KFC Announces Major Change to Menu
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) has announced a significant update to its U.S. menu with the introduction of fried pickles alongside a nationwide promotion offering free buckets of chicken to eligible customers.
The campaign, branded as the "Kentucky Fried Comeback," aims to reestablish KFC's position in the highly competitive fast-food chicken market.
"They're trying to win back the American customer by offering an incentive to get them back in the store," one expert told Newsweek.
Why It Matters
KFC has faced increased competition from other chicken-focused fast-food brands, prompting operational improvements and menu innovations.
The menu changes follow KFC's efforts to address customer feedback on quality and taste and signal a renewed focus on flavor and trend-forward offerings.
The KFC corporate logo is displayed on a sign at their restaurant on January 31, 2025 in San Diego, California.
The KFC corporate logo is displayed on a sign at their restaurant on January 31, 2025 in San Diego, California.What to Know
KFC's new fried pickles can be ordered as a side and are paired with the brand's Comeback Sauce or ranch dressing, KFC said in its release. Additionally, the company reintroduced its $7 Fill Ups meal deals.
To further entice customers, KFC is providing a free bucket of eight pieces of chicken or tenders to customers who spend at least $15 through the KFC app or website and are members of the KFC Rewards program.
The company is urging customers to "try our chicken, tell us what you think and help co-create this comeback."
"We're well aware of the latest fried chicken rankings, and I'm fired up to launch a bold Kentucky Fried Comeback and remind America exactly who we are," Catherine Tan-Gillespie, President of KFC U.S., said in the company's press release. "If people can give their ex a million second chances, I hope our fans can give us one."
KFC's "Comeback Era" leverages nostalgia by putting Colonel Sanders front and center in advertising, now with a more serious expression reflecting the company's "relentless pursuit of the best fried chicken."
"KFC is seeing a drop in revenue, with a reported 1 percent decline in same-store sales in the U.S. from the year prior," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "They're trying to win back the American customer by offering an incentive to get them back in the store."
Newsweek reached out to KFC for comment via email.
WalletHub writer and analyst Chip Lupo said the 'Kentucky Fried Comeback' couldn't come at a more critical time for the brand.
With fast food prices rising 47 percent over the past decade, many Americans, particularly in states like Kentucky, Mississippi, and New Mexico are feeling the financial strain of what used to be an affordable indulgence, he said.
In Kentucky alone, residents spend nearly 0.5 percent of their monthly income on just one fast-food meal for the family, according to WalletHub.
What People Are Saying
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "This strategy isn't new. They want people to sign up for their rewards program to access a "free chicken bucket" deal. This is nothing more than classic data mining in my opinion. Companies have finally caught on that customer data is the new gold."
Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "KFC's decision to give out 'free' buckets of chicken should come as no surprise. The fast food chain has fallen behind in market share in recent years to some of its other chicken-centric rivals that continue to add locations and gain customers. The deal is unlike some of the others we've seen fast food chains employ, as it doesn't deal with just a cheaper price but rather has a spending threshold of $15 customers must reach before the free bucket is earned."
WalletHub writer and analyst Chip Lupo told Newsweek: "This comeback strategy, including free buckets and $7 meal deals, is a smart response to growing price sensitivity and KFC's sagging market share. These kinds of promotions can help re-establish value for consumers who are increasingly questioning whether the speed and convenience of fast food are still worth the cost."
What Happens Next
The free chicken bucket offer is available for a limited time to customers using KFC's digital ordering channels. Fried pickles will only be available while supplies last.
The campaign is part of broader efforts to enhance menu variety, modernize restaurant technology, and attract a new generation of customers, as the brand continues to focus on trend-forward menu innovations and operational improvements.
But analysts say some of the push could also be in the data rewards programs that customers can gain from once they join.
