Restaurant Readiness Index - December 2018

RESTAURANT INDEX™ READINESS
DECEMBER 2018
80%
Approximate share of both
customers and managers who have
a positive view of loyalty programs
88% 97%
Share of customers who
said features that ensure
Share of small
QSR managers who
36%
the accuracy of their are satisfied with Share of QSR chains that
orders will encourage in-store pickup at have implemented kitchen
them to return to a QSR the same location automation systems (KAS)
3% 52%
Portion of small QSR chains that
Portion of QSR managers don’t want to implement KAS
who say self-service kiosk is the most because they’re satisfied
common method for placing orders with their current operations
2
RESTAURANT INDEX™ READINESS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Restaurant Readiness Index™ was done in collaboration with Bypass and Bank of America Merchant Services, and PYMNTS is grateful for their support
and insights. Bank of America Merchant Services was not involved in the selection or research of any merchants in this study. PYMNTS.com retains full
editorial control over the findings presented, as well as the methodology and data analysis.
© 2018 PYMNTS.com All Rights Reserved

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Key findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The big picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The digital divide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Matters of size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
The promise of loyalty programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Deep Dive: kitchen automation systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4
RESTAURANT KEY FINDINGS

READINESS
INDEX™ 2018
38.7 Average restaurant Index score
(on a scale of 0 to 100)
82.5% Share of customers who say being

able to order with an employee
in-store is a positive experience
77.4% Portion of QSR managers who would

adopt innovations to boost
the speed of ordering
100% Share of QSR customers who say

ordering with a third-party app
is a positive payment experience
QSR APP
EXPERIENCES
65% Portion of QSR managers who

believe that using apps to place
orders provides a positive experience
92% Share of customers who say

using apps to place QSR orders
provides a positive experience
63% Portion of merchants that believe using

a QSR app to pay for orders offers
a positive experience

5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
K
now thy customer. If there were a Ten
Commandments for business success, this
adage might top the list. But what happens
when business owners don’t know their customers
as well as they think they do?
This is the situation many quick-service restaurant

(QSR) managers face when it comes to their
customers’ feelings about digital innovation. For
more than a year, PYMNTS, in collaboration with
Bypass and Bank of America Merchant Services, has
been tracking QSRs' adoption of new technologies,
such as self-service kiosks and mobile apps for
ordering and paying.
For all the buzz around such technologies, PYMNTS’

research has revealed that they haven’t made much
progress in the U.S. When measuring how well Only 65 percent of managers at QSRs that offer
QSRs implement technology on a scale from zero apps for placing orders believe they provide a
to 100, we determined that the average restaurant's positive experience, making them one of the least
score is just 38.7. And yet, QSR customers had popular order methods by their estimates. However,
overwhelmingly positive experiences with many nearly 92 percent of customers who order through
digital innovations — for instance, 62 percent of QSR apps say they provide a positive experience,
them said such features would make them more making them the most popular option for them.
likely to visit QSRs in the future. This is especially
true for younger customers — those who hold the This digital divide can be found at each stage of
future of the industry in their hands. the dining experience, from ordering, to paying,
to picking up orders. In the case of paying with
In this report, the fourth in this series, we peeked mobile apps — both QSR-based and third-party
into the minds of restaurant managers to better ones, such as Uber Eats and Grubhub — managers
understand their decisions and attitudes when underestimate customers’ satisfaction by 26.9
it comes to investing in innovative technologies. percent to 31.8 percent.
We surveyed and analyzed the responses of 400
managers, out of more than 3,500 respondents, This divide is all the more striking when we consider
and what we discovered is that managers greatly that managers cite pleasing their customers as
underestimate their patrons’ appetites for their primary reason to implement new technology
technological innovation. — they want to make their customers happy. The

6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
most common reason managers don’t like features 42 percent and 31 percent of medium and small
like self-service kiosks and online ordering is that chains, respectively. Additionally, we will take a
they believe customers don’t like them — which is closer look at loyalty programs, which stand out as
contrary to customers’ own sentiments. services that are popular with both customers and
managers.
Despite this divide, there are areas where managers'
and customers' perspectives converge. Around 90 Finally, in this report’s Deep Dive, we look at the
percent of both groups report positive experiences adoption of technology behind the counter: kitchen
when paying with credit cards, and nearly 80 percent automation systems (KAS), which allow tablets
of both groups like loyalty programs, which we will to display orders to kitchen staff in real time,
examine in greater depth. This suggests that if pain among other things. As with many aspects of QSR
points can be addressed, QSR innovation could innovation, KAS adoption varies greatly between
reward managers and customers alike. chains and QSRs of different sizes. When compared
to small chains, large chains are more likely to have
In this report, we also examine how the size of a implemented KAS and view it as important to their
QSR chain — how many locations it has — relates to success. In the case of Burger King, 64 percent of
its adoption of new technology. Larger chains, such its locations have the technology, making it the
as McDonald’s, are more likely than smaller ones to leader in this area by far. In contrast, Wendy’s has
have in-store kiosks: 21 percent of large ones have adopted KAS at only 21 percent of its outlets.
them versus 5 percent of small ones. Large chains
are also more likely to have QSR-based mobile apps: For these and other insights into the state of QSR
65 percent of large chains have them, compared to innovation, it’s “order up.”

7
THE BIG PICTURE
T
wo main motives drive QSR managers
to employ new innovations at their
establishments: speed and improving their
customers’ experiences. More than 70 percent of
QSR managers view these as primary benefits of
implementing technology, followed by convenience
and reduced order errors.
FIGURE 1:
HOW NEW INNOVATIONS APPEAL TO QSRs
Percentage of managers citing various incentives
BOOST SPEED
77.4% 7900000000
IMPROVE CUSTOMERS' EXPERIENCES

74.4% 7200000000
ADD CONVENIENCE
62.4% 7000000000
ELIMINATE PURCHASING ERRORS

55.4% 6400000000
ELIMINATE DELIVERY ERRORS

37.8% 6100000000
SECURE PAYMENTS DATA

29.3% 5500000000
SECURE CUSTOMERS' INFORMATION

25.3% 4600000000
REDUCE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES NEEDED

25.3% 5500000000
PREVENT FRAUD
22.6% 4600000000

8
THE BIG PICTURE
While most managers see certain technological FIGURE 2:

features — such as those that ensure order FEATURES' IMPORTANCE TO
QSRs' FUTURE SUCCESS
accuracy and enable order pickup without
Managers' versus customers' perceptions,
making the customer stand in a line — as by percentage
important to their restaurants’ future success,
they’re less enthusiastic about high-profile
IMPROVED ORDER ACCURACY
innovations, such as kiosks and mobile apps.
80.3% 6000000000
Yet these are the features that will lead many 88.1% 1700000000
customers to patronize QSRs more in the

IN-STORE FAST PICKUP
future. There is a 44.4 percent gap between
71.0% 5300000000
managers and customers in the extent to 84.1% 1500000000
which they believe kiosks will positively affect

AUTO-UPDATED MENU
their future success and visits, with customers
71.0% 4500000000
being much more bullish. In the case of online 81.3% 1700000000
or app ordering, there’s a nearly 20 percent gap.

