal is to harm gays you are a hate group. There is no ambiguity here.

I think there’s plenty of nuance here. Taking your position consistently, would you be comfortable referring to any christian X as “anti-gay X” or any muslim Y as “anti-women Y”? I think the label would be out of place in most cases, and needlessly divisive.

> would you be comfortable referring to any christian X as “anti-gay X”

Of course not! There are many Christian groups that treat women and gays with equality.

The Christian groups that treat gays as lesser people are absolutely anti-gay, though. They may not be hate grouped but they are absolutely anti-gay.

Post reply on HN