Has foodservice become more complex than it was 10 years ago?

5 hours ago
5 min read

Foodservice has always been a difficult market to read. Its fragmented structure, the diversity of outlets and the variety of consumption moments have always made it less standardised than retail. But over the past decade, this complexity seems to have changed in nature.

The market is not only larger or more competitive. It has become more fluid, more hybrid and harder to interpret through traditional frameworks. The boundaries between channels are becoming blurred, consumption behaviours are diversifying, outlet models are evolving faster, and brands have to make decisions in an environment where there are more signals, but not always greater clarity.

The question, therefore, is not only whether foodservice has become more complex. It is about understanding why this complexity has intensified, and what it changes in the way the market is managed.

More hybrid outlet formats

Ten years ago, outlet categories often seemed easier to distinguish. A restaurant, a bar, a café, a hotel or a quick-service outlet followed relatively identifiable logics. Today, these boundaries are much more porous.

A café can become a quick lunch destination, a bar can develop a genuine food offer, a bakery can compete with on-premise dining, a restaurant can generate part of its business through delivery, and a fast casual concept can offer an experience close to traditional dining. Outlets are no longer defined solely by their historical category, but by a combination of moments, uses, customer profiles and services.

This hybridisation makes the market harder to read. Classifying an outlet under a single typology is no longer always enough to understand its real role in consumption. Two outlets belonging to the same category can have very different dynamics depending on their positioning, customer base, location or revenue mix.

For brands, this evolution makes traditional segmentation less sufficient. It is no longer just about knowing whether a product performs in bars or restaurants, but in which consumption contexts it truly finds its place.

More fragmented consumption moments

The complexity of foodservice also comes from the evolution of consumption moments. Structured meals still exist, but they now coexist with more flexible usages: snacking, coffee breaks, afterwork occasions, on-the-go consumption, delivery, brunch, aperitif-style meals, late meals and event-driven occasions.

This fragmentation of moments makes analysis more difficult. A category may not grow evenly throughout the day, but gain ground in very specific time slots. A drink may perform better during afterwork than at lunch. A premium product may develop in certain evening contexts, while remaining marginal at other moments.

It is therefore less relevant to look only at the overall sales of an outlet or category. To understand performance, sales need to be linked to consumption moments, outlet profiles and associated usages.

Growth is no longer read only through the “where”. It is also read through the “when” and the “why”.

Foodservice consumers who are harder to group together

Consumer behaviours have also evolved. Expectations are more diverse, trade-offs are more numerous and consumption occasions are more personalised. Consumers may look for affordability at certain moments, premium options at others, convenience during the week, experience in the evening, or discovery in more social contexts.

This diversity makes consumer segmentation less obvious. The same individual can adopt very different behaviours depending on the moment, the place, the group they are with or the level of involvement in the occasion. In foodservice, context strongly influences choice.

For brands, this means that reading the market through targets or consumer profiles is no longer always enough. They need to understand how behaviours translate concretely within outlets, at receipt level, through products sold, consumption pairings and local dynamics.

This evolution reinforces the need for insights that are closer to transactional reality. Intentions and stated trends remain useful, but they must be complemented by the observation of what is actually purchased.

Activations that are harder to measure

Foodservice has also become more complex because activation levers have multiplied. Brands are no longer simply aiming to be present in outlets; they want to activate specific moments, target segments, develop experiences, test local mechanics, strengthen visibility and measure the impact on sales.

This sophistication makes measurement more demanding. It is no longer enough to know whether an activation was deployed, how many outlets were reached or how many materials were installed. Brands need to understand whether the operation actually generated consumption, in which outlets, on which products, at what times and with what impact compared with similar outlets.

This requirement is all the stronger as budgets are increasingly challenged. Teams need to justify their choices, arbitrate between different mechanics and prove that the actions carried out create value.

In this context, a reading that is too aggregated or too delayed is no longer enough. Activations need to be monitored, compared and adjusted with greater precision.

More data, but not always more clarity

Paradoxically, foodservice now generates more data than it did ten years ago. POS systems are more digitalised, platforms have multiplied, reservation, delivery, management and payment tools produce more signals, and brands have access to more sources than before.

But more data does not automatically mean more clarity.

Information remains scattered, heterogeneous and difficult to harmonise. Systems do not always speak the same language, product labels vary from one outlet to another, categories are not always structured in a comparable way, and the available data does not always reflect real consumption.

This is one of the major paradoxes of today’s market: brands have access to more signals, but they may still lack a reliable, comparable and actionable view.

Complexity is therefore no longer only linked to a lack of data. It also comes from the difficulty of turning this data into useful insights.

A complexity that requires a new way of reading the market

Foodservice is probably more complex than it was ten years ago, but above all because the old frameworks are less adapted to today’s reality. Categories are more hybrid, moments more fragmented, behaviours more contextual, activations more sophisticated and data more dispersed.

For brands, this deeply changes the way the market is managed. It is no longer enough to track overall volumes, national averages or trends by channel. Brands need to be able to go down to a more granular level, compare the right outlets with one another, connect sales to consumption contexts and distinguish the signals that are truly actionable.

This evolution does not make the market impossible to understand. It simply requires it to be measured differently.

In a more fragmented environment, the value of insights depends on their ability to bring brands closer to the reality on the ground. Understanding what sells, where, when, in which outlets and through which levers becomes essential to making better decisions.

Foodservice has not only become more complex. It has become too dynamic to be managed through an overly general reading.