IN-STOCK ITEMS UPDATE
70.3% 5400000000
77.1% 1100000000
DRIVE-THROUGH PICKUP
65.3% 4000000000
84.3% 0800000000
80.3%
ONLINE/APP ORDERING
64.5% 3600000000
83.6% 1200000000
WALLET ACCEPTANCE
50.8% 6000000000
of QSR managers 83.0% 1700000000
say features that

LOYALTY PROGRAMS
47.5% 5300000000
79.5% 1500000000
ensure the accuracy KITCHEN AUTOMATION
of customers' orders 46.8%

0.0%
4500000000
170
will bring them CURBSIDE PICKUP

32.8% 5400000000
more success. 76.8% 1100000000
SELF-SERVICE KIOSKS
29.5% 4000000000
73.9% 0800000000
QSR managers QSR customers

9
THE BIG PICTURE
FIGURE 3:
NEW INNOVATIONS' EFFECTS ON
FUTURE SUCCESS
Gap between managers' and customers'
perceptions, by percentage
SELF-SERVICE KIOSKS
44.4% 7900000000
CURBSIDE PICKUP
44.1% 7200000000
WALLET ACCEPTANCE
32.2% 7000000000
LOYALTY PROGRAMS
32.0% 6400000000
ONLINE/APP ORDERING
19.1% 6100000000
DRIVE-THROUGH PICKUP
19.1% 5500000000

13.1% 4600000000
AUTO-UPDATED MENU
10.3% 7900000000
IMPROVED ORDER ACCURACY

7.8% 7200000000
IN-STOCK ITEMS UPDATE

6.9% 7000000000
The differing perspectives of QSR managers

and customers will come into clearer view as
we take a closer look at the three phases of
the QSR experience — placing, paying for and
picking up orders.

10
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
W
hen it comes to the ordering FIGURE 4:
methods that are most satisfying to SATISFACTION AND ORDER METHODS
Percentage of managers versus customers who
customers, managers tend to have
positively view certain ordering systems
an old-school outlook. More than 90 percent
of them view the counter and drive-through as WITH EMPLOYEE IN-STORE
satisfying and positive, while they have much 96.6% 6000000000
82.5%
less enthusiasm for in-store kiosks and apps,
1700000000
which only 62.5 percent and 65.0 percent of WITH DRIVE-THROUGH EMPLOYEE
managers, respectively, view positively. 91.1% 5300000000
78.2% 1500000000
Customers have a very different view of these

AT DRIVE-THROUGH KIOSK
technologies. In fact, QSR apps are viewed 75.0% 4500000000
favorably by nearly 92 percent of customers, 73.3% 1700000000
making them the highest-ranked ordering

VIA QSR's MOBILE APP
method, followed by third-party apps. Managers 65.0% 5400000000
underestimate customers' satisfaction with 91.9% 1100000000
QSR apps by nearly 27 percent and by 31.8

VIA QSR's WEBSITE
percent for third-party apps. It bears noting 63.7% 4000000000
that customers had a positive outlook on 79.2% 0800000000
all ordering methods, although support was

AT KIOSK IN-STORE
lukewarm for the drive-through and ordering 62.5% 3600000000
at the counter, especially when compared to 72.3% 1200000000
managers’ perceptions.
VIA THIRD-PARTY APP
53.9% 6000000000
85.7% 1700000000

11
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
FIGURE 5:
PERCEIVED MOST-COMMON
ORDERING METHOD
44.5%
For managers versus customers
WITH DRIVE-THROUGH EMPLOYEE

39.3% 6000000000
25.6% 1700000000
of customers WITH EMPLOYEE IN-STORE
prefer to place 36.5% 5300000000
44.5% 1500000000
an order with 6.3%

VIA QSR'S WEBSITE
4500000000
an employee in-store. 4.8% 1700000000
2.8% 5400000000
13.0% 1100000000
VIA QSR'S MOBILE APP

2.5% 4000000000
6.2% 0800000000
AT KIOSK IN-STORE
1.8% 3600000000
As the saying goes, perception is reality. The 4.5% 1200000000
gap between managers and customers in how

VIA THIRD-PARTY APP
favorably they view different ordering methods 0.0% 60
seems to correspond with their perception 0.7% 170 0 0 0
of how often such methods are used. QSR

managers believe that orders are most often QSR managers QSR customers
made at the store counter or the drive-through,

with less than 3 percent of managers believing
drive-through are used the most. Customers,
on the other hand, report using drive-through
kiosks 13.0 percent of the time.
This suggests that managers perceive

downsides to digital ordering methods that
aren’t apparent to customers, such as the
costs associated with operating them. The
most common reason managers view various
ordering methods positively is that customers
like them, however. Managers list business-
oriented reasons, such as saving time or
money, as secondary.

