Board 8 > IHOP is now IHOB - International House of Burgers

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/IHOb

You're welcome for this information you so desperately needed
---

Cool.
---

This.....this was not the expectation....
---

rip breakfast
---

...why
---

Drats, I thought it was going to be the International House of Breakfast.
---

They'll probably change it back next week. This stunt is to tell the world that they now sell burgers, and it's working.
---

But who the fuck would want to go there for a burger
---

Peace___Frog posted...

But who the fuck would want to go there for a burger

People who only know about big chain restaurants with large advertising budgets.
---

swirIdude posted...

They'll probably change it back next week. This stunt is to tell the world that they now sell burgers, and it's working.

But they've sold burgers for a while, it's what I get there a good third of the time!
---

Peace___Frog posted...

But who the f*** would want to go there

---

The B emoji joke has gone too far
---

hey relax there thomas they make good pancakes
---

iho
---

I don't go to mega-chain restaurants very often. Local places are usually better because they know they have to make a solid impression to stay afloat. Big chain restaurants can afford to skimp because they know their advertising will make people think they're the best anyway. When they usually aren't.

There are some bad local places, of course, but they tend to close within a year. A lot of my "usual" joints actually have multiple locations, but they're locally-based and at most have grown into regional chains.
---

............................the hell are they thinking?
---

MysticBrohan posted...

hey relax there thomas they make good pancakes

I've been there like three times and each time I got a decent pancake and felt kinda ill afterwards

and my stomach can handle a lot of abuse
---

Johnny Eagle posted...

............................the hell are they thinking?

It's just a temporary marketing thing. They're still IHOP. They're just trying to get more people to come in for lunch and dinner.
---

KujikawaRising posted...

I don't go to mega-chain restaurants very often. Local places are usually better because they know they have to make a solid impression to stay afloat. Big chain restaurants can afford to skimp because they know their advertising will make people think they're the best anyway. When they usually aren't.

There are some bad local places, of course, but they tend to close within a year. A lot of my "usual" joints actually have multiple locations, but they're locally-based and at most have grown into regional chains.

Man, this is like, the exact opposite of reality.

National chains are answerable to a corporate headquarters comprised of experienced businessmen working for demanding shareholders who actively enforce minimum standards of quality across all their locations. Their concern for their national brand is huge and provides an extra incentive for performance that simply does not exist at hole-in-the-wall places.

A lot of "local" places are just passion projects from old people who got rich in some other industry and think that just because they can cook a decent meal at home they'd be a great restaurant owner. They don't really care about making money, it's just a hobby for them. Which is probably why 90% of them go out of business.
---

swirIdude posted...

They'll probably change it back next week. This stunt is to tell the world that they now sell burgers, and it's working.

I hadn't thought about this, but now that you mention it, i think you are totally right. They are just trying to drum up business for their burgers and they are totally going to change the name back in a week or two. This is a brilliant promo.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

KujikawaRising posted...

I don't go to mega-chain restaurants very often. Local places are usually better because they know they have to make a solid impression to stay afloat. Big chain restaurants can afford to skimp because they know their advertising will make people think they're the best anyway. When they usually aren't.

There are some bad local places, of course, but they tend to close within a year. A lot of my "usual" joints actually have multiple locations, but they're locally-based and at most have grown into regional chains.

Man, this is like, the exact opposite of reality.

National chains are answerable to a corporate headquarters comprised of experienced businessmen working for demanding shareholders who actively enforce minimum standards of quality across all their locations. Their concern for their national brand is huge and provides an extra incentive for performance that simply does not exist at hole-in-the-wall places.

A lot of "local" places are just passion projects from old people who got rich in some other industry and think that just because they can cook a decent meal at home they'd be a great restaurant owner. They don't really care about making money, it's just a hobby for them. Which is probably why 90% of them go out of business.

Man, where the fuck do you live that the cuisine life around you is so bad. Because i never want to go there.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

KujikawaRising posted...

I don't go to mega-chain restaurants very often. Local places are usually better because they know they have to make a solid impression to stay afloat. Big chain restaurants can afford to skimp because they know their advertising will make people think they're the best anyway. When they usually aren't.

There are some bad local places, of course, but they tend to close within a year. A lot of my "usual" joints actually have multiple locations, but they're locally-based and at most have grown into regional chains.

Man, this is like, the exact opposite of reality.

National chains are answerable to a corporate headquarters comprised of experienced businessmen working for demanding shareholders who actively enforce minimum standards of quality across all their locations. Their concern for their national brand is huge and provides an extra incentive for performance that simply does not exist at hole-in-the-wall places.

