• New legislation in New York intends to crackdown on the black market for restaurant reservations.
• The law will restrict third-party agents from selling reservations to the highest bidders.
• New York's Gov. Kathy Hochul says it gives everyone "a chance to get a seat at the dinner table."

For the last few years, New York's dining scene hasn't exactly been a democracy.

From Reddit users scalping coveted restaurant spots for $1,500 to third-party agents using AI bots to hoard reservations and sell them to the highest bidders, eating out in New York evolved into a gamified legal black market where the biggest spenders stood a better chance at winning a seat at the table.

Now, a new law, signed by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on Thursday, seeks to democratize New York's renowned dining culture.

Legislation S.9365A/A.10215A prohibits "third-party restaurant reservation services from arranging unauthorized reservations," per the governor's website.

It intends to crack down on the "predatory marketplace" that requires diners to either pay extra before they set foot in a restaurant or make it "inaccessible" for those who refuse.

"New York is home to some of the best restaurants in the world, and whether you're returning to your favorite local spot or trying out the latest in fine dining, you deserve a fair system," Gov. Hochul said.

New York State Restaurant Association President and CEO Melissa Fleischut, echoed Gov. Hochul and said AI bots stockpiling reservations have "wreaked havoc" on New York restaurants by increasing "no-show" rates.

"Food and beverage orders, employee schedules, and many other aspects of a restaurant rely on accurately predicting how many customers will show on a given night," Fleischut said.

The bill doesn't impact legitimate reservation platforms like SevenRooms and Resy, which work directly with restaurants.

Not everyone is convinced legislation S.9365A/A.10215A will protect both businesses and consumers.

Speaking to Bloomberg, Jonas Frey, who founded the Appointment Trader website, said New York's dining scene will still favor the rich who can splurge on concierge services or book via prepay sellers.

"If Appointment Trader were to shut down tomorrow in New York City, no one that doesn't have a relationship or doesn't want to prepay $1,000 would be able to go to Carbone or 4 Charles Prime Rib or Tatiana for that matter," Frey, whose website will be impacted by the new law, said.

• Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol has talked about improving conditions for baristas.
• A potential strike at some Starbucks stores represents a test on that front for the new CEO.
• Niccol has made some operational changes, but Starbucks Workers United wants better pay.

Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol has talked about improving working conditions for the company's baristas.

Now, as thousands of them prepare for a potential strike, Niccol faces a test of that commitment.

Baristas who are part of Starbucks Workers United, which represents about 10,000 Starbucks workers in the US, voted to authorize a strike, the union said on Tuesday. About 98% of members voted in favor of action, though they haven't selected a walkout date, according to the union.

The union said Tuesday that it's focused on winning better raises for its members. It also wants to resolve hundreds of unfair labor practice charges, or ULPs, filed with the National Labor Relations Board.

The contract negotiations predate Niccol's arrival at Starbucks in September. Starbucks and the union have been at odds for three years. The first Starbucks store to unionize — a location in Buffalo, New York — was organized in 2021. The parties restarted talks in April after about a year of no meetings and have struck agreements on some provisions of the contract.

Starbucks and union representatives continued to bargain on Wednesday, a spokesperson for Starbucks Workers United told Business Insider.

"It is disappointing that the union is considering a strike rather than focusing on what have been extremely productive negotiations," Starbucks spokesperson Phil Gee said. "Since April, we've scheduled and attended more than eight multi-day bargaining sessions where we've reached thirty meaningful agreements on dozens of topics Workers United delegates told us were important to them, including many economic issues."

Since becoming Starbucks CEO, Niccol has said he sees opportunities to improve some operational aspects of baristas' working conditions as part of a broader push to revitalize sales. In an open letter in his first week as leader, he said the company would focus on "empowering our baristas to take care of our customers" and that he wanted to make it "the best place to work, with career opportunities and a clear path to growth."

Some Starbucks workers have told BI that their stores are understaffed, including during some of the busiest times of the day, such as the morning and after-school rushes. Other workers have said that Starbucks' frequent promotions for app users result in a crush of mobile orders that they struggle to prepare in just a few minutes.

Niccol's early actions at Starbucks have included fixes to some of those issues, such as rolling back the frequency of promotions and adjusting staffing, he said on an earnings call in October. Starbucks also plans to bring back self-service milk and other condiments at its stores in 2025 to lighten some of the barista load.

One sign of progress came on Monday, when Starbucks said it would offer employees up to 18 weeks of paid parental leave — triple its current benefit of six weeks. Employees represented by Starbucks Workers United had previously proposed doubling the paid time off for parents.

On Tuesday, Starbucks Workers United said that the company had yet to agree to make changes to other aspects of workers' jobs. The union represents baristas at about 500 Starbucks stores.

"It's time to finalize a foundational framework that includes meaningful investments in baristas and to resolve unfair labor practice charges," Silvia Baldwin, a Starbucks barista in Philadelphia barista and bargaining delegate, said on Tuesday.

Starbucks spokesperson Gee said: "We remain committed to working together and committed to reaching a final framework agreement. This is our goal."

Do you work at Starbucks and have a story idea to share? Reach out to this reporter at [email protected].

• We tried chicken nuggets from Chick-fil-A, KFC, Burger King, Wendy's, McDonald's, and Taco Bell.
• Chick-fil-A and KFC's nuggets had a similar texture and size but distinctly different textures.
• Taco Bell's crispy chicken nuggets stood out for their crunch and innovative sauce flavors.

Before the chicken tender became the hottest fast-food must-have, there was the humble and hearty chicken nugget.

Its small size made it the perfect side dish, post-work snack, or, as millennials will recall, the perfect drunchie (drunk munchie).

One way that fast-food brands can capitalize on chicken's current popularity — especially among Gen Z diners — is by starting small and introducing nuggets to its menus.

Taco Bell, which is best known for its Mexican-inspired tacos and burritos, tested a chicken nugget launch last year and, until then, did not serve any fried chicken. But this week, the chain officially entered the fried-chicken market with its limited-time crispy chicken nuggets, available nationwide starting November 19.

To test the brand's latest menu drop and see how its nuggets compare to chains that have been serving them for decades, we tried and compared chicken nuggets from six popular chains.

Here's how the six fast-food chain chicken nuggets ranked, from our least to most favorite.

6. Burger King

Cost: $3.89 — excluding tax and tip — for an eight-piece pack at a Burger King in New York City.

Note: All prices listed here may vary in different markets.

The breading was thick and a little bland.