12
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
TABLE 1:
REASONS MANAGERS VALUE DIFFERENT ORDERING METHODS
Percentage of QSR managers who prefer ordering methods, by reason
REASONS
NUMBER
Customers' Complete Reduce Save Easy to
preference order quickly costs time place order
ORDERING METHODS
With drive-through employee 234 45.7% 42.3% 3.4% 4.7% 3.8%
With employee in-store 342 63.7% 21.9% 1.8% 1.2% 11.4%
Via QSR's website 135 24.4% 26.7% 11.9% 25.2% 11.9%
At kiosk in-store 35 20.0% 31.4% 11.4% 37.1% 0.0%
Via QSR's mobile app 132 28.8% 20.5% 12.1% 25.8% 12.9%
At drive-through kiosk 18 27.8% 27.8% 5.6% 33.3% 5.6%
Via third-party app 62 30.6% 12.9% 3.2% 29.0% 24.2%
By phone 177 35.6% 16.9% 6.8% 22.0% 18.6%
AVERAGE 43.2% 25.6% 5.7% 14.0% 11.5%

13
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
FIGURE 6:
POSITIVE EXPERIENCE WITH
PAYMENT METHOD
92.8%
Managers versus customers
DEBIT CARD
92.8% 6000000000
81.6% 1700000000
of QSR managers CASH
had a positive 92.5% 5300000000
79.6% 1500000000
experience with 90.5%

CREDIT CARD
4500000000
orders that were 87.0% 1700000000
paid by debit card. 84.7%

GIFT CARD
5400000000
72.2% 1100000000
QSR PREPAID CARD

83.0% 4000000000
77.8% 0800000000
AMAZON PAY
75.0% 3600000000
The digital divide between managers and 50.0% 1200000000
patrons can also be found in their views toward

more innovative payment methods. Managers APPLE PAY
70.1% 6000000000
consider traditional forms of payment — cash 94.1% 1700000000
and cards — to be the most positive and

satisfying, and view digital forms of payments GOOGLE PAY
69.7% 5300000000
less positively, whether they're made via an app 73.3% 1500000000
or online. More than 92 percent of managers

view debit cards favorably, while only 62.5 SAMSUNG PAY
66.1% 4500000000
percent feel the same about QSR apps. 50.0% 1700000000
By contrast, customers report a much more THIRD-PARTY APP

positive experience with app and mobile 64.9% 5400000000
100.0% 1100000000
payments. In the case of a chain-specific

app, managers underestimate customer QSR APP
satisfaction by 28.4 percent. Interestingly, when 62.5% 4000000000
90.9% 0800000000
it comes to mobile payments, managers seem

to prefer Samsung services, while customers
favor Apple Pay by a 24 percent margin over
managers.

14
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
FIGURE 7:
PAYMENT METHOD USE AND SATISFACTION GAP
Percentage difference between managers' and customers' expectations
40%
35.1%
30% 28.4%
24.0%
20%
10%
1.4% 1.5%
DEBIT CREDIT GIFT QSR APPLE GOOGLE AMAZON SAMSUNG QSR THIRD-PARTY
CASH
CARD CARD CARD APP PAY PAY PAY PAY PREPAID CARD APP
-6.3% -10%
-16.1% -20%
-25.0%
-30%
-40%
Gap in positive experience Gap in usage

15
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
FIGURE 8:
MOST SATISFYING PAYMENT METHODS
Percentages as reported by managers versus customers
DEBIT CARD GOOGLE PAY

36.0% 6000000000 1.0% 60 0 0 0 0
36.4% 2800000000 1.5% 2800000000
94.0% 1700000000 29.8% 1700000000
CREDIT CARD AMAZON PAY

30.0% 5300000000 0.8% 530 0 0 0
23.7% 3300000000 1.2% 30000
97.3% 1500000000 9.0% 1500000000
CASH SAMSUNG PAY

26.0% 4500000000 0.5% 450
27.4% 2000000000 1.2% 20 0 0 0 0
93.3% 1700000000 28.8% 1700000000
GIFT CARD QSR PREPAID CARD

2.5% 5400000000 0.3% 540
1.8% 1700000000 1.8% 1700000000
83.5% 1100000000 23.5% 1100000000
QSR APP THIRD-PARTY APP

1.8% 4000000000 0.0% 40
3.3% 2100000000 0.1% 210
38.0% 0800000000 9.3% 0800000000
APPLE PAY
1.3% 360 0 0 0 QSR managers
1.7% 1900000000
QSR customers
46.0% 1200000000
Percentage of payment method accepted
Although customers who use mobile payments are overwhelmingly satisfied with them, it must be noted
that QSRs' use of them remains very limited — customers and managers largely agree on this. More than 40
percent of QSRs take mobile payments, with Apple Pay being the most commonly accepted, but less than
2 percent of QSR customers actually use them. In total, customers' mobile payment use at QSRs is only
5.5 percent. This mirrors trends in the larger retail world. Despite their hype and promise, mobile payments
have yet to gain traction in the U.S.1
This partly explains the relatively sour view QSR managers have of digital payments. They often feel that
digital payments are too complicated to process and that completing the transaction takes too long.
1
Webster, Karen. 2018: The year of the mobile wallet reset. PYMNTS.com. 2018. https://www.pymnts.com/news/mobile-commerce/2018/checkout-friction-mobile-wallet-
adoption-digital-identity-authentication/. Accessed December 2018.

16
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
TABLE 2:
REASONS MANAGERS DISLIKE CERTAIN PAYMENT METHODS
Percentage of QSR managers who were disatisfied with payment methods, by reason
REASONS
NUMBER
Too complicated Too long Dislike the Cost is Transaction takes
to process to complete method too high too long
PAYMENT METHODS
Debit card 6 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Credit card 8 37.5% 37.5% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Cash 5 0.0% 0.0% 80.0% 20.0% 0.0%
Gift card 3 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0%
QSR app 10 60.0% 30.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Apple Pay 18 33.3% 27.8% 22.2% 16.7% 0.0%
Google Pay 10 40.0% 40.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0%
Amazon Pay 4 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0%
Samsung Pay 6 50.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0%
QSR prepaid card 4 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%
Third-party app 0 — — — — —
AVERAGE 41.9% 27.0% 18.9% 12.2% 0.0%
Keeping consistent with the larger pattern, managers underestimate their customers’ appetites for payment
method innovation. When explaining what appeals to them about mobile payments, fewer than half of
managers cite customer preferences. As we have seen, however, a far greater proportion of customers view
these payment methods positively.

