Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
22°/13°
It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of Rain
19°/13°
It is forcast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Clear
19°/13°

37 Comments

news

Cruller Intentions


Canadians are an odd people when it comes to our cultural exports—we apologize to the world for Celine Dion, are ecstatic about the BlackBerry, and we’re defensive about Tim Hortons. So it’s with a sense of cautious pride that we watched Tim Hortons open nine of twelve new locations in New York City yesterday, including three in a co-branding test with Cold Stone Creamery, because we Canadians know our Maple Dip.


Even though (in our opinion) the quality of Tim Hortons doughnuts has slipped since 2002, when the company began mass-producing the doughnuts in a Brantford plant rather than on-site in each restaurant, the chain has become enshrined in Canadian iconography, boasting almost three thousand stores in Canada and becoming the country’s largest food service operator. Much of the Tim Hortons success story can even be attributed to one of the most brilliant marketing campaigns in history: the thirteen-year-long “Roll Up The Rim To Win” promotion.
Though already operating about five hundred stores in eleven American states, Manhattan has always been the stronghold of another number-one baked goods chain: Dunkin’ Donuts. With relations fouling in recent years between the Riese Organization investment group and Dunkin’ Brands Inc., Tim Hortons found itself inking a deal with Riese to replace ten Dunkin’ Donuts franchises in Manhattan and two in Brooklyn, including in high-profile locations in Times Square, Penn Station, and right beside the New York Stock Exchange.

14July2009_TimHortons2.jpg
Photo by swilton from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.


And New York City is a tough market for olykoeks: following a high-profile national overexpansion and stiff competition from Dunkin’ Donuts, many Krispy Kreme Manhattan franchises were terminated (in Canada, only eighteen of thirty-two stores were opened, and only five of those still exist).
The move follows steps taken by Tim Hortons last month to reorganize itself as a Canadian company again (primarily for tax reasons). Established on a Hamilton street corner in 1964 by the former Toronto Maple Leaf, who would die in a car crash ten years later, the eponymous company was merged with Wendy’s International in 1995. It received an apostrophectomy around the same time to accommodate Quebec language laws and was spun off entirely to shareholders by 2006, remaining registered in corporate haven Delaware.
The pilot project with Cold Stone Creamery—whose schtick is to fold ice cream concoctions together on a frozen slab in front of customers—will also allow new marketing opportunities, such as “muffin bowls,” where the top of the muffin is removed and turned upside down to hold the ice cream.
According to news reports, initial interest in the Timvasion was strong, with the New York Daily News calling it “the caloric colossus from Canada” and NBC’s Today ominously announcing that the chain is “looking to caffeinate the word.” However, with Americans used to the bitter coffee of Starbucks and the familiar pink-and-orange of the Dunkin’ Donuts brand, reactions from the customers were mixed.
“I’m a cop,” said one man to the Daily News. “Take away Dunkin’ Donuts and what’s my stereotype going to be?”
“They better not do this in Queens or Long Island,” threatened a territorial Manhattanite to the New York Times.
Still, in an informal Daily News taste test, Tim Hortons fared better than Dunkin’ Donuts with customers by a better-than 6–5 margin. A New York Times comparison concluded that both products were virtually indistinguishable, lamenting how “mass-produced doughnuts are achieving total global mediocrity.”
Our pals at Gothamist were much more complimentary, and one reader said he was “in heaven” with his six-dollar lunch, but complained that he “stood in line as an annoying Canadian stockbroker waxed rhapsodic about how the stock is a buy.”
The Riese Organization—which also operates KFC, Pizza Hut, and T.G.I. Friday’s franchises in New York—says that the product in these stores will be baked on-site instead of at a central commissary, so that should be a plus toward the brand’s “Always Fresh” promise. It’s too early to tell if the restaurants will provide a different enough experience to attract and maintain New York City customers, but in the meantime, we predict the shops will be a perfect place to interact with other Canadian tourists looking for a taste of home.

Comments

  • http://undefined Greg

    So we’re supposed to feel proud about the corporate expansion of a chain that prides itself on addiction through the use of too much fat, sugar, and caffeine in its products? — No thanks, Tim Horton’s is brand I’m embarrassed to have associated with Canada.

  • http://www.bitpicture.com Marc Lostracco

    It’s a doughnut shop. Doughnuts are made by deep-frying dough and covering them in sugar. How dare they.

