Chick-fil-A last week said that it was testing a new product based on its survey of customers and current menu trends.
Most of the time, this would be news to the growing number of people interested in what the Atlanta-based fast-food chain does. In this case, however, the product happened to be a sandwich made with a vegetable, rather than with meat, and thus it became a political football.
In this instance, Chick-fil-A said it would start testing a cauliflower sandwich, featuring a filet of cauliflower that is breaded, seasoned and pressure cooked and served on a bun with pickles. The product is Chick-fil-A’s entry into the plant-based meat trend. The company has been working on the product for four years to meet its customers’ demands for “more vegetables.”
We were not particularly surprised by the reaction. A piece on Fox News said it “smacks of fowl play.” And, as publications like Gizmodo and Barrons noted, a fair amount of the reaction across social media was none too friendly to the restaurant chain.
We’ll wait to see where the sandwich goes before coming to a full conclusion on the future of the sandwich at Chick-fil-A. There is often a wide gap between such social media frenzy and actual results, and often this kind of early publicity can be quite helpful for a new product introduction.
On top of that, the people who are angry are not the same people as those who really want a veggie Chick-fil-A sandwich.
But the reaction illustrates the tightrope major fast-food chains walk as they consider introducing plant-based menu items. The apparent divisiveness that has surrounded the introduction of plant-based meat products may be successful in limiting their popularity.
Chick-fil-A is certainly no stranger to controversy, but that reaction typically comes from the political left that will never forgive the company for gay marriage comments made by now-former CEO Dan Cathy to a religious publication more than a decade ago.
To wit: The below photo advertising a future Chick-fil-A in Chicago was recently defaced by some rather colorful language (Fair warning, it's definitely colorful):
Chick-fil-A is no stranger to controversy, as this sign shows. / Photo by Emma Sennett.
This controversy has not exactly stopped Chick-fil-A, which has multiplied in size several times over in the years since those comments first became public. That, alone, is a lesson in the relative weakness of politically based product or corporate boycotts. They almost never work and, if anything, tend to generate publicity that works to the benefit of the subject being boycotted.
It’s possible, in other words, that Chick-fil-A’s success is at least in part due to the publicity it is getting from people who are trying to make Chick-fil-A less successful.
Yet the angry reaction to the cauliflower sandwich is coming from the same group that has typically been a staunch defender of the company in public as it faced opposition to new locations in airports or other locations over those controversies.
For whatever reason, plant-based meat has become a political touchpoint. A large group of conservatives believe that it’s the result of liberal views that seek to replace any meat product with that made from plants. Anyone who introduces one is therefore “woke” and therefore something to be derided.
The political resistance to plant-based menu items is feeding into a natural resistance to such products in exurbs and in rural areas, where there is limited demand to begin with. As we noted on our recent podcast with Menu Maven Nancy Kruse—recorded before the Chick-fil-A news became public—a large portion of the U.S. is simply not willing to consider such products.
All this limits chains’ ability to effectively introduce one. While it’s certainly possible for Chick-fil-A or McDonald’s to offer such a product and then tolerate limited sales in certain markets, doing so would complicate operations for a relatively modest return.
What’s more, any alleged “halo” effect that could come from offering one, even at the cost of more challenging operations, is offset by the criticism being foisted upon such chains for doing so. Never mind that there is a definitive market for plant-based products in certain areas of the country. Some people will still see such a move as a compromise.
That influence could keep others from trying the product, even when they do visit Chick-fil-A. And at least in theory the core customer base that would flock to the chain for a veggie chicken sandwich probably aren’t going to the restaurant chain, anyway.
Whether this dooms the cauliflower test remains to be seen. As we said before, boycotts don’t work, and the publicity can work in the chain’s favor. Plus, it’s Chick-fil-A, and their track record suggests they know what they’re doing.
Yet until the political climate changes, at least when it comes to quick-service restaurant chain product development, plant-based meat products may simply have a tougher time making it onto the permanent menu of certain, large brands.