Burger King's CEO Is 33
businessweek.com
businessweek.com
Do you remember PG essay about the PR submarine? That's more like it. Make no mistake, Jorge Paulo Lemann and the other two billionaire partners are among the best business men in the world. They got there building huge business after huge business (not like the gambler ex-billionaire Eike Batista).
So there are 3 very smart, wise (and old) guys telling these young smart folks where to go and what to do. Not micro-managing, of course, but the biggest, toughest decisions are theirs. So it is very different in autonomy and leadership from public companies CEOs. And a world of distance of Zuckerberg's owner, founder, CEO, rules-it-all role.
PS: I don't want to minimize the young guys success, I am sure they worked hard and smart and deserve their positions. Just clarifying what exactly means the "CEO role" here - according to my own personal opinion, of course.
Burger King sells a well-known product in a predictable market. They don't invent crazy new things. They operate efficiently and scale operations that work.
Facebook pioneers technology and products that the world hasn't seen before. For Facebook to do so well requires a combination of grand vision, operational effectiveness, recruiting and managing ultra-high caliber talent, and more.
Burger King isn't an "easy" business to run but it's a well-defined business with a simpler playbook than a company like Facebook.
I'm sure BK's investors are great advisors but I suspect the company's success is because of the highly capable team tackling a market with a well defined playbook.
Bill Ackman is the hedge fund investor who played a key role in formulating Burger King's current strategy[1].
Ackman brought former Apple retail chief Ron Johnson in to run J.C. Penney, which turned out to be a huge disaster. Ackman reportedly lost ~$500 million.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Ackman is not a smart man based on one failed investment. In fact, I'd argue that he was 100% correct about the need for J.C. Penney to change, but it's one thing to identify a need for change and another to make the right change. If you execute well the wrong strategy, you're still going to fail.
The problem with Burger King is that what you call "a well defined playbook" is far from a proven playbook. There has been a trend in the restaurant business for chains to reduce the number of stores they own, but as a percentage of all stores, Burger King has basically dumped all of its company stores.
Today, that gives Burger King a financial profile that investors can cheer, but the company's ultimate success depends on what happens tomorrow. There are more reasons than not to believe Burger King's strategy will hinder and not help the company over the long haul.
If I was an investor in such a competitive space, I'd absolutely bet on companies being led by a visionary leader like Steve Ells (founder and CEO of Chipotle) over companies being led by former Wall Street folks with little to no restaurant experience.
[1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020333550...
I remember reading something about McDonald's chefs. As in, the people who design new menu items. One of them described it as a really interesting job, because you have to take into account things like 'what is the world supply of this ingredient.' I forget what their example was, but they had built something new, and they had determined though sales projections that McDonald's would have to purchase _the entire world supply_ of this ingredient for it to work out.
Or, consider things like the McRib. If I remember correctly, McDonald's only offers it for limited times because they have to wait until the pork market is cheap enough that they can turn a profit.
I worked at a pizza chain, and our chefs often had to make new foods work with the ingredients we already were stocking, at least, as much as possible.
There is creativity and invention in fast food, it just works under a very peculiar set of constraints.
In the world of fast food, I see this as a problem. Taco Bell released the Dorito Loco Taco which has now made its way on to the main menu. Subway releases new promotional subs and items like the Flatizza, it seems almost bi-monthly. While the latter may not be as big of a success, it still garners awareness.
I can't think of one "crazy" item Burger King has released in the last few years.
Inventing something is "easy"
Now, after inventing it you have to:
- engage your whole supply chain for the needed ingredients and make sure they reach their destination
- engage marketing, produce all the needed support (packaging, new menus, new billing items, etc)
- create procedures and train staff
- deploy new equipment if needed
I mean, it's mexican food, for breakfast (not!).
So ya, nobody does do "crazy" anymore in Fast Food. Just normal, add some more onions + BBQ Sauce and it will sell.
Is it different in America? Still relevant?
BK has lagged way behind McDs and Subway on various fronts. Lack of new product items, old technology, minimal promotion, dirty and outdated dining rooms. The last BK near me that hasn't closed down looks like it hasn't had a coat of paint in 15 years. Meanwhile McDs is tearing down and rebuilding new stores ground-up all over town.
Twenty or thirty years ago, in America, McDonald's and BK were literally in a deadlocked battle of the giants. Burger wars! Those days are long gone.
That and McDonald's just owns kids.