  • http://undefined atomeyes

    thanks for the laugh.
    wait…you were being serious?

  • http://www.blog.canoe.ca/canoedossier David Newland

    I’ll be ecstatic about the Blackberry the day Jim Balsillie finally gets an NHL team. Until then it’s a golden chain.

  • http://undefined xtremesniper

    I agree that I think Tim Horton’s is not exactly what I want associated with Canada when Americans think of us, though maybe not for the same reasons. I’m not looking really at the healthy aspects of Tim Horton’s products, or the lack thereof, but rather the complete and utter absence of taste from any of their products. I don’t care if they have to make it the most unhealthy thing in the world, bring back the real donuts with real fluffy dough inside! Introduce some real lunch menu with food that doesn’t taste bland and fabricated in some plastics facility. I don’t care if I have to pay a few bucks extra, I’d rather have quality.
    This is why I’m ashamed that Canadians are so obsessed with such a terrible chain, and I cringe when anyone says that the company is a symbol of Canada. That just goes to show how low Canadian’s standards are.

  • http://undefined dowlingm

    “the product in these stores will be baked on-site instead of at a central commissary”
    Canadian company gives American customers a fresher product than Canadian ones.
    I am shocked – SHOCKED – that that sort of thing would happen…

  • http://undefined Greg

    That’s essentially where my distaste for Tim Horton’s comes from, they make low-nutritional junk at very low expense and slather it in fat, sugar, and caffeine. It’s not something to be proud of, at best, it’s a guilty pleasure for Canadians. I groan every time I see one of Tim’s overly nostalgic commercials featuring someone receiving Tim’s branded coffee as a care package.
    I’m not campaigning against them, I just think they’re a low standard to represent Canada internationally.
    But, “Nobody ever lost a buck underestimating the taste of the American public.”

  • http://undefined rek

    Why are we tying our national identity to baked goods here? Are you ashamed of Harvey’s too? That thing on our flag is a maple leaf, not a maple timbit.

  • http://undefined lunarworks

    I’m intrigued by their use of new signage and a new logo treatment. I wonder if they’re using NYC as a test center, and then rolling it out chain-wide.

  • http://undefined atomeyes

    you think AMericans care whether or not their donuts (doughnuts?) are from a Canadian versus American chain?
    they are obese.
    they just want their fucking donuts.
    they have no time to ponder where the donut chain is from or to associate it with a nationality.
    those thoughts slow the eating process.

  • http://www.bitpicture.com Marc Lostracco

    The New York Times has published another article on the NYC Tims, and why they’re mostly neutered versions of the ones we have here.

  • http://undefined Robis

    As an American, I’m not sure whether I should be offended by that or not. Contrary to what you may believe about us, most Americans do care about quality, and we do associate different products with different nationalities. In fact, much of the excitement around new places opening is the possibility of something new that we haven’t tried before, even better when it’s from somewhere outside our current experience (BTW, how sad that what the US got from Canada is the same-old same-old they can get from the US).
    As far as obesity, 26% of Americans are obese. 23% of Canadians are obese. Pot, meet kettle.

  • http://undefined montauk

    believing in “canadian culture” or “national identity” is like believing in the fucking tooth fairy.

  • http://undefined accozzaglia

    You should just eat.
    If most Americans care about quality, then what’s up with the following:

    1. Wal-Mart
    2. CiCi’s Pizza
    3. The Golden Corral
    4. Cinnabon
    5. Chili’s
    6. Denny’s
    7. Huffy bicycles
    8. Mary Kay cosmetics
    9. McDonalds
    10. Hostess cakes
    11. Zenith TVs
    12. Wonder Bread
    13. ADM’s stiff-arming food makers to shove HFCS in everything.

    (I’ll stop here for brevity)
    We get enough American junk here to make Canadians unnecessarily obese and stuck with crappy products that don’t last. And I used to live in the States, so it’s not like this comes without having experienced this stuff. And 80 million obese Americans (using your percentages) when over 45 million can’t get health care — while the rest just pay through the nose for sick care? Watch where you’re throwing those steamy piles, friend.
    [This is not really a defence of Timmies, because I know they can do better with their doughnuts. I'm fine with the coffee, especially after being on a road trip in the middle of northern Ontario, Québec, or eastern B.C. (and haven't seen the golden glow of a "Toujours frais" sign in hours). And if you're gonna eat junk food, then it should be worthwhile and wonderfully memorable, eh?]

