Back in the 1990s, McDonald’s tried to overhaul its image as a family destination and appeal to a more upscale crowd, trying to cash in on new dining trends of elevated cuisine that were sweeping across America. It hired a renowned chef, spent $150M on marketing and research, and launched a burger concept for “grown-up tastes” hoping to lure a new class of higher-income consumers into its franchises. In 1995, with much fanfare, the quasi-gourmet Arch Deluxe hit the McDonald’s franchises. However, those predicted throngs of young professionals with elevated tastebuds never showed up. Just over a year later, McDonald’s discontinued the upscale burger.
What was the problem that $150M in marketing dollars couldn’t get right? It was simply the wrong product for the wrong audience. Included in those hefty dollars were numerous consumer studies that had indicated that high-earning Gen Xers did indeed want a fancy burger at McDonald’s. But what people say and what people do are two different things, and it became quickly clear that those who wanted a fancy burger didn’t frequent McDonald’s, and their current customers – well, they didn’t want a fancy burger.
Product-market fit
Is there a thing or two we can learn from the failure of the Arch Deluxe? As we stumble through the initial years of our nascent category, are we at a point where we should step back and examine ourselves and the industry? Did we get right the product-market fit?
There’s a bell curve to the adoption of innovation. Everyone is familiar with the term “early adopter,” but who might they be in the context of food? Are those most willing to try new things the ones currently chowing down at Burger King?
Trying to drive an emerging market by analyzing TAM (total addressable market) of an entirely different market (meat) may have been another issue. It seemed to make sense to make plant-based copy-cats of the products with the largest total market — burgers and nuggets. When it didn’t go exactly as planned, we blamed taste and price. But are they the only reasons? Is it possible that they were just the wrong product for the wrong audience? Is it possible that we had focused on products that targeted the Late Majority and Laggards, rather than Early Adopters?
The wild card in calculating TAM is figuring out the true potential size of a completely new category, and therefore, measuring the potential among the wrong initial audience may just not work.
We can still start afresh with new ideas
When a seismic shift in the future of food is needed, we, as an industry need to reflect deeply on what would truly resonate with the people that are most open to trying new things. What would early adopters want to eat, and what are the reasons we can give them to want to try? Food is both personal and emotional, and a product in the absence of an emotional or cultural tie generally won’t resonate.
“…perhaps we’ve just been targeting the wrong audience with the wrong products”
Instead of despairing about the current state of the industry (or blaming everything on the pushback from animal agriculture), perhaps it’s time we get back to the drawing board and take a good, hard look at ourselves. We can still start afresh with new ideas that might invigorate excitement among the right audience. It may not be that the world doesn’t want plant-based products, but perhaps we’ve just been targeting the wrong audience with the wrong products.
Remember, the world’s first launch of electric cars didn’t work, either.