logo
Why chicken is the latest battleground in fast food

Why chicken is the latest battleground in fast food

CNN03-05-2025

In 1995, Chick-fil-A planted a billboard in Georgia adorned with three cows holding up signs declaring 'Eat Mor Chikin.' That image later became a hallmark of its advertising campaign persuading people to ditch their burgers for tenders.
Three decades later, the adage is perhaps truer than ever.
Chicken-centric chains, notably Raising Cane's and Wingstop, were the strongest performers among all restaurant categories in 2024. Sales for both chains jumped by double-digits, far out-pacing their burger rivals, according to a new report from consumer research firm Circana.
The insatiable hunger for chicken, mainly nuggets and tenders, has forced McDonald's, Taco Bell and Wendy's to adjust their offerings and invest more heavily in the category as consumers, well, eat mor chikin.
'Patrons still love burgers, but chicken is really versatile and younger consumers have a stronger preference for chicken,' said David Henkes, senior principal at consumer research firm Technomic.
In particular, younger eaters think there's a 'health halo' with chicken, perceiving it as healthier compared to red meat — despite the poultry being coated and fried, he told CNN. Beyond that, chicken tenders and nuggets are easier to eat on-the-go compared to sandwiches and are more tailorable to specific tastes.
Tenders and nuggets 'can be customized with sauces in ways perhaps are a bit more limited with sandwiches,' Henkes added, with people often sharing their preferred sauces on TikTok.
Wingstop, which is finding success thanks to its focus on poultry, said its research shows that Gen Z loves experimenting with sauces — the company sells about a dozen varieties — and prefers chicken over red meat.
The chain recently relaunched its tenders with a crispier coating, another Gen Z preference, so 'it fits perfectly with the Wingstop demographic,' which trends younger than its competitors, Mark Christenson, Wingstop's chief revenue officer told CNN.
Still, chicken has a 'universal appeal,' Christenson said. 'Protein is obviously very big right now and I haven't met anybody who didn't like chicken.'
Another factor in the rising popularity for tenders and nuggets is the texture. A recent survey conducted by consulting firm Menu Matters shows that 'crispy' and 'crunchy' descriptions rank high in eaters' preferences, explaining why the chains now market it as 'crispy chicken' rather than 'fried.'
'Not using 'fried' may be less about the fact that it's bad or consumers are backlashing against it, but rather fried doesn't offer any emotive element for the consumer other than potentially a feeling of guilt,' Maeve Webster, president of Menu Matters, told CNN.
In fact, mentions of 'crispy chicken' on fast food menus in the United States has grown 16% since 2021, according to Datassential Menu Trends. The research firm also discovered that the number of new crispy chicken items has doubled in the first quarter of this year compared to the same time period in 2024.
Like Taco Bell, which is trying to corner the 'crispy chicken' sector with an assortment of poultry offerings. The chain recently brought back its nuggets for a second trial run, and if it's as successful as last time, it plans to add more chicken items next year, possibly including strips.
'We're getting into the chicken game. We're serious about it and we want to make sure that we do it our way,' Taylor Montgomery, Taco Bell's chief marketing officer, told CNN. 'We want to make sure that we make Taco Bell a destination for crispy chicken.'
Although the hysteria around the Popeye's chicken sandwich from five years ago has dissipated, the item still holds a big place on menus. In the past few weeks, Wendy's has added a new Cajun-inspired version, Chick-fil-A brought back a barbecue option and Zaxbys is giving it a remix with new quesadillas stuffed with tenders.
'Sandwiches aren't dead by any means, but the innovation and excitement has seemingly moved over to tenders and nuggets,' Technomic's Henkes concluded.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

2 key findings on Democrats' brand problem from the new CNN poll
2 key findings on Democrats' brand problem from the new CNN poll

