Mozilla CEO steps down amid gay marriage controversy

[Dave Gray]

I don't boycott many things, but Chik-Fil-A is one of them and it dates back to before this recent stuff with Palin.  I don't think that my not eating their food is going to hurt their business horribly or anything like that, but I feel better about myself.  It's not even a boycott, really, when I just choose the food right next to them.  It's a easy thing to skip and I probably wouldn't be as adamant if it were a bigger sacrifice.  When I'm in the mall, though, I have 10 choices right next to each other.

[pondwater]

	Logged

[Brian Fein]

I think Chick-fil-a sucks, regardless of their political and social stances.  The food isn't that good and they are closed on Sunday.  You can get a better chicken sandwich at Wendy's.

[pondwater]

I think Chick-fil-a sucks, regardless of their political and social stances.  The food isn't that good and they are closed on Sunday.  You can get a better chicken sandwich at Wendy's.

Not according to the chicken eating public, lol.

[Spider-Dan]

Then why hasn't the public at large responded negatively to  Chick-fil-A? As noted earlier, they are thriving. I think we can agree that Chick-fil-A has been more outspoken about a perceived abnormal lifestyle than Mr. Eich's petty donation from 8 years ago. Chick-fil-A has been in the media several time in the past couple years right in everyone's face. Mr. Eich's donation took some digging and 8 year to come to light.

If Eich were the CEO of a gun manufacturer or country music label or chicken & waffle house, he'd almost certainly still have his job today.  Unfortunately for him, he was the CEO of a Silicon Valley-based Internet browser company, so his customer base (and contributing coders!) are tech-savvy and largely liberal.  He might as well have been working in the fashion industry.

Mozilla is a non profit company and the majority of it's products are free. Chick-fil-A is very much a for profit company and their prices are kind of high. You would think that given those facts that the "public at large" would be able to hurt Chick-fil-A much more than Mozilla by voting with their wallet.

Again, target audience.  When you are a company based primarily in the South, thumping the Bible gets you brownie points.  When you are a company that lives on open-source coding, thumping the Bible is digging your own grave.

KFC has roughly 3 times the locations, located everywhere in the US.

KFC also has over 4500 outlets in China, over 1200 outlets in Japan, over 700 outlets in the UK, over 600 in Australia, etc.  To my knowledge, Chick-Fil-A has zero outlets outside of the U.S.

Chick-Fil-A is only beating KFC if you limit your comparison to the United States.  Outside of the U.S., KFC is dominating (you can't get any more dominating than comparing millions to zero).

And Chick-fil-A is kicking their ass as primarily a regional franchise in the south. If Chick-fil-A expanded to every market that KFC was in then they would only gain market share over what they already have now.

Was Chick-Fil-A "kicking KFC's ass" when they were both primarily regional franchises?

Economics don't scale the way you think.

[pondwater]

If Eich were the CEO of a gun manufacturer or country music label or chicken & waffle house, he'd almost certainly still have his job today.  Unfortunately for him, he was the CEO of a Silicon Valley-based Internet browser company, so his customer base (and contributing coders!) are tech-savvy and largely liberal.  He might as well have been working in the fashion industry.
Again, target audience.  When you are a company based primarily in the South, thumping the Bible gets you brownie points.  When you are a company that lives on open-source coding, thumping the Bible is digging your own grave.

No, if he would have stood his ground against these clowns then he still would have his job. Not to mention it's only been like 8 years since he make his petty donation. Some poor fools look to dig up anything to complain about.

KFC also has over 4500 outlets in China, over 1200 outlets in Japan, over 700 outlets in the UK, over 600 in Australia, etc.  To my knowledge, Chick-Fil-A has zero outlets outside of the U.S.

Chick-Fil-A is only beating KFC if you limit your comparison to the United States.  Outside of the U.S., KFC is dominating (you can't get any more dominating than comparing millions to zero).
Was Chick-Fil-A "kicking KFC's ass" when they were both primarily regional franchises?

Chick-fil-A is a younger and smaller company only in the US. Therefore, what they do internationally is irrelevant. They are whipping KFC's ass because they have better service and food quality. The food also tastes a hell of a lot better. They have simply built a better mouse trap. Silly homosexual politics have noting to do with it.

Economics don't scale the way you think.

If you say so Mr. Krugman. I guess really the only thing that matters economically is that Chick-fil-A is #1 in the US chicken market over anyone else.

[Sunstroke]

I guess really the only thing that matters economically is that Chick-fil-A is #1 in the US chicken market over anyone else.

So, the money a company makes in the USA matters, but the money they make internationally doesn't? If you were a shopkeeper, and I wanted to buy something in your shop, and I had two $100 bills in my wallet, one that I earned in the USA and one that I earned overseas, would the $100 bill I made overseas be worth any less to you than the $100 bill I made in the USA?

For the record, I eat at both KFC and Chik-Fil-A these days, with my brand determination factor solely being which one is closest to me when I experience the craving for chicken.

[Spider-Dan]

No, if he would have stood his ground against these clowns then he still would have his job.

If he would have stood his ground, he would have been fired.

Do you really think his "resignation" (from a company he co-founded) was voluntary?  He was forced out.

