 |
A project to make businesses more aware of their customer experience, and how to fix it. By Mark Hurst. |
| About Mark Hurst | Mark's Gel Conference | New York Times Story on This Is Broken | Newsletter: Subscribe | RSS Feed |
Search this site:
Categories:
- Advertising
- Current Affairs
- Customer Service
- Fixed
- Food and Drink
- Just for Fun
- Misc
- Not broken
- Place
- Product Design
- Signs
- Travel
- Web/Tech
Previous: Hotel fire alarm | Main | Next: Disney.com comment form
June 21, 2006 12:03 AM
Broken: Arby's sign
John Thompson submits a picture taken in Lakesite, Tennessee:
I saw this sign at the local Arby's, and I'm still trying to figure out what a chicken fish is.
[Plus... what was the less than 100% natural chicken made of? -mh]
Wow, kind of sad that they had to advertise that they, just now, have the 100% version, I mean can you imagine what the non-100% tasted like?
It means to read: "New 100 Percent Natural Chicken"
and "Fish 2 for $4". That was clear enough to me but I suppose if it can lead to confusion with some people then it might be broken. I do think though that this person might have been looking for a TIB submission and that not many people would have any problems with this sign. Oh, and a chickenfish is totally a real animal, its like a jabborwocky with wings, right?
The sign makes sense to me. I don't like artificial chicken or fish. Natural is more healthier. I like natural fish even when it only contains 75% chicken (but the chicken has got to be 95% chicken or higher, unless the 95% chicken is 100% natural). And I'm also glad the chicken/fish is now new because old chicken/fish is really disgusting.
"Natural" and "healthy" are often very unrelated terms. There are many man-made products that are just fine if they are consumed in moderation, and there are many "all natural" products that could easily kill you, from botulism to snake venom.
They should have placed the empty line between "chicken" and "fish". Then again, much less people - such as us here - would have noticed that sign...
gmangw, maybe "Fish 2 for $4" means "if you buy a second fish, that's $4, the first costs MUCH more".
well they had an extra line at the top, they should have used it to seperate the 2 diff lines.. broken? probably not though..
That's pretty funny. I haven't been to Arby's since they kicked me out when I was 10. Although I haven't eaten anything from Arby's since 1980, I seriously doubt that there is anything natural about it.
The only thing 'all natural' means in the case of chicken is that it's not made of plastic. They could still be pumping hormones and antibiotics into those things and still be able to call them all natural.
okk people:
1. they could've left a line in between the two statements, which causes confusion.
2. i don't wanna know about what was in the chicken before, but now it's 100% natural so be happy ;-)
3. two fish sandwiches for $4
- - - half broken - - -
Finally :). I submitted a similar screen shot of the Arby's sign (with only "Now with 100% Natural Chicken" months ago and gave up on it ever being posted.
It's obvious that it is meant to be read in two vertical columns. The first reads: "New natural fish", and the second reads "100 percent chicken 2 for $4". Couldn't be clearer.
It would read better if the top two lines were moved up, leaving a space between "Natural Chicken" and "Fish 2 for $4". I think that this was the intent. Around here, we have a Culver's that commonly advertises exotic treats like "Pulled Pork Caramel Cashew Sundae".
Elbow Mac -- What exactly did you do to get kicked out of Arby's? Are you banned from all Arby's Restaurants for life?
This is just one of those things that you look at and have to do a double take on it. The 100% chicken reminds me when they went to White Meat Chicken McNuggets from just McNuggets. (Could Have been Hamster)
eBob--It's a long story. I don't think that I am banned from all Arby's for life, but I have been boycotting them because of the incident. It's not directly related, but it does involve something that I think is broken.
It was a hot July day. My friends and I decided to ride our bikes into town for a little "action". "Action" for four 10-year-old boys back then consisted of going to the video arcade for a few hours and then going to one of the fast food restaurants for lunch and then maybe going down to the river. We had money from our summer enterprises (mostly yard work and such).
As was customary for young boys in summer at that time, we were dressed in shorts only (bare feet and no shirts). We had no problems at the video arcade (which did not have air-conditioning). When lunchtime came, we were going to go to the hot dog place next door as usual, but Danny wanted to try a new sandwich at the Arby's down the street. We went in, ordered our food and sat down without a problem. Then, as we were eating, a manager came out and angrily told us that we had to leave NOW. He told us that we weren't ever allowed in there without shoes and shirts. We weren't even allowed to finish our expensive lunches. That 300-lb fat jerk just grabbed two of my buddies and pushed them out the door. It was our first brush with the very strange (and very broken) "No shoes, no shirt, no service" phantom law/policy. We went to the barbeque place further down the street and old man Dixon let us eat for free.
As it stands now, I never eat at Arby's and I try to avoid any business with those stupid "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" signs (even though I wear shoes and shirts now as an adult).
