GetMayoAI

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

The office food court is becoming a neighbourhood restaurant. Nobody planned for that

For decades, the office food court followed a simple logic. Capture the weekday lunch crowd, close by 3pm, repeat. The guest wasn't really a guest - they were an employee looking for the fastest way to eat between meetings

That model is shifting in ways that nobody fully anticipated

As hybrid work has permanently changed office occupancy patterns, food courts in commercial buildings are finding themselves with something unexpected - evenings. Empty space, existing infrastructure, and a local neighbourhood that previously had no reason to think of them as a dining destination.

A growing number of operators are responding by extending hours, changing formats, and repositioning entirely. The result is a new kind of venue - not quite a restaurant, not quite a food hall, but something in between that serves a very different guest than the one it was built for

This matters beyond the niche. It's a signal about how restaurant formats evolve when the conditions around them change. The buildings didn't change. The kitchens didn't change. The guest did - and operators who noticed early enough are building something new in the same physical space.

The most interesting restaurant concepts of the next few years might not come from new builds. They might come from spaces that were built for something else entirely

What formats are you watching right now that feel genuinely new? 👇

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

Why the next battle in restaurant competition won't be fought over food

The National Restaurant Association just released its 2026 Restaurant Beverage Trends report - and the finding that stands out most isn't about any particular drink. It's about what guests are now using restaurants for.

87% of full-service operators and 80% of limited-service operators say beverages can be an important driver of restaurant traffic. That's not a marginal shift. That's an industry quietly repositioning itself around something it has historically treated as an afterthought.

For most restaurants, the beverage programme exists to support the food. A wine list. A few cocktails. Whatever soft drinks the distributor recommended. The drink arrives, gets consumed, and rarely factors into why someone chose the restaurant or whether they'll return.

That logic is becoming less reliable

"Beverages are more than just a drink for today's consumers - they're looking for something that feels personal, memorable, and worth going out for," said Michelle Korsmo, President & CEO of the National Restaurant Association.

Limited-service operators are now focused on growth categories including coffees (46%), teas (31%), smoothies (29%), lemonades (27%), energy drinks (26%) and wellness beverages (24%), while full-service operators are expanding both traditional and emerging alcohol offerings, including mixed cocktails (55%), alcohol-free cocktails (49%), beer (45%), wine (42%) and alcohol-free beer (39%)

The rise of the alcohol-free cocktail is particularly telling. A few years ago, a guest who didn't drink had one option: sparkling water with lime. Now they're being offered something designed, considered, and priced accordingly. The experience hasn't been diluted - it's been extended to include them.

There's also an operational argument here that doesn't get made often enough

Beverages carry some of the highest margins in the building. The ingredient cost is low. The labour is relatively straightforward. And unlike a dish, a drink can be iterated quickly - a new ingredient, a seasonal variation, a different garnish - without restructuring the kitchen or retraining the team.

The restaurants treating their beverage programme as seriously as their food menu aren't just capturing a trend. They're building a more resilient revenue line. One that holds up when food costs spike, when a kitchen is short-staffed, or when a guest comes in just for an afternoon drink and ends up staying for dinner.

The cup, it turns out, might be one of the more underestimated things on the table

#RestaurantBusiness #RestaurantOperator #FoodAndBeverage #HospitalityIndustry #RestaurantManagement #BeverageTrends #RestaurantGrowth #HospitalityLeaders #FBIndustry #RestaurantOwner

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

What does it mean to right-size a restaurant that lost its reason to exist?

Red Lobster now has 484 locations. Down from 679 in 2019. Down from 520 at the start of this year. Last week alone, the chain closed restaurants in Alabama, Illinois, and California. Its oldest continuously operating location - 56 years in Tallahassee, Florida - shut down in May. Times Square, 23 years, closed in June.

The company calls it "right-sizing." "This isn't a step back, it's how we build forward," a spokesperson said

That phrase deserves some examination

Right-sizing implies that the business is fundamentally sound, just in the wrong physical shape. That trimming weak locations will reveal a stronger core beneath. And that may yet prove true - Red Lobster's new CEO has real credentials, a genuine AI transformation strategy, and a stated commitment to rebuilding the brand from the inside out.

