At this past week’s ICR Conference in Orlando, cautious optimism floated beneath the current of two, inflation-strapped years of challenges. Traffic remains soft. Operators are competing for fewer visits among weary consumers. But solutions around “value” are starting to emerge, whether it’s $5 deals pulsed into the marketplace at the top of QSR, or working on loyalty, engagement, and service for those clarifying the “worth” of higher prices.
According to Revenue Management Solutions, the quick-service industry ended the year with a traffic increase of 0.8 percent in Q4, year-over-year, namely thanks to October and November. December traffic (weather, holiday trends) came in at negative 1.3 percent compared to 2023, which was also in the red.


The lead point, though, is net sales stayed positive at 4 percent, with price hikes stabilizing. Average check rose 3.4 percent, down from double-digits in year’s past.
As was noted throughout ICR presentations, many QSRs recognize today they’ve just about tapped the price ceiling. So they’ve started to turn to other options to satisfy a cautious consumer. RMS advised operators to focus on digital, where average checks can be 25 percent higher, consider the “in-crowd” (one case being the popularity of specialty beverages and other Gen Z trends, like KFC’s Saucy Concept), and shift mindset to quality/quantity for the price.
NCR Voyix Corporation found, through survey data, 36 percent of consumers in the past six months dined at a fast-casual restaurant more than five times. Comparatively, 26 percent did so at a full-service spot. Fifty-five percent added they cut back on delivery due to inflation, either ordering less in general (38 percent) or trying less expensive restaurants (17 percent).
Price impacted tipping as well—52 percent of guests said they now tip less or only at sit-down meals. What tech would those same diners like to see more of from restaurants? Self-service kiosks (39 percent), table-top ordering (37 percent), and digital payments (32 percent) rounded out the top three.
William Blair, in its ninth edition of The Dining Download, which quarterly examines restaurant trends through polls, found respondents spent, on average, $195 at restaurants monthly, down 10 percent, year-over-year. There was a decline for those with annual incomes less than $150,000 partly offset by growth among more affluent people. By age, restaurant spending slid across all cohorts—albeit more resilient for those under 30, with only a 1 percent drop.



The percent of polled consumers spending less than last year climbed to 42 percent, up 6 points sequentially. That mark was a new survey high after being largely range-bound over the past two years. William Blair credited increased trade down to less expensive menu items.
That said, though, there were some encouraging signs in this latest iteration for frequency and larger check management behavior, with “visiting less often” and “ordering fewer items” both decreasing sequentially as reasons cited by those spending less.
Put in plain terms, customers could be considering a ramp up as 2025 gets underway (past the Southern weather challenges). But how will they find the restaurants they return to?
The answer to that question has become the new definition of “value” in a quick-service sector where segment lines have narrowed. Some casual-dining (Chili’s) chains have gone as far as building campaigns around the similarity in price to brands like McDonald’s, but with service models that give them an edge.
MORE: Check out October’s survey results
The percent of respondents “eating less than last year” in William Blair’s report outpaced those eating “more often” for nearly two-thirds of brands in its coverage area. The most unfavorable gap came at The Cheesecake Factory, Chipotle, Dave & Buster’s, and Starbucks (this was the case last survey as well).
Still, every brand William Blair tracked experienced a sequential increase in “eating more often,” led by improvement at Starbucks, Dutch Bros, Shake Shack, CAVA, and Chipotle. That aforementioned “cautious optimism” appears to be cracking through, although there’s still plenty of ground to make up after multiple years of deteriorating guest counts.

Starbucks posting 8.3 percent on the line (as well as being the only negative result in “eating less often”) was a notable shift, even if it also reflected just how deep the value hole had become.