Erin: I thought the nuggets' coating was well-seasoned, but the breading was slightly on the thicker side. While they were a good vehicle for one of the chain's dipping sauces — such as the Zesty sauce, which is a personal favorite — these nuggets work better as an accompaniment to one of the chain's burgers rather than an entrée themselves. Burger King is known for its burgers, after all.

If you're craving chicken the next time you visit a Burger King, I suggest opting for the chain's chicken sandwich or one of its chicken-tender wraps.

Priyanka: When I held the chicken nugget in my hand, I could feel its crisp texture and was excited to try it. However, upon taking my first bite, I found the bread coating, although crunchy, was too thick and overpowered the chicken, leaving a slightly salty aftertaste.

I agree with Erin that the chain's nuggets are a side order, best enjoyed when dipped in some sweet-and-sour sauce.

Business Insider reached out to Burger King for comment but did not receive a response before publication.

5. Wendy's

Cost: $3.36 — excluding tax and tip — for a four-piece pack at a Wendy's in New York City.

The chicken nugget was crispy, but instead of being juicy, the chicken tasted a little chewy.

Erin: Like Burger King and McDonald's, Wendy's is primarily a burger chain. So, it should come as no surprise that its chicken nuggets are pretty unremarkable, in my opinion.

They were well-seasoned, and the breading had a lot of flavor, but they were also pretty small. Wendy's nuggets definitely act more as a side dish than a reason to go to the chain.

Priyanka: I'd heard great reviews about Wendy's chicken nuggets, especially its spicier offering, so when the time came to try them, I was looking forward to becoming a loyal fan, too.

Instead, I found myself yearning for old favorites, like Chick-fil-A.

While Wendy's does a great job with the nuggets' coating, which is both well-seasoned and crispy, it fails to show off the star ingredient: the chicken.

It took some effort on my part to pull apart the chicken, which felt slightly chewy instead of how I usually prefer it: juicy and easy to bite into.

4. KFC

Cost: $4.90 — excluding tax and tip — for a five-piece pack at a KFC in New York City.

KFC's nuggets were the least breaded out of the ones we tried.

Erin: They were a little bland in the flavor department, but I thought the chicken itself tasted higher quality than the nuggets from Wendy's, Burger King, and McDonald's. It was more shreddable and paired well with the chain's new Comeback sauce — launched in October with its new chicken tenders — but I would have liked more breading to give it that crunch.

Speaking of KFC's chicken tenders, I'd probably recommend those over the chain's nuggets.

Priyanka: For a chain that specializes in fried chicken — and one that I usually enjoy eating at — I also felt a bit let down by KFC's chicken nuggets, which were only introduced last year.

In terms of size and texture, KFC's chicken nuggets look pretty similar to Chick-fil-A's, and yet, when it comes to taste, the two are quite different.

While KFC delivers with its succulent chicken, it falls short when it comes to seasoning. I agree with Erin: skip the nuggets for its much nicer tenders instead.

In a comment to Business Insider, KFC said, "Feedback on our nuggets has been overwhelmingly positive, and we sold more than 100 million nuggets in the first eight weeks that they were available. Our fans can enjoy KFC Chicken Nuggets nationwide seven days a week, and we take pride in their quality."

3. McDonald's

Cost: $5.39 — excluding tax and tip — for a four-piece pack at a McDonald's in New York City.

The nuggets from McDonald's were predictably good.

Erin: McDonald's chicken nuggets are the stuff of legend. They've been around since the early '80s, and there's something about the tempura-style-fried chicken nuggets that keep me coming back for more.

They're always crispy, always salty, and always the same — I always know what I'm going to get with a McDonald's nugget.

Priyanka: I'm a big fan of the brand's spicy chicken nuggets, which were introduced for a limited time earlier this year but not so much of its regular recipe.

While they're consistently crunchy, I find them slightly underseasoned, and the salty after-taste a tad bit too overpowering for my liking.

2. Chick-fil-A

Cost: $5.79 — excluding tax and tip — for a five-piece pack at a local Chick-fil-A in New York City.

The nuggets were flavorful and juicy, with just the right amount of seasoning in the breading.

Erin: While some of the other nuggets leaned on the drier side, these nuggets were moist and would likely pair well with practically any dipping sauce. Each nugget was on the smaller side but packed a lot of flavor into a small bite.

Priyanka: Until I tried Taco Bell's chicken nuggets, Chick-fil-A's bite-sized chunks were my go-to. I've had them on multiple occasions, and they've always tasted consistently good. When eaten fresh out of the box, they're satisfyingly crunchy, and the chicken is perfectly juicy.

While they're bite-sized and often thought of as a side dish, I recommend sizing up — I usually opt for the 12-piece pack with a side of waffle fries and Chick-fil-A sauce — and giving them a chance as a main meal.

1. Taco Bell

Cost: $3.99 — excluding tax and tip — for a five-piece order and one dipping sauce.

However, we were invited to taste the new chicken nuggets at an early preview hosted by Taco Bell in New York City, so we received complimentary tastings of the nuggets.

The exterior felt hard — however, when we bit in, the chicken was extremely juicy and flavorful.

Erin: These chicken nuggets, coated in a blend of breadcrumbs and crunchy tortilla chips, stood out from the competition with their well-balanced flavor. They were salty, with a subtle corn taste from the tortilla-chip breading. They reminded me more of a boneless wing than a chicken nugget.

Paired with the chain's new Hidden Valley fire ranch sauce, a standard creamy ranch sauce with a slight hint of heat, and the jalapeño honey mustard, an unusual combination of tangy mustard and strong yet balanced jalapeño flavor, these nuggets truly blew me away.

Priyanka: When it comes to nuggets, the three things that matter the most to me are a crisp exterior, well-seasoned coating, and juicy chicken. Taco Bell's latest offering checked off all three.

At first glance, the nuggets — all in different shapes and sizes — seemed as though they had a tough exterior, but as soon as I took my first bite, I was pleasantly surprised at how easily the chicken tore apart. I also enjoyed the "Taco Bell twist," as one representative called it at the preview, wherein breadcrumbs were combined with crispy tortillas in the coating.

Usually, I pair my chicken bites with regular ketchup or mayonnaise, but since I've tried Taco Bell's jalapeño honey mustard sauce, I've found myself swapping the regulars for this combination instead. The jalapeño adds a subtle yet nice kick, pairing beautifully with the new nuggets.