17
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
TABLE 3:
REASONS MANAGERS LIKE CERTAIN PAYMENT METHODS
Percentage of QSR managers who were satisfied with payment methods, by reason
REASONS
NUMBER
Customers' Complete Reduce Save Easy to
preference order quickly costs time place order
PAYMENT METHODS
Debit card 349 42.7% 50.1% 4.0% 0.6% 2.6%
Credit card 352 41.8% 50.0% 5.4% 1.1% 1.7%
Cash 345 58.8% 24.3% 3.8% 10.7% 2.3%
Gift card 283 38.5% 45.9% 5.7% 7.1% 2.8%
QSR app 95 37.9% 34.7% 20.0% 2.1% 5.3%
Apple Pay 129 41.9% 38.8% 12.4% 1.6% 5.4%
Google Pay 83 36.1% 41.0% 10.8% 4.8% 7.2%
Amazon Pay 27 40.7% 37.0% 7.4% 0.0% 14.8%
Samsung Pay 76 48.7% 35.5% 9.2% 0.0% 6.6%
QSR prepaid card 78 39.7% 43.6% 9.0% 2.6% 5.1%
Third-party app 24 41.7% 20.8% 29.2% 4.2% 4.2%
AVERAGE 44.4% 41.2% 7.0% 4.0% 3.4%
At the order pickup stage of the QSR experience, there is greater consensus between managers and their
patrons. Of course, this area is somewhat less amenable to digital innovation than ordering and paying.
Approximately 85 percent of both customers and managers view in-store and drive-through pickups as the
most common ways to receive orders.

18
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
FIGURE 9:
MOST COMMON METHOD FOR
PICKING UP ORDERS
Out of all methods, Managers versus customers
both QSR managers 53.3%

IN-STORE, SAME LOCATION
6000000000
and customers prefer 53.9% 1700000000
to pick up orders 31.5%

DRIVE-THROUGH
5300000000
31.3%
IN-STORE AT THE
1500000000

SAME LOCATION 8.8%
10.4%
4500000000
1700000000
WHERE THEY CURBSIDE PICKUP
WERE PLACED. 1.0%

4.4%
540 0 0 0
1100000000
FIGURE 10:
POSITIVE EXPERIENCE WITH DIFFERENT
METHODS OF ORDER PICKUP
Managers versus customers
On the whole, managers have rosier views of

all order pickup methods compared to their
91.9% 6000000000
patrons. More than 90 percent of managers 83.6% 1700000000
view in-store pickup positively, compared to

DRIVE-THROUGH
83.6 percent of customers, while 89 percent
89.0% 5300000000
of managers see the drive-through experience 74.8% 1500000000
as positive, compared to 74.8 percent of

customers. This might have to do with
87.7% 4500000000
managers’ sense of control. With these pickup 66.0% 1700000000
methods, managers are directly responsible for

CURBSIDE PICKUP
serving up orders, whereas other technology- 63.1% 5400000000
enabled features, such as app ordering, are 77.3% 1100000000
imposed on them.

19
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
The one exception to this pattern is curbside

pickup, which customers regard more favorably
than managers. QSR managers underestimate the
usage and positive experience of curbside pickup
by 3.4 percent and 14.2 percent, respectively.
This misperception of customer preferences,

especially when it comes to digital technology, is
not a trivial matter. As we’ve seen, QSR customers
don’t regard these features as novelties, but as
services that could lead them to visit QSRs more
often.
FIGURE 11:
ORDER PICKUP METHODS' USE AND SATISFACTION GAP
Percentage difference between managers and customers
25%
20%
15% 14.2%
10%
5%
0.7% 1.6%
3.4%
IN-STORE, IN-STORE
DRIVE-THROUGH CURBSIDE PICKUP
SAME LOCATION FAST PICKUP
-0.3%
-5%
-8.4% -10%
-15%
-14.2%
-20%
-21.6%
-25%
Gap in positive experience Gap in usage

20
MATTERS OF SIZE
O
ne of the central findings of our earlier FIGURE 12:
research is that QSR innovation varies AVAILABILITY OF ORDERING METHODS,
BY QSR SIZE
across the U.S. The availability of
Percentage of most preferred ordering methods
certain features, like self-service kiosks, differs
considerably between geographic locations, WITH EMPLOYEE IN-STORE
and even within restaurant chains. In this 92.2% 6000000000
80.6%
report, we’re taking a closer look at how the
2800000000
88.1% 1700000000
size of a chain — how many locations it has

— relates to the availability of technology and WITH DRIVE-THROUGH EMPLOYEE
76.2%
the managers’ attitudes toward technological
5300000000
67.7% 3300000000
implementations.2 39.6% 1500000000
There is a technology gap between larger VIA QSR'S MOBILE APP

64.6% 4500000000
chains and smaller ones — although it’s not as 41.9% 2000000000
30.7%
wide as one might expect, despite the fact that
1700000000
that larger brands, such as McDonald’s, have VIA QSR'S WEBSITE

greater means to invest in new technologies or 53.9% 5400000000
incentivize franchises to do so. Larger chains 51.6% 1700000000
53.5% 1100000000
are also more likely to have in-store kiosks

than smaller ones, at 21 percent compared BY PHONE
to 5 percent. The same goes for QSR-based 43.2% 4000000000
63.4% 2100000000
apps: 65 percent of large chains offer them, 82.2% 0800000000
compared to 42 percent and 31 percent of

VIA THIRD-PARTY APP
medium and small chains, respectively. 29.6% 3600000000
23.7% 1900000000
31.7% 1200000000
AT KIOSK IN-STORE
20.9% 6000000000
9.7% 2800000000
5.0% 1700000000
5.8% 5300000000
8.6% 3300000000
4.0% 1500000000
Large QSR Medium QSR Small QSR

2
Small QSR: fewer than 2,000 locations; medium QSR: between 2,000 and
5,000 locations; large QSR: more than 5,000 locations.