  • http://undefined accozzaglia

    On “national identity”, you’ve got one there, but on “Canadian culture”? We’ve got it, but we don’t know how to see it.

  • http://undefined montauk

    I do not feel “guilty” for eating Tim Hortons when I so choose. You might feel like you’ve been a bad little girl for eating something of low nutritional value, but not all of us measure our moral health (or those of companies) by caffeine, sugar, and fat content.

  • http://undefined montauk

    We can’t see the tooth fairy either.

  • http://undefined accozzaglia

    You also can’t see American patriotism. It’s an imagined idea, not an object.

  • http://undefined montauk

    Fair enough. I can’t buy into the notion of Canadian culture, however. It’s either characterized invariably as a kitchen sink of middle-to-upper-class urban-friendly white people interests (hockey!) or so vaguely (polite, self-effacing, socialist) – that it could hardly qualify as a “culture”. You might counter that I’m just supporting your theory that “we don’t know how to see it”, but I can’t think of any potential qualifier of our so-called “culture” that doesn’t fall apart completely when considering Native Canadians or non-white immigrants or even the rural/urban divide. In other words, we have too many subcultures for a prevailing “Canadian culture” to exist – unless you’re going to argue that “diversity” (at least, in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto) is the essence of Canadian culture, which I hope you won’t.
    And while one cannot see American patriotism unto itself, one can certainly see ample evidence of it. The same, I don’t think, can really be said for “Canadian culture”.

  • http://undefined accozzaglia

    It’s because deeming value based on “high/low” culture dichotomies (thanks, Massey Commission!) really threw us off course. When you have Canadian musicians who never got their chance to be heard on radio because they didn’t “sound” Canadian (as in, they sounded “too regional” and would never appeal from coast to coast, it set up a construct of what a small group of gatekeepers deem as “worthwhile” to be Canadian. This is what we’ve lived with for decades. So it’s small wonder that we don’t know Canadian culture when we see it, because we’ve been weaned on this mentality that Canadian culture much hew to a script or work plan.
    Canadian culture is found at the local level, not the national level. Once we all figure this out, and once we come to terms that local will sound different everywhere you could possibly live in this country, then the need to build a mould of “Canadian culture” in the Masseyian sense can be put to bed once and forever.

  • http://undefined montauk

    By the time we’ve earmarked Canadian culture, then, as consisting of a monster-mosaic of localized subcultures, is there really any utility or accuracy in calling it our national culture or characterizing it as some kind of cultural conglomerate?

  • http://undefined accozzaglia

    Sometimes it’s just better to find what you like and enjoy it.
    I know this sounds flippant, but think about it: in the UK or the U.S., each region is known for specific music (and even specific foods) that are either unique or endemic to that region. The same does exist here, but we have either assigned valuation on that high/low culture value system; applied the “will it fly in Muncie, Indiana” litmus test; or passively allowed some another agent to advance the same on our behalf. This is where our resentment sets in (and rightfully so).
    Again, with music, Newfoundland music is distinctive from northern and aboriginal music, and these are distinctive from urban anglophone Canadian music (which is to say music made and frequently consumed in Canada’s largest cities). And then you have the same thing happening within francophone Canadian populations — even these, sloppily lumped together as one (which is just as sloppy as lumping everything within Canada as one) break into a myriad of traditional and contemporary sounds as well as urban and rural sounds. “One size fits all” usually fits few to none, and those which do manage to fit become the ire of everyone who couldn’t agree less that it is universally representative (Timmies, Bryan Adams, HNiC, Buckley’s, David Cronenberg, and Howie Mandel are examples of those few that manage to slip into that “one size fits all” claptrap, all of which meet resistance from people who question these as being truly representative of their own Canadian life experiences).
    In the end, it’s better to let ourselves be concerned about the music or food or literature we like to enjoy locally (or regionally) and let the outside world define what we make and like locally/regionally as Canadian. We know Mississippi delta blues is American, but it’s also clear that it won’t be that common in, say, Idaho or Delaware or Hawaii. The same goes for things that can only be found in certain parts of Canada or are done best in specific places within the country.
    So I advance that if national Canadian culture policies or attempts to paint the whole nation-state under a unified brand (e.g., Timmies, Canadian Fire, etc.) concerned itself less with the nation-state and more with the local in global-local (or glocal) linkages, by investing directly in encouraging local talent to flourish locally and regionally, then it will be the visitors to these regions who will seek out this culture and identify it as such. It will also be money better spent in this manner where public funding has been traditionally concerned on the national scope and the commodity/exportability of that culture (I’m thinking music and FACTOR/MusicAction, but one could consider it for other media). The way we consume culture here is the same as the rest of the world now, with exception to perhaps food: we pull up a browser and find it under our own accord. To enforce national myth constructs and reify them turns off a lot of people, because it really looks like a shell now more than ever.
    But we still have culture. Lots of it. It’s just better to spend less time identifying and labelling it and more time exploring and enjoying it. Over time, this culture will make names for themselves that will come to be known as “this could only happen in Canada”. Our closest analogue, Australia, seems to be figuring this out a few years ahead of us, and only now are we seeing a sense of “only in Australia” resonate in what’s happening there.
    And it’s OK to love some local culture and loathe the rest: you can’t please all the people all the time.

