Tim Hortons in NYC

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Krispy Kreme failed because they over-estimated how far people would travel, and how much we would trust the freshness of the donuts found in gas stations.

Had there been two more locations; say near Chinook and up in the NW the city would have been all abuzz for a lot longer, and they could have made a go of it.

While that is true (and apparently they were planning to open another location at South Centre) the biggest thing is the Canadian company that opened the franchises signed a bad agreement with the parent company and expanded way too fast.

Under an agreement reached in 2000, KremeKo was required to open 32 stores within seven years and pay Krispy Kreme $40,000 US for each store plus 4.5 per cent of sales.

However, by January this year rising losses had forced it to close six of its 18 stores, followed by another four outlets in April.

The company's woes mounted in May when the Ontario Ministry of Labour charged it with three violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act relating to an accident in which an employee was injured in 2004. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of $500,000.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2005/0...me-050610.html

[Hack&Lube]

This country has strange icons and sources of national pride.

A few random comedians, a coffee and donuts restaurant, a sport that is behind televised poker in U.S. ratings...

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

a coffee and donuts restaurant named after a player who's sport is behind televised poker in U.S. ratings...

Fixed!

[EDBTZ12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Do you seriously think that those Canadian franchises, which is where Canadians are employed, are at all impacted by the success of independent franchises in NYC? If so you have no idea how a franchise system operates.

O really? I dont want to sound like NHL009 so im going to shut up now.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Krispy Kreme's donuts are WAY better then Tim Horton's have ever been.



Possibly, although they'd probably come up with an inferior version of them.

They are good but they totally sucked after you tried them 10 times. Besides basing your business model on a good coffee rather than a good donut is by far a better option. Unless the people you are catering are averaging 300lbs.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

This country has strange icons and sources of national pride.

A few random comedians, a coffee and donuts restaurant, a sport that is behind televised poker in U.S. ratings...

So?

There was a big deal made when Coke finally went to China, or a McDonalds opened in Russia.

And I don't really care what what show ranks ahead of hockey on American TV (what does bug me is what steps are being taken to try and change those ratings).

Maple Syrup, Mounties, snow, moose, Blackberry. I don't mind. For me Canada is home.

[Hack&Lube]

I'm seeing a lot of vitriol on some of the comments on US news pages or forums regarding this since Timmy's isn't just moving in, but it is replacing 11 Dunkin' Donuts chains in NY that seemed to have a loyal following.

That'd be like finding out your local Tim Horton's was replaced by Krispy Kreme.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Krispy Kreme failed because they over-estimated how far people would travel, and how much we would trust the freshness of the donuts found in gas stations.

Had there been two more locations; say near Chinook and up in the NW the city would have been all abuzz for a lot longer, and they could have made a go of it.

I actually read an article about Krispy Kreme's failure, not just in Canada but overall, a little while ago. I can't recall if it was a theory or if it was research based, but the gist was that they gained their popularity by being a special item that people were willing to put some effort into getting. Based on what I saw when the one in Calgary opened up that;s certainly true, and people in the US seemed to take a similar view. Once the donuts became available everywhere people stopped making an effort to go to the actual locations, and people came to realize that gas station donuts are largely equal. The brand lost its cache and the spiral was on.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So?

There was a big deal made when Coke finally went to China, or a McDonalds opened in Russia.

That's a completely different thing, with huge symbolic implications for global politics and economics at the end of the Cold War.

I'd probably be more pleased if I held stock in Tim Hortons but I really have no stake in it, heck I don't even like Timmy's that much though the food is decent...I've always felt it was too expensive for what you get. Small sandwiches especially. The coffee hasn't tasted any better than what I get cheaper at McDs.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by EDBTZ12

O really? I dont want to sound like NHL009 so im going to shut up now.

Doesn't seem like it. You're asserting that the success, or lack thereof, of a few franchises in NYC will impact the health of Tim Horton's as a corporation, as well as the Canadian economy. What conclusion do you want me to draw from that?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by valo403

I actually read an article about Krispy Kreme's failure, not just in Canada but overall, a little while ago. I can't recall if it was a theory or if it was research based, but the gist was that they gained their popularity by being a special item that people were willing to put some effort into getting. Based on what I saw when the one in Calgary opened up that;s certainly true, and people in the US seemed to take a similar view. Once the donuts became available everywhere people stopped making an effort to go to the actual locations, and people came to realize that gas station donuts are largely equal. The brand lost its cache and the spiral was on.

Yeah, it was specialty item. KC needed to have 1, maybe 2 max franchises. Once they appeared in boxes at Wal-Mart, it lost any claim to prestige or uniqueness that people would go out of their way to get.