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

2 key findings on Democrats' brand problem from the new CNN poll

There's new evidence that the Democratic Party's reputation is in a bad place. That doesn't mean the party is doomed, electorally speaking. There's plenty of reason to doubt that, given lots of history and its performance in the 2025 elections thus far — but it is a complicating factor for the party's path forward. And a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS provides insights into the party's problems. It's worth a breakdown. The poll, which was released Sunday, asked a battery of questions about how people view both parties. Perhaps most striking was that people were more likely to view the Republicans than Democrats as the party with strong leaders (40% to 16%) and even the 'party of change' (32% to 25%). Neither party won close to a majority in either category. But the former is notable because there is such a gulf between the two parties. And the latter is notable because the party that's out of power is usually viewed as the party of change. Not this time. So what can we read into these findings? The 'strong leaders' question might be the most troublesome finding for Democrats. Only about 1 in 6 Americans said Democrats have stronger leaders than Republicans. As remarkably, only 39% of Democrats said that. We've seen hints of this in previous polls. A March CNN poll found about 3 in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters couldn't name a single leader who best reflected the party's core values. An AP-NORC poll last month showed just 35% of Democrats said they were at least 'somewhat' optimistic about the future of their party, compared with 55% of Republicans for their party. This might not seem too surprising. We just said goodbye to a Democratic president (Joe Biden) who was a diminished figure even when he was still in office. And the Democratic nominee who replaced him (Kamala Harris) wasn't exactly viewed as the future of the party when she took over the ticket in the 2024 race — and then lost. But there was a time when Democrats were at a somewhat similar crossroads, and the numbers weren't as dismal. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll asked the same question in 2006 — after John Kerry's unsuccessful emergence as Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate — and found a smaller 14-point advantage for Republicans. Back then, 63% of Democrats said their party had stronger leaders than Republicans — 24 points higher than today. One reason for the difference is that the 2025 and 2006 polls asked the question in a slightly different way, partly because one was conducted entirely by phone and the other mostly online. Today's poll gave people an explicit 'neither' option, which the 2006 poll didn't (though some people volunteered that option back then). Nearly half of Democrats in the new poll (48%) chose that option. That's still a remarkable finding. Combined with the 13% of Democrats who said Republicans have the stronger leaders, that's 6 in 10 Democrats this year who don't think their side has stronger leaders than a party led by a president whom a huge majority of them revile. The other notable finding is on which party is the 'party of change.' Americans chose Republicans, 32% to 25%. That's not a big gap, but it is counterintuitive given Republicans swept the House, Senate and White House last fall. Historically speaking, it's almost always the party that's out of power that's viewed as the party of change. Before the 2006 election, the same CNN-ORC poll mentioned above showed Democrats had a huge, 56% to 29% lead on this measure. Then, as now, Democrats didn't hold the presidency or either chamber of Congress. But the numbers are very different today. Not only do Democrats trail on this measure, but only a slight majority of Democrats themselves — 51% — say their party is the party of change. And only 18% of independents say that. It's likely this is, in part, about Democrats' failure to position themselves as change agents, but also about what President Donald Trump is doing — and about people not necessarily seeing 'change' as a good thing. However you feel about the changes Trump is making, there is no question he is pushing lots of them. You see that in his and the Department of Government Efficiency's rapid overhaul of the federal government and in Trump's historic efforts to expand executive power — in ways that are often being halted by the courts because they go too far, too fast. It's possible that people just see Trump changing lots of things, whether for good or ill in their opinions, so the 'party of change' mantle doesn't mean what it usually does. We already saw during the 2024 campaign that people's definitions of 'change' were somewhat jumbled by unusual circumstances — i.e., Harris replacing Biden, and a former president running as the challenger. But it's also pretty clear that Democrats have failed to make themselves into a viable and attractive alternative to the party in power. The new CNN poll also asked which party people viewed as the 'party that can get things done.' Republicans led on this by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, 36% to 19%. Only 49% of Democrats and 11% of independents picked the Democratic Party as the more formidable one. There's also, of course, Republicans' big edge on the 'strong leaders' question. None of this means Democrats are sunk in the 2026 elections — or anything close to it. History shows the party that doesn't hold the White House almost always wins midterm elections, in large part because they're viewed as a check on the president. Democrats and liberal candidates have also been doing well in special elections and other races held since the 2024 election. In other words, being not-Trump could be good enough to at least reclaim a very closely split House. But if the Democratic Party wants to run up the score in 2026 and really chart a path for the 2028 election, it has some real work to do on its branding.