Starbucks in the last survey, back in October, was on the opposite side—the very bottom at negative 2.5 percent for “eating more often.” The brand, of course, has made several changes in CEO Brian Niccol’s tenure thus far—new algorithms that enable on-time mobile-order handoffs and order tracking/timing to store decor to the launch of Cortados, removing upcharges for non-dairy milk, and refocusing messaging on coffee-centric campaigns. But much of Starbucks’ reroute lies ahead, especially when it comes to Siren upgrades and other operational improvements (more on that here).
When asked why they were eating less at specific restaurant brands, “inconvenient” topped the list (cited for more than 70 percent of brands) followed by “too expensive” (Starbucks, Chipotle, and BJ’s Restaurants). Sweetgreen was the only concept where “lack of interesting new menu items” clocked as the top reason for visiting less often.
Again, focusing on Starbucks, this list is pretty similar to October, when it broke down as follows:
- Too expensive: 52 percent
- Inconvenient: 17 percent
- Spending on other things/restaurants: 12 percent
- Lack of interesting new menu items: 7 percent
- Health/diet: 5 percent
- Slow speed of service: zero percent
Going by the data, Starbucks’ greatest whitespace seems to center on making its experience and product feel worthy of its cost. Naturally, it’s an easier-said-than-done concept and one Niccol addressed right from the jump of his appointment. Atop that task list is getting throughput times under four minutes; making the customization process more transparent from a pricing perspective; properly staffing units to create calmer and more efficient restaurants; bringing condiment bars back; and fostering a more enjoyable café experience. “Our customers find worth through quality, consistency, and a sense of value,” Niccol said earlier. For a brand that’s never been “cheap,” getting back to being an “affordable luxury” will be a holistic effort that’s the furthest thing from discounting or a race to the bottom. There’s a reason Niccol has called the effort “Back to Starbucks.”
Customers in William Blair’s survey continued to rank the value proposition of restaurants as modestly above average at 3.4 (5 being the highest). It’s a factor on the rise. Portillo’s, Kura Sushi, The Cheesecake Factory, and BJ’s provided this survey’s largest gains. On an absolute basis, Portillo’s topped in value perception.
That reality, in of itself, is intriguing when you consider the Chicago-born cult-favorite has elected to avoid discounting during this stretch. CEO Michael Osanloo said in Q3 Portillo’s wouldn’t be “going on sale” to counter competitors’ promotions. Portillo’s stayed relatively cautious on price and has held on quality and operational efforts. The chain took zero action in Q3. Its price benefit was about 4 percent in Q4

But from a wider sentiment angle, Osanloo said, Portillo’s elected to absorb traffic blows rather than chase short-term wins over the past two years. “Portillo’s does not play the discount game,” he said in Q3. “We compete on great everyday pricing for our craveable food and abundant portions, and we know this approach will benefit us in the medium and long term.”
Portillo’s at ICR had one of the buzzier presentations, thanks in large part to its decision to load digital wallets onto customer’s loyalty plates instead of an app. Yet the brand also presented a blueprint to regaining traffic and growing long-term through efforts such as smaller store designs, kiosks, and improved speed of service in the drive-thru instead of value-focused menu launches.
It’s clear there will be more than one approach for quick service to win back traffic in 2025.
Other trends in behavior
Despite all the hurdles, engagement remains healthy. William Blair’s survey showed 87 percent of respondents ate at restaurants “at least a few” times a month in December (9 percent said they do so daily). Those figures were 80 and 79 percent in September and June, respectively. Yet, to an earlier observation, consumers estimated their monthly spending was down 10 percent, year-over-year, and 42 percent added they were spending less relative to the prior year.
Again, it’s the ICR-revealed cocktail of hesitant traffic patterns and hints of improving trends.
Given U.S. Census Bureau data had shown stable consumer spending through December, William Blair said, part of this step-down could be explained by a shift in its demographic poll this past quarter. In that, there are some learnings, too. More younger guests responded this survey, showing, perhaps, that group of diners has proven more apt to return to restaurants, even if they’re managing checks when they do so.
The percentage of guests ordering food either a few times a week or daily was 54 percent for respondents under 60, compared with only 42 percent over 60. There was also visible correlation to income level—56 percent of people earning north of $100,000 said they ordered food a few times a week or daily versus those earnings less than $50,000, where only 45 percent claimed the same.
Reported restaurant interactions held up as well. William Blair data found an estimated 11 interactions per month this quarter, 13 percent higher than December 2023. Off-premises dining accounted for 73 percent of those (compared to 68 percent last year), as opposed to 27 percent interactions for dine-in. That continues, the company said, to support the headline the pandemic structurally changed consumer behavior—48 percent of respondents said ordering for delivery and/or takeout increased since 2019. Only 18 percent said it slid backward.
Before the pandemic, roughly 48 percent of respondents said their frequency of ordering delivery and takeout increased.
This quarter, the reported frequency of drive-thru interactions exceeded all other forms of dining, including takeout, in-person, and delivery. It’s an observation that pulsed last survey as well. The why behind it, William Blair suggested, could be customers are headed to the lane to save on added costs. Pricing pressures, through delivery fees and otherwise, are leading diners to the drive-thru.