If there were 10 Peter's Drive Inns across the city, would you go out of your way to get some?

[FlamesKickAss]

i thought Krispy Kream was Krap

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I'm seeing a lot of vitriol on some of the comments on US news pages or forums regarding this since Timmy's isn't just moving in, but it is replacing 11 Dunkin' Donuts chains in NY that seemed to have a loyal following.

That'd be like finding out your local Tim Horton's was replaced by Krispy Kreme.

Except you can go to the next Dunkin' Donuts literally a couple hundred feet away.

People do have crazy obsessions with their coffee places in NYC though, especially in commuter locations like most of these. I'd hit up Timmy's next time I'm through Penn Station but you also have the option of legally brown bagging beers (not sure why the brown bag is required if it's legal), so I'll probably already have my hands full.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

That's a completely different thing, with huge symbolic implications for global politics and economics at the end of the Cold War.

Henry Kissenger's trip to China was the huge political change.
Glasnost in Poland and the fall of the Berlin wall were huge political issues.

Coke or McDonalds were merely (relatively speaking) the next step.

Coca Cola and McDonalds did not break through, the door was already opened, they just represented an American step through. Just as the door is open for Tim Hortons (and has been for years, these are just new to NYC).

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by valo403

Doesn't seem like it. You're asserting that the success, or lack thereof, of a few franchises in NYC will impact the health of Tim Horton's as a corporation, as well as the Canadian economy. What conclusion do you want me to draw from that?

More stores means more royalties which means more to go into advertizing. Sure it's only 12 stores now, but if they do well, and more are built, and they do well, it will help advertizing which will help Tim Hortons sell more. Which means instead of there being one every kilometre there will be two every kilometre.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Henry Kissenger's trip to China was the huge political change.
Glasnost in Poland and the fall of the Berlin wall were huge political issues.

Coke or McDonalds were merely (relatively speaking) the next step.

Coca Cola and McDonalds did not break through, the door was already opened, they just represented an American step through. Just as the door is open for Tim Hortons (and has been for years, these are just new to NYC).

Ya I don't know, the door may have been slightly ajar for Coke and McDonalds but the symbolism alone of corporate America entering China and Russia was incredible. Comparing it to Tim Horton's entering the US is like comparing the careers of Rico Fata and Jarome Iginla, it just don't make no sense.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by ken0042

More stores means more royalties which means more to go into advertizing. Sure it's only 12 stores now, but if they do well, and more are built, and they do well, it will help advertizing which will help Tim Hortons sell more. Which means instead of there being one every kilometre there will be two every kilometre.

Right, and then there are 3 every km, then 4, and before you know it there's nothing but Tim Horton's and we survive solely on timbits, chili (in a bread bowl) and coffee.

My point is that it's an outlandish extension of logic to see the success or failure of a few franchises as bearing on the viability of a corporation, and even more so, the health of a national economy.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by valo403

Ya I don't know, the door may have been slightly ajar for Coke and McDonalds but the symbolism alone of corporate America entering China and Russia was incredible. Comparing it to Tim Horton's entering the US is like comparing the careers of Rico Fata and Jarome Iginla, it just don't make no sense.

Well, since Timmys has been in the NE USA for years, for sure it isn't as impactful. But I don't think there was anything special about McD's or Coke going into those markets. Yes, it was symbolic, but if it wasn't them than it would be another. To be absolutely correct, Pepsi was the first foreign sanctioned product in the USSR, but McDonalds is more remembered. That is why I think the symbolism is as much a marketing ploy as an actual representation of change.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by valo403

My point is that it's an outlandish extension of logic to see the success or failure of a few franchises as bearing on the viability of a corporation, and even more so, the health of a national economy.

Ok then, could the success of a few franchises be bad for the corporation, or the national economy?

What about locally? I have heard this on the radio several times- seems like Tim's is getting some free advertizing out of this.

We get it- you don't care about this. That's fine- I also don't care about baseball; which is why I also don't post in the Blue Jays threads.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Well, since Timmys has been in the NE USA for years, for sure it isn't as impactful. But I don't think there was anything special about McD's or Coke going into those markets. Yes, it was symbolic, but if it wasn't them than it would be another. To be absolutely correct, Pepsi was the first foreign sanctioned product in the USSR, but McDonalds is more remembered. That is why I think the symbolism is as much a marketing ploy as an actual representation of change.

Good point about 'if not them someone else', although I don't know if there really was a someone else for McDonalds. At that point in time McDonalds really seemed to be an embodiment of America in the pop culture world, I don't know that a Burger King in Moscow would have had the same impact. Having grown up with family in East Germany I know the idea of McDonalds was huge to them, although Levi's was by far and away the most sought after western commodity.