Talk:Culver's

message: Culver's may pay more than other chains but I believe they all pay more than minimum wage. Could someone clarify this? --Gbleem 03:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum wage 

message: I tagged this article with . Sections "Butterburgers and other specialties" and "Miscellaneous" read like advertisements.--Húsönd 19:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like an advertisement 

message: Someone needs to explain to me how Culvers is fast casual or else I'm deleting the category again.  Here, I'll quote our own wikipedia article on fast casual dining: "promises a somewhat higher quality of food and atmosphere. It is a growing concept to fill the space between fast-food and casual dining, and often offers at least limited table service. The typical cost per guest is in the $6-$10 range."
First of all, Culvers is not $6-10.  Second, as is already noted in this talk page, Culvers only uses marginally higher quality than typical fast food places.  It is in no way as high quality or fresh as any of the fast casual restaurants I've been to on that list.  It serves almost all the same food as typical fast food restaurants: fries, burgers, chicken sandwiches, basic salads.  At its best it is like higher quality fast food places like Arby's.  In-N-Out Burger has even higher quality burgers and produce, but still gets the fast food category because it operates like a fast food restaurant. Maxterpiece 14:07, 17 October 2006 EDT
===Definitely fast casual===
That's not even my personal opinion, that's industry definition. The quality of food is significantly higher than that of a food restaurant, it offers "at least limited table service", and "the typical cost per guest is in the $6-$10 range." I have never paid more than $10 for a meal at Culver's and you would be hard-pressed to do so. Whether or not In-N-Out's burgers and produce are "even higher quality" is a subjective and debatable point on which I would disagree with you. However, as far as classification goes, as you yourself noted, In-N-Out "operates like a fast food restaurant" thus leading it be labeled as fast food. Lmeister 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maxterpiece- nothing that you have said here is verifiable fact. If anything, it goes against the common understanding of Culver's standing among similar eateries. Do you have any factual basis for saying that Culver's is "not any healthier, is significantly less fresh than any other fast casual restaurant" or even that "In-N-Out Burger has even higher quality burgers and produce"? This all sounds incredibly subjective, and unless you have some sort of objective evidence to refute Culver's proper classification as fast casual, there is no reason why it should be altered. Lmeister 16:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The general move in the industry seems to point towards "fast casual" for all but the largest franchises ... I would concur, for example, with those named just above this statement.  The delivery to tables and, perhaps, more importantly, pick up from tables (I couldn't find a trash receptacle in the store I tested except the "straw paper hole" at the drink station) definitely speak a difference between this chain and certain others.  However, I can certainly see how things such as regional trends, socio-economic status, and other factors can make "fast casual" a very subjective term (e.g. is "fast casual" Applebees, Logan's Roadhouse, Cheddar's etc. for the >$250K/year crowd?).  And, as "fast casual" is marketing lingo, it's generally applied by whomever wants to use it, and left to the potential customer to decode.  I don't think that "fast casual" in this article is worth arguing about.  The real question is the overall advertising slant of the article, which, as someone who works in advertising, is fairly evident at first read, and less than completely encyclopedic IMHO. Renaissongsman (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  And, FWIW, ButterBurgers are tasty, regardless of how you market them. ;-) Renaissongsman (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Not fast casual

message: That's not even my personal opinion, that's industry definition. The quality of food is significantly higher than that of a food restaurant, it offers "at least limited table service", and "the typical cost per guest is in the $6-$10 range." I have never paid more than $10 for a meal at Culver's and you would be hard-pressed to do so. Whether or not In-N-Out's burgers and produce are "even higher quality" is a subjective and debatable point on which I would disagree with you. However, as far as classification goes, as you yourself noted, In-N-Out "operates like a fast food restaurant" thus leading it be labeled as fast food. Lmeister 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitely fast casual

message: I disagree that the quality, other than the burgers, is any higher than other fast food restaurants.  It also serves the same fare in the same style as 95% of normal fast food restaurants, but perhaps because Culver's has chosen to define itself as fast casual because it doesn't have the same stigmas as fast food, you find that other websites refer to it as fast casual.  Fast casual restaurants are seen as cleaner, healthier, fresher which is a nice thing to be attached to if you are a growing chain.  Culver's may be a bit cleaner and a bit fresher, but it is not any healthier, is significantly less fresh than any other fast casual restaurant.  I don't believe Culver's is fast casual, but I concede that wikipedia is no place to argue about what a company declares itself to be.  Perhaps a note in the article could say how it differs from all other fast casual restaurants?
:Maxterpiece- nothing that you have said here is verifiable fact. If anything, it goes against the common understanding of Culver's standing among similar eateries. Do you have any factual basis for saying that Culver's is "not any healthier, is significantly less fresh than any other fast casual restaurant" or even that "In-N-Out Burger has even higher quality burgers and produce"? This all sounds incredibly subjective, and unless you have some sort of objective evidence to refute Culver's proper classification as fast casual, there is no reason why it should be altered. Lmeister 16:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The general move in the industry seems to point towards "fast casual" for all but the largest franchises ... I would concur, for example, with those named just above this statement.  The delivery to tables and, perhaps, more importantly, pick up from tables (I couldn't find a trash receptacle in the store I tested except the "straw paper hole" at the drink station) definitely speak a difference between this chain and certain others.  However, I can certainly see how things such as regional trends, socio-economic status, and other factors can make "fast casual" a very subjective term (e.g. is "fast casual" Applebees, Logan's Roadhouse, Cheddar's etc. for the >$250K/year crowd?).  And, as "fast casual" is marketing lingo, it's generally applied by whomever wants to use it, and left to the potential customer to decode.  I don't think that "fast casual" in this article is worth arguing about.  The real question is the overall advertising slant of the article, which, as someone who works in advertising, is fairly evident at first read, and less than completely encyclopedic IMHO. Renaissongsman (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  And, FWIW, ButterBurgers are tasty, regardless of how you market them. ;-) Renaissongsman (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: are you sure?

message: The following has been removed from the article. If you have more information about a particular entry, please place it in the appropriate section of the article with a proper citation.
==Store Design==
*Blue roofs
*Bining room in the front
*Kitchen in the back
==Corporate Culture==
*16-week training, in-system awards
===Fast Food vs. Fast Casual===
===Customer Service===
*mission statement
*Wi-Fi
===Community Involvement===
*small-town roots, family orientation
*Day of Warmth
==Advertising==
*pins
*trademarks, slogans (Lemonande with a spoon"
*promotions
*famous billboards- "Butterburger Country"
==Recognition ==
*awards, etc.
*popularity, “Cult Following”
*national write-ups (WSJ, NY Times, etc.)
==Trivia==

*20-year anniversary
*Blue Spoon Café
Dav2008 20:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Random phrases removed from article

message: The "history" section at the bottom of the article seems redundant to the top of the article.  I think that information should be integrated into the body of the franchise history as well as perhaps include a little more in the introductory paragraph.--Ctsamurai (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "history section" 

message: I know this mascot. Anyone has an image??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:441:100:6090:140B:8FE7:3B89:FB50 (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scoopie 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: In the picture outlining the number of Culver's branches per state under the 'Beyond the Midwest' sub-heading on the 'History' tab, I find the years confusing as the picture itself says 'Last updated: 12 September 2018' whilst the caption says 'Number of Culver's per state, as of December 2019'. I personally believe that the caption for the image should be changed to read 'Number of Culver's per state, as of September 2018'. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing years on picture under the 'Beyond the Midwest' sub-heading on the 'History' tab 

message: The history section needs expansion. It especially needs to say more about developments in the last 10 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section needs expansion