2 key findings on Democrats' brand problem from the new CNN poll
2 key findings on Democrats' brand problem from the new CNN poll

CNN

time2 hours ago

  • CNN

2 key findings on Democrats' brand problem from the new CNN poll

There's new evidence that the Democratic Party's reputation is in a bad place. That doesn't mean the party is doomed, electorally speaking. There's plenty of reason to doubt that, given lots of history and its performance in the 2025 elections thus far — but it is a complicating factor for the party's path forward. And a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS provides insights into the party's problems. It's worth a breakdown. The poll, which was released Sunday, asked a battery of questions about how people view both parties. Perhaps most striking was that people were more likely to view the Republicans than Democrats as the party with strong leaders (40% to 16%) and even the 'party of change' (32% to 25%). Neither party won close to a majority in either category. But the former is notable because there is such a gulf between the two parties. And the latter is notable because the party that's out of power is usually viewed as the party of change. Not this time. So what can we read into these findings? The 'strong leaders' question might be the most troublesome finding for Democrats. Only about 1 in 6 Americans said Democrats have stronger leaders than Republicans. As remarkably, only 39% of Democrats said that. We've seen hints of this in previous polls. A March CNN poll found about 3 in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters couldn't name a single leader who best reflected the party's core values. An AP-NORC poll last month showed just 35% of Democrats said they were at least 'somewhat' optimistic about the future of their party, compared with 55% of Republicans for their party. This might not seem too surprising. We just said goodbye to a Democratic president (Joe Biden) who was a diminished figure even when he was still in office. And the Democratic nominee who replaced him (Kamala Harris) wasn't exactly viewed as the future of the party when she took over the ticket in the 2024 race — and then lost. But there was a time when Democrats were at a somewhat similar crossroads, and the numbers weren't as dismal. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll asked the same question in 2006 — after John Kerry's unsuccessful emergence as Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate — and found a smaller 14-point advantage for Republicans. Back then, 63% of Democrats said their party had stronger leaders than Republicans — 24 points higher than today. One reason for the difference is that the 2025 and 2006 polls asked the question in a slightly different way, partly because one was conducted entirely by phone and the other mostly online. Today's poll gave people an explicit 'neither' option, which the 2006 poll didn't (though some people volunteered that option back then). Nearly half of Democrats in the new poll (48%) chose that option. That's still a remarkable finding. Combined with the 13% of Democrats who said Republicans have the stronger leaders, that's 6 in 10 Democrats this year who don't think their side has stronger leaders than a party led by a president whom a huge majority of them revile. The other notable finding is on which party is the 'party of change.' Americans chose Republicans, 32% to 25%. That's not a big gap, but it is counterintuitive given Republicans swept the House, Senate and White House last fall. Historically speaking, it's almost always the party that's out of power that's viewed as the party of change. Before the 2006 election, the same CNN-ORC poll mentioned above showed Democrats had a huge, 56% to 29% lead on this measure. Then, as now, Democrats didn't hold the presidency or either chamber of Congress. But the numbers are very different today. Not only do Democrats trail on this measure, but only a slight majority of Democrats themselves — 51% — say their party is the party of change. And only 18% of independents say that. It's likely this is, in part, about Democrats' failure to position themselves as change agents, but also about what President Donald Trump is doing — and about people not necessarily seeing 'change' as a good thing. However you feel about the changes Trump is making, there is no question he is pushing lots of them. You see that in his and the Department of Government Efficiency's rapid overhaul of the federal government and in Trump's historic efforts to expand executive power — in ways that are often being halted by the courts because they go too far, too fast. It's possible that people just see Trump changing lots of things, whether for good or ill in their opinions, so the 'party of change' mantle doesn't mean what it usually does. We already saw during the 2024 campaign that people's definitions of 'change' were somewhat jumbled by unusual circumstances — i.e., Harris replacing Biden, and a former president running as the challenger. But it's also pretty clear that Democrats have failed to make themselves into a viable and attractive alternative to the party in power. The new CNN poll also asked which party people viewed as the 'party that can get things done.' Republicans led on this by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, 36% to 19%. Only 49% of Democrats and 11% of independents picked the Democratic Party as the more formidable one. There's also, of course, Republicans' big edge on the 'strong leaders' question. None of this means Democrats are sunk in the 2026 elections — or anything close to it. History shows the party that doesn't hold the White House almost always wins midterm elections, in large part because they're viewed as a check on the president. Democrats and liberal candidates have also been doing well in special elections and other races held since the 2024 election. In other words, being not-Trump could be good enough to at least reclaim a very closely split House. But if the Democratic Party wants to run up the score in 2026 and really chart a path for the 2028 election, it has some real work to do on its branding.

