America names favorite fast food chain and it's humiliation for McDonald's for second straight year
The Georgia-based chicken chain came first in a study analyzing customer satisfaction at more than 20 quick-service restaurants.
McDonald's, meanwhile, came in last place for the second straight year.
Chick-fil-A scored 83 out of 100 in the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), which takes into account factors such as food quality, order accuracy, and helpfulness of staff.
Beaten also by fast food empires like Arby's and Starbucks, McDonald's scored just 70 out of 100.
The nation's largest fast-food chain, which has over 14,000 locations worldwide, was also dead last on the 2024 ranking with a score of 71.
It comes as McDonald's is facing a sales slump as inflation-weary Americans pull back on spending.
It's also in the process of shuttering all CosMc's restaurants just 18 months after launching.
Unlike McDonald's, Chick-fil-A has been dominating financially, surpassing $22 billion in annual revenue last year.
Panda Express added three points to its satisfaction index, jumping up to a second-place tie with Starbucks, the coffee chain that's undergone massive changes to recover from a dip in sales.
Like Starbucks, McDonald's has been changing policies and adding to menu items with hopes of making a financial comeback.
A dip in sales at McDonald's hit in 2020 during the pandemic, and performance has been up and down at the chain ever since.
An E. Coli outbreak connected to Quarter Pounders, which resulted in one death and dozens of ill customers, hit stocks hard last year.
Customer frustration at higher prices also hasn't made the chain's situation any better.
Its latest blow was the decision to end its partnership with Krispy Kreme after pausing its donut rollout in May.
However, the chain is continuing to look for ways to improve customer satisfaction and traffic, including its highly anticipated return of snack wraps.
Beaten also by fast food empires like Arby's and Starbucks, McDonald's scored just 70 out of 100 in the customer satisfaction index
McDonald's has also extended its operating hours at select locations and plans to open 900 new restaurants by the end of 2027.
'By expanding their workforce, the corporation will be driving investment and setting the standard for industry growth, whether as a launch pad for a different career or as a ladder for internal achievements,' President Donald Trump's Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer said earlier this year.
Other restaurant chains that ranked above McDonald's on this year's index have also suffered setbacks in the last several years.
Burger King landed in 12th place with 77 points despite a recent North American sales drop and major franchisee's Consolidated Burger Holdings bankruptcy filing.
Chipotle's number 15 ranking came after suffering its first sales slump in five years, tying with Subway, a popular sandwich chain that closed over 1,645 locations in two years.
Rounding up the top 20 is Jack in the Box, the burger chain that's looking to sell Del Taco and close up to 200 restaurants amid financial problems.
Brands on the list that are still going strong in the US include Culvers, Dunkin', Popeyes, and Taco Bell, ranking 9th, 11th, 18th, and 22nd, respectively.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Voting on Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill is still happening. Here's what to watch for
Donald Trump's massive tax and spending budget bill is returning to the US House of Representatives - as the clock ticks down to the president's 4 July deadline for lawmakers to present him with a final version that can be signed into law. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act narrowly cleared the Senate, or upper chamber of Congress, on Tuesday. Vice-President JD Vance cast a tie-breaking vote after more than 24 hours of debate and resistance from some Republican could prove equally tricky for Trump's allies to pass the bill through the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson hopes to hold a vote as early as Wednesday. The lower chamber approved an earlier version of the bill in May with a margin of just one vote, and this bill must now be reconciled with the Senate version. Both chambers are controlled by Trump's Republicans, but within the party several factions are fighting over key policies in the lengthy legislation. Sticking points include the question of how much the bill will add to the US national deficit, and how deeply it will cut healthcare and other social programmes. The immediate future of the bill, which is meant to fulfil Trump's campaign promise of making tax cuts from his first term into permanent cuts, is far from president wants the House to simply approve the Senate version, without making any changes. But that could be foiled by certain issues and rebel Republicans. Facing intense pressure, House must decide if Trump's bill is good enoughWhat's in Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill?Trump and Musk feud again over budget plans The lawmakers who could stall the bill The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the