I read a story in the January The Global Foodservice Focus pages on fcsi.org that got me thinking. The article highlighted how some large restaurant chains have been appearing under different names on delivery apps, presenting themselves as small or independent businesses. Independent restaurateurs have called this “sneaky” and unfair, arguing it undermines the level playing field.
What stayed with me about this story was the fact that large chains apparently feel the need to borrow the appearance of independence. That, in itself, might be a significant signal about the direction of the industry. For decades, independents occupied the underdog position, whereas chains were the safe, consistent, scalable option. Now the pendulum appears to have shifted. Scale is no longer automatically aspirational; what seems small, personal, and authentic increasingly carries cultural and economic weight.
Authenticity, however ambiguously defined, has become an even bigger form of currency. Consumers are drawn to experiences that feel specific, intentional, and human, even when ordering a Tuesday night takeaway. We may debate whether authenticity is objective, constructed, or post-modern performance, but research is clear that perceived genuineness consistently adds value. In this context, chains mimicking independents is both an acknowledgment of that value and a tacit admission that scale alone no longer guarantees desirability.
At the same time, the industry needs to remember that chains have their own strengths. Large operations (can) excel at operational efficiency, consistent quality, staff training, and implementing change at scale. They also have a societal role: providing safe, accessible spaces for communities as well offering reliable opportunities for staff. McDonald’s, for example, demonstrates a lot of these qualities: it operates with safe, predictable workflows, it is remarkably consistent around the globe. It introduces thoughtful innovations in sourcing and sustainability and has always been a place to go for people that don’t feel welcome elsewhere. Chains do not need to masquerade as small because their advantage lies precisely in what they are: large, accessible, and capable of leveraging scale to do things others cannot.
The industry in balance
The tension here is subtle but real. The rise in the perceived value of authenticity is healthy for hospitality. It rewards operators who care about character, story, and intention. At the same time, when independence or authenticity is mimicked as branding rather than practiced as structure, it risks becoming hollow, a performative costume rather than a lived reality.
The industry is now negotiating this balance: scale and efficiency on one hand, and story, identity, and trust on the other.
Perhaps the most interesting question is not whether chains should compete with, or even whether they should adopt an independent vibe, but why independence has become the desirable form at all. When the giants feel compelled to look small, it signals a subtle but profound cultural shift: guests increasingly value meaning over mere functionality. In an era where we’re told AI will take over everything, that’s a noteworthy caveat.
Marius Zürcher
About the author:
The co-owner & founder of Millennial & Gen Z marketing and employer branding agency 1520 in Apeldoorn, the Netherlands, Marius Zürcher was a participant at FCSI’s ‘Millennials’ focused roundtable at INTERGASTRA and a speaker at FCSI workshops about industry trends.
