Back in 2015, McDonald’s was struggling. In Europe, sales were down 1.4% across the previous 6 years; 3.3% down in the US and almost 10% down across Africa and the Middle East. There were a myriad of challenges to overcome. Rising expectations of customer experience, new standards of convenience, weak in-store technology, a sprawling menu, a PR-bruised brand and questionable ingredients to name but a few.
McDonald’s are the original fast-food innovators; creating a level of standardisation that is quite frankly, remarkable. Buy a Big Mac in Beijing and it’ll taste the same as in Stratford-Upon Avon.
So when you’ve optimised product delivery, supply chain and flavour experience to such an incredible degree — how do you increase bottom line growth? It’s not going to come from making the Big Mac cheaper to produce — you’ve already turned those stones over (multiple times).
The answer of course, is to drive purchase frequency and increase margins through new products.
Numerous studies have shown that no matter what options are available, people tend to stick with the default options and choices they’ve made habitually. This is even more true when someone faces a broad selection of choices. We try to mitigate the risk of buyers remorse by sticking with the choices we know are ‘safe’.
McDonald’s has a uniquely pervasive presence in modern life with many of us having developed a pattern of ordering behaviour over the course of our lives (from Happy Meals to hangover cures). This creates a unique, and less cited, challenge for McDonald’s’ reinvention: how do you break people out of the default buying behaviours they’ve developed over decades?
In its simplest sense, the new format is designed to improve customer experience, which will in turn drive frequency and a shift in buying behaviour (for some) towards higher margin items. The most important shift in buying patterns is to drive reappraisal of the Signature range to make sure they maximise potential spend from those customers who can afford, and want, a more premium experience.
I hope this was helpful
Insufficient funds and irregular signatures are reasons why a cheque may not be cleared in time.
<h3>What is a Cheque?</h3>
This can be defined as a written, dated, and signed instrument which directs a bank to pay a specific sum of money to the bearer.
Insufficient funds and irregular signatures may delay the clearing of cheque which is a result of human error and could lead to returning it.
Read more about Cheque here brainly.com/question/24555580
Answer:
C. Spencer will win because regardless of whether Glen was acting within the scope of his employment, Sally is liable for his negligence
Explanation:
Spencer will win the lawsuit and Sally is liable for negligence.
This is because, Sally was the person originally hired to do the roofing job.
She hired other workers to help her with the job, so she's liable to their actions and inactions.
Sally is operating under a working agreement (contract) and has already charged a fee of $10,000 so any punitive damages would be her responsibility.
Spencer was moving around and Glen threw some roofing shingles without any word of warning to people that might be in harm's way. So for Glenn's actions, Sally is liable for his negligence.
784.967 rounded to the nearest whole number is 785