21
MATTERS OF SIZE
In other areas, smaller chains defy this pattern. In the case of third-party apps, a slightly greater number
of small chains offer them than large ones (32 percent versus 30 percent). This likely reflects the fact that
smaller chains are less apt to build their own apps, while also suggesting that third-party developers could
be helping smaller chains stay technologically relevant.
Moving to payment methods, a similar pattern prevails. When it comes to mobile wallets, Apple Pay is now
accepted at nearly 60 percent of large chains, compared to 41 percent and 26 percent of medium and small
chains, respectively. Using a third-party app for payment, on the other hand, is accepted to a slightly greater
degree at small chains. Cash and cards are widely accepted at chains of all sizes.
FIGURE 13:
PAYMENT METHOD ACCEPTANCE BY QSR CHAIN SIZE
By percentage
CREDIT CARD GOOGLE PAY

98.1% 6000000000 36.4% 6000000000
94.6% 2800000000 28.0% 2800000000
98.0% 1700000000 17.8% 1700000000
DEBIT CARD SAMSUNG PAY

95.1% 5300000000 33.5% 5300000000
93.5% 3300000000 25.8% 3300000000
92.1% 1500000000 21.8% 1500000000
CASH QSR PREPAID CARD

92.2% 4500000000 29.1% 4500000000
92.5% 2000000000 17.2% 2000000000
96.0% 1700000000 17.8% 1700000000
GIFT CARD AMAZON PAY

85.9% 5400000000 11.7% 5400000000
74.2% 1700000000 6.5% 1700000000
87.1% 1100000000 5.9% 1100000000
APPLE PAY THIRD-PARTY APP

58.3% 4000000000 9.7% 4000000000
40.9% 2100000000 6.5% 2100000000
25.7% 0800000000 10.9% 0800000000
QSR APP
49.0% 3600000000 Large QSR Medium QSR Small QSR
31.2% 1900000000
21.8% 1200000000

22
MATTERS OF SIZE
When it comes to order pickup, it’s the drive-

through that most distinguishes large chains
from their smaller counterparts. Managers at
40 percent of large QSRs say drive-throughs
are the most used pickup method. This number
is only 18 percent for small chains, where
managers report that orders are retrieved in-
store about 66 percent of the time. Notably,
medium-sized chains lead the pack in more
innovative — if less common — order pickup
methods, such as delivery and curbside pickup.
FIGURE 14:
MOST-COMMON ORDER PICKUP OPTIONS
By QSR chain size

47.6% 6000000000
51.6% 2800000000
66.3% 1700000000
DRIVE-THROUGH
40.3% 5300000000
26.9% 3300000000
17.8% 1500000000

7.8% 4500000000
10.8% 2000000000
8.9% 1700000000
QSR DELIVERY
3.4% 5400000000
7.5% 1700000000
4.0% 1100000000
CURBSIDE PICKUP
0.5% 40 0 0 0 0
2.2% 2100000000
1.0% 080 0 0 0
THIRD-PARTY DELIVERY
0.5% 360 0 0 0
0.0% 190
2.0% 1200000000

23
MATTERS OF SIZE
FIGURE 15:
SATISFACTION WITH DIFFERENT
PICKUP METHODS
96.7%
Small QSR managers versus customers

96.7% 6000000000
94.2% 1700000000
of small QSR DRIVE-THROUGH
managers are 91.9% 5300000000
77.8% 1500000000
satisfied with 91.4%

4500000000
in-store pickup 46.2% 1700000000
at the same location. 60.0%

CURBSIDE PICKUP
5400000000
71.4% 1100000000
FIGURE 16:
SATISFACTION WITH DIFFERENT
PICKUP METHODS
Large QSR managers versus customers
There’s one innovation that is especially IN-STORE, SAME LOCATION

90.9% 6000000000
appealing to small QSRs: in-store pickup 79.9% 1700000000
without waiting in line. More than 91 percent of

managers at small locations like this method, DRIVE-THROUGH
88.2% 5300000000
compared to 85 percent of those at large ones. 73.4% 1500000000
Bucking the trend, pickup without waiting

in line is considerably more popular with IN-STORE FAST PICKUP
85.1% 4500000000
managers than customers at small QSRs. This 78.6% 1700000000
likely stems from the fact that smaller QSRs

are more sensitive to the strain long lines place CURBSIDE PICKUP
66.1% 5400000000
on limited resources. 89.5% 1100000000

24
THE PROMISE OF
LOYALTY PROGRAMS
L
oyalty programs provide common ground between customers and managers: Nearly 80 percent of
both groups report having positive experiences with them. According to our previous research, loyalty
programs are compelling incentives for customers to increase their visits to QSRs.
But, as is the case with other innovations, the degree to which loyalty programs are offered and used varies
considerably, and they are especially dependent upon chains' sizes. Smaller brands are more likely to offer
loyalty programs than larger ones, although large percentages of both small and large brands — 40 percent
and 46 percent, respectively — don’t offer them.
Third-party loyalty programs, such as those offered by LevelUp and Square, have made limited inroads
at this stage. As with third-party ordering apps, loyalty services like these are considerably more likely to
FIGURE 17:
TYPES OF LOYALTY PROGRAMS OFFERED
BY QSRs
Large versus small QSRs
NO LOYALTY PROGRAM
40.0% 6000000000
45.5% 1700000000
STOREWIDE LOYALTY PROGRAM

41.0% 5300000000
36.1% 1500000000
IN-STORE ONLY
8.0% 4500000000
4.5% 1700000000
IN-STORE AND ONLINE

5.0% 5400000000
7.4% 1100000000
ONLINE ONLY
3.0% 4000000000
5.0% 0800000000
THIRD-PARTY LOYALTY PROGRAM

3.0% 3600000000
1.5% 1200000000
Small QSR Large QSR

25
THE PROMISE OF LOYALTY PROGRAMS
be used by smaller chains — 3 percent of small

QSRs offer them, compared to 1.5 percent of
larger ones.
While managers do have a positive outlook

when it comes to loyalty programs, they do
pose challenges, especially for smaller chains.
Compared to larger QSRs, managers at smaller
chains were slightly more likely to have negative
perspectives on loyalty programs.
FIGURE 18:
GAP IN QSRs' EXPERIENCE WITH LOYALTY PROGRAMS
10%
5.6%
5%
1.9%
0.4%
IN-STORE, IN-STORE
DRIVE-THROUGH
SAME LOCATION FAST PICKUP
-2.3%
-1.6%
-4.0% -5%
-10%
Small QSR Large QSR

26
THE PROMISE OF LOYALTY PROGRAMS
FIGURE 19:
CHALLENGES OF LOYALTY PROGRAMS
LISTED BY QSRS
HURTS PROFITS
From managers’ perspectives, costs and 30.5% 6000000000
35.2% 1700000000
complications are loyalty programs' main

drawbacks. More than 35 percent of large CUSTOMERS PREFER NOT TO PROVIDE INFO
chains say loyalty programs hurt profits, as 35.6% 5300000000
22.2% 1500000000
do more than 30 percent of smaller outlets.

