Monday, September 03, 2007

Kentucky Fried Chicken Vs McDonald's Burgers

The young generation of India has drifted towards junk food against the traditional Indian homemade food. People have started to live a fast track life, so much so to that they prefer going to the junk foodies restaurant and pick up a quick grab in just few minutes instead of making lunch/dinner at home and easting 2 to 3 hrs preparing it.

It all started with the invention of McDonald’s in INDIA, junk food has become more popular between the young youth as McDonald’s launched its branch in most of the major cities of INIDA. Along with McDonald’s many other junk food brands started their businesses here.

One of a direct competition to the evergreen business of McDonald’s that recently launched here in Mumbai is Kentucky Fried Chicken 9commonly known as KFC) which is famous for its fried chicken.

Though Non-Veg lovers can have a fest in KFC, the VEG lovers are sidelined and are not taken of that much care; there is no variety for the veggies here in KFC, as much as they have in McDonald’s. In MC Donald’s you get a wide variety of choices for both VEG and NON-VEG lovers.

When it comes to Quality – KFC is far behind from MC Donald’s, they really need to maintain their quality standards well if they want to rise up the ladder and compete with McDonald’s.

Presentation skills also matters – and no one can really beat MC Donald’s for that, they have these different offers from time to time, they have special offers for 12 months of the year for kiddies, they give away free toys etc, all this is really required if you want to win away the masses. KFC does not offer any of those. Presentation skills at KFC are really poor.

So my advice to KFC would be – pay more attention to people management, communication skills, have a complaint box or feedback survey done which will help you know where and what are you lacking behind at – trust me it will really help you a great deal!


Jack Mann said...

Interesting post.


Face Wallace said...

By the way, I've read several of your articles, and you do an admirable job of communicating in a second language.

I have some advice, but please remember that I do not work as a journalist, and you may not find my comments useful or wise.

I would encourage you to dig deeper for your stories so your readers will benefit from the information only you can provide. Can you find sources? In some of your articles, I find the kind of research I would expect from one of my students, and I expect more from a journalist.

For example, in your August 7 article on getting a high salary, you could have spoken to a couple of company presidents and asked them to give some advice you could add to your column. Not only do direct quotations show that you've put in some extra effort to produce your work, it shows that you have a source for your information that most of us do not have, and we may respect your opinions more as a result.

Next, I would ask you whether you want to give only objective reports. If you do not want to be part of your story, you should try to stop using "I" in your work. Your article on Shakira read more like it was by a fan because you wrote in the first person.

This becomes most dangerous in controversial stories, like the one you wrote about Sanjay Dutt. If you add "I" to the story, people will no longer see it as a fair and balanced description of the situation. Only by remaining detached can you be objective.

On the other hand, you could have used that story to write an editorial. Give your opinion and back it up with as much powerful evidence as you can. Try to convince us one way or the other.

As a challenge, then write an editorial to convince readers of the opposite opinion.

Even in this case, you should try to avoid "I" statements. "I think Sanjay Dutt is innocent because" will not be as powerful as saying "Sanjay Dutt is innocent because..."

Finally, I would suggest that you take advantage of your advantages. You're a developing writer who wants to be a journalist, and to get into that difficult and competitive field, you'll need something that gives you an edge over others.

Experience and professional writing standards are usually the qualifications aspiring journalists need in order to land a job, and you fall short in both at the moment. You're obviously working on your writing style and you have this blog for experience, both of which are good ideas that will address those needs.

To speed things up, however, you might consider taking advantage of your beauty to get into the field. Instead of starting as a journalist, why not get your foot in the door by getting a job as a reporter? You're stunning, and the camera would love you. You'd get contacts and experience while you continue to improve your writing.

As a bald man, I'm a little unhappy when attractive people use their looks to get ahead... But it would be ridiculous to deny that it happens quite often. Others are using that advantage to get into the field you have chosen.

Many beautiful people start out in news by attending concerts and birthday parties and giving short, cute, and unimportant reports at the end of the news hour. Eventually, if you're serious about your career, you'll get more and more serious stories, and you can make the transition to being a TV or print journalist.

Soledad O'Brien, for example, is one of the most beautiful people on American TV news. She once had a program segment as the Sun Microsystems Infogal, and now she's the anchor of CNN's "American Morning." She probably got her chance because of her looks, but she has used her talent to get respect, and she could now get any job she wants.

Best of luck, Stella Roy. You've chosen a career that will require you to work tremendously hard, and I hope that you'll find it a rewarding choice.

Dev said...

I can agree with you that the people who like veggies probably get a raw deal at KFC as compared to Mc Donalds. I also think that indegenising the menu was a good idea by McDonald. But one must keep in mind that the success of these franchises is based on duplicability. That means you expect an identical experience at any of the franchises irrespective of the location whether it be New York or Mumbai. Can you imagine a KFC without fried chicken? No because that is the brand identity. Similarly McDonalds is symbolized by, is synonymous with the McBurger that is a red meat burger patty. I can understand them replacing the beef for mutton due to religious sentiments. When they first opened shop in India their McBurger (mutton) and double Mac were probably the best items. So naturally I was scandalized when it was dropped from the menu in India. Catering to varied clientele is fine but that does not mean they should sacrifice their identity and frankly I see no apparent advantage in taking such a decision.


Anonymous said...

Seeing these kind of posts reminds me of just how technology truly is ever-present in this day and age, and I think it is safe to say that we have passed the point of no return in our relationship with technology.

I don't mean this in a bad way, of course! Societal concerns aside... I just hope that as memory becomes less expensive, the possibility of copying our memories onto a digital medium becomes a true reality. It's a fantasy that I daydream about every once in a while.

(Submitted using Nintendo DS running [url=]R4i[/url] OperaV2)

People who read this, also gave their comments on below topics.
Name Subject
Back to top