In-N-Out vs. MacDonald's: is it even a challenge?

Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening/Night(whichever one it is in your part of the world),

Hi! I'm Knight Hardy here on a mission to ensure that all works on YWS has at least two reviews. You will probably never see this but....Imma do this anyway.

First Impression: So this was a pretty well written article. It had a light dusting of humor which was nice to see among the giant paragraphs to break things up a bit and make it all a bit easier to digest. The facts that you presented also seemed fairly well though out if maybe just a bit biased towards In and Out because you never even mention that McDonalds may have any positive points but that's fine because you're clearly trying to argue for a single side here.

Anyway let's get right to it,

When living in California, there is a certain fast food restaurant that one will most certainly know about. Well, actually, there are quite a few fast food facilities that one would know about, but there is one that is nearly exclusive to California, and is a favorite among all fast food advocates. This seven-star (out of five) restaurant is known to Californians all over as In-N-Out. People can always be seen entering, exiting, eating at or taking out from this wonderful restaurant. It is a common spot to rest after a dance, a movie, a football game, or an intense session of Pong. In-N-Out is not the only well-known restaurant in California, however. Anyone in this sunny state, and, in fact, anyone in the US or even all over the world, will recognize the name “MacDonald’s” as a universal franchised restaurant, and perhaps as a great example of the Peter Principle. What is the Peter Principle? It is a statement developed by Lawrence Peter that states that every employee in a business will eventually reach his level of incompetence, and will no longer be promoted. MacDonald’s is a great example of this idea, while In-N-Out seems to show the opposite. Why is this true? In-N-Out has more uniformity among its establishments, fresher food, and smoother business than MacDonald’s. Not convinced? Well, that’s why there are arguments in this essay! Let us look, hypothetically, upon an average visit to these two restaurants.

As a visitor enters any given In-N-Out restaurant, they will immediately be struck with the strange impression that they have been there before. Usually this is because they have been there before, but in any other case it is because most In-N-Out restaurants look exactly the same on the inside, and the rest look very similar. It is never hard to find the napkins, or the straws, or the soft drinks. It may, however, be hard to find a seat, especially during lunch break. MacDonald’s, on the other hand, looks nothing remotely like any other given MacDonald’s. Whoever designs these restaurants clearly has reached his or her level of incompetence, because it is impossible to find ketchup or napkins, although it is easier to find a seat that’s available. At In-N-Out, we see that the visitor is delighted to find the same menu here as at all other In-N-Out facilities. He is easily able to order what he wants. As for the visitor at MacDonald’s, I’m afraid he has found that he recognizes none of the menu items and can’t figure out where to look for what he wants. He still hasn’t ordered when the In-N-Out visitor is handed his meal by a friendly In-N-Out employee. It may easily be said that this employee, or any other In-N-Out worker, could be dumped into another such establishment, and would know just what to do. The MacDonald’s employee, however, would find the new atmosphere so drastically different that he would immediately faint from shock at the sudden change in surroundings. The uniformity in In-N-Out, which is missing in MacDonald’s, is part of what makes it such a competent restaurant.

Another example of the competence of In-N-Out employees is how fresh their food is. Since employees know what they’re doing, they can quickly make a fresh, crispy hamburger, or whatever else you order. As for MacDonald’s, well, the visitor there is still stuck on finding what he wants. Nevertheless, he will soon discover that he has been served precooked and perhaps even cold food instead of fresh, hot food. Poor hypothetical guy. Specifically, the In-N-Out visitor is enjoying mouth-watering fries that are warm, crispy, well salted (he salted them according to his liking), and always satisfying. As for MacDonald’s fries, the theoretical visitor is trying to avoid buying the soft, cold, flavorless fries they serve. Alas, MacDonald’s never seems to satisfy as fully as In-N-Out does, as is evident on the happy and contented grin of hypothetical visitor number one. As this visitor departs, he thinks about one last thing that makes In-N-Out so enjoyable.

What is he thinking, you ask? He is reflecting on how smoothly-run In-N-Out was during his visit (the other visitor is wishing he was hypothetically at In-N-Out instead of MacDonald’s, because their workings are far from flawless). The menu was simple but effective; he found what he wanted, ordered it, and the employees quickly made it fresh and without fault. As for the MacDonald’s menu, visitor two never found what he wanted and had to compromise with something else that sounded good to him, which the cashier immediately got wrong. In-N-Out employees never needed to ask each other what to do; they knew exactly how to do their job. The MacDonald’s workers were quite the opposite- the cashier had to ask how to make change come out and still got the order wrong. The most important factor in In-N-Out’s flawless workings, however, was that they almost always got the order right. MacDonald’s, on the other hand, has certainly made a name for itself by constantly getting their customer’s orders wrong.

From unity to food quality to trained workers, In-N-Out is the epitome of fast food business. MacDonald’s on the other hand, is the perfect example and contrast that illustrates the Peter Principle in all its glory. In-N-Out, however, is the best case I have ever been in where fast food is always fast, easy, and efficient.

This is a very well written, persuasive arguement and I enjoyed rading it. Seenas it's two years old, I wont pick it to pieces but I think others should read it. It's an excellent example of a persuasive piece of writing and some members could learn a lot from studying it.