But every In-N-Out I've ever been to has a line out the door. Taco Bell may have a larger menu but I doubt they have anywhere near the per-store revenues or profit margin of an In-N-Out.
> But every In-N-Out I've ever been to has a line out the door.
That could also be explained by the fact that there are far less In-N-Out locations than Taco Bell, so one store has to handle demand from over a larger area than Taco Bells.
If In-N-Out has the same density of locations as a Taco Bell, the per-store revenues will be quite different.
Sure but lets put it in context of this article. If I were looking to open one fast food franchise, I'd much rather be in the In-N-Out, do one thing well camp then Taco Bell's give them anything world.
(this isn't to say Taco Bell's business is poor, I'd just rather do what In-N-Out does)
Taco Bell is also pretty successful, and that contradicts the article. Other contradictory examples are Olive Garden and The Cheesecake Factory, both of which have extensive menus and are wildly succesful, the latter also having the same scarcity dynamics and lines as In-N-Out.
Articles like this are annoying. There are multiple ways to success, and presenting one as clearly better than others when there are so many counterexamples is disingenuous.
In-N-Out has a simple menu, above average ingredient quality, and treats their workers pretty well. All great qualities. But it's pretty evident, especially when it comes to food, that you can be bad in all those areas and still be successful, and perhaps even outcompete those who are better than you, if you focus on price and consistency, even if the thing you're consistent at is being mediocre.