The larger concern for smaller-scale brands is TAKES TIME TO MANAGE
that customers are reluctant to provide their 20.3% 4500000000
21.3% 1700000000
personal information — nearly 36 percent of

managers say this is a barrier. EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN
15.3% 5400000000
20.4%
All of this suggests that managers would be
1100000000
well-served by overcoming these pain points, EMPLOYEES NEEDED

given how popular loyalty programs are with 3.4% 4000000000
12.0%
customers and the wealth of customer data
0800000000
they could provide. TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

6.8% 3600000000
8.3% 1200000000
Small QSR Large QSR

27
Deep Dive:
KITCHEN
AUTOMATION
SYSTEMS

28
KITCHEN AUTOMATION SYSTEMS
S
o far, our discussion of digital innovation at QSRs has centered on customer-facing services, such
as self-service kiosks and mobile apps. But the heart of any restaurant is, of course, the kitchen —
and technology offers much promise in this realm.
KAS streamline the order-fulfillment process by, among other things, providing a kitchen display that shows
orders on a mobile tablet or other device. We examined the degree to which QSRs have adopted these
systems, impediments to adoption and managers’ attitudes toward them. When compared to other digital
innovations, KAS already have a significant presence at restaurants. More than one-third of QSRs already
have KAS, and another 16 percent are very or extremely interested in investing in them.
FIGURE 20:
QSRs' INTEREST LEVELS IN KAS INVESTMENT
By percentage
ALREADY IMPLEMENTED
36.0% 7900000000
EXTREMELY INTERESTED
8.3% 7200000000
VERY INTERESTED
7.3% 7000000000
SOMEWHAT INTERESTED
10.3% 6400000000
SLIGHTLY INTERESTED
10.5% 6100000000
NOT AT ALL INTERESTED

27.8% 5500000000

29
DEEP DIVE
The appeal of kitchen automation is clear — FIGURE 21:

KAS help QSR managers accomplish their QSRs' TOP REASONS FOR INVESTING IN KAS
By percentage
fundamental mission: to serve up orders
as quickly and accurately as possible. The
REDUCES TIME TO DELIVER ORDERS
top reasons for implementing KAS are, in 37.4% 7900000000
descending order, reducing time to deliver

orders (37.4 percent), keeping track of orders KEEPS TRACK OF ORDERS
31.1%
(31.1 percent) and avoiding human error (16.5
7200000000
percent). AVOIDS HUMAN ERROR

16.5% 7000000000
Kitchen automation is by no means ubiquitous

at QSRs, and its adoption varies considerably COST-EFFECTIVE
by chain and size. Burger King wears the KAS 6.8% 6400000000
crown with the highest rate of implementation

REDUCES NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES NEEDED
(64 percent), followed by Pizza Hut at 57 3.9% 6100000000
percent. Wendy’s has shown itself to be very

resistant to KAS, implementing them at only 21 MATERIALS' COST
2.9% 5500000000
percent of its locations, and 29 percent of its
locations are not at all interested in KAS. OTHER
1.5% 4600000000
For some types of QSRs, particularly those at

which order takers and food peparers are in

30
DEEP DIVE
TABLE 4:
QSR CHAINS' INTEREST IN IMPLEMENTING KAS
Percentage of QSR chains' interest, by levels
INTEREST
NUMBER
Already Extremely Somewhat Slightly Not at all
Very interested
implemented interested interested interested interested
McDonald's 75 37.3% 10.7% 10.7% 5.3% 12.0% 24.0%
Taco Bell 27 48.1% 7.4% 7.4% 14.8% 3.7% 18.5%
Burger King 25 64.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 12.0% 12.0%
Subway 20 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 45.0%
Starbucks 16 37.5% 6.3% 12.5% 6.3% 0.0% 37.5%
Pizza Hut 14 57.1% 7.1% 0.0% 14.3% 14.3% 7.1%
Wendy's 14 21.4% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 7.1% 28.6%
close proximity — or the same employees, such FIGURE 22:

as at Subway — KAS may not be a good fit. INTEREST IN KAS
Percentage by QSR chain size
The size of a restaurant chain correlates with
KAS adoption, with nearly 50 percent of large ALREADY IMPLEMENTED
33.7% 6000000000
chains viewing KAS as important to their 31.2% 2800000000
success. Large chains are also more likely than 39.3% 1700000000
smaller ones to have implemented the systems EXTREMELY, VERY OR ALREADY IMPLEMENTED
or be very interested in doing so. 47.5% 5300000000
48.4% 3300000000
54.9% 1500000000
Different-sized QSR chains tend to perceive
different benefits to implementing KAS.
Reducing order time is a priority for QSRs of
all sizes when it comes to integrating kitchen
automation, but smaller chains view avoiding
human error as a much greater benefit than
their larger counterparts.

31
DEEP DIVE
FIGURE 23:
REASONS FOR IMPLEMENTING KAS
REDUCES DELIVERY TIME

41.7% 6000000000
44.4% 2800000000
32.7% 1700000000
KEEPS TRACK OF ORDERS

20.8% 5300000000
31.1% 3300000000
35.4% 1500000000
AVOIDS HUMAN ERRORS

22.9% 4500000000
8.9% 2000000000
16.8% 1700000000
LOWERS COSTS
4.2% 5400000000
11.1% 1700000000
6.2% 1100000000
REDUCES NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES NEEDED

6.3% 4000000000
2.2% 2100000000
3.5% 0800000000
REDUCES RAW MATERIALS' COST

2.1% 3600000000
2.2% 1900000000
3.5% 1200000000
OTHER
2.1% 6000000000
0.0% 280
1.8% 1700000000

32
DEEP DIVE
FIGURE 24:
TOP REASONS QSRs ARE AVOIDING
KAS IMPLEMENTATION
51.9%
SATISFIED WITH CURRENT OPERATIONS

51.9% 6000000000
37.0% 2800000000
of large QSRs
37.6% 1700000000
TOO EXPENSIVE
are satisfied 28.8%
43.5%
5300000000
3300000000
with their current 32.3% 1500000000
KAS operations. 9.6%

DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT
4500000000
2.2% 2000000000
14.0% 1700000000
INCREASES TIME TO DELIVER

1.9% 5400000000
10.9% 1700000000
4.3% 1100000000
When it comes to barriers to KAS adoption, REQUIRES HIRING MORE EMPLOYEES

cost is a major impediment. This is especially 1.9% 4000000000
2.2%
true for mid-sized chains — more than 43
2100000000
6.5% 0800000000
percent cited it as factor. At the same time,

it’s clear that some chains simply don’t believe OTHER
5.8%
KAS offer the necessary return on investment
3600000000
4.3% 1900000000
(ROI). This is particularly the case with small 5.4% 1200000000
QSRs: 51.9 percent said they didn’t want to

implement KAS because they’re satisfied with Large QSR Medium QSR Small QSR
their current operations.

