The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Let me just make it clear.

It bothers me that Pepsico changed the formula for Pepsi Cola and the way KFC chicken tastes.

I know they could have remained profitable without making the changes they did.

It bothers me that some CEO with an MBA who had nothing to do with the original Companies success makes such drastic changes to tried and true products that already sold.

Pepsi and KFC were already successful and good tasting products plus profitable.

I am all for profit. Not for sacrificing quality.

By the way. Popeyes beat KFC in a blind national taste test. They did it in 1987 and now just recently. The people have spoken.

http://www.popeyesbeatkfc.com/

HEROHAMO wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:Corporations make changes to there product in order to increase profit

HEROHAMO wrote:You will lose the customer

they increase profit and lose the customer? I'm curious how that logic works exactly...

Your statement, "they increase profit and lose the customer?", Not mine.
Where in my post do you see me with that exact statement?
Textbook strawmans argument 101.

Classic Kaz first move of debate. Do you have that debate itch again?

Why would I argue a point I never made?

There's a strawman 101 textbook? I need this!!!

I like both popeyes and KFC chicken so the taste test is a wash for me. And its more about personal tastes then anything.

Irn-Bru wrote:You think this is a circle?

HEROHAMO wrote:It bothers me that Pepsico changed the formula for Pepsi Cola and the way KFC chicken tastes.

Well, the reason Pepsi switched recipes is because American corn syrup is just about the cheapest sweetener on the planet. This is no natural phenomenon, but primarily a result of two factors: (1) corn grown in the US is just about the most subsidized crop on the planet, and (2) there are very high tarrifs placed on imported sugar.

I don't know what specific moment you have in mind when you say KFC's chicken started tasting worse, but the various oils and fats used to fry foods have been the subject of endless controversy and regulations. No major chain uses the best-tasting (or, ironically, the healthiest) frying media because they are banned from doing so. Nationwide restaurants will also alter their policies if New York city or one state passes laws concerning restaurants. So the strictest laws in one place will affect the entire chain.

HEROHAMO wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:Corporations make changes to there product in order to increase profit

HEROHAMO wrote:You will lose the customer

they increase profit and lose the customer? I'm curious how that logic works exactly...

Your statement, "they increase profit and lose the customer?", Not mine.
Where in my post do you see me with that exact statement?
Textbook strawmans argument 101.

Classic Kaz first move of debate. Do you have that debate itch again?

Why would I argue a point I never made?

Stop evading the question. I showed two statements you made on the same subject that to me seem contradictory. I presented them both and asked you the question. I'm ASKING you how they both make sense. If they are referring to different things, why don't you explain that instead of shucking and jiving.

HEROHAMO wrote:I know they could have remained profitable without making the changes they did.

It bothers me that some CEO with an MBA who had nothing to do with the original Companies success makes such drastic changes to tried and true products that already sold.

Pepsi and KFC were already successful and good tasting products plus profitable.

I am all for profit. Not for sacrificing quality

Here's what you're missing. To maximize profit, you have to maximize value. Value is the quality customers will pay for. Accepting your premise they are reducing cost and quality, then if profits are up then that means the customers have spoken. The MBA CEO you described is doing the exact right thing according to what his customers are telling him even according to your own story.

Now I have no problem if you say you used to love KFC, they suck now, and you're not going anymore. You own your wallet just like KFC's other customers own theirs. If more want the "same" chicken they will lose more customers by cutting quality then they will gain by cutting cost. If customers value the lower price more they will gain more customers by cutting cost then lose by cutting quality. Maximizing profit is picking what the customers tell them.

What I object to is your mischaracterization that KFC is ignoring their customers for profits when they are in fact according to your story they are paying attention to nothing else. Customers want companies to maximize profit because the only way to do that is give customers what they value.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:How do Coke and Pepsi compare when it comes to syrup kegs for fountain drinks?
I'm just asking, not arguing.

I personally don't drink much soda so I can't comment on the taste. But unfortunately while I can give Coke a hard time and I can buy retail items, I can't talk to anyone else about servicing us because they have a corporate agreement with our franchise. We're a little up scale from the mega chains, but we're still a franchise. I personally am 99.999% sure Coke gives our franchise a big kick back. I know for a fact other types of vendors do. I would prefer they raise the royalty and then negotiate agreements that are in our interest.

I wasn't asking about taste, but pricing. But from your answer, I guess you don't know, and are bound to Coke by your franchising agreement. But you were talking about bottled water prices, so I thought you were able to negotiate.

Deadskins wrote:I wasn't asking about taste, but pricing. But from your answer, I guess you don't know, and are bound to Coke by your franchising agreement. But you were talking about bottled water prices, so I thought you were able to negotiate.

Yes, as you said I don't know. We're bound to Coke for both bottled and fountain so I can't price shop for real and I don't have time to price shop for fun. But if I had a choice I'd go with Coke for fountain and not for bottles.