version of the bill that was passed on Tuesday by the Senate could add $3.3tn (£2.4tn) to the US national deficit over the next 10 years. That compares with $2.8tn that could be added by the earlier version that was narrowly passed by the deficit means the difference between what the US government spends and the revenue it outraged the fiscal hawks in the conservative House Freedom Caucus, who have threatened to tank the bill. Many of them are echoing claims made by Elon Musk, Trump's former adviser and campaign donor, who has repeatedly lashed out at lawmakers for considering a bill that will ultimately add to US national debt. Shortly after the Senate passed the bill, Congressman Ralph Norman of South Carolina, a Freedom Caucus member, called the move "unconscionable". "What the Senate did, I'll vote against it here and I'll vote against it on the floor," he added. Norman's colleague from Texas, Chip Roy, was also quick to signal his frustration. "I think the odds are a hell of a lot lower than they were even 48 hours ago or 72 hours ago based on the deal-cutting that I just saw," Roy said in response to a question about meeting Trump's 4 July deadline. Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris of Tennessee told Fox News that "a group of us are not going to vote to advance the bill until we iron out some of the deficit problems"."Mr Musk is right, we cannot sustain these deficits," Harris continued. "He understands finances, he understands debts and deficits, and we have to make further progress."On Tuesday, Conservative Congressman Andy Ogles went as far as to file an amendment that would completely replace the Senate version of the bill, which he called a "dud", with the original House-approved Ohio Republican Warren Davison posted on X: "Promising someone else will cut spending in the future does not cut spending." He added: "We will eventually arrive at the crash site, because it appears nothing will stop this runaway spending train. A fatal overdose of government." Beyond fiscal hawks, House Republican leadership will also have to contend with moderates in their party who represent more liberal-leaning states and key swing districts that helped the party rise to power in the November election. "I've been clear from the start that I will not support a final reconciliation bill that makes harmful cuts to Medicaid, puts critical funding at risk, or threatens the stability of healthcare providers," said Congressman David Valadao, who represents a swing district in California. This echoes the criticism of opposition Democrats. Other Republicans have signalled a willingness to compromise. Randy Fine, from Florida, told the BBC he had frustrations with the Senate version of the bill, but that he would vote it through the House because "we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". The key policies dividing Republicans Representatives from poorer districts are worried about the Senate version of the bill harming their constituents, which could also hurt them at the polls in 2026. According to the Hill, six Republicans planning to vote down the bill due to concerns about cuts to key provisions, including cuts to medical of the critical Republicans have attacked the Senate's more aggressive cuts to Medicaid, the healthcare programme relied upon by millions of low-income Americans. House Republicans had wrestled over how much to cut Medicaid and food subsidies in the initial version their chamber passed. They needed the bill to reduce spending, in order to offset lost revenue from the tax cuts contained in the Senate made steeper cuts to both areas in the version passed on Tuesday. Changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare) in the Senate's bill would see roughly 12 million Americans lose health insurance by 2034, according to a CBO report published on the version originally passed by the House, a smaller number of 11 million Americans would have had their coverage stripped, according to the CBO. Discussing the Medicaid issue with former Trump adviser and conservative podcaster Steve Bannon, Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was asked whether the House might simply "rubber stamp" the Senate right-wing House member and Trump loyalist responded that there was not enough support to get the bill through the House, using strong language to suggest the situation was a mess."I think it's far from over," she said. "It's really a dire situation. We're on a time clock that's really been set on us, so we have a lot of pressure."The bill also deals with the question of how much taxpayers can deduct from the amount they pay in federal taxes, based on how much they pay in state and local taxes (Salt). This, too, has become a controversial is currently a $10,000 cap, which expires this year. Both the Senate and House have approved increasing this to $40,000. But in the Senate-approved version, the cap would return to $10,000 after five years. This change could pose a problem for some House Republicans.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Google undercounts its carbon emissions, report finds