But there's a harder question underneath the operational one

Red Lobster didn't lose 200 locations primarily because of bad real estate decisions or a shrimp promotion, though both contributed. Poor business decisions, the rise of fast casual restaurants, and the COVID-19 pandemic were a few of the many factors that led to Red Lobster's downfall. It lost them because for a long stretch of years, it became difficult to articulate clearly why someone would choose Red Lobster over the alternatives. Not in terms of price. Not in terms of experience. Not in terms of the feeling of the place

The brand had history. It had recognition. It had loyal guests who'd been coming for decades - "It's the only place I eat lobster," a patron told The New York Times when the Times Square location closed. That kind of loyalty is real. But loyalty to a memory and loyalty to an ongoing experience are different things. One keeps people coming back. The other keeps them mourning what used to be

The operators who watch Red Lobster closely right now -and there are many - aren't just watching a turnaround story. They're watching a case study in what happens when a brand outlives the clarity of its own proposition

Right-sizing the footprint is necessary. But it's not sufficient

The question that actually determines whether Red Lobster comes back isn't how many locations it closes. It's whether the ones that remain can answer a simple question that the chain hasn't answered convincingly in years:

Why here, and not somewhere else?

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

Where do the next generation of great operators actually come from?

It's a question the industry is quietly struggling to answer.

Nearly three quarters of operators plan to hire in 2026 but expect serious difficulties finding experienced managers and chefs. Full-service restaurant employment remains 233,000 positions below pre-pandemic levels. And the pipeline isn't recovering fast enough to close that gap.

The traditional path - culinary school, then kitchen, then management - is breaking down at both ends. Nearly 60% of restaurant operators are still finding it difficult to hire. Meanwhile culinary schools are expensive, often disconnected from operational reality, and increasingly out of reach for the candidates the industry actually needs.

What's emerging in response is interesting

Desert Mountain Club in Scottsdale launched a state-registered culinary apprenticeship programme in partnership with Auguste Escoffier Global Solutions - a two-to-three year paid programme where apprentices complete 4,000 to 6,000 hours of on-the-job training across ten restaurants, starting at $22.50 per hour. The model replaces the high-cost, high-debt path of traditional culinary school with an earn-while-you-learn structure built around mentorship and real operational exposure.

It's not a new idea. It's a very old one - brought back because the newer model stopped working.

But the deeper question isn't about training programmes. It's about what the industry is actually asking the next generation to walk into.

The operators who are genuinely building talent pipelines aren't just offering better wages or more flexible schedules. They're offering a clearer answer to a question that every young person entering hospitality eventually asks: what does progression actually look like here, and is this a place worth building a career?

The restaurants that answer that question well don't just attract better people. They keep them

And in an industry where the cost of replacing a skilled manager can exceed six months of their salary - retention isn't a culture conversation. It's a financial one

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

Why the menu that built your restaurant might be the thing that's quietly working against it

McKinsey's latest consumer research makes for uncomfortable reading if you've been running the same menu for the last few years

57% of consumers say they would cut spending on burgers and American food if tightening their restaurant budget. Only 18% said the same about salads - a gap of nearly 3 to 1

This isn't a preference shift. It's a reframing of value

Consumers are mentally categorising health-adjacent items as investments rather than indulgences. Independent research from Circana corroborates this - health-positioned items are among the most protected categories in consumer trade-down behaviour

Consumer Edge's 2026 Mid-Year Outlook puts it plainly: the brands winning right now have made a clear case for their value. The ones losing ground are stuck in the middle - not affordable enough to compete with quick-service, but lacking the quality to justify spending more

The middle is where most menus live. And the middle is exactly where consumers are applying the most pressure

This doesn't mean every restaurant needs to pivot to salads. It means that the assumptions baked into most menus - about what guests want, what they'll pay for, and what they consider worth the trip - are shifting faster than most operators realise.

When consumers cut back, most don't switch restaurants. They stay loyal to their usual spots but make smaller concessions - fewer items, less expensive dishes, more promotions. Which means the damage is happening quietly, one slightly smaller order at a time, before it shows up anywhere on a monthly report.

The menu is rarely the first thing operators review when traffic softens. It's usually the last

Maybe it should be the first

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

Why do most restaurant groups fail at their third location?

Opening a second restaurant feels like proof that something is working. Opening a third is where most groups quietly discover that what worked before doesn't automatically transfer

The skills that built a successful first location - the owner's presence, their instincts, the hands-on energy that sets the tone - are deeply personal. They don't replicate easily. And most operators don't fully realise this until the third location is already open and something feels off but nobody can quite say what.

According to Gerson Advisory Services, after auditing hundreds of multi-unit systems, close to 70% of operators who commit to expanding across multiple locations either never complete that expansion or consistently underperform across their additional sites.