What I object to is your mischaracterization that KFC is ignoring their customers for profits when they are in fact according to your story they are paying attention to nothing else. Customers want companies to maximize profit because the only way to do that is give customers what they value

The value for KFC was in its excellent service and food. A recipe that was developed by Colonel Sanders himself and to this day is a secret only shared with few and guarded heavily by the Corporation.

The value had been established already when it was sold. Millions of people valued Colonel Sanders chicken the way Colonel Sanders made it. It had huge value already the way it was. The business was thriving.

Why would there need to be any changes?

Just some facts I will lay out. The Colonel had quite a fascinating life. A perfect model for any entrepreneur to aspire to. These are some paragraphs from answers.com from people who testify about Colonel Sanders and KFC.


"Colonel" Sanders or Harland Sanders is credited for starting what today is known as franchising. A few years before 1960 Sanders drove across the U.S. promoting his recipe and chicken. He made agreements with several restaraunt owners. They were to pay him a nickel a head and he sent them the spices and herbs packaged. By 1960 Sanders had 400 franchises. By 1963 he made 300,000 a year. $2,140,313.73 a year adjusted for inflation 2010.

In 1964, Sanders sold out to a group of investors, including John Y. Brown, Jr. and Jack Massey, for $2 million. He had been concerned about selling the business because he feared that the new owners might not maintain a high quality product. Friends and family finally persuaded the 74-year-old to part with his company. On January 6, 1964, he closed the deal. Besides the $2 million, he received a lifetime salary of $40,000 a year (later raised to $75,000).

"The thing I remember about the Colonel is that he was very particular about doing things right," said Jackie Trujillo, chairman of Harman Management. "He used to visit us often," she said. "Service, quality and cleanliness was No. 1. He never backed down from that."


Following his buyout in 1964, Colonel Sanders himself expressed anger at such changes, saying:
“ That friggin' ... outfit .... They prostituted every goshdarn thing I had. I had the greatest gravy in the world and those sons of bizches-- they dragged it out and extended it and watered it down that I'm so goshdarn mad! ”


I understand that a CEO is supposed to maximize profits. But I do believe KFC sacrificed quality to maximize profits. The Colonel himself did not like the changes made as quoted above.

I know that KFCs stock has underperformed for some time now. I have to gather the stats really dont feel like it right now. I am hungry now talking about all this food.

HEROHAMO wrote:Why would there need to be any changes?

See my previous post in this thread . . .

Irn-Bru wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:It bothers me that Pepsico changed the formula for Pepsi Cola and the way KFC chicken tastes.

Well, the reason Pepsi switched recipes is because American corn syrup is just about the cheapest sweetener on the planet. This is no natural phenomenon, but primarily a result of two factors: (1) corn grown in the US is just about the most subsidized crop on the planet, and (2) there are very high tarrifs placed on imported sugar.

I don't know what specific moment you have in mind when you say KFC's chicken started tasting worse, but the various oils and fats used to fry foods have been the subject of endless controversy and regulations. No major chain uses the best-tasting (or, ironically, the healthiest) frying media because they are banned from doing so. Nationwide restaurants will also alter their policies if New York city or one state passes laws concerning restaurants. So the strictest laws in one place will affect the entire chain.

LOL! Come on Irn restaraunts are not banned from using the healthiest and best tasting oils. In my opinion Olive Oil and Peanut Oil are my two best tasting Oils for cooking. These also happen to be the more expensive and healthier Oils containing a good amount of Omega 3 fatty acids which are healthy for you. I know of a few restaraunts that use both Olive Oil and Peanut Oil.

The Oils that are banned are the bad Oils. In California they passed legislature that takes effect in 2010 banning trans fat. Trans fat is found in the cheaper oils. Vegetable and Corn oil.

How convenient that Fast Food Chains used to use primarily Vegetable and Corn Oil? How many fast food chains you know of use Olive Oil or Peanut Oil? Of course they dont because Olive Oil and Peanut Oil are more expensive.

Irn-Bru wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:Why would there need to be any changes?

See my previous post in this thread . . .

Ok understandble. The high tariffs on Sugar is a major factor to consider for a CEO. Overall costs of production would obviously increase. Therefore I do understand why the descision was made. I still dont like it.

However I am willing to pay more for the pepsi sweetened with Sugar.

HEROHAMO wrote:However I am willing to pay more for the pepsi sweetened with Sugar.

OK, good point. Now take it to the next step. "You" are willing to pay for it. But if they reduce quality and price and that increases profits, that means that more people aren't. People are customers. That means more customers prefer the cheaper oil and cheaper price. That means the CEO was listening to his customers.

Irn-Bru, you made great points on government and their role in this and you're dead on. But regardless (and you're not saying otherwise) the idea that companies can make any decision for profit that ignores customers is a non-sequitur.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:However I am willing to pay more for the pepsi sweetened with Sugar.

OK, good point. Now take it to the next step. "You" are willing to pay for it. But if they reduce quality and price and that increases profits, that means that more people aren't. People are customers. That means more customers prefer the cheaper oil and cheaper price. That means the CEO was listening to his customers.