Once, not long ago, booking a table at a hot new restaurant didn’t entail a midnight dash to Resy. Truly, we didn’t know how good we had it then. Hours-long lines out the door are now the norm, not the exception, in major cities from New York to Los Angeles. One reason is that restaurants […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

• Value meals at Chili's have boosted the restaurant chain's sales lately.
• Chili's chief marketing officer says the deals aren't leaving the menu anytime soon.
• Competitors like McDonald's and Wendy's also offer value meals amid inflation challenges.

Appetizers and value meals are bringing customers to their local Chili's Grill & Bar in droves — and they're not leaving the menu anytime soon.

Deals like the Triple Dipper and the 3 for Me combo, both of which allow customers to get sit-down meals for under $20, have helped Chili's parent company, Brinker International, beat quarterly expectations recently. Same-store sales grew nearly 15% at Chili's during the company's latest quarter, which ended in September.

Those affordable deals are standing parts of the restaurant's menu, not temporary offers, George Felix, chief marketing officer at Chili's, said.

While some restaurant chains are "scrambling to throw a low-priced offer out there and try and compete," the 3 for Me deal "is something we believe in," Felix told Business Insider.

3 for Me offers diners a starter, an entrée, and a drink for as little as $10.99. Chili's has offered the combo for about two years, and it added a smash burger as an entrée option in April — a move the company said took "aim at fast food" at the time.

Other restaurant chains have ramped up deals this year to attract customers, including many whose budgets have been stretched by inflation, back to their dining rooms. McDonald's, for instance, is planning to launch a new value menu in 2025 after extending a limited-time $5 meal this year. Burger King and Wendy's have also offered their own value meals.

Meanwhile, Red Lobster discontinued its $20 endless shrimp deal, which was meant to be a permanent menu item, and ultimately blamed the promotion for an $11 million loss in Q3 2023.

For Chili's, offering food options that range from less than $11 to over $30 allows diners to choose what sort of experience they have, Felix said.

"We believe value is not about the lowest price point," Felix said. "We believe value is what you get for what you pay."

The Triple Dipper is an appetizer sampler that's been having a viral moment on social media recently.

Many Chili's customers who come in for such deals return and order higher-priced items, such as a margarita, which can cost as much — or more — than some of Chili's value meals, Felix said.

"You bring them in with the Triple Dipper, but then they come back again and it's the Don Julio margarita — they treat themselves," Felix told BI. (That margarita cost $12 when ordered for pickup in New York on Tuesday.)

It shows that even diners looking for good deals will splurge, CEO Kevin Hochman said on Chili's October earnings call. "The price-quality equation is critical for this guest," Hochman said.

Are you a Chili's customer or worker with a story idea to share? Reach out to these reporters at [email protected] and [email protected]

• Casual-dining chains often capitalize on football season to draw in customers.
• We tried Buffalo chicken wings from five chains to determine the best option for game day.
• Wingstop surprised us with its saucy, juicy wings at the right price point.

As football season kicks off, restaurant chains are rolling out crowd-pleasing tailgate favorites to win over fans.

In a new series, "Tailgate Taste-off," Business Insider is pitting these chains against each other to uncover the best versions of popular game-day dishes.

Whether you're deciding which chain has the best chicken wings or offers the best value for delivery, this guide will help you make the most of your football season dining experience.

Buffalo chicken wings arguably reign supreme among the most popular game-day foods and are practically synonymous with football season.

A report by the National Chicken Council estimated Americans would eat 1.45 billion chicken wings during the 2024 Super Bowl. Many chain restaurants embrace wings' popularity all football season long with promotional deals, family-sized bundles, and free delivery.

Chains that specialize in chicken wings, such as Wingstop, are also experiencing significant growth. In October 2024, the chain, which focuses its menu on bone-in chicken wings, boneless wings, and other chicken items, announced 38.8% year-over-year revenue growth.

Wingstop has also expanded its presence by opening 273 new locations across the US in the past year, bringing its total number of US restaurants to 2,064 at the end of the third quarter.

We ranked Buffalo chicken wings from five chain restaurants — Applebee's, Chili's, Buffalo Wild Wings, TGI Fridays, and Wingstop — based on taste and value.

Here's how the five chain restaurants' Buffalo wings ranked, from our least to most favorite.

My least favorite Buffalo wings came from TGI Fridays.

I ordered an eight-count of bone-in traditional Buffalo wings at the restaurant I visited in Massachusetts. They cost $12.19, excluding taxes and fees, and came with celery sticks and sides of ranch and blue cheese.

I live in New York City, but I had to travel further afield to try the chain's wings because many of my local TGI Fridays restaurants have closed.

In early November, the chain filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and Reuters reported that it was facing $37 million in debt, which led to some underperforming restaurants closing.

The TGI Fridays location I visited in Massachusetts is locally franchised and owned, so it's not included in the larger brand's bankruptcy filing.

The wings were crispy but a little under-sauced.

Unlike some of the other chains I tried, TGI Fridays also doesn't appear to make its own Buffalo sauce.

On the menu, it's advertised as simply Frank's Red Hot Buffalo. While I do like that brand of sauce, I could easily make the same wings at home, which made it feel less unique.

I also thought they were slightly smaller than some of the other wings I tried.

Business Insider reached out to TGI Fridays for comment but did not receive a response.

The meat inside was tender, but the Buffalo flavor just wasn't there.

Though I liked the crispy skin and texture of these chicken wings, as well as the tender meat inside, I thought they were lacking in sauce and flavor.

Overall, I probably wouldn't order these again.

The next stop I tried was Applebee's.

At my local Applebee's in Brooklyn, an order of nine classic bone-in wings costs $18.99, excluding tax and fees. They came with celery sticks and sides of ranch and blue cheese.

Applebee's partnered with the NFL this year as the league's official grill and bar partner after finding a major crossover between their customer base and NFL viewers.

"We know our guests are football fans," Applebee's chief marketing officer Joel Yashinsky told Business Insider.

Since Buffalo wings are a favorite among football fanatics, I was excited to see how the chain fared.

The wings were super crispy and the largest out of all that I tried.

The wings were a rich red-brown color and fried to a crisp.

The wings were juicy, and the sauce had a good buttery flavor.

The Buffalo sauce had a nice balance between the heat and the more savory, buttery flavor, making for a balanced bite. I thought the meat inside was pretty juicy, and I loved the sheer size of these wings.

My only real complaint was the price — $18.99 for a plate of wings felt pretty pricey, even though the wings were on the larger side. However, the price will vary depending on which location you visit.

