They also scammed the operators. It was an Uber-esque ploy.

What actually got sold was an uber-esque scam: these kitchens were rented to tiny operators who, instead of opening their own restaurants, opened in a ghost kitchen facility. I read an in-depth article that showcased the extremely high failure rate of the operators. They were sold indiscriminately to anyone who could be suckered into doing it, with no thought of whether the "restaurant" was likely to succeed. The parallels to driving for Uber are obvious.

I actually suspect that ghost kitchens would work fine, but it would be one company operating them and carefully selecting products that sell and controlling for quality.

▲

tart-lemonade 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It always felt like a weird business model to me. If you lack a physical presence, the only thing you have over a decent prepared section at the grocery store is variety (and freshness, at least in theory). You don't even have convenience on your side since Instacart exists, and because the lower rent was predicated on leasing in more remote areas, the food is even less likely to be warm by the time it arrives than if you got groceries delivered.

And for the providers of the ghost kitchens, while they are selling a shovel of sorts, their bet was there would be a continuing market for their shovels. That space isn't likely to be used for any other restaurants because of the lack of foot traffic, but it also isn't likely to be used in large-scale food production because the facilities usually aren't large enough to be re-tooled for anything beyond catering companies. Commercial kitchen build-outs are not cheap, so investing in large scale small kitchen spaces is a risky bet.

▲

Fire-Dragon-DoL 19 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean,they could get better bags that keep the food warm,or a "heating spot" downtown to heat the food,but it's prepared in the kitchen? I don't see how it's impossible,just nobody willing to invest in the Business model that's not a scam

	▲	ElevenLathe 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think inequality is part of the story here too, even with restaurants generally. 60 years ago, it was reasonable to save some money at your union factory job to open a restaurant. If it didn't work out, you could go back to the plant and finish out your 30 years and retire with a full pension. Now, I'm a top decile professional and would basically have to bet my whole net worth, including my retirement money, if I wanted to open a real restaurant. No wonder chain restaurants rule the day and the only thing interesting happening in food in most of the country are in food trucks. Ghost kitchens, at least a few years ago, seemed like a logical next step after the food truck: an even less capital-intensive way to get into the food service business. The same forces will push someone who has this ambition to go the ghost kitchen route. Hopefully failing this way instead of with a fully staffed restaurant has saved at least one family from total ruin (downgraded instead to partial ruin).

▲

snowwrestler 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yup, this is a crucial detail that the article sort of assumes the reader already knows: the companies being discussed are not actually cooking the food. They are ghost kitchen facility providers. Like WeWork for takeout/delivery cooks. And, surprise: they don’t print money any better than WeWork did.

▲

kelnos 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> They also scammed the operators. It was an Uber-esque ploy.

Should be no surprise. CloudKitchens, even, was founded by none other than Travis Kalanick.