Irn-Bru, you made great points on government and their role in this and you're dead on. But regardless (and you're not saying otherwise) the idea that companies can make any decision for profit that ignores customers is a non-sequitur.

Thats just the thing. "I" am not alone. Dont you think I represent a certain demographic?

1. KFCs sales are down. It has been down this whole year. Proof that KFCs ownership is not giving customers what they want.
2. KFC lost a national taste test. Proof that people dont want what KFC has to offer its customers.

http://consumerist.com/2010/10/why-aren ... ymore.html
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/14/news/co ... /index.htm

I keep giving you facts. You keep giving me generalized ideas of how a CEO or Corporation conducts business.
All Corporations do not conduct business in the same way. Nor do they all listen to there customers.

In the case of KFC they give what they think the customers want. Yet slumping sales prove they dont have a clue. Taste tests prove that most people prefer another place to eat chicken.


As far as Pepsi switching to HFCS. Most beverages these days are sweetened with HFCS. You walk into a liquor store and 8 out of ten drinks are sweetened with HFCS water being 1 that obviously isnt sweetened.

Little choice my friend. A guy like me has to order the stuff from across the border. As of late Costco started selling a few pallets of sugar sweetened pepsi. This is a limited time only.

Can I really blame Pepsi? No. They had to do what they had to do for the Corporation to survive and thrive.

Most of Pepsis customers are Fast Food chains and Restaraunt owners who buy in bulk anyways. Then give it to customers.

I dont want to bash Pepsi or KFC anymore. I know business overall in the U.S. is hurting. I myself want to see business overall thrive in the U.S.

Today I stopped by the gas station that was selling the sugar sweetened Pepsi and purchased a 12 case. I dont know if I will go back to KFC. Maybe in a few months if they bring out something new. We will see.

Anyhow my next post will be the restaraunts I love now.


Kaz you brought up some great points. I am still going to have to agree to disagree. Not on a general point of view. This was a post of my isolated view of one Corp. Not to reflect my views on Big business in general.

HEROHAMO wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:However I am willing to pay more for the pepsi sweetened with Sugar.

OK, good point. Now take it to the next step. "You" are willing to pay for it. But if they reduce quality and price and that increases profits, that means that more people aren't. People are customers. That means more customers prefer the cheaper oil and cheaper price. That means the CEO was listening to his customers

Thats just the thing. "I" am not alone. Dont you think I represent a certain demographic?

Yes, you do. And fair enough on my point, you did take it to the next step from where you were. You are not alone, there is a demographic. Now take the next step from there. Which group is "bigger?" Yours or the ones who want cheaper? If they are maximizing profit, the ones who want cheaper, right?

HEROHAMO wrote:1. KFCs sales are down. It has been down this whole year. Proof that KFCs ownership is not giving customers what they want

You answer this yourself in your next post:

HEROHAMO wrote:I know business overall in the U.S. is hurting

So that sales are down actually doesn't prove that.

HEROHAMO wrote:2. KFC lost a national taste test. Proof that people dont want what KFC has to offer its customers

Ignoring the logical fallacy that saying w/o considering any other factor like price, location, other offerings... it proves they don't want it, I actually already addressed this. It's not what people "say" they want which is what you presented, it's what they will pay for.

HEROHAMO wrote:I keep giving you facts. You keep giving me generalized ideas of how a CEO or Corporation conducts business

You are giving me facts and you may note I haven't refuted them, I refuted your conclusion. If you stuck to the facts you'd be fine. If you stuck to your opinion you'd be fine. Your conclusion defies logic and is econ 101 material. You can't maximize profit by ignoring your customers.

HEROHAMO wrote:LOL! Come on Irn restaraunts are not banned from using the healthiest and best tasting oils. In my opinion Olive Oil and Peanut Oil are my two best tasting Oils for cooking.

Well olive oil, though tasty, makes a poor deep-frying oil because it can't take the heat -- it's smoke point is too low. Peanut oil is good, but I think the best tasting are the animal fats (beef, pig, and if you ever get the chance to try fries done in duck fat do not turn them down!). But this is really beside the point, because taste is a matter of preference.

What's healthiest isn't personal preference, but it is an ongoing debate. And fast food chains have faced political pressure in the past to switch away from the better frying media over "health concerns" that later proved to be bad science. It's no different today: banning foods is a terrible idea, primarily because it's not your business but also because these well-intentioned meddlers so often get it wrong or are proved wrong a decade or two later.

Do you even know why McDonalds switched to the unhealthy oils? (I've already alluded to this but I guess I need to spell it out.) They were frying with beef fat and palm oil — delicious and healthy — but were pressured by various political groups (like the CSPI) into switching to what were at the time thought to be healther alternatives: partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. They weren't doing it to cut costs, and the quality of their food declined noticeably as a result.

Mega-chains wouldn't use the crappiest oils if politics wasn't so involved in our food. Remove the farm subsidies, import tariffs, and draconian regulations, and the problem goes away. Not to mention we get our delicious fries back.