33
CONCLUSION
I
nnovation has long been the secret sauce of the QSR sector. After all, technology
and efficiency are what allowed McDonald’s to grow from a single outlet to a global
behemoth. Today, QSR managers face a whole new generation of digital innovations,
from self-service kiosks to menus that update automatically. Implementation of these
features, however, has proceeded slowly across the U.S., likely due to the fact that
customers have a greater appetite for these technologies than managers realize.
Customers are more enthusiastic than managers for nearly the whole gamut of new
services and technologies. Nearly 92 percent of them who use apps for ordering consider
it a positive experience, while only 65 percent of managers do. Managers underestimate
customers’ satisfaction with mobile apps — both QSR-based and third party — by 26.9
percent to 31.8 percent.
Additionally, the adoption of new technologies is related to the size of a restaurant chain.
Larger chains are more likely than smaller ones to have in-store kiosks, and they’re also
more likely to offer their own mobile apps. Smaller QSRs, meanwhile, are more likely to
rely on third-party apps, like Grubhub, that are helping them bridge the technology divide
between themselves and larger chains.
This size dynamic also comes into play with technology behind the counter, specifically
for KAS. Larger chains are more likely than smaller ones to have implemented KAS and
view them as important to their success, while more than half of small QSRs that aren’t
interested in KAS say they’re satisfied with their current operations.
Despite the divide between managers and customers, there are areas where the two
groups come together. Loyalty programs, for instance, are very popular with both groups,
and the same can be said about credit card payments. Large majorities of both groups
like seasonally updated menus and technologies that improve order accuracy and enable
customers to avoid waiting lines. We must also keep in mind the fundamental motivation
that unites QSR proprietors and patrons: speed. Faster orders mean greater profits for the
former and more convenience for the latter.
New technologies always come with their share of challenges and resistance, especially
when it comes to habits involving dining and eating out. What PYMNTS’ research shows is
that QSR customers have a much greater appetite for innovation than restaurant owners
may realize. As the industry grows ever more competitive, with younger generations hungry
for greater variety, convenience and technology-enhanced experiences, this is a lesson
that owners and managers would be wise to heed.

34
METHODOLOGY
R
estaurant Readiness Survey — Managers is This survey focuses on the view of QSRs, the
the second survey made for Bypass Mobile market's managers, and compares their vision with
to look up into the QSR market. Our first customers' to ascertain where their preferences
survey researched customers' perspectives on meet and where they diverge.
the market, what they value and how their outlook
could evolve.
METHODOLOGY
SUMMARY
There were originally 3,507 responses to this
survey, but we were very selective in terms of which
Total survey respondents
data qualified for this research. Only 11 percent of 3,507
those who completed the survey were qualified, Did not manage/own a QSR
leaving only 400 responses for this analysis. To 1,614
qualify, respondents had to either manage or own a Worked for more than one location*
835
QSR, work there for more than 30 hours a week and
Worked for less than 30 hours each week*
have at least one year of experience working at that 199
particular QSR. Worked as a QSR manager for less than a year*
395
One of the main goals of this report was to see if the
responses supplied by managers were consistent
with customers' perceptions of the QSR market. Number of completed responses
563
Did managers’ and customers' visions align, or was
Did not qualify as QSRs
there a discrepancy? To this end, information was 163
gathered from almost 100 different QSR chains. Final complete responses
400
Just 18.8 percent of the sample were McDonald’s
managers, while 20.5 percent of our sample
consisted of responses from managers or owners
of small QSRs with two or fewer locations.
*Note: Respondents could be disqualified for more than one of these reasons.

35
METHODOLOGY
QSR RESTAURANT CHAIN DISTRIBUTION
MCDONALD'S DAIRY QUEEN/ORANGE JULIUS

18.8% 7900000000 1.8% 7900000000
BURGER KING DUNKIN' DONUTS

6.3% 7200000000 1.8% 7200000000
SUBWAY HARDEE'S
5.0% 7000000000 1.5% 70 0 0 0 0
TACO BELL FIVE GUYS BURGERS AND FRIES

6.8% 6400000000 1.8% 6400000000
STARBUCKS JACK IN THE BOX

4.0% 6100000000 0.8% 610 0 0 0
WENDY'S PAPA JOHN'S

3.5% 5500000000 1.8% 5500000000
ARBY'S BASKIN-ROBBINS
3.3% 4600000000 0.8% 460 0 0 0
CHICK-FIL-A FIREHOUSE SUBS

3.0% 7900000000 0.5% 790
PIZZA HUT JIMMY JOHN'S GOURMET SANDWICHES

3.5% 7200000000 0.8% 720 0 0 0
S0NIC DRIVE-IN PAMDA EXPRESS

3.3% 7000000000 0.5% 70
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL POPEYES LOUISIANA CHICKEN

2.3% 6400000000 0.5% 640
KFC AUNTIE ANNE'S

3.3% 6100000000 0.5% 610
DOMINO'S CARL'S JR.