A lot of "local" places are just passion projects from old people who got rich in some other industry and think that just because they can cook a decent meal at home they'd be a great restaurant owner. They don't really care about making money, it's just a hobby for them. Which is probably why 90% of them go out of business.

National chains do have that minimum standard, but that minimum standard is often well below that of the top restaurants in any given area. Local places can be bad, but can also be great - reviews and word of mouth are key to determining which ones are great.
---

Also worth noting: Literally every chain started as a successful and popular local place.
---

SmartMuffin needs to live in reality because it's clear he doesn't. Almost everything he said is factually wrong.

Corporate offices don't care about anything other than their bottom line and marketing helps them. Local places that can't afford advertising care about the quality of the experience because that's what brings people back. They know that, to survive, they have to stand out because they don't have advertising money to fall back upon to make it look better. And most "quality incidents" tend to happen at national chains who don't put the came care into quality control because they can afford those incidents.

Most local places aren't owned by old people, either. They're owned by people who actually know how to pilot such a ship, some of whom are actually quite young. Corporate goons would struggle in actually managing a restaurant. They don't live in the reality they operate in.

You need to move somewhere that has a better culinary profile. I live in Madison, WI and it's diverse and excellent.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Also worth noting: Literally every chain started as a successful and popular local place.

This doesn't have anything to do with my argument. The point is that these places are currently operated by a corporate office and don't have the same quality level they did when they were a single restaurant. And not every restaurant wants to become a national chain, often because those that do suffer from a massive dip in quality.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

National chains are answerable to a corporate headquarters comprised of experienced businessmen working for demanding shareholders who actively enforce minimum standards of quality across all their locations. Their concern for their national brand is huge and provides an extra incentive for performance that simply does not exist at hole-in-the-wall places.

Holy crap that's delusional.

National chains and shareholders only care about money, and they'll cut costs to squeeze out every penny at the expense of quality. If they can save money by cheaping out on the ingredients and screwing over their employees (causing worse service) they'll do so, and won't really suffer in notoriety for it because everyone just settles for eating at the major brands out of laziness.
---

I just went to a locally owned place for a late breakfast as a result of this news.

It was a terrible fucking decision. The food sucked, the service was awful and just ugh total shit.

Ihob can stay I guess.
---

Eddv you need to pick a better place. Most of the local places I've gone to for breakfast are vastly superior to the chains. I've only been to a couple I wasn't particularly fond of because they were cheap Bisquick pancakes type places. Avoid those.

Also, does anyone remember way back when Pizza Hut changed their name to Pasta Hut? That was just for one day... April 1st.
---

If you want a chain breakfast place that's good, check if you have a Metro Diner in your state.
---

so basically they want to be MORE like steak'n shake?

no. just no. what r u doing

The value of a national chain is consistency. You can get the same crap in Alaska as in NYC. Quality doesn't matter at all as long as it's consistent. This is how Denny's works, and to the largest extreme, Waffle House.

I've been to a lot of local places that sucked for breakfast though. There's something about breakfast that is difficult to make well since it's so generic and also needs that nostalgic homey charm. IHOP does it well by providing lots of variety in 1 meal, but it's not like any individual part of it is good. Making it at home is really the only way to go to.
---

Was hoping this was a marketing stunt to advertise their burgers and not an actual name change. Ihop was just so much better to say.
---

Both sides are right. Local places can be much better than a national chain, or much worse. Like foolmo said, what national chains have going for them is consistency. You know what you're going to get pretty much anywhere you go to one. If it's a local place you've never gone to, you might get something amazing or you might get something completely awful.
---

Yeah when I lived on the opposite side of town there was this local place called Flamingo Diner and it was awesome.

This place was called Athenas and it was hot garbage.

Next time I will go the opposite direction and try Parkway House if I am feeling daring. Otherwise I will just go to ihop, get the managers special of two pancakes, 2 eggs and two links of sausage and if my favorite waitress is working ill get bananas on the pancakes.
---

How are IHOP's pancakes anyway? Haven't been there in over a decade.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

How are IHOP's pancakes anyway? Haven't been there in over a decade.

I enjoy them, but I don't like icing so the next time I get red velvet pancakes I'm getting it without.
---

I would say in general chains are probably better than local places

The good local places are better than chains but Smuffin isn't totally off base here. Not every local business is some wonderful gem in the rough.
---

Lopen posted...

I would say in general chains are probably better than local places

Disagree. Maybe you just need better local places.

