More Americans dine in at restaurants than take their food to-go

More consumers are eating meals in restaurants than taking their food to-go and eating elsewhere, according to The NPD Group. Why are more people dining in?

Joanne Ciccarello/The Christian Science Monitor/File
Patrons sit down and start eating their meals at the Davenport Maple Farm restaurant in Shelburne, Mass. The number of consumers dining in at restaurants has increased 1 percent since last year, according to The NPD Group.

Consumers increasingly are taking a seat and eating meals in restaurants rather than picking up takeout or drive-thru meals to eat elsewhere, according to new data from The NPD Group.

On-premises dining has increased for three consecutive years and continues to grow while off-premises dining has been flat or down. For the 12 months ended in May 2015, dine-in visits were up 1 percent and takeout/drive-thru visits remained unchanged. For calendar year 2014, dine-in traffic was up 2 percent and off-premises visits declined by 1 percent. Sit-down dining represented $223.4 billion in restaurant sales last year; takeout/drive-thru sales were $200.3 billion or 47.3 percent of the total, NPD reports.

Quick-service restaurants have driven the shift in favor of in-restaurant dining: on-premises meals were up 5 percent at QSRs in 2015 and are up 3 percent for the 12 months ended in May. Takeout/drive-thru visits were flat for that period. This tilt in favor of sit-down dining may be the result of the continued growth of fast-casual concepts.

On-premises diners spend more than takeout/drive-thru diners, NPD says, but they are not necessarily loyal to their chosen restaurants. Just 34 percent of in-restaurant diners call themselves loyal, while 24 percent say they aren’t loyal at all and 42 percent are in the middle (somewhat loyal). But dine-in customers are in your restaurant: Give them reasons to return.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.