The most common reason isn't competition. It isn't location. It isn't the economy

It's that each new site starts operating in its own silo. Purchasing decisions made independently. Performance reviewed weeks after the fact. Small issues that would have been caught immediately in a single location quietly compound across two or three sites before anyone connects the dots.

What changes between one location and three isn't the market or the concept. It's the nature of the job. At one restaurant, you manage a business. At three, you manage a system - and most operators who are exceptional at the first have never had to build the second.

The groups that scale without losing what made them special tend to share one thing. They build the infrastructure before they need it. Not because they're more ambitious. Because they understood early that gut feel is not a management system

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

Starbucks just raised its full-year outlook. Four consecutive quarters of same-store sales growth. Revenue up 9%. Net earnings up 33%

"This was the quarter our momentum became truly measurable," CEO Brian Niccol said

Meanwhile Wendy's is preparing for a takeover bid after six consecutive quarters of declining sales and 289 restaurant closures in six months

Same industry. Same cost pressures. Same cautious consumer. Completely different outcomes

So what did Starbucks actually do?

The turnaround plan - called "Back to Starbucks" - largely took aim at improving the in-store experience, after years of prioritising mobile orders and profits at the expense of customers and employees. Small touches like reintroducing the condiment bar and requiring baristas to write personal messages with Sharpies. Bigger investments like staffing more baristas and renovating cafes for around $150,000 each

Not a new app. Not a discount campaign. Not a loyalty points overhaul

They went back to making people feel something when they walked in

Niccol explained it simply: "I believe what we see with folks is when you give them an experience that they feel is unique, differentiated, special - a little touch of luxury - it goes a long way"

And crucially - Starbucks saw gains in visits across all income cohorts. Even lower-income customers who see Starbucks as a bit of a "splurge" came back.

That last point is the one worth sitting with.

In a market where consumers are cutting back and being deliberate about where they spend - Starbucks made itself feel worth it again. Not by being cheaper. By being better. More consistent. More human

The contrast with Wendy's isn't about one brand being smarter than the other. It's about what each one chose to optimise for when things got hard

One optimised for the guest experience. One didn't move fast enough

The results are now very clear

What do you think is the single most important thing that separates the restaurants winning right now from the ones struggling? 👇

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

The tipping model is breaking. And nobody can agree on what comes next

In 2026, the standard at sit-down restaurants in the US has shifted from 15% to 18-20%. Counter service tip prompts have spread aggressively - coffee shops, fast-casual, even hardware stores now ask for 18-25-30% on transactions where there was historically no tipping. The backlash from guests has been loud and consistent

Meanwhile in the UK, new regulations mandated that all service charges and tips must go directly to staff. But the shift has also placed more pressure on customers to supplement workers' incomes, raising questions about fairness. US-style tipping is creeping into British hospitality - and guests don't know what's expected anymore.

The result is a system that's frustrating everyone simultaneously

A service charge doesn't equal a tip in the eyes of the IRS. A service fee is the restaurant's revenue - management decides how much, if any, flows to staff. Guests rarely understand this. If they see a 20% service charge, most assume they've tipped. Some operators are transparent about it. Many aren't

As more restaurants experiment with eliminating tips, the no-tip model is gaining traction - but not without resistance from industry professionals who fear it could drag down service quality

The operators trying to do right by their staff are caught in the middle. Raise wages significantly and you have to raise prices. Keep tipping and guests feel manipulated. Add a service charge and guests feel deceived if it doesn't go to staff

There's no clean answer here. But the status quo - a system that confuses guests, creates inequality between front and back of house, and varies wildly by country, city, and even restaurant - clearly isn't working for anyone

The question isn't whether tipping culture will change. It already is

The question is who leads that change - operators, regulators, or guests voting with their wallets

What model do you think actually works and have you changed your approach? 👇

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

Specialty coffee is quietly having its biggest moment ever. And most restaurants are missing the revenue sitting right on their menu

For a long time, specialty coffee was a niche. A particular kind of café with a particular kind of customer - particular about origin, process, and brew method. Not really a mass market thing.

