By so successful, he means top of the list.
Oh, so all those years they weren't at the top...their system was not successful?
When they fall to second place...we can say their system is inferior?
Don't try to equivocate yourself or him out of his silly comment.
Huh?
I think the primary reason they were not at the top of the list, is because they were not on the list, and the reason they were not on the list is simply because they were a small chain, that few people heard of.
We're talking about a company that only has 2,000 locations compared to McDonald's 14,000 locations, or Pizza Hut 7,000 locations, or Dairy Queen 6,000 locations.
I would wager that even if you had the best customer service on the planet, that if only 1 in 10 people surveyed even knew your store existed, that it would be hard to get on the list.
For a store with so few locations relative to the long established chains, to end up top of the list, is a rather massive accomplishment from any perspective.
Also, I find that amusing, that you think the fact they were not top of the list before, means their system doesn't work.
That's like me weighting 400 lbs, and going on a diet. The following month I lose 10 lbs. In 2 years, I end up weighting 160 lbs.
Then you come along and say "Yeah well your diet plan really wasn't all that good. Just look at all the months you were still way overweight!".
No one who supports Chick-fil-a believes that 50 years ago, they woke up one morning with this management style, and policies in place. The system of operations they have today, is the culmination of decades of trial and error.
To suggest that where they are today as a company, is not the result of the current policies and operational standards they have in place today, is beyond ridiculous. It's idiotic and foolish.