"They're betting customers will jump at the freebie and join the rewards program," Thompson said. "Once they have your data, they can study your habits, tailor their ads, and figure out exactly how to pull you back in. This is the game now. Fast food isn't just about food anymore—it's about tracking behavior."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
9 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Backyard barbecues beware: Beef prices are soaring in the US
OMAHA, Neb. — Anyone firing up the grill this summer already knows hamburger patties and steaks are expensive, but the latest numbers show prices have climbed to record highs. And experts say consumers shouldn't expect much relief soon either. The average price of a pound of ground beef rose to $6.12 in June, up nearly 12% from a year ago, according to U.S. government data. The average price of all uncooked beef steaks rose 8% to $11.49 per pound. But this is not a recent phenomenon. Beef prices have been steadily rising over the past 20 years because the supply of cattle remains tight while beef remains popular. In fact, the U.S. cattle herd has been steadily shrinking for decades. As of Jan. 1, the U.S. had 86.7 million cattle and calves, down 8% from the most recent peak in 2019. That is the lowest number of cattle since 1951, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Many factors including drought and cattle prices have contributed to that decline. And now the emergence of a pesky parasite in Mexico and the prospect of widespread tariffs may further reduce supply and raise prices. Here's a look at what's causing the price of beef to rise: The American beef industry has gotten better at breeding larger animals, so ranchers can provide the same amount of beef with fewer cattle, said David Anderson, a livestock economist at Texas A&M. Then in 2020, a three-year drought began that dried out pastures and raised the cost of feed for cattle, according to the American Farm Bureau. Drought has continued to be a problem across the West since then, and the price of feed has put more pressure on ranchers who already operate on slim profit margins. In response, many farmers slaughtered more female cattle than usual, which helped beef supplies in the short term but lowered the size of future herds. Lower cattle supplies has raised prices. In recent years cattle prices have soared, so that now animals are selling for thousands of dollars apiece. Recent prices show cattle selling for more than $230 per hundredweight, or hundred pounds. Those higher prices give ranchers more incentive to sell cows now to capture profits instead of hanging onto them for breeding given that prices in the years ahead may decrease, Anderson said. 'For them, the balance is, 'Do I sell that animal now and take this record high check?' Or 'do I keep her to realize her returns over her productive life when she's having calves?'' Anderson said. 'And so it's this balancing act and so far the side that's been winning is to sell her and get the check.' The emergence of a flesh-eating pest in cattle herds in Mexico has put extra pressure on supply because officials cut off all imports of cattle from south of the border last year. Some 4% of the cattle the U.S. feeds to slaughter for beef comes from Mexico. The pest is the New World screwworm fly, and female flies lay eggs in wounds on warm-blooded animals. The larvae that hatch are unusual among flies for feeding on live flesh and fluids instead of dead material. American officials worry that if the fly reaches Texas, its flesh-eating maggots could cause large economic losses as they did decades ago before the U.S. eradicated the pest. Agricultural economist Bernt Nelson with the Farm Bureau said the loss of that many cattle is putting additional pressure on supply that is helping drive prices higher. President Donald Trump's tariffs have yet to have a major impact on beef prices but they could be another factor that drives prices higher because the U.S. imports more than 4 million pounds of beef every year. Much of what is imported is lean beef trimmings that meatpackers mix with fattier beef produced in the U.S. to produce the varieties of ground beef that domestic consumers want. Much of that lean beef comes from Australia and New Zealand that have only seen a 10% tariff, but some of it comes from Brazil where Trump has threatened tariffs as high as 50%. If the tariffs remain in place long-term, meat processors will have to pay higher prices on imported lean beef. It wouldn't be easy for U.S. producers to replace because the country's system is geared toward producing fattier beef known for marbled steaks. It's the height of grilling season and demand in the U.S. for beef remains strong, which Kansas State agricultural economist Glynn Tonsor said will help keep prices higher. If prices remain this high, shoppers will likely start to buy more hamburger meat and fewer steaks, but that doesn't appear to be happening broadly yet — and people also don't seem to be buying chicken or pork instead of beef. Nelson said that recently the drought has eased — allowing pasture conditions to improve — and grain prices are down thanks to the drop in export demand for corn because of the tariffs. Those factors, combined with the high cattle prices might persuade more ranchers to keep their cows and breed them to expand the size of their herds. Even if ranchers decided to raise more cattle to help replace those imports, it would take at least two years to breed and raise them. And it wouldn't be clear if that is happening until later this fall when ranchers typically make those decisions. 'We've still got a lot of barriers in the way to grow this herd,' Nelson said. Just consider that a young farmer who wants to add 25 bred heifers to his herd has to be prepared to spend more than $100,000 at auction at a time when borrowing costs remain high. There is typically a seasonal decline in beef prices as grilling season slows down into the fall, but those price declines are likely to be modest.
New York Post
39 minutes ago
- New York Post
Behind the ‘boondoggle' of Gavin Newsom's high-speed rail dream
