-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The Thank God For Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was “record-setting.” Pastor Rick Warren tweeted that Dan Cathy, CEO of Chick-fil-A, called him with the good news. The Culture Warriors are positively giddy. But, is this level of sales sustainable?
According to YouGov’s BrandIndex’s Index score, Chick-fil-A’s perception among consumers dropped nearly 26 points since Cathy made his anti-LGBT remarks. In the South the Index score plummeted from 80 to 44. The biggest drop occurred in the Northeast where the score went from 76 to 35, a drop of 44 points.
The YouGov BrandIndex is a measure of brand perception created from thousands of daily consumer interviews. Brand perception is based on quality, satisfaction, reputation, value, general impression, and willingness to recommend.
A proper sampling would include all ages, genders, and ethic groups, but would focus on 18-34 year olds. The later demographic is important for growth of new customers. The older, white Christian conservative demographic, who has rallied in support of Cathy’s remarks, is declining.
The 18-29 year old demographic favors gay marriage by a whopping 63%. If Chick-fil-A wants to alienate this demographic, it would be like committing corporate suicide. Since Chick-fil-A is a private company, its sales figures can be kept secret. It is likely that Chick-fil-A’s plummeting brand perception will be reflected in sales.
While Cathy is free to offer monetary support the Family Research Council, designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, people are also free to withhold support form Cathy by not patronizing Chick-fil-A.
TonyC,
You see how it is here in life. As soon as you say 50/50, then someone corrects you and forgets:
1) it was an illustrative figure.
2) does the “correction” make any difference?
I was on the way to do that, just to have something to say—–as I too often do; but Bron got there first. Thank you Bron. I need others, not only myself, to show me my mistakes.
I love your view of the world. Everything there is so explainable. No derision or sarcasm intended.
I simply like your world.
Tony C:
I have seen numbers around 20% for lefties, 35% for righties and the rest are on some continuum.
So it isnt 50/50 and he probably will increase his market share over this comment.
@Idealist: That was the “Mind Your Knitting” chapter 🙂
I would put that in Marketing Psychology, 304 (junior year, 4 hours credit).
As a business man Cathy would have been better off letting his company earn his fortune and making a clear distinction between his private life and beliefs, and his job. His job is producing food of value to consumers. Our country is divided 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, what have you: By slapping a label on his company he just cut his market in half, all for his personal ego. It is incompetent management.
Minding Your Knitting means focusing on your costs, your value, and your customer satisfaction. That is what Cathy should have done.
Dredd:
he died because he ate too much chicken.
Anonymously Yours 1, August 4, 2012 at 8:32 am
Statistics make liars of the best of me….. But somethings you don’t need statistics for…. You know they are going to lie to you…. It’s just a matter of when….. People should be allowed to live life the way they want…. With out judgment….. But the consequences come whether good or bad…..
Looking at walmart….. They need new stores in order the be able to show a sustainable profit…… Why do you think they are down sizing stores……
======================================
The CFA VP (Donald A. Perry) who died of cardiac arrest or mycardial infarction when he heard what the president of CFA said … knew this thunder would echo off all the walls.
He was a PR specialist.
Killed him, because this is gambling, and he had worked almost 3 decades on the CFA reputation.
Walmart would not upset the cart like that … too PR savvy.
idealist707 1, August 4, 2012 at 2:56 pm
======================
Been wondering where you are….
TonyC,
—-Thanks for the Business 101, chapter ??
—-Thanks for partially removing that “We are helpless to do anything about our situation, and might as well die”–feeling.
Probably not sustainable because many, tasting their product, will not go back.
mahtso,
“Other commenters appear to share the view that if one takes the traditional view of marriage she must be homophobic or a bigot.”
Well, yes. Why do the “traditionalists” feel so threatened by those who want the same civil rights? Is their own marriage so insecure that it could be threatened by someone else’s marriage?
Those who deliberately go to places like CFA because of the homophobic views of the owner are also homophobic. What makes it difficult to place labels though is that there are probably some who go there just because they like the food. As long as I don’t eat at CFA (and I never have) I won’t have to judge. Whew!
mahtso,
Nice spin but no cigar. Those who purposely victimize others always whine the loudest when called to account.
It’s interesting that mespo727272 does not castigate those who don’t buy for ethical reasons, but apparently the opposite is not true: the lines at Chick Fil A proves only that bigots must eat? (I thought it proved that people still respect free speech.) Other commenters appear to share the view that if one takes the traditional view of marriage she must be homophobic or a bigot.
That attitude raises an interesting point with respect to the 18- 29 year old demographic: as with (some) commenters on this blog, will they be intolerant of those who don’t share their views? The premise of the post appears to be that they are not or will not be tolerant.
Where did the name come from? Everyone who works there knows that the original name was Chicken Delight and that corporate owner had a front door woman named Mignon who was french. Her nickname was Filet. She offered the name Chick Filet as she was the main squeeze and the chick of the week. The rest is homophobic history. The gal went off with another woman and the corporate boss went hysterical. But the name was on the sign and he kind of liked it. Fil A was rearranged from Filet. End of story morning glory. I am surprised that no one had sent the real story in.
Mespo said:
“Making a purchase is not an endorsement of the philosophy of the business. While I think it’s great that people will refuse to patronize a business for ethical reasons I don’t castigate those who do not.”
Absolutely. Could not agree more.