CNN reporter Alex Marquardt exits after network lost $5M defamation case against Navy veteran
CNN reporter Alex Marquardt exits after network lost $5M defamation case against Navy veteran

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

CNN reporter Alex Marquardt exits after network lost $5M defamation case against Navy veteran

A CNN correspondent at the center of a nefarious report that cost the network at least $5 million for defaming a US Navy veteran is leaving the struggling network. Chief national security correspondent Alex Marquardt landed in hot water earlier this year after a Florida jury ruled that he defamed Zachary Young in 2021 by claiming the former soldier illegally exploited Afghans during the Biden administration's disastrous withdrawal from the country. Sources told former CNN media correspondent Oliver Darcy that Marquardt was fired — citing 'editorial differences' with his higher-ups at the network. Marquardt — who worked at CNN for eight years and recently spearheaded its coverage of the Russian-Ukraine war — did not mention the legal debacle or the reason for his exit in announcing the departure Monday. 'Tough to say goodbye but it's been an honor to work among the very best in the business,' Marquardt wrote in a post on X. 'Profound thank you to my comrades on the National Security team & the phenomenal teammates I've worked with in the US and abroad.' CNN declined to comment. In January, a Florida jury awarded Young $5 million after deliberating less than nine hours following a two-week trial in Panama City state court. An undisclosed settlement was reached to resolve the matter before jurors calculated punitive damages, which could've added millions more to the total award. The verdict added fuel to President Trump's fiery criticism that CNN is biased. During the trial, it was revealed that the ratings-challenged network ignored evidence that countered its narrative. In a damning message to a CNN colleague, Marquardt wrote that CNN is going to 'nail this Zach Young motherf—er,' according to court records. A producer said that the plaintiff had a 'punchable face.' The segment, which aired on Jake Tapper's program 'The Lead,' described the US government's evacuation of citizens. It went on to say Afghans 'trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demand of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.' The segment then turned to Marquardt, who described the situation of a man located in the US whose family remained in Afghanistan and said that he found people on Facebook charging $10,000 per person to be evacuated. Marquardt stated, 'according to Afghans and activists we've spoken with, desperate Afghans are now being exploited' because of the 'exorbitant' and 'impossible' amounts charged, pointing to a LinkedIn post from Young advertising his services and texts between him and people inquiring about his business. CNN stood by Marquardt after the verdict. 'We remain proud of our journalists and are 100% committed to strong, fearless and fair-minded reporting at CNN, though we will of course take what useful lessons we can from this case,' the network said at the time. Marquardt previously worked as a foreign correspondent for ABC News based in Moscow, Jerusalem, Beirut and London. He has won multiple honors, including Emmy and Edward R. Murrow awards for an undercover investigation of underage sex trafficking in the Philippines.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store