The Pros And Cons Of Brinker

We live in a society that has grown quite fond of eating outside the home: according to the National Restaurant Association, 48 cents of every food dollar is now spent at restaurants, compared with just 40.5 cents per dollar in 1985. Despite this fact, we are beginning to see signs that Americans will buck this trend and begin to eat in the home more frequently. This is problematic for the casual dining industry and a firm like Brinker. This is also just one of what I consider two major problems facing Brinker. The second problem facing Brinker is the wide availability of options to eat outside the home but are somewhat to significantly cheaper than chains like Chili’s or Little Italy. These threats could be placed into one of two categories: fast food restaurants and “low-priced” casual restaurants. Brinker faces the possibility that Americans might start eating outside the home less often, and if they do decide to eat out might
It has been well-documented by a variety of media outlets how our society has become full of people with more things to do and less time to do them. Part of the appeal of going to McDonald’s versus Chili’s is not only the money that will be saved but the time that will be saved as well. In the current recession, some people might have more time while others will have less time. Therefore, it is difficult to say if the current economy will give more or less weight to the importance of convenience to diners. And Chili’s has no desire to become a fast-food style restaurant. Part of the charm and pleasure derived from eating at Chili’s is the fun atmosphere in the restaurant, the bustling bar showing the “big sports game,” and the friendly and carefree demeanor of the staff. All of these “atmospheric attributes” should be constantly monitored for quality control in the same way that the freshness of the ingredients should be observed and kept at a high