Decision Log — Forkbird Kitchen

2026-01-08

Brand position: chef-driven, premium plant-based. Considered value tier; rejected for MVP. Premium positioning is the wedge against marketplace generic plant-based.

Five-metro launch: SF, NY, LA, Seattle, Chicago. Considered three-metro start; rejected as not enough density to test the chef-equity model meaningfully.
Ghost kitchen, no storefront. Storefronts ruled out — capex too high for MVP, dilutes the speed advantage.

Pricing tier $14–$22 per entrée. Modeled against three competitor sets: chain plant-based, fine-dining plant-based delivery, generic mid-tier delivery. Sits cleanly above chain, below fine-dining.
Chef equity in metro P&L. Rejected flat fee + revenue share alternative; equity creates the operator incentive we want.

Rejected B2B catering segment for MVP. Different operational rhythm and customer; would split attention at launch and risk degrading both consumer and B2B execution. Revisit in year 2 if consumer foundation is solid. (Discussion: 2 hours; chef partners weighed in against splitting focus; CFO modeled the dilution effect on consumer kitchen utilization.)
Rejected subscription model for MVP. Operationally expensive at planned scale; revisit once kitchen utilization stabilizes.

Sourcing standard: 60% within 200 miles, published per-dish. Considered weaker thresholds (50% / 250 miles); rejected as not differentiating enough to be worth publishing. The number has to be defensible.
Marketplace channel mix: own app + DoorDash + UberEats + Grubhub. Considered own-app only; rejected as too slow on demand acquisition. Considered marketplaces only; rejected — own app is critical to long-term margin.

Six-week menu rotation per chef. Considered four-week (more freshness) and eight-week (more operational stability). Six is the compromise; reassess after first two cycles.
Marketing budget: 60% acquisition / 40% brand. Rejected pure-acquisition because chef-driven positioning needs brand-level signal that paid acquisition alone won't carry.