Chili's landed squarely in the middle with its crispy Buffalo wings.

At the Massachusetts location I visited, an eight-count of bone-in Buffalo wings cost $14.99, excluding tax and fees. They came with two dipping sauces: ranch and blue cheese.

However, the wings cost slightly more, $17.99, at the Chili's location I typically visit in Queens, New York.

I thought these wings were flavorful and juicy.

I've tried these wings before and commented that they could have been slightly saucier and crispier. However, when I tried them this second time, I didn't encounter those issues.

They were perfectly crispy and almost dripping in sauce.

The wings had a generous amount of meat inside.

The Buffalo sauce had a strong buttery flavor with just the right amount of heat. The chain is also known for its ranch dipping sauce, which paired very nicely with the wings.

Though the wings were smaller, I thought they packed more flavor than the ones from Applebee's and TGI Fridays.

The second-best Buffalo wings came from Buffalo Wild Wings.

The chain's Buffalo bone-in wings are arguably Buffalo Wild Wings' most famous menu item, so I was eager to see how they would stack up against other chain restaurants' wings. I certainly wasn't disappointed.

I ordered a six-count of traditional Buffalo wings through the Buffalo Wild Wings app for $12.49, excluding tax and fees, and a side of ranch.

The wings were small length-wise but had a lot of meat on them.

The wings were crispy and had a light coating of Buffalo sauce that covered every part of the wings.

There was a selection of both drumsticks and flats, but I noticed that the drums were particularly meaty.

I loved the flavor of the Buffalo sauce and thought the chicken meat was moist.

The chicken meat inside the wing was moist and tender, and the crispy skin and slightly sweet, just-spicy-enough sauce added a lot of flavor. Overall, these were really solid Buffalo wings.

I also thought these wings were a great value for the money and would definitely order them again.

My favorite wings I tried were from Wingstop.

I ordered 10 classic bone-in wings for $17.29, excluding tax and fees.

Wingstop doesn't offer Buffalo sauce on its menu, but it does have its Original Hot sauce, which is the chain's version of Buffalo. I ordered them with a side of ranch.

The wings came drenched in the bright-red sauce but were still supremely crispy.

The sticky sauce clung to my fingers as I ate these wings, which were the perfect size: not too big, not too small, and just the right amount of tender chicken meat.

The meat was tender and the spicy hot sauce blew me away.

The sauce had a lot of levels, balancing between a strong vinegar flavor, to buttery, and topped off with a layer of spice that was slightly smoky yet not overpowering.

The Wingstop wings stood out as the spiciest among all the chains I tried. However, the heat didn't overpower the flavor — instead, it enhanced it.

Each element, from the crispy seasoned skin to the tangy undertones of the sauce, came through distinctly. These wings balanced bold, spicy flavor with a depth of taste, making them the best chain-restaurant Buffalo wings I tried.

• The French Laundry is one of only 14 restaurants in the US to hold three Michelin stars.
• Chef Joe Garcia of Hotel Bel-Air spent six years working at The French Laundry in Napa Valley.
• Garcia shared with Business Insider the three most important lessons he learned at the restaurant.

As one of only 14 restaurants in the US to hold three Michelin stars, The French Laundry has become a legendary fine-dining establishment and the crown jewel of the Napa Valley culinary scene.

Under the guidance of Thomas Keller, the restaurant has also been a launchpad for decorated American chefs, including Grant Achatz, Tim Hollingsworth, and Joe Garcia.

Garcia — who was chef de cuisine of the Michelin-starred Manzke in Los Angeles before taking over for Wolfgang Puck as the culinary director of Hotel Bel-Air — recently sat down with Business Insider and shared the most important lessons he learned while working as a sous chef at The French Laundry.

Writing a new menu every day was the ultimate culinary education

The French Laundry changes the menu daily for its 12-course dinner, which ranges in cost from $390 to $425 a person. Garcia told BI that only two signature dishes on Keller's menu always stay the same: oysters and pearls, and coffee and doughnuts.

"I joke that my brain still hurts from trying to come up with a new menu every day because, at a certain point, it gets daunting to not be repetitive," Garcia said. "How many things can you do with a carrot once you've already made a soup, a purée, and a salad? But that's what pushes you, that's what challenges you."

During his six years at the restaurant, Garcia learned "all the different ways and methods of utilizing ingredients and the combinations of ingredients" at The French Laundry, which has helped him throughout his career.

"It's prepared me to where it's now relatively easy to write menus," he said. "Sometimes, the dish writes itself, and there are other times where I get stumped; I get writer's block. But usually, within a day or two, I can work it out."

Nothing beats freshly-picked ingredients

"You get spoiled at The French Laundry because right across the street, we have a garden," Garcia said. "The vegetables wouldn't even see the refrigerator."

Garcia recalled how the chefs were given a daily catalog of what was available from the garden, allowing them to write the menu for the following day. They had to list the exact number of vegetables they needed for every dish so the ingredients could be freshly picked the next morning without anything going to waste.

"You'd write exactly how many carrots you want, exactly how many pea pods, even the microgreens," Garcia said. "Then they were harvested the morning of."

Being able to work with such fresh ingredients changed the way Garcia thought about food.

"That same carrot or microgreen — if for whatever reason we had too many and put some in the fridge — if you tasted it the next day, it just wasn't as good as being hours out of the ground," he said.

Since Garcia doesn't have his own garden at the Hotel Bel-Air, he goes to the Santa Monica farmers market twice a week — every Wednesday and Saturday — to get the freshest ingredients possible.

"I speak to the farmers directly. They have things to taste. We talk about what's coming and what's going out of season," Garcia said. "That's why it's so valuable for me to physically come down here and have a relationship with the farmers because, in the end, whatever I put on the plate is going to be either great or OK. I want it to be great."

Mentorship is integral to any successful kitchen

Garcia's biggest takeaway from The French Laundry wasn't the plating, the sauces, or even the food; it was the importance of good mentorship, training, and systems in the kitchen.

"If you have those things in place, and they're solid and they're bulletproof, the food almost comes second," Garcia said.

"There still needs to be talent. There still needs to be vision," he told BI. "But my biggest takeaway is the importance of setting up a kitchen properly and mentoring the team so that they make your life easier. That's where everything just kind of falls into place."

Garcia said he knows a kitchen has succeeded when the entire team can perform at a high level — whether or not the head chef is present.

"That is what truly makes The French Laundry and all other restaurants that operate at that same level," he added.