People said they go to the drive-thru 3.3 days per month, surpassing in-person (2.9 days), takeout (2.7), and delivery (1.8).
Tracking another development, 70 percent of respondents said they were comfortable using in-store kiosks to order/pay for food in a restaurant. It signaled a notable rise from 53 percent who said the same in William Blair’s previous survey (you could potentially thank the demographic shift for that as well). Nonetheless, the company said, it continues to believe kiosks could serve as a meaningful lever to drive more digital interactions over time—and toward that higher check. One example: Yum! noted in Q3 that kiosk usage supported a 3-point climb in digital sales mix, which now totals more than 55 percent of the group’s sales.
“That said,” William Blair added, “open-ended respondent commentary continues to convey mixed sentiment among consumers; even of those respondents who are comfortable with kiosk usage, some still prefer human interaction. Regardless, results continue to indicate changing consumer behaviors, with increased comfort with digital channels like self-service kiosks and QR codes.”
While at a restaurant, 43 percent said they were not comfortable using QR codes over a mobile device in a restaurant, and when analyzing the data by age, only 33 percent under the age of 60 were not comfortable deploying QR codes in a restaurant setting, as opposed to 74 percent of respondents over the age of 60 who were not comfortable with QR codes.
“While some individuals continue to express preference for physical menus since the rapid proliferation of QR codes post-pandemic, respondents seem to be increasingly comfortable with the prevalence and functionality of these ordering channels,” William Blair continued.
This quarter, the company also asked a new question around acceptance of service and credit charge surcharges—an approach that’s gained adoption for restaurants trying not to take additional price but needing to balance rising costs. Roughly 75 percent of respondents said they find these fees unreasonable. However, only 31 percent said they would avoid restaurants that administer them. Another 13 percent said fees were small/reasonable and 12 percent hadn’t noticed them.
The most prevalent ordering method overall was directly through a restaurant’s website or digital app—39 percent of respondents for takeout and 34 percent for delivery. This was the first quarter in William Blair’s reports where these digital options overtook in-person and over-the-phone orders as the most popular method (used by about 37 percent of respondents for takeout and 21 percent for delivery). Third-party marketplaces followed, where usage was materially higher for delivery (33 percent of December orders) than takeout (12 percent). That, however, was an expected result.
Excluding respondents over the age of 60, the percentage ordering in person or over the phone was 33 percent for takeout (down from 37 percent last quarter) and 15 percent for delivery (a decrease from 26 percent). When ordering for delivery, respondents under the age of 60 were more likely to order directly through a third-party marketplace (38 percent) or a restaurant’s website/app (34 percent). “We continue to observe demographic shifts and expect growing comfort with digital channels will drive an ongoing mix-shift toward digital ordering by consumers,” William Blair said.
For those going the takeout and delivery route, convenience and time constraints remained the top considerations, at 71 percent, followed by preference not to cook (28 percent).
Usage of loyalty programs also surfaced as a vital trigger to traffic growth. It jumped notably from the last survey, with 63 percent of December respondents saying they actively participate in one—a sizable lift from 55, 52, and 47 percent in September, June, and March, respectively.
Nearly 70 percent (69) of respondents under 60 reported using them. Additionally, 63 percent said loyalty platforms were either somewhat or highly influential in their decision of where to eat. That was a major hike from past surveys, too.
The proportion of consumers who said loyalty programs did not influence their decision on where to dine showed a continued and clear downward trend.