Is a Restaurant a Chain with a Second Location at an Airport?

[DonRocks]

I'm torn (and somewhat indifferent) about the answer to this question: Should a restaurant be considered as having "Multiple Locations" if it has one brick-and-mortar location, and also a second location in, for example, an airport?

The restaurant that brings this to mind is Matsutake - it's a perfect example, as it has a location in Herndon, and a second one at Reagan Airport.

I'm happy to go either way on this one - if the answer is "No," I'll put it under Herndon.

A similar question (which possibly enters into reductio ad absurdum) arises if a restaurant has a brick-and-mortar location plus a food truck. I assume the answer for this situation is "No." I *hope* it's "No," because I can't keep track of which restaurants in the area have food trucks - a lot of these suburban ethnic restaurants own food trucks with a completely different name, so figuring this out with my limited time and resources would be a fool's errand.

I let the members decide whether I should call places like Chipotle "Quick-Serve" or "Fast-Casual" (I'll eventually be re-tagging all these restaurants as "Fast Casual"), so why not throw this out to our members as well?

[johnb]

My thoughts.  Take them FWIW.

Two links doth not a chain make.  I think that would be beyond the pale.  Anyway, the important distinguishing feature, for me, of a chain is not number of locations but whether all locations adhere to a formula, i.e. same menu, same signage, same uniforms, same color theme, same interior, etc.  

As you suggest, there is no doubt an infinity of variations in the makeup of multiple-location restaurant businesses, and in a website like this you can't have a category for all possibilities.  

My thought would be that any "chain" must have a minimum of three locations -- if it's only two then group it with conventional restaurants.  Among chains, I'd have three categories: formula quick serve (McD, Chipotle), formula dinner house (Red L, Carrabba, etc), and non-formula (places with common ownership but not trying to appear the same as the others in the shared-ownership group).  Of course there will be some that don't fit any of those well, but you've got to stop somewhere.

[DonRocks]

6 hours ago, johnb said:

My thoughts.  Take them FWIW.

Two links doth not a chain make.  I think that would be beyond the pale.  Anyway, the important distinguishing feature, for me, of a chain is not number of locations but whether all locations adhere to a formula, i.e. same menu, same signage, same uniforms, same color theme, same interior, etc.  

As you suggest, there is no doubt an infinity of variations in the makeup of multiple-location restaurant businesses, and in a website like this you can't have a category for all possibilities.  

My thought would be that any "chain" must have a minimum of three locations -- if it's only two then group it with conventional restaurants.  Among chains, I'd have three categories: formula quick serve (McD, Chipotle), formula dinner house (Red L, Carrabba, etc), and non-formula (places with common ownership but not trying to appear the same as the others in the shared-ownership group).  Of course there will be some that don't fit any of those well, but you've got to stop somewhere.

Note: I was very careful not to use the word "chain" in the post (although I did in the title for readability). One thing that you didn't mention is that a second location is very often opened with an eye to a third, fourth, and beyond. There are also many examples of places with two area locations (for now), that have numerous locations nationwide.

Still, if there are only two locations, I'm putting both in the individual neighborhoods in the Dining Guide (in most cases; places like Sugar Shack Donuts, with obvious ambitions to open many outlets ... no).

[DaveO]

FYI The Legal Seafood that did quite well at National Airport for many years had a significantly different and pared down menu than its other locations needing to focus on quicker serve and simpler menu items.  (though they still shucked a lot of oysters).   Come to think of it, TGIFridays similarly has had airport restaurants again with menus that are significnatly pared down from the norm.  I'd suspect any operating restaurant that takes its name into an airport will have to adjust its menu to different circumstances.  (clearly doesn't include fast serve restaurants). 

[johnb]

6 hours ago, DonRocks said:

Note: I was very careful not to use the word "chain" in the post (although I did in the title for readability). One thing that you didn't mention is that a second location is very often opened with an eye to a third, fourth, and beyond. There are also many examples of places with two area locations (for now), that have numerous locations nationwide.

Still, if there are only two locations, I'm putting both in the individual neighborhoods in the Dining Guide (in most cases; places like Sugar Shack Donuts, with obvious ambitions to open many outlets ... no).

Well naturally if a chain (or whatever you choose to call it) has three locations, prior to that it had to have had two.  But having two doesn't automatically mean the outfit has aspirations of  covering the world with its locations -- that wouldn't apply, of course, if the second location has signage, uniforms, menu, etc identical to the first.  But otherwise I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that merely having two locations means they are planning to become really YUGE, particularly if the two places, tho under common ownership, operate under different names.  

If they are two local stores of a chain with many locations elsewhere, then clearly they qualify as chains.

 

[DonRocks]

56 minutes ago, johnb said:

particularly if the two places, tho under common ownership, operate under different names.  

[This case you cite I don't even consider to be "Multiple Locations." Please understand that I use very prudent judgment here, and after eleven years of making these decisions, the only thing I'd change is to distribute some of the smaller chains (a chain *can* have two links by definition) into the individual neighborhoods, as well as having them in the Multiple Locations Guide). I really think that, overall, I've done pretty well - it's not a penalty to be in the Multiple Locations guide; it's just a piece of information. This is getting a touch off-subject, as I was more concerned with single-outlet restaurants that have "weird" locations like ballparks, airports, or train stations, and my inclination is *not* to have those in the Multiple Locations guide. People must not care about this very much, since we only have two votes for Matsutake; nevertheless, those two votes will carry the day unless others step up.]

[Mark Dedrick]

For my money, having an airport location shouldn't push them into the "Multiple Locations" category. I think those are very different beasts.