Fast food restaurant industry in Canada is struggling as budget-conscious consumers eat out less and spend less when they do. Many Canadians say high taxes and Trudeau inflation make it impossible for them to eat out.

“We absolutely are seeing people come to restaurants less, and the spend per visitor is down,” said Kris Barnier, Restaurants Canada’s vice president for central Canada.

According to Barnier, inflation, higher interest rates, and rising housing expenses created by the Liberal government have all put pressure on consumers, including restaurants. He says many businesses are suffering financial constraints as running costs rise by up to 47 percent.

Fast Food Restaurants in Canada are battling with increased food, wage, rent, and insurance costs, which Barnier says is making it difficult to keep menu pricing reasonable.

“We are at 47 per cent of restaurants across Canada that say they we are not making money and in fact we are losing money,” pointed out Barnier.

Fast Food Restaurant Loyalty Programs

Givex Corp Canada, which works with businesses to engage customers, stated that there is presently a value meal battle going on, with burger chains, sub shops, and taco eateries offering cheaper prices on certain products.

“What we are seeing with these quick service brands is a lot of value meals, and value meal wars to entice customers to come through the door,” said Mo Chaar, chief commercial officer of Givex Canada. They also stated that Fast Food Restaurants (QSR) are developing dollar coffees, loyalty programs, and value boxes that can help feed a family.

Many of the people interviewed by CTV News in Toronto claim they are consuming fewer fast food meals owing to rising prices and many blame it on Trudeau.  “Ever since COVID prices have literally doubled,” claimed one man, while another added, “You can’t afford to eat out every day these days.”

A man enjoying his lunch in his vehicle on a break from work stated, “A burger combo used to be $7 or $8, but now it’s like $15 or $16.”
Another man stated that he always hunts for deals and that if he cannot find one, he eats at home.

“To be honest I try to go when there are coupons, but if there are no coupons I try to avoid it in general,” according to the individual.

Some value goods are limited-time discounts, but others may be here to stay as businesses seek new methods to increase foot traffic in their restaurants.

Restaurants Canada believe that tax reforms might benefit their industry because meals under $4 are exempt from the provincial sales tax in Ontario, but Barnier believes that increasing the tax break to a greater sum could make modest meals more inexpensive.

Related News:

Banks in Canada Warn Over Trudeau Inflation and Unsustainable Debt

Banks in Canada Warn Over Trudeau Inflation and Unsustainable Debt

 

Alexandria, Virginia – The judge who will determine whether Google has a monopoly on technology that connects buyers and sellers of online advertising must decide whether to believe what Google executives wrote or what they said on the witness stand.

This week, the Justice Department is winding up its antitrust lawsuit against Google in a federal courtroom in Virginia. The federal government and a coalition of states claim Google has established and maintained a monopoly on the technology used to buy and sell advertisements that show to people when they surf the internet.

Google counters that the government is improperly focussing on a very narrow slice of advertising — essentially the rectangular banner ads that appear on the top and right side of a publisher’s web page — and that in the broader online advertising market, Google is surrounded by competition from social media companies and streaming TV services.

At Google Antitrust Trial, Documents Say One Thing. The Tech Giant’s Witnesses Say Different

Many of the government’s major witnesses have been Google managers and executives, who have frequently attempted to retract what they have written in emails, chats, and company presentations.

This was notably evident Thursday during the testimony of Jonathan Bellack, a Google product manager who sent an email that government lawyers believe is particularly incriminating.

In 2016, Bellack sent an email asking, “Is there a deeper issue with us owning the platform, the exchange, and a massive network?” The parallel would be if Goldman Sachs or Citigroup bought the NYSE or New York Stock Exchange.

For the Justice Department, Bellack’s description is nearly a flawless representation of their case. It claims that Google’s technology dominates both the market for online publishers to sell available ad space on their websites and the technology utilised by large networks of advertisers to acquire ad space. According to the lawsuit, Google even dominates the “ad exchanges” that act as a middleman in connecting buyers and sellers.

As a result of Google’s dominance in all aspects of the transaction, Justice claims the Mountain View, California-based internet behemoth has shut out competitors and been able to charge outrageous costs of 36 cents on the dollar for each ad impression that passes through its ad technology stack.

On the witness stand Thursday, Bellack characterized his email as “late night, jet-lagged ramblings.” He stated he didn’t think Google’s dominance over the buy side, sell side, or middleman was a problem. Still, he did wonder why certain customers were seeking solutions to Google’s technology.

Most other current and former Google employees who have appeared as government witnesses have also rejected their written statements.

Earlier this week, another Google official, Nirmal Jayaram, spent a substantial portion of his hearing denying the views represented in emails he wrote or articles and presentations he coauthored.

