Restaurant Loyalty in a Squeezed Economy: What 18.9 Million Online Conversations Showed Us

Summary:

In a strained 2025 economy, 18.9 million online conversations reveals that restaurant loyalty now hinges on one question: is it worth it right now? Consumers praised QSR and pizza chains like Domino’s, Taco Bell, and Chick-fil-A for speed, deals, and perceived value, while fast-casual favorites such as Chipotle and Cava faced growing backlash over $18–$25 meals that no longer felt justified. This shift highlights a pragmatic consumer mindset where affordability, portion fairness, and speed outweigh novelty — signaling that the next wave of restaurant loyalty will be earned not through brand heat, but through clear value and everyday credibility.

Restaurant Loyalty in a Squeezed Economy: What 18.9 Million Online Conversations Told Us

Dining out in the U.S. didn’t disappear this year — it got re-negotiated. RILA GLOBAL CONSULTING analyzed 18.9 million online discussions about fast food and leading restaurant chains in USA in Q3'2025. And Domino’s, Chipotle, Starbucks, and fast-casual peers emerged as the top most discussed restaurants as consumers kept saying the same thing: eating out was still desirable, but only if it felt like a good deal. That single filter — is this worth it right now? — is what separated the brands and sub-segments that were winning from those that were getting cut.

Below is a breakdown of what people actually said online, how it played out across QSR, fast-casual, casual dining, and pizza, and why newer concepts like Cava may not be immune to the pullback.

Why value became the main storyline

Consumers reported that they were cutting back on dining out and were treating it more like a luxury. In social conversations, people even said they asked restaurants to adjust portions, pricing, or bundles to keep their business. That’s a very pragmatic signal: people still wanted restaurant food, but they wanted it on their terms.

In that environment, value-led brands got more oxygen. QSR and some casual dining chains showed up more in conversations because they had lower-priced menu items, promotions, or shareable options that could feed more than one person. Fine dining, on the other hand, was mentioned far less — about five times less than fast food — because younger users were amplifying fast food content, not tasting menus.

Who was best positioned: QSR and deal-forward casual

Across the conversations, value-oriented QSR and parts of casual dining looked best positioned to benefit from bifurcated spending. Consumers framed fast food as the place they could still go without feeling reckless. Even when they complained about price creep at QSR, they still described it as cheaper than fast-casual.

Pizza chains came out especially strong. People liked that a promo could feed a family, that delivery was easy, and that the brands kept running offers. In a strained economy, feeding more people for less is a narrative that wins online.

Who was most exposed: fast-casual at 18–25 dollars

The most consistent complaints were about fast-casual. Consumers said bowls and burritos in the 18–25 dollar range felt overpriced, portions felt small, and it was the first category they cut when they got serious about their budget. In other words, premium convenience was the easiest indulgence to drop.

At the same time, those same consumers talked about trading down into QSR. Fast food still gave them a lower price ceiling plus drive-thru speed. Some also said drive-thru coffee concepts beat the more expensive “third place” café model because they were faster and cheaper.

Which QSR brands consumers said were winning

When people talked about brands that still felt worth it, the same names kept returning.

Taco Bell, because it stayed fast in the drive-thru, kept releasing new or fun menu items, and still felt cheaper than a 20 dollar fast-casual bowl.

Pizza chains like Domino’s, Papa John’s, and Papa Murphy’s, because they ran visible deals and could feed more people. Chick-fil-A, because consumers described it as efficient and consistent.

Dutch Bros, because it matched the fast, sweet, drive-thru drink behavior younger users wanted.

Importantly, people rewarded speed, menu activity, and value. They were less positive about brands they said were slow, shrinking portions, or raising prices without explaining the value.

Pizza vs burgers: pizza had the clearer value story

When consumers compared categories, pizza showed up with the cleanest value story. It fed multiple people cheaply, brands pushed deals constantly, and delivery/takeout still felt convenient.

Fast-casual burrito/bowl chains did not get the same treatment. Those were the brands users said they were ditching for groceries. Burger QSR was in the middle: people complained about higher prices, but didn’t talk about it with the same enthusiasm they had for pizza deals.

What this means for newer fast-casual concepts like Cava

One of the more interesting signals was that consumers had already started grouping Cava with the “too expensive for lunch right now” concepts such as Chipotle and Sweetgreen. That tells us this isn’t just a Chipotle-specific issue; it’s a segment issue.

These brands target the same younger, urban, mid- to lower-income diners. If that audience is under pressure, and if a 15–20 dollar bowl no longer feels like good value, all concepts in that lane become vulnerable. The growth story starts to depend less on how “hot” the brand is, and more on whether it can show value in a moment when people are trading down.

Overview

“In the U.S. restaurant conversation, consumers were very rational: they rewarded chains that made eating out feel affordable, fast, and predictable — especially QSR and pizza players that communicated value clearly. But once the price crept into the 18–25 dollar range, the tone shifted. Fast-casual brands were discussed with more scrutiny around portion size, fairness, and ‘is this really worth it right now?’ So it wasn’t that people didn’t like the food — it was that the economic context no longer justified the premium convenience.” – Tsvetta Kaleynska, Founder, RILA GLOBAL CONSULTING

Our methodology

RILA Global Consulting used a third party software to monitor more than 100 million public web sources and isolate U.S. consumer conversations about restaurants over the past 90 days. We tagged discussions about value, pricing, portion size, service speed, delivery/app experience, menu innovation, and brand reputation across sub-segments (QSR, fast-casual, casual dining, fine dining). We then analyzed engagement to see which narratives were amplified most by value-sensitive consumers.

The takeaway

Consumers did not say “no” to restaurants. They said “show me the value.” In 2025’s online conversation, that meant QSR, pizza, speed, and clear promos. Anything sitting in the premium-convenience middle, at 18–25 dollars per person, had to work harder to justify its place in the basket.