2.0% 5500000000 0.5% 50
LITTLE CAESARS OTHER

1.5% 460 0 0 0 20.5% 4600000000

36
ABOUT
The PYMNTS.com Restaurant Readiness Index™, in collaboration with Bypass and Bank of America Merchant Services,
analyzes how QSRs are doing when it comes to innovation. Namely, are they being innovative and are their features
adding to customers’ experiences? We studied 178 QSRs, including six large restaurant chains in 10 different segments
and two groups of restaurants. The bulk of the sample includes 172 chains that range from eight to 2,630 locations.
We are interested in your feedback on this report. Please send us your thoughts, comments, suggestions or questions
to RRI@pymnts.com.
PYMNTS.com is where the best minds and the best content meet on the web to learn about
“What’s Next” in payments and commerce. Our interactive platform is reinventing the way
in which companies in payments share relevant information about the initiatives that shape
the future of this dynamic sector and make news. Our data and analytics team includes
economists, data scientists and industry analysts who work with companies to measure and
quantify the innovation that is at the cutting edge of this new world.
Bypass is the leading innovator in enterprise POS systems, robust back office management
tools, and rich insights engines for the multi-site food & beverage industry. Its approach
helps over 300 professional & collegiate sports venues and national restaurant chains sell
more, faster and cheaper, scale their operations, and transform the customer experience.
The company has deployed 20,000+ devices at a cost, pace, and ease of integration never
before possible.
Bank of America Merchant Services is a global leader in payments, eCommerce and security
solutions. It helps clients of all sizes effectively manage and grow their businesses by
enabling them to deliver convenient, compelling commerce experiences for their customers.
Powerhouse brands Bank of America and First Data formed Bank of America Merchant
Services in 2009. Today the company processes 16.6 billion transactions at approximately
539,000 merchant locations throughout the United States, Canada and Europe.3
3
Based on bankcard, other credit, and PIN debit sales volume and transactions. Per the Nilson Report, March 2018, Issue #1127.

37
DISCLAIMER
The PYMNTS.com Restaurant Readiness Index™ may be updated periodically. While reasonable efforts are made to keep the content
accurate and up-to-date, PYMNTS.COM: MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
REGARDING THE CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, ADEQUACY, OR RELIABILITY OF OR THE USE OF OR RESULTS THAT
MAY BE GENERATED FROM THE USE OF THE INFORMATION OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL SATISFY YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR
EXPECTATIONS. THE CONTENT IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND ON AN “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS. YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT YOUR USE
OF THE CONTENT IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. PYMNTS.COM SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANY INTERRUPTIONS IN THE CONTENT
THAT IS PROVIDED AND DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENT, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT AND TITLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS
DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN WARRANTIES, AND, IN SUCH CASES, THE STATED EXCLUSIONS DO NOT APPLY.
PYMNTS.COM RESERVES THE RIGHT AND SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE SHOULD IT EXERCISE ITS RIGHT TO MODIFY, INTERRUPT, OR
DISCONTINUE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE CONTENT OR ANY COMPONENT OF IT WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE.
PYMNTS.COM SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, AND, IN PARTICULAR, SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY
SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, OR DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS, LOSS OF REVENUE, OR LOSS
OF USE, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THE CONTENT, WHETHER SUCH DAMAGES ARISE IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, TORT,
UNDER STATUTE, IN EQUITY, AT LAW, OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF PYMNTS.COM HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGES.
SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW FOR THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES, AND IN SUCH CASES SOME OF THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS DO NOT APPLY. THE ABOVE DISCLAIMERS AND LIMITATIONS
ARE PROVIDED BY PYMNTS.COM AND ITS PARENTS, AFFILIATED AND RELATED COMPANIES, CONTRACTORS, AND SPONSORS,
AND EACH OF ITS RESPECTIVE DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, MEMBERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, CONTENT COMPONENT PROVIDERS,
LICENSORS, AND ADVISERS.
Components of the content original to and the compilation produced by PYMNTS.COM is the property of PYMNTS.COM and cannot
be reproduced without its prior written permission.
You agree to indemnify and hold harmless, PYMNTS.COM, its parents, affiliated and related companies, contractors and sponsors, and
each of its respective directors, officers, members, employees, agents, content component providers, licensors, and advisers, from
and against any and all claims, actions, demands, liabilities, costs, and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’
fees, resulting from your breach of any provision of this Agreement, your access to or use of the content provided to you, the PYMNTS.
COM services, or any third party’s rights, including, but not limited to, copyright, patent, other proprietary rights, and defamation law.
You agree to cooperate fully with PYMNTS.COM in developing and asserting any available defenses in connection with a claim subject
to indemnification by you under this Agreement.

Restaurant Readiness Index - December 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Restaurant Readiness Index - December 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Restaurant Readiness Index - December 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESTAURANT INDEX™ READINESS

RESTAURANT INDEX™ READINESS

© 2018 PYMNTS.com All Rights Reserved

The big picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The digital divide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

The promise of loyalty programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Deep Dive: kitchen automation systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

© 2018 PYMNTS.com All Rights Reserved

RESTAURANT KEY FINDINGS

82.5% Share of customers who say being

77.4% Portion of QSR managers who would

100% Share of QSR customers who say

65% Portion of QSR managers who

92% Share of customers who say

63% Portion of merchants that believe using

© 2018 PYMNTS.com All Rights Reserved

This is the situation many quick-service restaurant

For all the buzz around such technologies, PYMNTS’

© 2018 PYMNTS.com All Rights Reserved

© 2018 PYMNTS.com All Rights Reserved

THE BIG PICTURE

IMPROVE CUSTOMERS' EXPERIENCES

ELIMINATE PURCHASING ERRORS

ELIMINATE DELIVERY ERRORS

SECURE PAYMENTS DATA

SECURE CUSTOMERS' INFORMATION

REDUCE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES NEEDED

© 2018 PYMNTS.com All Rights Reserved

THE BIG PICTURE

While most managers see certain technological FIGURE 2:

customers to patronize QSRs more in the

managers and customers in the extent to 84.1% 1500000000

which they believe kiosks will positively affect

being much more bullish. In the case of online 81.3% 1700000000

or app ordering, there’s a nearly 20 percent gap.

of QSR managers 83.0% 1700000000

say features that

ensure the accuracy KITCHEN AUTOMATION

of customers' orders 46.8%

will bring them CURBSIDE PICKUP

more success. 76.8% 1100000000

QSR managers QSR customers

© 2018 PYMNTS.com All Rights Reserved

THE BIG PICTURE

IN-STORE FAST PICKUP

IMPROVED ORDER ACCURACY

IN-STOCK ITEMS UPDATE

The differing perspectives of QSR managers

© 2018 PYMNTS.com All Rights Reserved

THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

Customers have a very different view of these

favorably by nearly 92 percent of customers, 73.3% 1700000000

making them the highest-ranked ordering

underestimate customers' satisfaction with 91.9% 1100000000

QSR apps by nearly 27 percent and by 31.8

that customers had a positive outlook on 79.2% 0800000000

all ordering methods, although support was

at the counter, especially when compared to 72.3% 1200000000

QSR managers QSR customers