In 2021, Google set a lofty goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2030. Yet in the years since then, the company has moved in the opposite direction as it invests in energy-intensive artificial intelligence. In its latest sustainability report, Google said its carbon emissions had increased 51% between 2019 and 2024. New research aims to debunk even that enormous figure and provide context to Google's sustainability reports, painting a bleaker picture. A report authored by non-profit advocacy group Kairos Fellowship found that, between 2019 and 2024, Google's carbon emissions actually went up by 65%. What's more, between 2010, the first year there is publicly available data on Google's emissions, and 2024, Google's total greenhouse gas emissions increased 1,515%, Kairos found. The largest year-over-year jump in that window was also the most recent, 2023 to 2024, when Google saw a 26% increase in emissions just between 2023 and 2024, according to the report. 'Google's own data makes it clear: the corporation is contributing to the acceleration of climate catastrophe, and the metrics that matter – how many emissions they emit, how much water they use, and how fast these trends are accelerating – are headed in the wrong direction for us and the planet,' said Nicole Sugerman, a campaign manager at Kairos Fellowship. The authors say that they found the vast majority of the numbers they used to determine how much energy Google is using and how much its carbon emissions are increasing in the appendices of Google's own sustainability reports. Many of those numbers were not highlighted in the main body of Google's reports, they say. Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the figures. The authors behind the report, titled Google's Eco-Failures, attribute the discrepancy between the numbers they calculated and the numbers Google highlights in its sustainability reports to various factors, including that the firm uses a different metric for calculating how much its emissions have increased. While Google uses market-based emissions, the researchers used location-based emissions. Location-based emissions is the average energy the company consumes from local power grids, while market-based emissions include energy the company has purchased to offset its total emissions. '[Location-based emissions] represents a company's 'real' grid emissions,' said Franz Ressel, the lead researcher and report co-author. 'Market-based emissions are a corporate-friendly metric that obscures a polluters' actual impact on the environment. It allows companies to pollute in one place, and try to 'offset' those emissions by purchasing energy contracts in another place.' The energy the tech giant has needed to purchase to power its data centers alone increased 820% since 2010, according to Kairos' research, a figure that is expected to expand in the future as Google rolls out more AI products. Between 2019 and 2024, emissions that came primarily from the purchase of electricity to power data centers jumped 121%, the report's authors said. 'In absolute terms, the increase was 6.8 TWh, or the equivalent of Google adding the entire state of Alaska's energy use in one year to their previous use,' said Sugerman. Based on Google's current trajectory, the Kairos report's authors say the company is unlikely to meet its own 2030 deadline without a significant push from the public. There are three categories of greenhouse gas emissions – called Scopes 1, 2 and 3 – and Google has only meaningfully decreased its Scope 1 emissions since 2019, according to the Kairos report. Scope 1 emissions, which include emissions just from Google's own facilities and vehicles, account for only 0.31% of the company's total emissions, according to the report. Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions that come primarily from the electricity Google purchases to power its facilities, and scope 3 accounts for indirect emissions from all other sources such as suppliers, use of Google's consumer devices or employee business travel. 'It's not sustainable to keep building at the rate [Google is] building because they need to scale their compute within planetary limits,' said Sugerman. 'We do not have enough green energy to serve the needs of Google and certainly not the needs of Google and the rest of us.' As the company builds out resource-intensive data centers across the country, experts are also paying close attention to Google's water usage. According to the company's own sustainability report, Google's water withdrawal – how much water is taken from various sources – increased 27% between 2023 and 2024 to 11bn gallons of water. The amount is 'enough to supply the potable water needs for the 2.5 million people and 5,500 industrial users in Boston and its suburbs for 55 days', according to the Kairos report. Tech companies have faced both internal and public pressure to power their growing number of data centers with clean energy. Amazon employees recently put forth a package of shareholder proposals that asked the company to disclose its overall carbon emissions and targeted the climate impact of its data centers. The proposals were ultimately voted down. On Sunday, several organizations including Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, League of Conservation Voters, Public Citizen, and the Sierra Club, published an open letter in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Seattle Times calling on the CEOs of Google, Amazon and Microsoft to 'commit to no new gas and zero delayed coal plant retirements to power your data centers'. Sign up to TechScape A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives after newsletter promotion 'In just the last two years alone, your companies have built data centers throughout the United States capable of consuming more electricity than four million American homes,' the letter reads. 