"Real estate light" sounds cool to shareholders because they assume that MCD can build a smaller facility much, much cheaper than the traditional one. Since my experience goes back to McDonald's growth years, I've seen many experiments in that quest. It's tough to make it pencil out. First, you still need adequate dirt, especially with multiple drive-thru lanes. The building might be smaller, but it isn't all that much cheaper. And it's tough to economize on the equipment package. In the end the shareholders might save $200K (+/-) but somehow that never seems to make it through the rent calculations to benifit the Owner/Operator. Anyone have a different experience? .
No. The only thing that MIGHT be cheaper is the real estate tax per square foot on the building and deminimus heating and cooling costs. It somehow takes the same amount of time to get cleaned LOL
Everything else costs exactly as much as a larger footprint.
3 comments:
"Real estate light" sounds cool to shareholders because they assume that MCD can build a smaller facility much, much cheaper than the traditional one. Since my experience goes back to McDonald's growth years, I've seen many experiments in that quest. It's tough to make it pencil out. First, you still need adequate dirt, especially with multiple drive-thru lanes. The building might be smaller, but it isn't all that much cheaper. And it's tough to economize on the equipment package.
In the end the shareholders might save $200K (+/-) but somehow that never seems to make it through the rent calculations to benifit the Owner/Operator.
Anyone have a different experience?
.
No. The only thing that MIGHT be cheaper is the real estate tax per square foot on the building and deminimus heating and cooling costs. It somehow takes the same amount of time to get cleaned LOL
Everything else costs exactly as much as a larger footprint.
We lose while corp wins.
Post a Comment