SailorGoon posted...
There is a strong correlation between profitability and quality unless we're talking fast food in which case the product is not the food itself but the convenience.
In order for something to sell well, especially in these unprecedented times of inflation, it needs to be good. I did a brief stint in Laos and yeah good pho, was all around, but nothing there tasted like something I couldn't get in Westminster. I have to admit my bias as I grew up in a cultural melting pot with plenty of 1st gen immigrants. Let me refrain my point. It's not the place that matters, it's the people.
Mans has never been to Westminster.
What are you talking about?
I simply dont agree that something has to be good to be profitable. I dont think well ever see eye to eye on that front.
However, I do agree that its the people that matter. However, youre generally going to find the largest amount of people who are passionate about any given cuisine in the place that cuisine originated from. There might be a few exceptions here and there. Thats why Id say that the average is better there. It follows logically and is consistent with my experiences.
Revelation34 posted...
I'm talking about the best of the best vs the best of the best.
Youd be wrong. If, for example, you were to look into the best Indian restaurants in the world, youd find that theres just as high a concentration of serious contenders in London as there are in India, and that Paris and New York each have strong contenders too.