  • http://undefined bbonnevi

    I completely agree with you on this one. I’m so tired of this “we’re better than you are” statements made by Canadians in reference to Americans. Give me a break, I’m Canadian and to blame the States for bringing fast food here is hilarious. Are you saying we wouldn’t have fast food that is just as unhealthy? Oh and also, whoever said that Americans aren’t concerned with quality must not have been to NYC because the restaurants there certainly are of a higher caliber than those in Toronto and I’m talking about fast food places too, like bakeries, delis etc. Please get over yourselves fellow Canadians. If you ask me (given all this culture talk) many Canadians attempt to define our culture by attacking American culture!

  • http://undefined matty

    You people redefine neurotic.

  • http://undefined montauk

    Thanks to Matty for inadvertently reminding me to reply.
    “But we still have culture. Lots of it. It’s just better to spend less time identifying and labelling it and more time exploring and enjoying it.”
    That’s where we really agree. I believe we have culture – in the form of myriad subcultures – but we don’t have a “prevailing” or united, cohesive culture at the national level. I mean, what’s the difference between our 5000 localized subcultures and the 20,000 localized subcultures in the USA? There are some localized subcultures that are exclusive to Canada (Newfies), some that are exclusive to the USA (Nawlins), and some that we share (little white, Christian, right-wing rural towns) – there’s nothing particularly “Canadian” about most of our 5000 subcultures except their legal identification, nor anything very “American” about most of America’s. There’s probably more diversity within our two countries than between them, so why hold onto the national qualifier?
    The writer Yann Martel once said, in character, that the logical and intuitive division of public washrooms should be into “friends” and “enemies”, not “male” and “female”. Similarly, I believe it makes more sense to categorize localized subcultures by their qualities, instead of focusing on a category that’s arbitrary, sweeping and all-encompassing like nationality. Tim Hortons nuts who follow hockey and speak with a Maritime accent aren’t “Canadian culture”, but merely “one culture that lives in Canada”. I sound like I’m just being a semantic tightass here, but it’s my way of boycotting the dominant narrative of Canadian culture that assumes you mean “white coffee-swilling homegrown hockey boys” whether you do or not.
    Anyway, it would be great if our tourism boards would spend less time catering to that narrative and more time (and funds) promoting the neighbourhoods of our petri dish, but what are you gonna do. Even if they tried, I doubt they’d manage toeing the line between appreciation and goggle-eyed exploitative exoticizing voyeurism, also known as the lynchpin of tourism.

  • http://undefined accozzaglia

    Stick it, kiddo.
    This is my area of personal interest and scholarly discipline. So if you can’t do better with an engaging discussion, sit on your hands and be a sour puss somewhere else.

  • http://undefined accozzaglia

    Of course there’s nothing united! I can’t think of anywhere that a nation-state of our size has anything “unified” or monocultural. That would just be silly.
    But unlike your idea, I’m less inclined to play the categorization game and more inclined to let things decide for themselves what works best. Categorizing gets in the way or understanding the greater picture — as the “CanCon” national categorization flattens disparate regional and local currents.

  • http://undefined matty

    You know, I remember having this very discussion about what it means to be an American when Dunkin Donuts opened its first Canadian operation.
    I still haven’t figured it out.