That��s changing fast

Consumer interest in specialty coffee is growing beyond its traditional niche at a rate that’s surprising even the people inside the industry. Cold brew, single-origin espresso, oat milk cortados, sparkling coffee - what used to feel like enthusiast territory now shows up in the mainstream

And the margin story is significant. Coffee - done well - is one of the highest-margin items on any menu. The ingredient cost is low. The labour is relatively simple. And guests are increasingly willing to pay premium prices for drinks that feel considered rather than commodity

Here’s what’s worth thinking about for restaurant operators

Most restaurants treat their beverage programme as an afterthought. The food gets the attention. The drinks are whatever was easiest to set up. But as dining habits shift - as guests become more deliberate about where they spend and what they order - the quality of the beverage programme is increasingly part of the decision

A guest who’s cutting back on eating out but still comes in for a working lunch? The coffee you serve them is part of the impression your restaurant makes. And if it’s better than expected - that’s a reason to come back.

The revenue from a strong beverage programme doesn’t just show up in drink sales. It shows up in how long guests stay, how much they order, and whether they tell someone else about the experience.

When did you last look at your beverage programme with the same attention you give your food menu? 👇

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

The manager at Soraya restaurant spent every Monday morning building a spreadsheet. By the time it was ready, the numbers were already outdated

Soraya is a restaurant in Abu Dhabi. Before connecting Mayo, their back office looked like most restaurant back offices look. One system for POS. Another for inventory. Labour tracked separately. And every Monday, the manager sat down to reconcile it all manually into something that resembled a clear picture

Two full-time staff. Almost entirely dedicated to data entry.

By the time the numbers were ready - the moment to act on them had already passed.

Within the first month of connecting Mayo, two things happened that hadn't happened in over a year

The system flagged that a supplier had been overcharging on multiple items. It had gone undetected because no one had the bandwidth to cross-reference POS data with purchasing records in real time. Caught in the first month. Fixed immediately.

Then Mayo identified three menu items that looked popular by volume but were quietly dragging down margins. They were removed. Food cost dropped two points in the following quarter

The work that used to take a manager, a chef, and a clerk is now handled automatically. Weekly P&L generated without anyone building a spreadsheet. A Monday briefing that tells you what to push, what to watch, and where costs are heading

80% of time back on the floor. 60% reduction in back-office hours.

"Mayo gave our restaurant back." That's the line that stays with us. Not because it's a good marketing line - but because it's exactly what this is about. Giving operators back the time to do the thing they actually opened a restaurant for

If this sounds familiar - we'd love to show you what Mayo looks like in your operation

Book a demo → https://t.co/slr8yHDSOB

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

Restaurants love QR code menus. Guests are starting to hate them. Here's what that gap is actually costing you

When QR menus took off during the pandemic, it made complete sense. Contactless was a necessity. Paper felt risky. And the operational benefits were real - no printing costs, instant updates, no worn-out menus at the end of a busy service

But something has shifted

Guests who tolerated QR menus in 2021 because there was no alternative are now starting to actively dislike them. A growing number of diners say they miss the tactile experience of a physical menu. The act of picking it up. Looking through it at your own pace. Not squinting at a screen while your battery is at 12%

And there's something else worth thinking about from an operational perspective

A physical menu is a piece of brand communication. The weight of it. The design. How it feels in someone's hands before they've ordered a single thing. A QR code is a link. It doesn't do the same work.

None of this means QR menus are wrong for every restaurant. For high-volume fast casual, they make complete sense. For a neighbourhood bistro trying to create an experience - the calculus is different

The real question isn't QR or paper. It's whether the menu - in whatever form - is doing its job. Is it easy to navigate? Does it tell a story? Does it make guests feel like the experience has already started before the food arrives?

If guests are pulling out their phones and immediately feeling a small moment of friction - that friction is part of your brand whether you intended it or not.

What format does your restaurant use - and have you ever asked guests what they actually prefer? 👇

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

Wendy's is back in the spotlight. And this time it's serious

Two weeks ago, the Financial Times reported that Nelson Peltz - billionaire investor, Wendy's largest shareholder with over 24% of the company - is preparing a takeover bid to take the chain private

His Trian Fund Management is assembling a consortium that includes BlueFive Capital, an Abu Dhabi-based firm, and Flynn Group - the world's largest franchise operator with over 300 Wendy's locations across the US.

When the news broke, Wendy's stock jumped 13% and trading was temporarily halted for volatility

But here's what makes this story more interesting than a standard takeover.

Wendy's is struggling. US same-restaurant sales fell 7% in Q2 2026 - the sixth consecutive quarterly decline. Traffic plunged 12.5%. The chain closed 289 restaurants in the first half of the year alone and withdrew its full-year financial outlook.

