[QUOTE=soniclover]KFC loses 5 tasty points :(


Well, if you have the muchies it doesn't matter then. You are right about teh decreasing values of Fast food resturant though.

You assholes all suck!

Roscoe's is where it's at! Chicken and waffles! MMMmmm...

White castle is only good if your drunk or something out here in the midwest other than that it's the worst low grade fast food i have EVER tasted...

KFC...I like the macarroni, and the chicken used to be good but it is losing its quality...but the triple crunch zinger is where its at right about now....

I'm trying to stay away from fast food though, and eat healthy....why can't there be a healthy fast food place?

B/C that would be a contradiction for the most part. There are healthy foods that you can fix fast, but they don't have the same flavor. Also, healthy foods that do taste good can sometimes take a long time to prepare. It's hard to tell what's healthy anymore with one group screaming "Avoid Carbs!" and another screaming "Avoid Chloesterol!" and a third screaming "Save a Tree! Eat a beaver!"

Ok, maybe not the third one. You can sort of get a good idea of what is healthy or unhealthy, but with all of the people showing their statistics that tend to contradict one another, it becomes difficult to know who to trust.

I believe the fundamental issue is the relatively recent name change that KFC went through.

See, they used to officially be "Kentucky Fried Chicken". "KFC" was really just abbreviated slang. And they were dependably good.

Then something sinister happened during the 90s. Due to increasing paranoia surrounding fried food, the crowds at KFC began to dwindle. Fried foods were fatty (no duh) and people were health-conscious all of a sudden. So, in order to reduce the negative impact their name carried, they officially became "KFC". Nowhere on their menus would the old logo appear again.

At the same time, the company that owns KFC began an expansion crusade that targeted poor and ethnic neighborhoods. Studies showed that poor people and blacks were more likely to buy large quantities of fried chicken, so KFC allowed many of its suburban franchises to flounder while the inner-city stores received the push.
The problem is that when you're based in the ghetto and city, you're not going to attract as many enthusiastic, hardworking employees. So, it's my belief that, over the past decade, the service and quality of KFC's food has severely suffered due to the company's location strategy. Stores do exist outside of these target areas, yes, but the same product that is shipped to the ghettos also goes to the suburbs and the lack of sales for so long forced the company into purchasing inferior ingredients.

We have a KFC in my town. It used to get a lot of business but their quality fell down the shitter about 12 years ago and has never resurfaced. The store is on the west end, an area that's religated to factories, railroads and industrial complexes. Residential property values are low toward that sector and the crime rate has dramatically increased. Nobody but the poor and the seedy folk eat at the KFC now. Respectable people don't want to go out that way if they can help it.

The "Kentucky Fried Chicken" name carried the connotation of quality, tradition and service, all values the good Colonel emphasized. When they changed over to "KFC", these values took a backseat to demographic headhunting and the chain's reputation suffered greatly.

KFC is digging its own hole. Tragically, we have no alternative here. I had Popeye's once in Texas and it was solid. But I wish a new chain would emerge and show them both how it's really done.