The 1988 buddy-comedy action flick "Midnight Run" had an unexpected impact on the restaurant industry. While the romp about a bounty hunter transporting an accountant across the country didn't make a box-office splash, one line stuck around.

"A restaurant is a very tricky investment," the accountant, played by Charles Grodin, tells the bounty hunter, played by Robert DeNiro. DeNiro's character dreams of opening a coffee shop with his big score, but the accountant shuts him down: "More than half of them go under within the six months."

The idea that restaurants are a bad investment predates the film, but the quote lodged in people's minds. Over the past 20 years as a cook, restaurant critic, and food writer, I've heard Grodin's risk assessment quoted repeatedly, almost verbatim. But if restaurants really are a lousy investment, then why would private-equity firms be dumping billions into the sector? Data from PitchBook found that private-equity investments into fast-casual restaurants grew from $7.7 million in 2013 to $231 million in 2023 — a nearly 3,000% increase.

In 2024 alone, Blackstone purchased 1,400 Tropical Smoothie Cafes and a majority stake in Jersey Mike's — deals that gave the chains multi-billion-dollar valuations. Sycamore Partners also bought 250 Playa Bowls locations. Before its IPO in 2023, the Mediterranean eatery Cava raised nearly $750 million from private investors. Meanwhile, SoftBank Vision Fund has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into restaurant tech over the past decade.

All that cash has led to a boom in places like Chipotle, Shake Shake, and Sweetgreen. Between 2009 and 2018, the number of fast-casual restaurants in America doubled, while sales have nearly tripled. Meanwhile, the amount of money Americans spend eating out has jumped by nearly 60% since 2009. That doesn't exactly sound like a lousy investment.

The trouble is that private equity has a knack for destroying businesses. Red Lobster declared bankruptcy earlier this year after 10 years under private-equity management, Toys "R" Us famously shut down following a private-equity takeover, and even hospitals have struggled after private equity got involved. The cash infusion to wannabe chains and franchises has also made it harder for independently funded restaurants to compete for customers, real estate, and staff. When the gravy train stops, fast-casual restaurants are going to be in trouble.

To understand why private equity is pouring money into restaurants, we have to start with the appeal of the fast-casual model. In some ways, it's the golden mean of restaurants. You can charge twice as much for a meal at a fast-casual spot as you can at a fast-food joint. In Manhattan, a Burger King cheeseburger costs $3.40, whereas a Shake Shack burger will run you $7.79. But when you look at the overhead costs, there isn't much difference. Both restaurants staff a similar number of people and rely on similar ingredients. Chipotle may offer a burrito, a bowl, a quesadilla, and a salad, but it's all more or less the same ingredients: beans, corn, salsa, cheese, and basic proteins. The limited menu enables both fast-food and fast-casual restaurants to be efficient, keep costs down, and avoid losses from food waste and labor. And since fast-casual spots appear to be the nicer restaurants — with gourmet ingredients like brioche buns, healthy-sounding options, and claims of sustainable sourcing — they can charge more. If price and speed aren't priorities, many people would prefer to grab lunch at a Chipotle than at a Taco Bell.

The model also has an edge over sit-down restaurants, which have struggled in recent years. "Casual dining proper is not doing so well," Alex M. Susskind, a professor of food and beverage management at Cornell University, says. "Fast casual has provided consumers with a better meal experience that's equal to, or in some instances better than, a casual-dining restaurant, with less of a time and financial commitment."

The food is just as good, but the service is much faster. He says that's helped make the model a better investment than a place like Applebee's. Thanks in part to those higher profit margins, one restaurant analyst said it takes 18 months for a Chipotle to pay back buildout costs, compared to five years for a Cheesecake Factory.

"PE is investing money in the fast-casual market because the economics of a fast-casual concept is much better than any other type of restaurant concept," says Chris Macksey, the CEO of Prix Fixe Accounting, which specializes in hospitality. "Profit margins are anywhere from 10% to 15% as opposed to a full-service restaurant, which is 5% to 8%. Fast casual is just a far more scalable concept."

Scalability is really the brass ring. Investors in fast-casuals aren't buying restaurants; they're buying the potential growth of restaurant brands. Susskind says the boom reminds him of the late 1990s when casual-dining brands like Applebee's, TGI Fridays, and Olive Garden were taking off. He sees the recent shutdown of some of those chains — such as TGI Fridays, Red Lobster, and Smokey Bones — as a market correction for their overexpansion.

"That's what's making the investments in these businesses attractive. Because a lot of the weaker players have been weeded out," Susskind says about fast-casual restaurants. The frenzy has also been encouraged by the successful IPOs of companies like Sweetgreen in 2021 and Cava in 2023. Seeing Cava's stock grow by nearly 250% since its IPO has left investors searching for similar success.

While Sweetgreens and Dave's Hot Chickens are popping up across the country, independent restaurateurs are often left scrambling — not even for a piece of the pie, but for the crumbs.

Tracy Goh is the chef and owner of Damaran Sara, a two-year-old Malaysian restaurant in San Francisco, home of some of the most expensive commercial real estate in America. She's experienced landlords' preferences for fast-casual chains over small businesses like hers. "Especially for me, because it's my first restaurant. I don't have data to convince them that I can stay on a lease as long as they are likely to," Goh says. "They have a preference for the franchises or the big names."

A landlord's job is to generate money from their property. Their business isn't about enriching their community; it's about finding the most reliable tenants who can pay the most rent. In the restaurant real-estate space, that often means fast-food and fast-casual brands backed by major investment firms.

"If you're Chipotle or Shake Shack, you may decide to take a lease above market. You can afford it because you're privately funded," says Talia Berman, a partner at the hospitality advisory firm Friend of Chef and an expert in New York's restaurant real-estate market. "You beat out the competition because you don't care how much money you make in that space because it wasn't meant to be profitable based on the unit economics. It's part of a larger strategy."

That strategy is all about growth, she says. The primary goal of investment-backed restaurants is to expand quickly. "They're typically barreling toward an exit. So they're looking to get purchased by Nabisco or Darden or Levy or one of these huge restaurant conglomerates. And they need to show distribution — that they're operating in many states and that they have high top line," Berman says, referring to high sales volume.

A location that can gross $2 or $3 million in a year can demonstrate to a potential buyer that the eatery is successful — even if a high rent lowers the average unit profit margin. "They're thinking short term. It's a private equity mentality," says Berman.