So why would a billionaire want to buy a brand that's losing customers every single quarter?

One analyst put it bluntly - this isn't a turnaround bet. It's an exit strategy. Take the company private, restructure away from public market pressure, make difficult decisions without quarterly earnings calls, and try to rebuild the brand without Wall Street watching every move

Peltz has been here before. He first invested in Wendy's in 2005. His firm bought the chain outright in 2008 for $2.34 billion. He was chairman for 16 years. He knows this business better than almost anyone

Which raises the real question - if someone who knows Wendy's this well thinks it's worth saving, what does he see that the market doesn't?

And if he's wrong - what does that tell us about what's actually broken inside one of the most recognised fast food brands in the world?

The story isn't over yet. A formal bid hasn't landed. But when it does - it'll be one of the most watched moments in the restaurant industry this year.

What do you think - can Wendy's be turned around? Or is this too little, too late? 👇

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

Krispy Kreme just launched a Pokémon doughnut collection. Here’s the marketing lesson every restaurant operator should steal from it

Five doughnuts. Five Pokémon characters. Limited time only

On the surface - a fun brand collaboration. Underneath it - one of the smartest and most repeatable marketing moves in the industry.

Here’s what Krispy Kreme actually did

They attached their product to something millions of people already care about deeply. They made it limited - which creates urgency. They made it visual - which makes it shareable. And they made it collectible - which gives people a reason to come back more than once.

The result? People who haven’t thought about Krispy Kreme in months are suddenly walking in. Not because the doughnut got better. Because the moment made it feel worth it

You don’t need a licensing deal with Nintendo to apply this thinking

Every restaurant has cultural moments they can attach to - local events, sports seasons, a film everyone’s talking about, a food trend that’s taking off on TikTok. The formula is the same: find something your guests already care about, build something limited around it, make it visual enough to share.

The restaurants that do this consistently don’t just get a one-week sales spike. They build the habit of guests thinking “I wonder what they’re doing next”

What cultural moment is coming up that your restaurant could own? 👇

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

Beautiful food isn’t enough anymore. And the restaurants still betting on it are falling behind

For years, the playbook was simple. Great photos. Strong Instagram. Full restaurant.

That still matters. But it’s no longer enough on its own - and the data is starting to show it

Industry voices are now openly saying that visual content has become the entry ticket, not the differentiator. Every restaurant has good photos now. Every menu looks appealing on a screen. The visual bar has risen so high that stunning food photography has become the baseline - not the advantage.

So what’s actually moving the needle in 2026?

Trust signals. Reviews that feel genuine, not templated. A Google presence that’s complete and accurate. Staff who make guests feel something when they walk in. A story behind the brand that people want to be part of

The restaurants filling their dining rooms right now aren’t necessarily the ones with the most followers. They’re the ones guests trust enough to choose - and keep choosing

Beautiful food gets the click. Everything else earns the reservation

What do you think is the most underrated thing a restaurant can do to stand out right now? 👇

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

The restaurant industry just lost jobs two months in a row. That hasn't happened in over a year

In July, foodservice shed 26,100 jobs - on top of nearly 33,000 lost in June. Two consecutive months of job losses. The first time that's happened since 2024

And the timing is uncomfortable. This is supposed to be summer. The season restaurants count on

What's happening isn't one thing. It's several things arriving at once - cautious consumer spending, rising labour costs, operators quietly trimming shifts instead of laying people off all at once. The numbers are catching up.

But here's what's worth paying attention to beyond the headline

Job losses in hospitality aren't just an economic signal. They're an operational one. When operators start cutting hours and headcount, it usually means one of two things: margins got too tight to sustain the team, or they're trying to fix a cost problem they spotted too late.

The restaurants navigating this best right now aren't the ones with the biggest budgets. They're the ones who saw the pressure building early enough to make smaller, smarter adjustments before it became a crisis

The slow summer is real. The question is whether your restaurant is positioned to come out the other side of it - or still reacting to last month's numbers

What are you seeing in your own operation right now? 👇

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

Revenue that comes from loyal, returning guests is a completely different business than revenue that comes from charging the same guest more each visit

Which one are you building?

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

Restaurant sales are up 4.8% in 2026. But real growth is only 1.3%. The industry is doing better on paper than it actually is 👇🏻

[GetMayoAI @GetMayoAI]

The operators building something durable right now are the ones focused on traffic, not just ticket size. Bringing guests back more often. Giving them a reason to choose you when they're watching what they spend 👇🏻