Red Lobster says unlimited shrimp promotion was too popular and too cheap
Red Lobster says unlimited shrimp promotion was too popular and too cheap
www.nbcnews.com
Red Lobster says unlimited shrimp promotion was too popular and too cheap
53 comments
-
-
That was unrealistic from the start. If the shrimp was truly unlimited it would lead to the eventual collapse of the universe.
-
One singularity of shrimp, please
-
Perhaps the dimension without shrimp is actually this one. Really makes you think.
-
Dude...
Maybe the shrimp is us.
-
-
Shrimpulatiry or Singulariprawn?
-
-
Red Lobster executives:
"No one could possibly eat that much shrimp."
Later...
"I'm sorry, sir. You've eaten every shrimp at every Red Lobster in the entire state and it's only been six hours. We don't have any more shrimp for you. That will be $20."
-
Did a thing like that in my 20s. Got stoned with my best friend and gf, hit the local seafood joint.
Coming back to the table with my 5th plate of shrimp and my friend heard a man tell his wife, "Well it is all you can eat. He can do that if he wants."
One week later and they were out of business.
-
Does this look like a man who's had all he could eat?
-
-
Unlimited shrimp is a misnomer as matter is finite. Even if all matter were converted to shrimp, it still wouldn't be truly unlimited.
Yay for needless pedantry.
-
The infinitely dense Red Lobster will always allow you to visit, but its event horizon won't let you leave
-
I disagree with your conjecture.
Indeed, matter is finite. However, you are making the assumption that eating shrimp destroys the matter. In fact, eating the shrimp simply returns the matter to the ecosystem, where it will eventually contribute to more shrimp.
Unless you can prove the eventual heat death of the universe, which Red Lobster™ is prepared to fight in court.
Signed, Red Lobster Legal Division
P.S.: If you even think about trying to make Cheddar Bay Biscuits™ using one of those online recipes, we will pursue legal action. We make Nintendo look like Linus Torvalds.
-
If we are being pedantic, the article mentions it promotion as all you can eat rather then unlimited, except in the title and one place in the article. So the big question is what was it marketted as and is it just the author using the terms as synonyms?
There is a big difference between these if you are being pedantic and not really fair to blame the restaurant for the article authors choose of words.
But being realistic I would think it is fair to say unlimited and all you can eat are basically synonyms when it comes to restaurant promotions. And fair limitations should apply - like the restaurant running out of stock (assuming they a reasonable amount to begin with).
-
They will just have to start converting energy to matter, otherwise it's false advertising and I'll sue!
-
As long as I keep clicking, the machine keeps making paper clips, line go up…
-
Only death is unlimited
-
What about- stay with me here- what about creating dark energy shrimp?
-
-
Oh not again!
2003’s “Endless Crab” wiped out 1 president and $400 million in shareholder value… you’d‘ve thought they’d’ve learn’ed’ve.
-
After clawing her way to the top at Red Lobster, Edna Morris is out as the chain’s president for letting hungry customers eat too much of its all-you-can-eat crab dinners.
clawing her way to the top: such amazing journalism -
That's back when they were owned by Darden, who decided to spin them off because seafood prices were too volatile.
Edit: what's funny about this is Darden was a restaurant group that mostly didn't focus on seafood, so red lobster wasn't a good fit. This company, Thai Union group, is a seafood packaging group (chicken of the sea, King Oscar), which also puts into question how well they're able to supply fresh fish. I don't think red lobster will ever be consistently profitable for these corporate chains.
Edit 2: Oh, they supplied the shrimp with slave labor, lol
Thailand's seafood industry, and by implication, the Thai Union, was the subject of a year-long study of the Thai shrimp industry commissioned by Nestlé. The report, conducted by Verité on behalf of Vevey-based Nestlé, was released on 23 November 2015. It found "indicators of forced labor, trafficking, and child labor to be present among sea-based and land-based workers."[28]
-
-
-
Please, don't take the steam tray! Sir!
-
-
yeah god fucking forbid anything be good and actually valuable for the customer anymore
-
The relevant content of the article:
U.S. consumers are getting more budget-conscious, meaning they are eating at less-expensive restaurants and even ordering cheaper items when they go out.
-
53 comments
Company surprised that loss leading promotion lead to losses.
Details at 11.
Yes, it's surprising when a loss leader leads to losses. For example, Olive Garden and their soup, salad, and bread sticks are probably loss leaders because of how cheap they are, but they make up that little loss with much better margins on entrees (and, I assume, drinks).
i hate how the term 'loss leader' is bandied about like i'm meant to feel sorry for them so generously losing money on something when at the end of the night it's obviously one transaction for everything with a healthy amount of profits baked in
Soup might not actually be a loss leader. Their soups are pretty cheap to make in bulk- especially if they’re using left over ingredients that are not quite as fresh.