Chick-fil-A is a younger and smaller company only in the US.

And by younger, you mean that while "Kentucky Fried Chicken" has existed for 62 years and has tens of thousands of outlets around the world, "Chick-Fil-A" has existed for only 47 years and is still primarily a regional chain.

Therefore, what they do internationally is irrelevant. They are whipping KFC's ass because they have better service and food quality. [...]

I guess really the only thing that matters economically is that Chick-fil-A is #1 in the US chicken market over anyone else.

I wonder if you also believe that since Ford beat Toyota in auto sales in the U.S. last year, Toyota is getting their "ass whipped."

[Phishfan]

And by younger, you mean that while "Kentucky Fried Chicken" has existed for 62 years and has tens of thousands of outlets around the world, "Chick-Fil-A" has existed for only 47 years and is still primarily a regional chain.

You are playing with numbers here. You took the date of the first Chick-fil-A and the date of the first KFC franchise. KFC has been around 84 years actually.

I think if we are going to talk about expansions and size of distribution, it is important to point out the significant difference that Chick-fil-A is a privately owned company while KFC is a subsidiary of a large publicly traded corporation (which was spun off from an even larger publicly traded corporation).

[Spider-Dan]

You are playing with numbers here. You took the date of the first Chick-fil-A and the date of the first KFC franchise. KFC has been around 84 years actually.

And you're also playing with numbers; you're counting the first restaurant Harland Sanders ever opened in 1930 (well before he even started selling fried chicken, much less the pressure-fried chicken KFC is known for) as the "first KFC."

I specifically compared the first "Kentucky Fried Chicken" restaurant to the first "Chick-Fil-A" restaurant, because both of them had predecessors.  But if you want to start at the first restaurant, then it's really 84 years (Harland Sanders' first restaurant in 1930) to 68 years (S. Truett Cathy's first restaurant in 1946).

But whether you want to compare a 62-year-old brand to a 47-year-old brand, or an 84-year history to a 68-year history, the idea that youth is a significant factor in the difference between KFC and Chick-Fil-A is fairly absurd.  It's like saying that the reason McDonald's is bigger than Burger King is because McDonald's has been around longer.

I think if we are going to talk about expansions and size of distribution, it is important to point out the significant difference that Chick-fil-A is a privately owned company while KFC is a subsidiary of a large publicly traded corporation (which was spun off from an even larger publicly traded corporation).

And relatedly, if Chick-Fil-A were not privately owned, their stockholders would likely take a dim view of the CEO inserting himself into social discussions outside the realm of the business (to say nothing of shutting down all restaurants one day a week because Jesus).  You can't have it both ways.

[pondwater]

So, the money a company makes in the USA matters, but the money they make internationally doesn't? If you were a shopkeeper, and I wanted to buy something in your shop, and I had two $100 bills in my wallet, one that I earned in the USA and one that I earned overseas, would the $100 bill I made overseas be worth any less to you than the $100 bill I made in the USA?

If I owned a small pizza restaurant across the street from a Pizza Hut, Dominos, and Papa Johns. Do I care how much money they make in England or Poland? Or am I concerned with the market that I'm involved it? Until Chick-fil-A enters other markets it doesn't matter. They are winning the fight that they are in, the US market.

And by younger, you mean that while "Kentucky Fried Chicken" has existed for 62 years and has tens of thousands of outlets around the world, "Chick-Fil-A" has existed for only 47 years and is still primarily a regional chain.

And your point is? That a smaller, younger, and only regional chain is beating the largest chain in the world in their home country. I think that speaks volumes. Chick-fil-A has a very outspoken anti gay owner who thinks that being gay is abnormal. I agree with him, it's abnormal. Regardless of all of that, Chick-fil-a is still #1 in the country. It's funny how you will argue and defend everything liberal, but you can't argue against real facts. So much for the homosexual agenda and propaganda.

[Brian Fein]

They may be slightly ahead of KFC, but I don't believe Chick-fil-A is competing with KFC.  They predominantly serve sandwiches, so their competition is likely more in line with Wendy's, BK, and McD's.  The only reason they are ahead of KFC is because KFC fell drastically from the previous year, not because Chick-fil-A is so much better.

According to this list, Chick-fil-A is 9th among fast-food chains (based on 2012 numbers).

http://www.qsrmagazine.com/reports/qsr50-2013-top-50-chart

Personally, I bet they'd be higher on that list if not for their radical anti-gay stance.

[Phishfan]

The only reason they are ahead of KFC is because KFC fell drastically from the previous year, not because Chick-fil-A is so much better.

Completely false. Chick-fil-A was ahead of KFC for the past two years. They widened the gap last year.

[Brian Fein]

Completely false. Chick-fil-A was ahead of KFC for the past two years. They widened the gap last year.

Understand.  As I stated, I'm talking about 2011 to 2012, since those are the only numbers I could find.  I cant seem to find numbers for 2013.  It would appear that, as recently as 2011, KFC was still ahead of Chick-fil-A, before their sharp and sudden decline.

[Phishfan]

^^^ I don't know about a full list but the 2013 number between the two are all over the web.

2012 : CFA $4.62B - KFC $4.46B
2013 : CFA $5.05B - KFC $4.22B