The Justice Department, of course, claims that what Google employees wrote in real-time is a more accurate representation of reality. It claims that there would be much more incriminating documentary proof if Google had not routinely erased many of the internal chats used by employees to discuss business, even after the corporation was notified that it was being investigated.

According to testimony, Google developed a “Communicate with Care” strategy in which employees were directed to add company lawyers to critical emails to classify them as “privileged” and protect them from disclosure to government regulators.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema described Google’s document retention rules as “absolutely inappropriate and improper” and noted them during the trial, but she did not impose any specific punishment.

At Google Antitrust Trial, Documents Say One Thing. The Tech Giant’s Witnesses Say Different

The Virginia trial began on September 9, exactly a month after a judge in the District of Columbia deemed Google’s primary business, its ubiquitous search engine, an illegal monopoly. The trial is still proceeding to see what, if any, remedies the judge may impose.

The ad tech at issue in the Virginia trial does not generate as much revenue for Google as its search engine, but it is nevertheless estimated to generate tens of billions of dollars every year.

The Virginia trial has been progressing significantly faster than the D.C. case. The government has produced witnesses for nine days straight and is almost done with its case. The judge has warned Google that it may expect to begin presenting its own witnesses on Friday.

SOURCE | AP

NEW YORK — Tupperware Brands, which revolutionized food storage decades ago, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Tupperware, based in Orlando, Florida, intends to continue operations during the bankruptcy proceedings and will seek court clearance for a sale “in order to protect its iconic brand,” the firm announced shortly before midnight on Tuesday.

The corporation is seeking bankruptcy protection as it attempts to revitalize its operations. Tupperware sales increased slightly during the early stages of the COVID-19 epidemic, but overall sales have been steadily declining since 2018 owing to increased competition. Financial difficulties have continued to mount for the corporation.

Iconic Tupperware Brands Seeks Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Doubts about Tupperware’s future have persisted for some time. Last year, the company sought extra financing as it warned investors about its capacity to continue operations and the prospect of being delisted from the New York Stock Exchange.

The NYSE issued the company an extra non-compliance warning for failing to publish its annual results with the Securities and Exchange Commission earlier this year. In recent months, Tupperware has continued to raise concerns about its capacity to stay solvent, with an August securities filing citing “significant liquidity challenges.”

Tupperware filed for bankruptcy on Tuesday, reporting more than $1.2 billion in total obligations and $679.5 million in total assets. The company’s shares have plunged 75% this year and finished Tuesday at around 50 cents each.

“The reality is that the decline at Tupperware is not new,” Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData, wrote in a commentary on Wednesday. “It is very difficult to see how the brand can get back to its glory days.”

Saunders explained that many consumers have been switching to cheaper home storage brands, and that competition has increased over time, particularly with the advent of online platforms like Temu and retailers like Target beefing up their own home storage and kitchenware brands.

Tupperware’s origins go back to 1946. According to the company’s website, shortly after the Great Depression, chemist Earl Tupper found inspiration while making moulds at a plastics factory, embarking on a mission to create an airtight seal for a plastic container, similar to that on a paint can, to assist families in saving money on food waste.

The brand enjoyed tremendous expansion in the mid-twentieth century, particularly with the introduction of Tupperware parties, which began in 1948. Tupperware parties, in particular, provided many women with the opportunity to run their own businesses from the comfort of their own homes, selling their products to social circles.

The approach worked so successfully that Tupperware finally pulled its products from retailers. In Tuesday’s bankruptcy statement, the firm stated that there are no immediate modifications to Tupperware’s independent sales consultant agreements.

According to court records filed Tuesday, Tupperware now employs over 5,450 people in 41 countries and works with a global sales force of over 465,000 consultants who sell products on a freelance basis in approximately 70 nations.

Tuesday’s announcement also mentioned plans to “further advance Tupperware’s transformation into a digital-first, technology-led company,” potentially indicating a shift towards increased reliance on the brand’s website or more online-focused marketing, though the company did not provide specifics.

In a statement, Tupperware President and CEO Laurie Ann Goldman recognised the company’s recent financial problems and stated that the bankruptcy process is intended to provide “essential flexibility” while it pursues this transformation. She also stated that the brand was not going anywhere.

Iconic Tupperware Brands Seeks Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

“Whether you are a dedicated member of our Tupperware team, sell, cook with, or simply love our Tupperware products, you are a part of our Tupperware family,” Goldman stated in an email. “We plan to continue serving our valued customers with the high-quality products they love and trust throughout this process.”

Goldman, who previously served as CEO of Spanx, was appointed CEO of Tupperware in October 2023, as part of a bigger leadership transition. Over the last year, the corporation has established a new management team.

SOURCE | AP