|
|
|
You can get e-magazine links on WhatsApp. Click here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Building multiple brands while maintaining distinct culinary identities
|
|
Monday, 09 February, 2026, 15 : 00 PM [IST]
|
|
Chef Vijay Pandey
|
The restaurant industry nowadays is almost unrecognisable compared to a decade ago. Customers are more adventurous, more knowledgeable, and much less loyal to one type of cuisine. They effortlessly switch from comfort food to trying new things, from indulgence to restraint. For the staff, this has made multi-brand kitchens less of an exception and more of a norm.
However, the real issue is not the scale. It is the concept. Operating multiple food brands simultaneously poses a simple but challenging question: how can you expand without making everything taste, look, and feel excellent? The solution is, on the one hand, a long way from when the first dishes are cooked, on the other hand, it is before the menus are planned. Every cooking style should have a distinct character. More than a marketing slogan, it should be an internal recognition of the thing that the food stands for. Did they base it on nostalgia and heritage or on a new interpretation? Is it supposed to be big and luxurious or light and every day? These decisions silently determine all the other choices that follow.
Once the basis is set, it sets up natural limits. One can easily figure out what fits and what doesn't. In an environment with multiple brands, such clarity is vital. Differentiation disappears and cuisines start overlapping in very subtle but yet very harmful ways, if clarity is missing. As a brand grows, the temptation to simplify it is inevitable. Less ingredients, less techniques, less variations. Some simplification is needed for consistency, but if you go too far, you end up with food that is technically fine but emotionally dull.
Each cuisine has its own rhythm and structure. The way spices are layered, how the heat level goes up and down, how the texture always changes these are not elements that can be swapped. Together they make a culinary language. Keeping your roots when scaling means honouring this language rather than cutting it out as if for convenience.
Meanwhile, being true to one's roots does not mean stopping time. Cuisines have always changed along with their location, the people and situations involved. The really significant thing is intention. Development that is basically understood and accepted both internally and externally feels natural. Change that is purely driven by efficiency is usually not.
People often blame systems for killing creativity but actually, good systems create the opposite situation. They establish consistency in the places that really matter and provide freedom for creativity to concentrate on its focal points.
In a multi-brand scenario, only the processes should be standardised, not the flavours. Safety protocols, sourcing standards, cooking methods, and quality checks are the kinds of things that each of the brands should be able to rely on and repeat. In the same framework of this shared foundation, each brand must have its own flavour logic and its own set of standards.
Humans are the key factor that holds everything together. Recipes can be written down, but character comes from the decisions made every day. Training, therefore, has to be more than just the operational aspect. The teams need to grasp the reason for a dish and be able to identify factors that might compromise it. If cooks and chefs are persuaded to take on the role of a caretaker rather than an operator, then accountability will be a natural behaviour. Instead of being a concept, identity becomes a reality expressed in the dish.
Innovation also involves a measure of restraint. In a multi-brand environment, one can easily mistake movement for progress. Not all trends are suitable for all cuisines, and not every new idea necessarily improves the existing one. Innovation is most effective when it deepens identity rather than diverts from it.
Scale gives access to data patterns of behaviour, preferences, and repetition. This information is valuable, but it also has its boundaries. Figures can reveal what is going on, but not always why. Culinary judgment continues to be essential. A dish that is successful for a short time but eventually loses the trust of customers is hardly worth keeping. Taste continues to be the ultimate criterion. It is direct, sincere, and hard to dispute. Today leaders have to strike a balance between insight and instinct, and between efficiency and intent.
Food brands are, at their best, cultural expressions. They influence how people experience cuisines and often become the points of reference for what that food means to them. When identity is regarded not as something to be sacrificed for the sake of optimisation but rather as something to be maintained, scale becomes sustainable. Different brands can coexist and grow, each being distinct and credible, without compromising their sense of purpose.
The issue is not about choosing between efficiency and authenticity. It is about constructing systems, teams, and habits where both can coexist and where every brand, regardless of its size, can contribute its unique voice.
(The author is corporate chef at Rebel Foods)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|