<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<topic>
  <id>663323</id>
  <title>Seattle Copycats: Is this the Strategy for Success?</title>
  <published_at>Thu Oct 29 12:19:30 -0700 2009</published_at>
  <post_count>1</post_count>
  <board>
    <id>4</id>
    <name>Pacific Northwest</name>
  </board>
  <posts>
    <post>
      <post>
        <level>0</level>
        <id>5140841</id>
        <content>The Seattle Weekly today has a post about recently announced openings and closures, a regular feature.  It announced the shuttering of "Pho Lotus", a place on Broadway I'd never heard of, after only 3 months of business. http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/voracious/2009/10/openings_closings_6.php

What I found more interesting is that, at the outset of Lotus' ill-fated voyage, there were already 3 other pho specialists on the same street: Pho 900, Pho Cyclo, and Than Bros.  There were also two additional Viet restos on Broadway, Le Bambou and Dalat, which may or may not serve pho.

The post further reports that a new BBQ place will open in the CD, where R&amp;L already exists and Mama Willie's sits lakeside in nearby Madrona, not to mention any BBQ available in southern Cap. Hill.  

I was reminded that there is a confounding trend in town of duplication of very similar restaurants within neighborhoods, and even within the same commercial strip.  Other examples are the several Thai restaurants--offering essentially identical menus--on or near Leary/36th in Fremont, the three Carribean restaurants in Columbia City, and the many pizzerias in Ballard.

(I view differently a place like the ID, where Viet and HK style places are legion .  Many cities with established, dense ethnic immigrant enclaves feature common restaurants within these areas.  The same cannot be said of the examples above: it's not as if Capitol Hill or Fremont are home to long-standing SE Asian communities)

What gives?  Is this dogged lack of originality really the path to success?  Granted, any restaurant venture is fraught with financial peril, but isn't just replicating a viable concern that is already established an even more foolhardy mission?  I could see if the copycat was attempting to one-up the original in pure quantity, or trying something new, but many of these 'cats are just following a formula while standing in the shadow of the incumbent.  Am I missing something?</content>
        <published_at>Thu Oct 29 12:19:30 -0700 2009</published_at>
        <parent_id></parent_id>
        <user>
          <id>19098</id>
          <name>equinoise</name>
        </user>
      </post>
    </post>
    <post>
      <level>1</level>
      <id>5141609</id>
      <content>It's like Hollywood - movie scripts that have already been proven to be successful will get the funding first. It just makes business sense to minimize risk. I imagine the same goes with the restaurant business. This is why chains thrive.

To drive you even more nuts - take a look at the Ave in the U-District some time. Pho Than Bros. has, as I suspect, opened up a few "ghost" restaurants under different names within 3 minutes of walking between each other. Though it doesn't take long to realize they have very similar menus (plus or minus a few items like goi cuon) and are essentially the same restaurants owned by the same people. It's like the Starbucks business approach to pho.</content>
      <published_at>Thu Oct 29 17:18:06 -0700 2009</published_at>
      <parent_id>5140841</parent_id>
      <user>
        <id>108835</id>
        <name>HungWeiLo</name>
      </user>
    </post>
  </posts>
</topic>
