Monthly Archives: January 2015

Mr. Kanso

Foodie Friday, and today we have something a little on the weird side.  It’s a chain of “restaurants” (you’ll see why I’m using quotes in a second) in Japan called Mr. Kanso.  The first one opened in Osaka in 2002 and became so successful that it now has 17 other locations across Japan.  This is a pretty good summary of the business:

Mr. Kanso has no menus, only shelves stacked with hundreds of different types of canned food from across the globe. Customers choose from such delicacies as “Todo niku kare” (sealion curry), canned cocktail sausages, French salad, and whale meat (tut tut, Mr. Kanso) – all served cold in a can and gobbled up with plastic cutlery.

That’s right – diners visit Mr. Kanso and select their food from a shelf.  It’s not heated up, just opened.  As best I can determine, these are not the same cans one can find in a market.  All of them have a Mr. Kanso label so I’m assuming the chain has them made to their specifications.  I don’t get it from a consumer perspective although I guess if the contents of the cans are really yummy it makes a bit more sense.  Honestly, Hokkaido bear curry isn’t really my can of tea but apparently it’s the variety that keeps customers coming back for more.  There is, however an interesting business point here.

Think about it.  No cooking means no kitchen and no cooks.  The start-up costs are substantially lower than those of a regular restaurant.  The food doesn’t spoil, at least not in days or weeks.  The food is reasonably priced – drinks run about $5 and the cans cost between $2 and $20 (I’m not sure what that one contains) and the margins must be excellent.  The cutlery gets thrown away so no dishwashers.  In short, it’s a low investment cost, high margin business.  As long as the appeal is there, and it certainly seems to be, this is exactly the sort of model any of us can emulate.

Honestly, if a Mr. Kanso came to my town I’d probably go check it out.  Reasonably-priced food with an amazing selection has some appeal even if the dining experience has less.  The business appeal, however, is first-rate.  Thoughts?

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, food

To Whom Are You Speaking?

Everywhere one turns these days there is content. In the old days that content was sourced from entertainment or news organizations which had the consumer’s tastes in mind. After all, the program distributor paid the content creator based on how many eyeballs that content could attract.
Lately, of course, everyone is creating content. You, me (that’s what this is!), and brands. I don’t really have an issue with that. The digisphere is a bully pulpit with room for lots of us. There is something with which I do have an issue, however.

Content assembled by brands comes in two forms. One is the advertising many of you have been trained since birth to avoid. The other is that “branded content” that shows up via “content marketing.” No, not another rant on that subject – I’ve bored you to tears with them already I’m sure. This rant is different.

Here is a tidbit from the folks at Corporate Visions:

More than 70% of respondents do not follow a clearly defined message development process within their organization, while a 10% reported they aren’t sure what their company does at all.

In other words, chaos. Into that vacuum usually steps some well-meaning sales-type who pushes the messaging toward “sell.” This is company-centric messaging. I can’t imagine anything more boring to most people. “We’re better because blah blah blah”. Boring.

Smart companies that have their message creation together do customer-centric messaging. They focus on identifying customers’ and prospects’ unconsidered needs.  They’re there to inform, to entertain, to listen, to help; not to sell.  They’re speaking to the consumer, not at them.  They’er certainly not speaking to their own needs or to make themselves feel as if they’re got the message out there.

So to whom are you speaking?

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, Helpful Hints

Is Tech Hurting Our Kids?

This was kind of a disturbing thought:

According to Havas Worldwide‘s “New Dynamics of Family” report, one in three adults say technology is destroying family life, and half believe that allowing a child unrestricted access to the Internet is a form of child abuse. Some 92% of children have a digital footprint by the age of two, and now, most adults believe digital technology and the Internet are ruining childhood.

How do you feel about that?  I mean we’ve all seen a two-year old handle an iPad or cellphone.  Did they seem as if they were being abused?  Not to overstate the point since it really wasn’t the focus of the study but it does get one thinking.  You can read more about it here.

We raised two children just as the digital age was dawning.  Most of our family time was spent doing things outdoors although once the first Playstation hit our home we played video games together as well.  Not every day and not in lieu of other things.  At the end of the day I think blaming technology is misplaced.  Yes, an iPad is a convenient babysitter although all it has done for some is to take the place of the television. Why is it ok to park your kid in front of Sesame Street but not ok for them to play with the Sesame Street app?

I could make the opposite argument.  Not allowing kids to understand technology or the social sphere is worse.  Going forward the world is going to become more technologically based (although hopefully with better, more intuitive, self-correcting interfaces).  Kids need those skills.  They need to understand what is appropriate to share and what isn’t.  I agree that the kid who does nothing but communicate with a video game controller to the exclusion of human interaction is going to have issues.  It’s our job as parents to make sure there is a mix of real and virtual.  Excluding either one is bad in my book.

How do you feel about this?

Leave a comment

Filed under Reality checks, Thinking Aloud