Investment-backed restaurants also have a timing advantage over smaller shops. When a developer begins work on a new building that might lease space to a restaurant — a strip mall, food hall, or multipurpose apartment complex for instance — it's usually working on a multiyear timeline. Moshe Batalion, the vice president of national leasing for RioCan, one of Canada's largest real-estate-investment trusts, told me the firm starts thinking about who to lease to before it even breaks ground on a new property. Leases might be signed years before the space is even ready for move-in. Independent restaurateurs typically can't plan for a restaurant that won't open for two to three years.

"For independent operators, the real disadvantage is access of capital," Susskind says. "If they have access to a decent level of capital, they can grow, open more units." For chains, that's easy to do. But, he adds, "if I'm an independent, I don't know where I'm going to get $500,000 to ink a deal and build a restaurant."

When small-time restaurants get left out of the real-estate market, diners are left with a food scene that increasingly looks and tastes the same.

Thomas Crosby, the CEO of Pal's Sudden Service, a Tennessee-based chain of 31 burger shops, is all too familiar with the downsides of private equity. It's why he has eschewed outside investment. Millions of private-equity dollars might help triple the number of Pal's locations in five years — but could the chain continue to train and retest staff to remember that the perfect french fry is 3.7 inches long?

"As soon as you start taking investments or go public, you confuse your mission," Crosby says. "It becomes, what metrics can I do to wow stockholders instead of wow customers? And I think that's how so many companies get sideways. It's kind of like cars: You drive down the interstate, and you cannot hardly tell one brand from another. It becomes so homogenous." He adds: "That's what happens in the restaurant industry."

Chasing the success of another restaurant chain means everyone just tries to copy everyone else. "To please the stockholders or investors, they've got to be all things to all people," he says. By maintaining control over his operations, Crosby says, "We don't owe people money. We don't lease land. We have zero debt."

Since the early 2000s, private-equity firms started taking on a bigger role in the companies they'd invested in; these firms didn't just expect returns down the line, they began telling companies how to achieve those goals. This was good for innovation and safety, but bad for job creation and wages, with "sizable reductions in earnings per worker in the first two years post buyout," professors from Harvard and the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business wrote in a 2014 research paper.

In the long run, private equity often leaves companies worse off. In 2019, researchers found that public companies that are bought out by private-equity firms are 10 times as likely to go bankrupt as those that aren't — a finding that complicates the argument that companies like Toys "R" Us closed simply because of market forces. Similar to the casual-dining boom before it, Susskind, the Cornell professor, believes that the investment boom in the fast-casual sector will eventually lead to a bust.

Already, the graveyard of private-equity-backed restaurants is growing. BurgerFi, which has 93 locations and 51 pizza subsidiaries, primarily in Florida, received $80 million in investments just a few years ago. But despite last year's plan to update the chain's stores, menus, and technology, the investment has largely transformed into debt. The company defaulted on $51 million in credit obligations this year, and in September, it filed for bankruptcy.

Between 2015 and 2019, Mod Pizza received a total of $334 million in private-equity investments, which enabled the brand to grow to 512 locations across Western states, with over 12,000 employees. In 2019, the firm boasted of being "the fastest-growing restaurant chain in the United States for the past four years," with a plan to hit 1,000 locations in five years. The rapid expansion outpaced realistic sales growth, and earlier this year, the company closed over 40 locations.

Similarly, Rubio's Fresh Mexican Grill, founded in 1983 in California, was acquired by Mill Road Capital in 2010 for $91 million. The new ownership updated the name (to Rubio's Coastal Grill), the interior design, and the menu. Renovations at each location cost about $200,000. The chain ended up declaring bankruptcy twice: once in 2020 and again earlier this year. Though the company attributed the first filing to pandemic lockdowns, it was already struggling to maintain its growth and stay in the green prior to 2020. When it closed more restaurants earlier this year, some employees found they were unable to cash their final paychecks.

Even some of the most visible success stories of investment-based growth haven't borne fruit. Sweetgreen, "the Starbucks of salad" that was heavily backed by venture capital before its IPO, grew from one location in 2007 to 227 this year, with plans to open another 30 a year — though the company still hasn't seen a profitable year. The chain lost over $26 million last year.

At some point, the market taps out and there isn't room for more growth. Americans are already spending 42% more money on dining out than they are on groceries.

Berman says that the high volatility creates opportunities. For one, when a cash-rich restaurant bails on a retail location, it becomes available as a turnkey space, complete with HVAC, grease traps, and floor drains. Berman's company recently made a deal for a popular food brand to build out a research kitchen. It's designed to be an experiment, but they signed a 10-year lease. "Believe me, this place is not going to be around in three years, I promise you," she says. That leaves the door open for other entrepreneurs to take over.

In other words, don't get too attached to the Sweetgreen down the street. It may take longer than six months for private-equity-backed restaurants to go under, but there's a good chance your new fave won't be around in a few years.

Corey Mintz is a food reporter focusing on the intersection between food, economics, and labor. He is also the author of "The Next Supper: The End Of Restaurants As We Knew Them, And What Comes After."

• My family of four dined at The Melting Pot, a fondue chain known for its melty cheese and chocolate.
• Our four-course meal took two hours and included three rounds of fondue, a salad, and drinks.
• We spent $344 after tax and a 20% tip, which felt worth it for the experience we had with our teens.

As a mom of two teens, I find it's becoming increasingly rare for my entire family of four to sit around a dinner table together.

My kids have their own social lives and busy schedules, but going out to eat as a family can still bring us all together. So, on a rare night when all of our calendars were open, we headed to The Melting Pot for a four-course fondue dinner.

My teens loved visiting the fondue chain when they were younger, though all I remembered about our previous visits was that the cheese was delicious and our dining experience took several hours.

With that in mind, we headed to our nearest location about 40 minutes from home in Melbourne, Florida.

Here's what it was like to dine at The Melting Pot with our two teens.

The Melting Pot got its start in Florida in the 1970s.

The Melting Pot first opened in Maitland, Florida, just outside Orlando in 1975. At the time, it sold just three fondues: Swiss cheese, beef, and chocolate.

Over time, the chain began serving more varieties of fondue, plus things like craft cocktails and salads.

As its menu grew, so did its reach. Today, The Melting Pot has almost 100 locations throughout the US and one in Canada.

We kicked off our fondue dinner with a few drinks.

We started our meal at The Melting Pot with a round of drinks.

My husband chose an old-fashioned cocktail ($15), my daughter and I selected alcohol-free mixed drinks ($8 each), and my son ordered a soda ($5).