My personal view is that adult human beings ought to be able to “marry” pretty much anybody they care to. You can also totally embrace the Oakland Raiders, if you like. Your feeble mindset in that regard does not in any way dilute my marriage to the Chargers.
I also believe Dan Cathy has every right to cling to his own interpretation of what he suspects an invisible man in the sky, deems virtuous. If he’s willing to roll the dice on his business prospects, so be it. KFC must be downright gleeful.
I submit the LBGT folks would have gained more mileage in their cause with those who disagree with them, had they simply stated, “we think he’s wrong” and walked away. Sometimes the class act is no act at all. Boycotts mean little if there’s one on every street corner.
I suspect much of our entire conundrum on the subject of marriage is the result of our allowing – extraordinarily foolish, in my view – the government and the court systems to hold any sway in our personal relationships whatsoever. I see no better example of societal hypocrisy than trumpeting separation of church & state every from the belfry, and then allowing that state to not merely cling, but glue each member of society, to biblical constraints.
We need to take the god-business – and the fed-business – out of the relationship business.
“It’s simply a non sequitur to argue that in buying a chicken wrap I am therefore endorsing the views of the person who made it.”
It certainly is.
How many hours of our lives are we willing to invest, researching who-thinks-what, about each and every thing we eat, wear, drive or sit on, before we buy it.
raf … Their original name was Dwarf House … complete with a small door. I kid you not.
As to the points made by Nal, mespo, and Tony C., I had to chuckle at the coverage given to a Chick-fil by our local news station. According to my neighbor, who works at a news station, they were ordered to cover the event so they did. All those chosen to appear on camera were old, very fat, and very “Jesus-saves”. It was hilarious.
Propaganda was at work on both sides of the question.
It is my opinion that Chick-fil-A’s downward sliding brand perception started impacting sales months ago and that is the only reason Cathy made his anti-LGBT remarks this time … well, okay, not his only reason for doing so … I suspect it was also his Diebold – O’dell moment.
What goes around comes around. Words have consequences, sorry.
Mespo,
I do not shop at WalMart because of what they do to their own employees and to the competition of small businesses. I have never been to a Chic fil a restaurant and I would not eat there if you gave me a free dinner.
David, I agree that the chick fil a protestors have the same free speech right that the owner has. I think the owner may lose on that one. By the way, where in the hell did that name come from???
I do not think the response is sustainable at all. I wish it were, it would put the homophobic owners out of business.
The telling numbers are in that brand decline, conservatively 26 points. When it comes to restaurants in particular, only a small percentage of patrons eat alone, and most groups honor a good deal of deference to minority veto, and that 26 points would multiply into about a 50%.
Thus homosexuals are not the only customers and employees they lose, their appeal declines in any group that contains a member opposed to bigotry against homosexuals.
The sales bump phenomena is pretty much a one-shot deal, people that were not steady patrons of ChickFilA before will probably not become steady patrons, there was a persistent reason they were not steady patrons before, and that persistent reason may have been overridden temporarily by a protest vote, but it will reassert itself and they will return to their previous ways of ignoring ChickFilA for better food.
However, as an advocate of full gay rights, it would be great if ChickFilA became the go-to joint for homophobes, because that would make it a place-to-avoid for groups containing at leats one gay-tolerance advocate, and when half your former patronage would rather go someplace else, that would destroy the ChickFilA business.
Restaurants operate on thin margins, like 15%. They have a relatively stiff cost structure to keep up the physical space and prep food for consumption. It is not perfectly scalable. so it is not unusual for a 25% decline in customers to put a restaurant out of business.
A joint that starts out trying to appeal to a relatively small niche (like a gay bar) can often stay afloat, because they become a destination for their demographic and draw on a larger geographic footprint.
Or to put that in a more numerically analytic friendly way, if your business appeals to one in ten consumers instead of seven in ten, then your marketing reach and accessibility must be seven times larger than for the general consumer. That is kind of easy to achieve in areas with high population densities like cities, but more difficult to achieve in lower density rural areas. (This formulation of the idea is more compute friendly because we know the population density of every county and zip-code in the nation, so with a few other demographics and some experimentation, we can identify appropriate venues for new outlets).
ChickFilA’s problem is they grew their locations by appealing to a general audience, if they step back to appealing to a much smaller and specifically homophobic audience, I doubt they can survive that downsizing. They have grown and are geared to serve the general public, not a niche demographic.
So sure, it would be great for ChickFilA to become the go-to place for the homophobic. I think that would destroy them.
I think most people don’t make buying decisions based on the political philosophy of the business. I know I don’t. Making a purchase is not an endorsement of the philosophy of the business. While I think it’s great that people will refuse to patronize a business for ethical reasons I don’t castigate those who do not. It’s simply a non sequitur to argue that in buying a chicken wrap I am therefore endorsing the views of the person who made it. I buy it because it tastes good. To do otherwise invites this foolish glee by the Rick Warrens of the world and the kind of unprovoked harassment of employees in the recent YouTube video. As I told a commenter the other day, long lines at Chick-Fil-A prove only that bigots have to eat somewhere too and it also proves that the restaurants’s food and service are good for other folks as well.
The “eat more Chicken” Cows are reconfiguring their ads.
Statistics make liars of the best of me….. But somethings you don’t need statistics for…. You know they are going to lie to you…. It’s just a matter of when….. People should be allowed to live life the way they want…. With out judgment….. But the consequences come whether good or bad…..
Looking at walmart….. They need new stores in order the be able to show a sustainable profit…… Why do you think they are down sizing stores……