'Within five years, your data centers alone will use more electricity than 22 million households, rivaling the consumption of multiple mid-size states.' In its own sustainability report, Google warns that the firm's 'future trajectories' may be impacted by the 'evolving landscape' of the tech industry. 'We're at an extraordinary inflection point, not just for our company specifically, but for the technology industry as a whole – driven by the rapid growth of AI,' the report reads. 'The combination of AI's potential for non-linear growth driven by its unprecedented pace of development and the uncertain scale of clean energy and infrastructure needed to meet this growth makes it harder to predict our future emissions and could impact our ability to reduce them.' The Kairos report accuses Google of relying 'heavily on speculative technologies, particularly nuclear power', to achieve its goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2030. 'Google's emphasis on nuclear energy as a clean energy 'solution' is particularly concerning, given the growing consensus among both scientists and business experts that their successful deployment on scale, if it is to ever occur, cannot be achieved in the near or mid-term future,' the report reads. The Kairos report alleges the way that Google presents some of its data is misleading. In the case of data center emissions, for example, Google says it has improved the energy efficiency of its data centers by 50% over 13 years. Citing energy efficiency numbers rather than sharing absolute ones obscures Google's total emissions, the authors argue. 'In fact, since 2010, the company's total energy consumption has increased 1,282%,' the report concluded.
Geeky Gadgets
an hour ago
- Geeky Gadgets
AI Showdown: ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, & Grok Go Head-to-Head
Artificial intelligence chatbots are reshaping how we approach problem-solving, content creation, and productivity enhancement. This detailed comparison examines four leading AI systems—ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Perplexity, and Grock—to help you identify the best fit for your specific needs. By analyzing their performance across critical areas, this guide provides actionable insights into their strengths and limitations. The video below from Mrwhosetheboss gives us a detailed comparison of the four AI tools. Watch this video on YouTube. Key Performance Areas Problem-Solving When addressing complex challenges, ChatGPT and Google Gemini stand out for their ability to balance theoretical reasoning with practical solutions. These systems excel in breaking down intricate problems into manageable steps, making them reliable for both academic and professional tasks. Grock, while impressively fast and confident, often sacrifices depth for brevity, which can limit its effectiveness in nuanced scenarios. On the other hand, Perplexity struggles with accuracy in highly detailed or layered problems, making it less dependable for users requiring precision. Product Recommendations AI-driven product research can be a mixed bag. Grock leads in identifying specific product features and delivering concise recommendations. However, all four systems occasionally generate incorrect or fabricated information, emphasizing the need for users to verify AI-generated suggestions. While ChatGPT and Google Gemini provide more detailed analyses, their recommendations may lack the specificity that Grock offers. Perplexity often provides reliable sourcing but can falter in delivering actionable insights. Translation and Language Understanding For multilingual users, ChatGPT and Perplexity excel in handling nuanced translations and complex linguistic tasks. Their ability to interpret context and cultural subtleties makes them ideal for global communication. Google Gemini delivers solid translations but lacks the finesse and contextual depth of its competitors. Grock, while fast, often produces overly literal translations, which can hinder effective communication in professional or creative settings. Critical Thinking and Analysis All four systems demonstrate the ability to identify logical fallacies and analyze complex scenarios. However, ChatGPT and Perplexity shine in analytical reasoning, particularly when interpreting visual data or addressing abstract concepts. Their capacity to break down arguments and provide detailed explanations makes them invaluable