Company surprised that loss leading promotion lead to losses.
Details at 11.
That was unrealistic from the start. If the shrimp was truly unlimited it would lead to the eventual collapse of the universe.
One singularity of shrimp, please
Red Lobster executives:
“No one could possibly eat that much shrimp.”
Later…
“I’m sorry, sir. You’ve eaten every shrimp at every Red Lobster in the entire state and it’s only been six hours. We don’t have any more shrimp for you. That will be $20.”
Oh not again!
2003’s “Endless Crab” wiped out 1 president and $400 million in shareholder value… you’d‘ve thought they’d’ve learn’ed’ve.
That’s back when they were owned by Darden, who decided to spin them off because seafood prices were too volatile.
Edit: what’s funny about this is Darden was a restaurant group that mostly didn’t focus on seafood, so red lobster wasn’t a good fit. This company is a seafood packaging group (chicken of the sea, King Oscar), which also puts into question how well they’re able to supply fresh fish. I don’t think red lobster will ever be consistently profitable for these corporate chains.
Please, don’t take the steam tray! Sir!
Unlimited shrimp is a misnomer as matter is finite. Even if all matter were converted to shrimp, it still wouldn’t be truly unlimited.
Yay for needless pedantry.
If we are being pedantic, the article mentions it promotion as all you can eat rather then unlimited, except in the title and one place in the article. So the big question is what was it marketted as and is it just the author using the terms as synonyms?
There is a big difference between these if you are being pedantic and not really fair to blame the restaurant for the article authors choose of words.
But being realistic I would think it is fair to say unlimited and all you can eat are basically synonyms when it comes to restaurant promotions. And fair limitations should apply - like the restaurant running out of stock (assuming they a reasonable amount to begin with).
