|
I have extensive restaurant experience on all levels and while philosophically the importance of that experience would subjectively suggest a bias in my statements, I assure you I offer only my philosophical approach to this particular dilemma in the industry. QR codes aren't novel in their approach to information; they are rather applicably similar barcodes. I think generally speaking most would agree. This is the disconnect for most of humans. Generally speaking, when instituting out-of-the-norm operating standards in a generally selective common environment, most tradition is bonded with rather than against. Such as a QR code as an example in replacing physical menus with physically-required experiences. Such as; walking in to physical place, sitting down or standing somewhere, picking up or looking at a written menu, speaking to someone (perhaps soon enough to be, some thing), ordering something to eat, eating said items, paying for said items, maybe a visit to the loo or not, and leaving the physical establishment. When you insert a new method that (generally speaking) detracts from societal norms, it isn't a question of whether it works or doesn't work it's purely a matter of fucntion for the experience. Example: If there were a true 'ghost kitchen' which also had a (let's just say hypothetically) street-facing counter window due to (again, hypothetically) extremely small real estate space for the transactional process of obtaining the food, like a 2x2' window where you pickup the food - and the entirety of the transactional process from the financial arm of this experience, were to functionally as such: scan QR code above window, place order, pay/send order, wait nearby window, pickup food as ready. That'd make sense. But not so much when you or you and a group or more are interested in sitting down inside a physical space, expecting a physical experience. The two are not equal and should be used as the experience is required, in my very humble, 25+ years of experience in this very industry, opinion. |