for tasks requiring critical thinking. Google Gemini performs well in structured analyses but can be overly verbose, while Grock prioritizes speed over depth, limiting its analytical utility. Content Generation For creative tasks, ChatGPT leads the pack with its ability to produce well-structured and engaging content, including itineraries, stories, and articles. Its versatility makes it a go-to choice for users seeking high-quality outputs. Google Gemini offers detailed responses but often leans toward verbosity, which can detract from usability. Perplexity and Grock show inconsistency in creative outputs, making them less reliable for content-heavy projects. Image and Video Generation In multimedia tasks, Google Gemini emerges as the leader, particularly in video generation, where it delivers high-quality visuals suitable for professional projects. ChatGPT and Perplexity perform adequately in image generation, offering decent results for less demanding tasks. Grock, however, struggles with accuracy and detail, making it less effective for users requiring precise or high-quality multimedia outputs. Fact-Checking Accuracy is a cornerstone of AI reliability. ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Grock perform well in debunking false claims and providing factual information. Perplexity, while generally accurate, occasionally lacks confidence in its responses, which can undermine user trust. This highlights the importance of cross-referencing AI-generated information, especially for critical decisions. Integrations and Features Google Gemini excels in integrations, particularly with Google Workspace and live data, making it a strong choice for users embedded in the Google ecosystem. Its seamless connectivity enhances productivity and collaboration. ChatGPT offers a wide range of plugins and customizable assistants, providing versatility for diverse applications. Grock uses real-time data from X (formerly Twitter), giving it a unique edge for social media-related tasks. Perplexity, while functional, lacks the advanced integrations of its competitors. Memory and Personalization Memory retention remains a challenge for all four systems. None of the evaluated AIs demonstrate strong conversational memory, which limits their ability to provide personalized experiences over time. This shortcoming affects their utility in tasks requiring long-term context or user-specific adaptations, highlighting an area for future development. Humor and Creativity For users prioritizing humor, Grock outshines its competitors, likely due to its training on data from X. Its witty and concise responses make it ideal for casual interactions. However, ChatGPT remains the most versatile for crafting creative and engaging content, offering a balance between entertainment and productivity. Google Gemini and Perplexity provide functional but less dynamic outputs in this area. Speed and Responsiveness For time-sensitive tasks, Grock is the fastest, delivering quick responses with minimal delay. ChatGPT follows closely, offering a balance between speed and detail. Google Gemini, while slower, provides more comprehensive answers, appealing to users who prioritize depth over speed. Perplexity offers moderate responsiveness but lacks the agility of its competitors. Voice Interaction In voice-based applications, ChatGPT and Google Gemini lead with their advanced voice synthesis capabilities. Their natural and human-like interactions make them suitable for virtual assistants, accessibility tools, and other voice-driven tasks. Grock and Perplexity lag behind in this area, offering less refined voice outputs. Final Rankings ChatGPT (29 points): The most consistent and versatile option, excelling in problem-solving, creativity, and usability. The most consistent and versatile option, excelling in problem-solving, creativity, and usability. Grock (26 points): The fastest AI with strengths in humor and concise responses, though it lacks depth in some areas. The fastest AI with strengths in humor and concise responses, though it lacks depth in some areas. Google Gemini (22 points): Strong in integrations and video generation but hindered by verbosity and slower speed. Strong in integrations and video generation but hindered by verbosity and slower speed. Perplexity (19 points): Reliable in sourcing but inconsistent in creative and analytical tasks. Choosing the Right AI for Your Needs Selecting the right AI depends on your priorities. ChatGPT offers a well-rounded experience, making it ideal for users seeking versatility and reliability. Grock is perfect for those who value speed and humor, while Google Gemini excels in integrations and multimedia tasks. Perplexity caters to niche applications but struggles with consistency in creative and analytical outputs. By understanding their strengths and limitations, you can make an informed decision that aligns with your goals. Stay informed about the latest in AI Chatbots Comparison by exploring our other resources and articles. Source & Image Credit: Mrwhosetheboss Filed Under: AI, Android News, Apple iPhone, Top News Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