There is a BK near the office, and I used to attempt a drive-thru on my lunch -- but, their drive-thru was actually slower than going inside. After a few attempts (and being late back to the office once) I gave up.
"He’s Burger King’s 21st CEO since the company was founded in 1954"
That's literally a new CEO every 36 months since the company was started sixty years ago. That's just boggling.
I did see them in Russia, several places, and the only thing they had going for them was that there was no waiting. Because nobody EVER went there, that I could recall.
I only noticed maybe seven or eight months ago when it was the only place available for a quick meal, but I've been back once since, at the other end of the country, and it was also good.
I suspect these things are a bit cyclical.
They're most notable for their advertising campaign featuring the King mascot. It was entertaining in a creepy/surreal way but didn't make me want to eat their hamburgers.
That said, if the plan is right, sometimes it is energy that's required to make things happen. If some very wise board members have set the right strategy, I think he can pull it off.
I'm not sure if it's any harder or easier than Facebook, but in today's economy, the right skills and intensity are more important than the longest resume.
seems like new food inventions drive alot of the marketing behind their competetors
trying out new menu items is just 1 thing that pops to mind, and I'm probably completely missing 100 other things that a burger place could inovate on
Maybe they've all done the math and it doesn't make financial sense, I don't know. But there's certainly nothing inherent about the type of food that makes it impossible; I've had great burgers and fries delivered by a few independent restaurants.
I'm waiting on Subway and Togo's to get drive-thru windows. Finally, a more-healthyish drive-through choice.
Why can't Jorge just find a badass manager somewhere who knows how to operate the restaurants to a T and put her in charge?
Or you're well connected. And even if you weren't well connected going in to an Ivy League school, you will be by the time you leave. You're now friends with people who will hold financial, political, or managerial power in 10-20 years.
This networking effect is compounded because the top consulting firms and investment banks (CEO/CFO factories) target Ivy League grads. As a management consultant, you learn how to give a convincing and engaging Power Point presentation despite the fact that you're 22 years old and know nothing. This is an extremely useful skill.
It's a path. If you're on it, it's risky to step off; once you're off, it's nearly impossible to get back on.
But, in all fairness, entry-level IB or management consulting is probably much better preparation for the skills required of a CEO than sitting at a computer all day writing code.
Clearly it happens that non-wealthy, non-connected people get into Ivy League schools. It is, however, not the norm.
Essentially, ivy league schools let in a certain amount of highly talented people by offering them an incredible education, often with financial incentives, on order to increase the value of the "real" students. The legacy and preferred family students who the school is really there to serve and are the majority of graduates.
Those companies that have a hiring preference for ivy league students are often just falling for the scheme as opposed to getting truly exceptional candidates.
Even this is debatable. [1]
>The legacy students ... are the majority of graduates.
Well, the legacy students are probably closer to 10% to 15% of the student body. Certainly not the majority. [2]
> Those companies that have a hiring preference for ivy league students are often just falling for the scheme as opposed to getting truly exceptional candidates.
Another theory is that these companies target Ivy League students because they're (generally intelligent) people who have been conditioned since a young age to jump through the hoops of an elaborate application process. Top IBs and management consultancies model their hiring processes after the Ivy League application process. An excerpt from the Washington Post:
It begins by mimicking the application process that Harvard students have already grown comfortable with. “It’s doing a process that you’ve done a billion times before,” says Dylan Matthews, a senior at Harvard who was previously a researcher at the Washington Post.
“Everyone who goes to Harvard went hard on the college application process,” he said. “Applying to Wall Street is much closer to that than applying anywhere else is. There are a handful of firms you really care about; they all have formal application processes that they walk you through; there’s a season when it all happens; all of them come to you and interview you where you live, etc. Harvard students are really good at formal processes like that."
[1] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118747/ivy-league-schools...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/being-a-l...
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/wall-street-s...
Edit: Here's the link, I believe. http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
Could not have said it better myself. He's just there to facilitate the transition of Burger King into a brand property play. There is little or no company left to run. The buyout and sale of 1,200 locations was the tough part. A young CEO is perfect for staying out of the way and doing what he's told while they expand royalty payments unsustainably based on the prior trust in the Burger Kind brand in order to pump money out of it until its worthless.
Over time, it'd be very surprising if Burger King's lack of company stores didn't catch up with it. These stores are the best channel for taking the pulse of the market. It's very hard to see a company maintaining its brand and evolving with the market with what basically amounts to a franchise-only play.