We're a long way from the transcontinental railroad. We built the iconic American infrastructure project in the 1860s in about six years, putting down 1,776 miles of track and blasting 15 tunnels through the Sierra Nevada mountains. Granted, working conditions back then didn't exactly meet OSHA standards. Advertisement Yet, if today's rules and practices applied, the project would have been stalled for years somewhere outside Sacramento, Calif., caught up in endless environmental lawsuits. The Golden State's emblematic, modern infrastructure project was supposed to be a high-speed rail link between its two largest cities. Advertisement Don't expect, though, to see the equivalent of the Golden Spike any time soon, or perhaps ever. The high-speed rail project has been agonizingly slow: After about 15 years of grinding delay and cost overruns, not one piece of track has been laid, a record of futility hard to match. California high-speed rail is the West Coast's answer to Boston's notorious Big Dig that took about a decade longer to build than anticipated at a much greater cost, although it was eventually completed. Advertisement Now, the Trump administration is cutting off $4 billion in federal funds for the project, arguing that it doesn't want to pour any more money into a boondoggle. The imagined bullet train was always a misfire. The idea of high-speed rail has a nearly erotic appeal to progressives, who love communal trains over individualized autos and think cars are destroying the planet whereas trains can save it. High-speed rail is to transit what windmills are to energy — an environmentally correct, futuristic technology that will always under-deliver. Advertisement California voters passed Proposition 1A getting the ball — if not any actual trains — rolling in 2008. The project was supposed to cost $33 billion and connect Los Angeles and San Francisco. What could go wrong? Well, everything. Bad decisions about where to build the tracks, complacent contractors, environmental and union rules— you name it. The initial, scaled-back line is now supposed to be completed by 2033, and even that is optimistic. Elon Musk might put a man on Mars before Gov. Gavin Newsom or one of his successors manages to get even a much less ambitious high-speed rail system underway. The current focus is a line between Merced (pop. 93,000) and Bakersfield (413,000). No offense to the good people of either of these places, but these aren't major metropolises. In Northeast terms, this is less a rail connection between New York City and Washington, DC, and more a connection between Newark, NJ, and Bridgeport, Conn. Advertisement Passenger estimates for the California system have always been absurd. The fantasy is that ridership will be double what it is now is in the Northeast corridor. But as Marc Joffe of the California Policy Center points out, population is much denser near Northeast stations, it's easier to get around cities in the Northeast on the way to or from the train, and a rail culture is much more embedded in the Northeast than car-centric California. As for reducing greenhouse emissions, the long-running project is itself a significant source of emissions and the benefit of fewer drivers in cars will be vitiated by the fact more and more people in California will be driving electric vehicles. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Advertisement The original estimated $33 billion cost is now $35 billion for just the scaled-back line, and more than $100 billion and counting for the whole shebang. There is no reason that the feds should pour good money after bad supporting a preposterous project that doesn't have any national significance. California governor Gavin Newsom — too embarrassed to admit failure or too drunk on visions of European-style rail — remains fully committed. Advertisement In a statement, he said Trump's defunding decision is a 'gift to China,' as if Beijing cares whether people get to Bakersfield by car, plane or high-speed rail. The project has already been a distressing object lesson in California's inability to build anything of consequence, and there's more where that came from. Twitter: @RichLowry
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Inside the Ukraine drone tech factories that can help the US military
KYIV, Ukraine — With the US and Ukraine discussing a 'mega deal' for Washington to purchase battle-tested drones from eastern Europe in exchange for American heavy weaponry, The Post got an exclusive look Friday at two Ukrainian companies that are developing the technology to blast Russian crafts out of the sky. 'In Ukraine, there is a phrase people have been using — that 'quantity' becomes 'quality,'' said Nomad Drones co-founder and CEO Andrii Fedorov. A single, highly advanced interceptor missile or rocket — such as those in America's Patriot air-defense systems, can cost between $100,000 and $250,000, according to Pentagon data. 3 Nomad Drones co-founder and CEO Andrii Fedorov with an interceptor drone in the company's Kyiv factory. Kostiantyn Yaremenko While those are effective for countering enemy missiles and other advanced air capabilities, they are not financially feasible to defend against Iranian-made, Russian-launched Shahed drones — which Moscow has deployed in large quantities against Ukraine due in part to their cost of under $10,000. Nomad Drones, and a second company that requested anonymity to avoid Russian targeting after having been struck multiple times, are in the business of making hundreds of thousands of small interceptor missiles and drones — that often are even less expensive than Shaheds. 'There is absolutely no sense to waste a $1 million weapon to shoot down a $50,000 Shahed,' Federov said. 'But if you have 20 drones, then the capacity costs you, say, $40,000 to shoot it down.' This affordability is especially critical in a war where Moscow sent more than 700 drones through the skies in a single night just last week. 'It's all about cost-effectiveness,' one of the second company's employees told The Post. 'The world is unfortunately becoming a more dangerous place every day. We do understand that even though Western technologies are so cool and modern — they are expensive at the same time. 'Obviously, we don't want anyone to fight and we want peace, but we live in the real world and there will be a need for relatively cheap yet effective solutions that potentially may be used by our Western allies and partners in their conflicts if they happen.' 3 Nomad Drones employees at work Friday. Caitlin Doornbos/NY Post The anonymous company is making approximately 3-foot-long missiles designed to stop enemy drones before they can reach their targets, which in the case of Russia's invasion often include civilian homes — and civilians themselves. 'These can save so many lives,' the employee said. Meanwhile, Nomad Drones and others in the field are producing tens of thousands of interceptor drones each month. These aircraft, which cost between $3,000 and $7,000 depending on their size, carry explosives that can be detonated remotely upon approach to an enemy vehicle to destroy it before it reaches a target. While the US has long had highly advanced and expensive precision drones developed for special forces to wipe out adversaries with pinpoint accuracy, the reality of modern warfare — with hundreds of drones being launched at the same time to overwhelm opponents — would make such reliance ruinously costly. 3 Drones are equipped with fiber-optic cables, allowing them to fly without getting jammed by radar. Caitlin Doornbos/NY Post The 'mega deal' discussed by the Trump administration and the Ukrainian government, which Kyiv President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed in an exclusive interview with The Post earlier this week, would provide not just drones, but technology to rapidly advance America's unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) capabilities. Such a deal could be transformative for the military and American national security, with officials and drone experts warning that US technology lags far behind Russia and China. 'The people of America need this technology, and you need to have it in your arsenal,' Zelensky said Wednesday. 'I think this is really a mega deal, a win-win, as they say.'
