Domino's Pizza Case

Domino’s Pizza Case

Ana Sori

[Institutional Affiliation(s)]

Author Note

Domino’s turnaround in the market

How Domi-No became Domi-Yes

At the end of March 2010, Domino's Pizza did the seemly impossible. They succeeded in bouncing back in the market after hitting rock bottom. This turnabout was the result of the efforts of the management as they took the criticism of their old and loyal customers seriously and decided to overhaul the system. Today, Domino's is the second-largest pizza chain in the world. In this paper, we will try to answer two questions: First, how did they drift away from their customers in the first place. And Second, how did they manage to gain insight into their customer's needs and bounce back in the market.

To answer the first question, the pizza restaurant market is not what it was at the start of Domino's chain back in the 1960s. In the beginning, the biggest competitor to the pizza chain was only Pizza Hut, while others were far behind when it came to market share. There is a possibility that Domino's might have gone comfortable with their spot in the market and stopped the process of innovation and improvement in their product as the time progressed.

Another factor that promoted the gap between domino's and its customers is the existence of independent pizza stores that operate at a local level. Almost three out of every five pizza stores are an independent one CITATION RRo16 \l 1033 (R. Roy, 2016). This is mainly because Americans love pizza and they are very sensitive about its quality and taste. These local shops might not pose a threat to the bigger pizza chains like Domino’s, yet they still have some advantages over the giants like their proximity to the customer, their use of fresh ingredients, and the flexible prices at these shops that the owner of these shops can negotiate with the customer as do not answer to a corporate management structure.

The last and the most important factor that facilitated the drift between Domino's and its customers is the lack of innovation in the recipe. The comments like their "pizza tasted like cardboard" show that the chain did not spend enough on the Research Division that is responsible for greater new recipes that help any organization to cement their customer base and hold on to their interests. This practice is also evident by the fact that many restaurants offer "healthier alternatives" in their menu that is offered by other restaurants as per FDA requirements.

In answer to the second question asked in the introductory paragraph, Domino’s suspected that something was wrong as their upper management experienced a dip in their sales. Therefore, they managed to start focus groups made up of loyal customers that gave their honest, and rather harsh, feedback that the organization thankfully took seriously. An important point that should be noted here that Domino's admitted that they were wrong and made a serious effort to resolve the grievances of their customer as their priority.

The next step that was taken by the management is the campaign called "Pizza Turnaround", where they when to their customer and convinced them to come back CITATION Piz09 \l 1033 (Pizza, 2009). The campaign is still going around strong and we often see social media posts as well as advertisements in the mass media about there campaign. They have started a website for the people who they feel have left them because their “pizza was void of flavor”.

Therefore, it is clear to everyone that Domino's intents to stay strong and continue their run in the food industry. With their current innovative business strategies, there should be no doubt that the organization has the potential to challenge Pizza Hut for the title of the largest pizza restaurant chain in the world.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY Pizza, D. (Director). (2009). Domino's® Pizza Turnaround [Motion Picture]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH5R56jILag

R. Roy, L. H.-F. (2016, May 14). Description, measurement, and evaluation of tertiary-education food environments. British Journal of Nutrition, 115(9), 1598-1606. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114516000568