Ryan Stephens directs our attention to Layne’s Chicken Fingers. The description from their website:
Twelve years ago we started off as a small fast-food restaurant, in a dumpy looking building. Today we are a thriving small business and one of the most popular places for Aggies to eat, in our same dumpy looking building. Our tables and booths don’t exactly match, our landscaping looks terrible and our building is not exactly sturdy, but our chicken fingers are why people come.
Their menu?
- Chicken Finger plate
- Chicken Finger sandwich
- Chicken Finger club sandwich
- Grilled chicken sandwich
- French fries
- Potato salad
- Texas toast
And if you think specialization is only a practice reserved for smaller restaurants, Jen points out Raising Cane’s. From their Wikipedia page:
The restaurant offers fried chicken fingers as its only main course. Raising Cane’s total revenue in 2007 was $97.3 million.
Seems like it’s a lot more profitable* to be known as the only one that does what you do, rather than simply trying to be the best.
(Or it could just be the chicken fingers.)
*Note: “A lot more profitable” is wrong. “Can be just as profitable” is a bit less simplistic.
Another example that comes to mind is In-N-Out. Two products on the menu (Double Double and Fries), but that’s enough to keep the business thriving. Instead, they focus on a few selling points (50s feel, high quality/natural ingredients), and use these points to create their brand.
It also helps that In-N-Out tastes like heaven…
By: Joel on January 12, 2010
at 9:55 am
in-n-out……west coast is the best coast
By: luke on January 12, 2010
at 12:49 pm
Charlie – Be serious. This fallacy has a number of different names, but it’s mostly just empty writing. You found a fun example. It something to think about. What it isn’t is a base of evidence use for generalization.
Frankly, 97 million dollars is a paltry number when you compare it to essentially every other restaurant in existence since no one else abides by this “rule.” Besides, what’s really going on here is a compromise between two important goals companies have – which are first to get customers through the door and second, to convert as much as possible once they are there. Simple, clear category differentiation is critical and that’s what only selling a single product can do. Adding additional items to the menu generates units-per-transaction which is an incredibly important metric as well. Why do restaurants serve desserts they don’t make themselves? The same reason the have a bar: the margins are better.
The fact of the matter is that these things are rarely as simple or clever or concise as the first impulse implies. In any case, it’s certainly “not more profitable to be the only one that does what you do” as many multi-billion dollars brands can attest. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn’t.
By: Ryan Holiday on January 13, 2010
at 3:07 am
All points are taken, especially about it not being a jumping off point for sweeping generalizations. You are very right about this; it was poor writing on my part. What I do think is that it’s often easier to simply differentiate yourself in a new category and not try to replicate your competitors’ offerings. But as with everything, it is far from a clear-cut recipe for success.
I planned on doing one final installment (The anti-anti-wingman) after I re-read what I wrote this morning. There are countless examples to counter my argument, and I was a bit too quick to hit publish on this one.
Thanks, Ryan.
By: charhoehn@gmail.com on January 13, 2010
at 3:57 am