Talk:Value menu/Archives/2015
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Value menu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
WP:FOOD Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
To be added back
Value menu marketing strategies are more than isolated items to be explained. Value menus are introduced to solve a problem, to (re)capture market share. And they have caused other problems, so I'd like to add back these previously deleted items in a historical context. --Lexein (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) (I very rarely forget too sign. Oops.)
- Two former midtown Manhattan franchisees sued Burger King saying that being forced to sell high-cost items at low prices has sent two of their stores into insolvency.[1]
- That does not meet the notability standards for inclusion.
- I previously neglected the URL. As an isolated fact with no historical context, does not meet. As support for a paragraph concerning the historical downsides to generic value menus(with suit outcome), meets. Which is my intention. --Lexein
- Many of these dollar menu items have become cash cows; even priced at $1, double cheeseburgers bring in more revenue than salads or the chicken sandwiches, which cost $3.19 to $4.29.
- That is false, the $1.00 double costs the company approximately 28¢ (28% of the cost) to make versus $2.52 to $3.35 (22% of the cost)
- Revenue. Not per-item cost. Revenue, revenue, revenue. --Lexein (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Lower priced items are generally not "healthy choice", leading to an imbalanced diet with higher risks of heart disease and diabetes.[2]
- Again, that is not completely correct.
- Both assertion and effect are based entirely upon the cited, and other sources.
- "Value" items (generic, not brand specific, Jerem43) are generally not considered, or advertised as, "healthy choices"; these, if consumed in an imbalanced diet, are associated with higher risks of heart disease and diabetes.[2] --Lexein (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Both assertion and effect are based entirely upon the cited, and other sources.
- ^ York, Emily Bryson (2008-04-07). "Value menu battleground". Crain's Chicago Business. Crain Communication, Inc.
- ^ a b [1], NYT
- I cannot agree with your assertions as they are more opinion or single, one off issues that do not meet notability guidelines. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Way off!
- They're not my assertions, mate, they're previously stated and substantiated by others, so watch your wild accusations.
- Value menus(generic, not brand specific) aren't just sweetness and light and fun; they have consequences for all companies who use them - financial and health - and the supporting evidence bears this out.
- These items were put in the discussion section to suggest further research, certainly not for narrow nitpicking. That's why I used words like "historical context" if you noticed. --Lexein (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Way off!