  • http://undefined accozzaglia

    Well, at least that’s a start: you’re avoiding ad hominem.
    What it means is familiarity and nostalgia, where national-oriented brands are concerned. Brand holders know this and use it as a hedge when making their move (or imperial encroachment, if you prefer). If you’re an expatriate and suddenly, you see something familiar on your adopted city streetscape, of course you’ll wax happy about its arrival even if you were meh about it when you lived there. When Chipotle opened here last year, the raves of people who have enjoyed it in the U.S. (myself included) were insanely joyous for about the first two months. Now you see people regularly eating there who likely knew nothing of the brand this time a year ago. When it shows up in other cities around this country, I’m sure the reactions will be variations on the excitable theme.
    Branding is an embedded culture: it is not organic, but placed in a cultural context, it can feel such. That makes it, at once, powerful, insidious, and inevitable in the way we structure our collective lives.

  • http://undefined spoon

    Canadians sure are touchy. Relax, have a doughnut. That’s what we were talking about, right?

  • http://undefined accozzaglia

    Wrong.
    We were talking about nationalism enrobed in brands (Tim Hortons) and how that has become the marker of a country’s outward image (e.g., in America, like NYC). It constructs a myth that ignores the localized cultures within that country. This is generally something that Americans don’t tend to think or worry about, since the U.S. has a great track record of being home to companies that expand into other countries in a pattern of consumer . . . gosh, what’s the word? oh yeah, imperialism. So for something like Timmies to happen in Manhattan is to return to continuing debates like the Canadian Question (which was more about reciprocity and continentalism), “national identity” and the like.
    Did this help?

  • http://undefined accozzaglia

    And I believe others here made it clear that the now-gone, made-from-scratch honey crullers, old-fashioned/sour cream glazed, blueberry jellies (my fave), and other varieties with par-baked replacements makes it even less about the doughnuts and more about the brand itself. If we’re not getting it the super-fresh, super-from-scratch way, then we give our patronage to the brand because it is as familiar as Whataburger is to Texas and Texans, In-n-Out is to California and the people living there, and Wawa is to Jersey.
    Ya dig?

  • http://undefined Greg

    Guilt or morality is hardly the issue, it’s associating a piss poor brand with Canadian culture. Are you for including Timbits as a national delicacy? Does Tim Horton’s make you proud to be Canadian? No, so why the hell are there idiots out there associating Tim’s with Canadian culture and national identity? Because Tim Horton’s is aware that both the former and latter are poorly defined in the Canadian consciousness and they want to exploit that to their financial benefit. End of story.

  • http://undefined montauk

    Tim Hortons is a major brand here. What do you think would be a more fitting delicacy? Petit-fours? Something that makes us look good, or something that’s actually representative of Canadians? Because you might not find a delicacy – including motherfucking maple syrup – that works both ways. Fast food culture is part of many American lives; it’s part of many Canadian lives too. If you don’t like it then be my guest and try to change it, but let’s not delude ourselves that Canadians as a whole don’t give Tim Horton’s ridiculously good business.
    I also don’t think Tim Hortons is a poor candidate for Canadian culture just because you think it’s bad or unhealthy or a lousy product. Need only things subjectively deemed “positive” or “good” be associated with our national identity? I associate our nation with the massacres and marginalization of Aboriginal peoples, and I think it would be awesome if others also included those ongoing atrocities in their conceptualization of “Canadian culture and national identity”. Tim Hortons, for the most part, isn’t healthy and doesn’t always taste amazing, but so what? It provides an affordable product at accessible hours to lots of folks who need that. It’s one of the few aspects of our so-called “national identity” that actually includes Canadians living below or around the poverty line, rural and urban Canadians, right and left-wingers both, young and old. Maybe if so many us didn’t buy their products it wouldn’t be part of the national image, eh?
    Yes, obviously Tim Hortons is invested in setting itself up as a material aspect of Canadian culture. So? That doesn’t undermine the legitimacy of it’s role in Canadian culture – it just means that culture isn’t necessarily something that just arises organically out of the dust, it can also be pitched, performed, and manufactured. Yes, Greg, I am proposing that culture is socially and economically engineered. Shocking!

  • http://undefined Greg

    I just have to ask, why do you care?

  • http://undefined montauk

    Uh, about what?

  • http://undefined Greg

    HAHAHAHA!