I make it a point to eat at the stores that say
For men: No shirt, no service
For women: No shirt, no charge
Just curious - is Lakesite downstream from the Oak Ridge nuclear plant in Tennessee? That might explain the chicken fish...
"Could they have had some kind of soy product in the chicken?"
Um, soy IS natural, last I checked...
"[Plus... what was the less than 100% natural chicken made of? -mh]"
I love that totally backhanded advertising scheme... Like Napster for a while had a campaign "It's legal now!" Seems awesome at first until you realize they must be pretty bad if they advertisign having finally caught up with acceptable standards... I'll take the chicken that was made of chicken to begin with, thanks
Wow, still holding a grudge against a company because they enforced health codes twenty five years ago? Maybe the particular manager could have asked you to leave a little nicer, but personally I prefer to eat my meals NOT in the presence of a bunch of sweaty, dirty, shoeless, half-naked kids (maybe it's just me). Your little campaign again the chain is pretty pathetic.
Continuing the mildly off-topic thread about being kicked out of Arby's: I think it's a law that, for sanitary reasons, no one can be barefoot in a business that serves food/drink -- that's why strippers in clubs always keep their shoes on, or so I've heard.
Bird, it *is* just you.
Kids used to be able to be kids. You were once one of them. Never did anything questionable, let alone just plain dumb?
Grownups used to be decent enough to cut kids a little slack or at least not take advantage of them. Like helping them understand the rules, instead of taking their money, then pulling rank on them.
As to the ambiance in which you prefer to eat, it's not like we're talking linen tablecloths here. It's friggin Arby's, for cryin' out loud.
Not really on topic, but my wife gets mad (which makes it even funnier) when I read food ingredients, and one of them is mechanically separated chicken. What did they do that makes it different from just plain chicken???
Bird & mattymatt-- There are no health codes, regulations, or laws governing what patrons must wear in eating establishments in the United States. The Society for Barefoot Living (I am not a member) actually contacted state departments of health. All the states that responded (and almost all of them did) stated that there was no law or regulation requiring footwear. See http://www.barefooters.org/health-dept/. The signs with "by order of the Dept. of Health" are broken!
I tend to agree with "just me" that kids should be allowed to be kids. In fact, I take it further and say that what they did was not dumb or even questionable. There was no reason for the store manager to kick those boys out of the restaurant in that manner. As long as they weren't being loud or obnoxious (like a lot of kids are today) he should have suggested that they eat their lunch outside if another customer complained. As far as the kids being sweaty and dirty, I've seen plenty of fully-clothed adults in Arby's that were plenty sweaty, smelly, and dirty. I doubt that those boys were all that sweaty anyway and the only thing dirty about them were the soles of their feet and the thoughts on their minds (I remember being 10).
Most chicken is pumped with random crap, ex. water and phosphates, to make it more filling or whatever. The chicken now is just chicken.. It doesn't really matter. The chicken we have now is so much better tasting than the dried out crappy chicken we used to serve. It's worth trying. :)
Whether or not you agree with no shirt/no shoes, if they paid for their food, they should have been able to take it with them when they were made to leave the restaurant, or at least have been refunded their money.
I just thought I'd check back here, and it looks like my Arby's experience has given people something to talk about.
Thanks for pointing out the facts, eBob. I often suspected that there was no real law behind those signs, now I know for sure. You are also correct in that we weren't all that sweaty or dirty. We had spent the morning in a video arcade. Even though the arcade was not air-conditioned, there were fans blowing everywhere. We were also pretty well conditioned to the heat. Two of my friends didn't even have air-conditioning at home and my parents would only run it at night.
As far as sweaty, dirty, smelly, fully-clothed adults, I remember that there was a construction crew in the Arby's that day, and they were plenty sweaty, dirty, and smelly. We also weren't talking nearly as loudly (or coarsely) as they were, either. I doubt that another customer complained about us. I am pretty sure that it was just a lowly paid manager on a power trip. We used to joke that he ate our lunches after kicking us out.
The day wasn't a total loss. We discovered barbecue that day when Mr. Dixon gave us some ribs for free. We were hooked and wound up going there at least once a week (as paying customers). We could split a rack of ribs and fill up on slaw and fries for less than Arby's anyway and the old man didn't care that we were barefoot and shirtless. I have yet to find barbecue that good.
I think it's just a case of BROKEN punctuation. So, overall, it's just a case of misunderstanding.
The verdict? PARTIALLY BROKEN!
So all you have to do is go into Arby's with everything but pants. They never said anything about pants.
Comments on this entry are closed
Previous: Hotel fire alarm | Main | Next: Disney.com comment form
it's the chicken of the sea, duh
Posted by: abcdario at June 21, 2006 12:08 AM