I mean, yeah, I've had some crap meals at local restaurants, but the vast majority have been consistently delicious. You just need to eat at the right places. Chains... I've gotten mostly decent food at. But delicious > decent.
---

You just need to eat at the right places

If only there was some sort of mechanism wherein the best places became bigger, more successful, more available, and more well-known to the general public such that you didn't have to hunt for hours or try 500 places before you find the magical good one.

*shrugs*

oh well, guess that's impossible!
---

KujikawaRising posted...

Lopen posted...

I would say in general chains are probably better than local places

Disagree. Maybe you just need better local places.

I mean, yeah, I've had some crap meals at local restaurants, but the vast majority have been consistently delicious. You just need to eat at the right places. Chains... I've gotten mostly decent food at. But delicious > decent.

It's missing the point if you're going "Well only eat at good local places then"

His point isn't that chains are > good local places. He said the opposite. The point is that not every local place is some gem, and on average a chain probably gives you a higher probability of a decent meal than just trying every random local joint.
---

I mean local places you get recommended to you will on average be better than chains. That's just sampling bias. Go eat at literally every local place in your area and I guarantee you'll change your tune.
---

It's where the consistency of chains comes in

Say you think a certain chain is 7/10 on average. They're rarely going to stray far from that 7/10 range, for better or worse. But you could try five local joints and get a 9/10, a 7/10, two 5/10s, and a 3/10. That consistency isn't there. Now, obviously, if you stick to places people recommend to you and such, you have a much better chance of those places being above a 7/10. But if you just start going to every local joint, you have a decent chance of running into some sub-7/10s as well.
---

I don't think I ever even went to an IHOP. What does that leave us for breakfast diner chains, Waffle House? Because that place kinda sucks.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

If only there was some sort of mechanism wherein the best places became bigger, more successful, more available, and more well-known to the general public such that you didn't have to hunt for hours or try 500 places before you find the magical good one.

By "good/best" you realize you mean "most scalable to international franchise volumes"?

mmm gotta love that insanely scalable sub-cent marginal food that would absolutely collapse if less than 1 billion people ordered it a day
---

HashtagSEP posted...

It's where the consistency of chains comes in

Say you think a certain chain is 7/10 on average. They're rarely going to stray far from that 7/10 range, for better or worse. But you could try five local joints and get a 9/10, a 7/10, two 5/10s, and a 3/10. That consistency isn't there. Now, obviously, if you stick to places people recommend to you and such, you have a much better chance of those places being above a 7/10. But if you just start going to every local joint, you have a decent chance of running into some sub-7/10s as well.

Right. Say I move to a new town. I know what my favorite national chain burger is. I think they deliver an 8/10 burger. I have two options: Keep eating what I know to be an 8/10 burger (that I also know I can get when I'm traveling or when I move again) OR try every local burger place in succession until I find one that delivers a 9 or 10 burger, but the process will also require me to eat a lot of 6 and 7 burgers - and oh by the way, even if I do find that 9 or 10, I won't be able to get it anywhere else.

Also, chains on average are a lot cheaper than local places. And you can't just say "it's because they are lower quality" because chains are often usually cheaper than even the BAD local places, too.
---

By "good/best" you realize you mean "most scalable to international franchise volumes"?

Who said international? Or franchise?

There are "chains" of every different size. International chains, national chains, regional chains, or just multi-location places within a town. Some franchise, some don't.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

You just need to eat at the right places

If only there was some sort of mechanism wherein the best places became bigger, more successful, more available, and more well-known to the general public such that you didn't have to hunt for hours or try 500 places before you find the magical good one.

Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives?
---

Yeah. I've eaten at a lot of local places simply due to location. Like they were in a building near a class I was taking, or near a friend's house I go to often or whatever. Let me tell you that in general that's a bad idea. 4 out of 5 of my truly terrible dining experiences I can think of were in local places. And that's just not a risk I like taking anymore.

The 5th was Taco Bell. Not that I hate Taco Bell on the whole but I'll never trust a burrito from there again. Course there is some variation even among chains. Like I think my local Subway is pretty awful (not "all time terrible dining experience" awful, but not a place I'd go to eat), but I've definitely lived near good Subways in the past.

I also feel like local places are a bit more susceptible to employee turnover screwing em over. Like there was this local Chinese place I went to a lot. I actually liked them a lot. Then for a while they became terrible and I stopped going there. Then they closed down for a while, re-opened, and became good again. I don't recall anything like that ever happening with a chain-- I mean, it probably does, but I feel like the higher standardization on preparation procedures would probably cushion the impact of things like that. Granted I don't eat at restaurants all that often, especially not anymore, so I don't have a huge sample size or anything, but yeah.
---

Like yelp exists though. That's a thing.
---