As someone who stopped drinking alcohol months ago, I was impressed with the restaurant's spirit-free menu, which went beyond Shirley Temples and club soda with creative options involving fresh ingredients.

Later in the meal, my husband had two $12 glasses of red wine, and I ordered an additional $8 alcohol-free drink from the bar.

Our server did a great job guiding us through how much to order.

The menu at The Melting Pot can feel a bit overwhelming at first.

The chain does a great job organizing a few fondue-for-two meals at a pre-fixe price, but its à la carte menu of separate cheese, entrée, and dessert courses can be hard to navigate with a larger party.

For example, the cheese course alone starts at around $30 for two people, but the cost goes up for additional diners or add-ons like charcuterie or gluten-free dippers.

Thankfully, our server helped us decide how much we needed to order so everyone got enough to eat without us having tons of leftovers.

The cheese fondue was melty perfection.

Our Alpine cheese-fondue course for four cost $56.

Alongside the cheese, which was a blend of gruyére, raclette, fontina, white wine, and garlic, we were served dippers like crusty bread, apples, and a blend of carrots, cauliflower, and broccoli.

This course was incredibly delicious. Having made fondue at home many times before, I can say having someone assemble the dish and clean it up afterward was well worth the price.

Plus, the portion was large enough that we could've been pretty happy ending our meal here.

I'd never ordered a salad at the Melting Pot, but was glad we did.

Although salad is typically the last thing on my mind when a fondue spread is on the table, our server told us there was one on the menu he loved and suggested we order one to try.

His pick, the bacon-and-blue-cheese spinach salad ($8), came with spinach, hard-boiled eggs, bacon, tomato, and blue cheese. It was pretty incredible — so much so that I'd consider ordering it again the next time I visit The Melting Pot.

At our server's suggestion, we also shook a bit of the restaurant's garlic-and-wine seasoning on top. The flavorful blend added a lot to the already tasty salad.

The meat course was really good, but it didn't feel like a necessity.

For our entrée course, we chose the coq-au-vin cooking style, a yummy blend of burgundy wine, mushrooms, scallions, and garlic.

Since we were already a bit full from our cheese course and salad, our server suggested we split two entrées among the four of us.

We ordered the $34 Pacific Rim selection, which included proteins like shrimp, ahi tuna, and chicken, and the $38 classic, with meats like pork and steak.

We enjoyed cooking the proteins in our fondue, but the real star of the entrée course was the array of sauces paired with them. It was fun to taste the dips, which ranged in flavors from teriyaki to curry.

For dessert, we chose one of The Melting Pot's classics.

To end our meal, we ordered the chain's yin-and-yang chocolate fondue for the table ($56).

The pretty mixture of white chocolate and dark chocolate made for some great photos and was a delicious way to try two flavors of fondue.

We were also able to add gluten-free dipping options.

At the time of our visit, my daughter and I were on a special diet for medical reasons, so we asked for gluten-free dippers.

We were charged $8 for an extra plate with things like gluten-free brownies and cookies.

The extra cost was worth it, as she and I were able to fully enjoy the course without having to stick solely to dipping fruit into our melted chocolate.

We spent about two hours at the restaurant.

Although I remember previous dinners at The Melting Pot taking a long time, it only took us about two hours to move through cheese, salad, dinner, and dessert courses.

The experience felt perfectly timed: We could take as long as we wanted for each course but were readily ushered into the next one as soon as we were ready.

Our dinner at The Melting Pot felt worth the price, but we'd focus on cheese and chocolate next time.

Our meal cost $268 before tax and tip — a price that felt worth it for the food, service, atmosphere, and overall fondue-making experience.

For me, The Melting Pot's unique dining experience alone made this meal worth the cost. There aren't many restaurants where you can dine out while having the feeling of cooking together as a family.

My husband and I loved having our kids at the dinner table with us for a few hours. We had easy conversations as we all busied ourselves with picking up food and dipping it in cheese, broth, and chocolate.

Next time, though, we might save money by skipping the entrée course and only ordering cheese and chocolate fondue.

They were the highlights of our meal, and we'd have been plenty full with just those two courses. I'd still order that amazing spinach salad to go with them, though.

• Casual-dining chains understand the importance of embracing football season to attract customers.
• We tried chicken tenders from five chains to determine the best option for game day.
• Chili's and Buffalo Wild Wings impressed us the most with their crispy and customizable tenders.

Football season is here, and restaurant chains are stepping up to serve crowd-pleasing tailgate favorites.

In a new series, "Tailgate Taste-off," Business Insider is pitting some of these chains against each other to determine which makes the best versions of popular game-day foods.

If you're wondering what to order the next time you catch the game at a local Chili's or Buffalo Wild Wings, or if you're uncertain which chain offers the best value when ordering in, this guide will help you make the most of your football season dining experience.

Chain restaurants know the value of embracing football season to attract customers, from offering family-style and game-night combos during football season to leaning into commercial advertising during televised games.

For the first edition of "Tailgate Taste-off," we ranked chicken tenders from five chain restaurants — Applebee's, Chili's, Buffalo Wild Wings, TGI Fridays, and Wingstop — based on taste and value.

Here's how the five chain restaurants' chicken tenders ranked, from our least to most favorite.

My least favorite chicken tenders came from Wingstop.

Founded in 1994 in Garland, Texas, Wingstop has grown a cult following over the years for its chicken offerings, from its wings to its recently released chicken sandwich, which has caught the attention of Gen-Z consumers.

Wingstop does have dine-in options, but I felt it was more authentic to the Wingstop experience to order in.

I ordered four crispy tenders plain with a side of honey mustard sauce from my local Wingstop in Brooklyn, New York, for $10.39, excluding tax and fees.

The chicken tenders had a thick layer of seasoned breading on the outside.

I ordered these tenders plain, but they also come in all of the chain's signature sauces, from lemon pepper to Buffalo. I liked the ability to customize my tenders according to my preferences.

The tenders paired well with the honey mustard, which was creamy and had an ideal level of tanginess. I also thought the classic breading had a nice amount of flavor and peppery seasoning.

However, I was disappointed by the amount of meat inside.

Each Wingstop tender had a different amount of juicy chicken meat, with some pieces being thicker and more satisfying than others. While the flavor was spot-on, I found myself wishing there was a bit more meat in each bite to really hit the mark.

These tenders would make a decent addition to a spread of wings from Wingstop, especially for folks turned off by spicy food.