It's worth noting that Chipotle, which does not currently franchise, is absolutely killing it from both a financial standpoint[1] and a customer experience standpoint[2]. Burger King's model has an attractive financial profile (for now) but according to the same recent Consumer Reports survey that gave Chipotle top marks in its category, Burger King received one of the worst marks for burgers.
More interestingly, based on a quick glance at the Consumer Reports rankings, it appears there may be a correlation between customer perception of product quality and the percentage of company stores. In Burger King's category (burgers), the number two chain, In-N-Out, doesn't franchise, and the number one chain, The Habit, just started franchising last year and is still relatively small. Food for thought, no pun intended.
[1] http://www.equities.com/editors-desk/stocks/consumer-discret...
[2] http://news.investors.com/business/070214-707190-mcdonalds-y...
But 3G doesn't need to maintain the brand. The Burger King brand, both to the customer and the franchisee is still decent based upon its historical success. It will take quite a few years for that to trickle down to retail investors and potential franchisees. You have contractual 4.5% royalty of gross and 4.5% for advertising of gross. It does not matter if the franchises make any profit. The IPO paid for the original expenditure, so all BK is left with is debt. Debt which has very little teeth because the majority of assets have already been sold off with some more equity about to be drained out during a debt refinancing. Maybe this is just 3G getting in first on the feeding frenzy of the shrinking fast food, burger joint market, and didn't really change Burger King's path too much, but no one should pretend any of this has to do with running a traditional corporation looking out for its own best interest.
You might be right, but I would make the observation that markets seem to be capable of changing a lot faster today. I think anyone investing in consumer segments like retail and fast food should be open to the possibility that meaningful trend shifts can occur and businesses can rise and fall relatively quickly (on the order of a few years as opposed to a decade or more).
If the royalties go higher how easy would it be for the restaurant owner to switch to another fast food type restaurant/franchise. How much could BK (Corporate) block that move?
"In two years under Hees the company more than doubled its margins, as measured by Ebitda (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization), Wall Street’s preferred gauge of cash flow. He did this in part by recasting Burger King as an owner of franchises rather than an operator of restaurants and sold off locations owned by the company. This allowed Hees to shove about 28,000 employees off Burger King’s balance sheet. It also meant the company didn’t need to spend as much to refurbish aging restaurants; instead, it offered incentives and lined up loans for franchisees to revamp their locations, replacing dull old plastic countertops with shiny metallic surfaces and futuristic stripes of neon. "
I don't think Businessweek could have come up with a more patronizing headline if they had tried to.
Kudos to Jorge Paulo Lemann, William Ackman and others who can see value regardless of age.
I personally don't care for BK at all and scratched my head about this. Their food is abominable in my opinion... not to be negative but it just is what it is. It frankly tastes like they put sugar in their hamburger and they probably single handedly use 30% of the mayo consumed in the US. But maybe they have something that appeals to a certain group of people. Apparently they do. The restaurant is still consistently pretty busy. I went once just to find out if they were as awful as I remember and determined they were worse. But in certain demographics they appear to remain popular. No point... I just found all this interesting.
Here's a picture I found of (supposed) market share in Puerto Rico, for example:
http://dialog.scarborough.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Pue...
I subsisted off the $1 Double Cheeseburger for a year in college. Now I feel rather guilty about it. Oops.
I always translate this to: "Share in the losses, and maybe, just maybe, we'll share some of the wins with you, if there's enough after satisfying our insatiable desires"
Personally, I stopped going there when they switched to coated fries. Note to restaurateurs: I don't care how good the burger is -- if you have bad fries, I'm not eating there.
Since his appointment, BKW is up 43%. the S&P 500 is up 22%. DOW Jones is up 13%.
In his industry: Mcdonalds down 1% Wendys up 39% Jack in the box up 56%. Panera down 22% Chipotle up 77%
Does not seem like Burger King is hurting on the stock market from his leadership.
Still though, I don't see BK as stock to short. Above someone said execs may be emptying it out, but at the same time, I see treeeeemendous upside in BK (and McDonald's). The other fast-risers (like Panera) are showing how to do it, and BK and McD have the infrastructure already in place. They could seriously upgrade their quality to next level.
You see this happening in the auto industry. Remember how Kias used to suck? Remember how Hyundais used to suck? And remember a generation before them how Toyota and Nissan were low-end? These restaurants could mature by supplying what people want, such as slightly healthier food.