Next time I order from Wingstop, I'll probably stick to their specialty: their wings.

Business Insider reached out to Wingstop for comment but did not receive a response before publication.

Applebee's, the NFL's official grill and bar partner, came in fourth with its crispy breaded chicken tenders.

I visited my local Applebee's in Brooklyn, New York, to try these chicken tenders.

Applebee's partnered with the NFL this year as the league's official grill and bar partner after finding a major crossover between their customer base and NFL viewers.

"We know our guests are football fans," Applebee's chief marketing officer Joel Yashinsky told Business Insider, adding, "This season, we've been all in on the NFL."

Data collected by Applebee's in April showed that 64% of its guests were interested in or very interested in the NFL, and about 34% had watched the NFL in the last 12 months, which informed the chain's football season strategy, Yashinsky said.

While the chain is consistently lauded for its boneless wings, I haven't heard much about its chicken tenders.

At my location, the chicken tender plate typically costs $12.99, excluding tax and fees. However, I ordered them as part of the chain's "2 for $2X" deal, which also allowed me to get an order of boneless wings and a classic cheeseburger.

I was pretty disappointed by the size of these chicken tenders.

They were really crispy, but slightly on the smaller side. The serving size of the honey mustard was also smaller than the Wingstop version.

However, unlike Wingstop, these chicken tenders came with a generous serving of fries, which I thought made this meal an excellent value.

These chicken tenders had a surprisingly good amount of chicken meat inside.

I appreciated the seasoning on the breading, which was a highlight since this chain serves its tenders plain without coating them in signature sauces like those available at Wingstop, Chili's, or Buffalo Wild Wings.

My only complaint, other than the smaller size of the chicken tenders, was just how fried they were. I thought the breading was a little overcooked, to the point that it left a dry, almost burned taste in my mouth.

However, this could have just been the batch I received and not standard for all Applebee's chicken tenders. I reached out to Applebee's about my experience, but they did not respond before publication.

Landing squarely in the middle of the ranking was TGI Fridays.

TGI Fridays has run into financial trouble in recent months. In early November, the chain filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and Reuters reported that it was facing $37 million in debt, which led to some underperforming restaurants closing.

The TGI Fridays location I visited in Massachusetts is locally franchised and owned, so it's not included in the larger brand's bankruptcy filing.

I ordered a four-piece tender meal for $15.69, excluding tax and fees. It came with a side — I opted for mac and cheese — and honey mustard.

These chicken tenders were crispy without being over-fried.

They still had the signature finger shape I typically look for in a chicken tender.

This honey-mustard dipping sauce was less creamy compared to the other chains I tried. However, I was mostly judging the chicken tenders on their own, not the sauces they came with.

The chicken tenders were juicy, with each bite revealing tender, flavorful meat that fell apart.

I was impressed by these chicken tenders and would definitely order them again the next time I visit TGI Fridays for game day or just a standard dinner out.

However, I thought the breading was just slightly too thick and underseasoned to rank them higher than the top two chains.

Business Insider reached out to TGI Fridays for comment but did not receive a response before publication.

Chili's served my second-favorite chain-restaurant chicken tenders.

Chili's has been killing the game lately — with traffic and sales on the upswing leading up to football season, the chain is arguably in a league of its own.

The chain told BI in April that a return to commercial advertising has been a major part of the brand's efforts to increase brand awareness over the past couple of years. This includes during sports seasons. Sports Business Journal reported that in 2023, Chili's spent 38% of its TV advertising budget on live NFL action during games.

Value has also been a focus for the chain in the past year. It has expanded its "3 For Me" menu and offers happy-hour beers starting at $3.

"We're focused on creating a lively, social atmosphere that makes Chili's a great spot to watch the game," Chili's chief marketing officer George Felix told BI.

"Of course, we understand that some people prefer to watch the game from the comfort of home, which is why we also offer everyday favorites and party platters for takeout and delivery," he added.

I ordered a four-count of Chicken Crispers for $14.99, excluding tax and fees. The meal also included fries, mac and cheese, and two sauces.

This was my first time ordering Chili's plain chicken crispers.

The tenders are available in a variety of flavors, such as Nashville Hot, Honey Chipotle, Buffalo Ranch, barbecue, and Buffalo.

I paired my chicken tenders with ranch and honey mustard and was impressed by the creaminess and flavor of both sauces. However, the chicken tenders really hit it out of the park.

They were perfectly crispy, and the breading had a good amount of seasoning to give it flavor.

It was peppery, slightly salty, and just crispy enough to not overpower the chicken meat inside. Plus, for the price, you also get a lot of food.

While I'd probably opt for smothering these chicken tenders in a signature sauce next time, they also hold up on their own with their crispy breading and succulent chicken meat.

The best chain-restaurant chicken tenders came from Buffalo Wild Wings.

Buffalo Wild Wings was founded in 1982 in Columbus, Ohio, by Jim Disbrow and Scott Lowery, who started the restaurant with the goal of bringing authentic Buffalo-style chicken wings to the area.

The chain has since expanded to over 1,200 locations and offers 21 different sauce options, including the chain's signature Buffalo sauce, for its classic bone-in wings, boneless wings, and tenders.

A five-count of the chain's hand-breaded tenders with no sauce or dry rub and fries typically costs $17.99, excluding tax and fees.

However, Buffalo Wild Wings was running a promotion that allowed me to order 15 boneless wings, five tenders, ranch or blue cheese dipping sauces, and fries for $19.99, so I chose that deal instead.

The first thing I noticed about BWW's chicken tenders was the crispy, crunchy texture.

These chicken tenders had tiny pieces of fried breading that enhanced the texture of each bite and paired well with the tangy and fresh ranch dipping sauce provided.

The chicken tenders themselves were well-seasoned and sizable — they were probably the largest chicken tenders I tried, length-wise, and also the thickest.

The breading had the most distinctive flavor out of all the tenders I tried.

The chicken was extremely tender and shreddable, which stood out to me.

The chicken meat inside was moist and high-quality, in my opinion. These tenders from Buffalo Wild Wings also tasted the most homemade to me, which I attributed to the flaky, hand-breaded coating.

The crispy breading added a satisfying crunch without being too thick, complementing the tender, juicy chicken inside. Every bite struck the perfect balance, making these feel less like a mass-produced product from a chain restaurant and more like something prepared fresh in a home kitchen.

All of the chicken tenders I tried had something tasty to offer for game-day and tailgating season. But in the end, Buffalo Wild Wings was the real MVP.