Why would you de-emphasize/hide your name and logo on the packaging? It kind of smacks of there being a corporate belief that there is a loss of both brand equity and position in the customer’s mind. Or perhaps it is a trial run on new branded items?

I would separate out the Applebee’s and Boston Market approach from the Chuck E. Cheese approach. The former are at least telling you their association. I’d look at Neighborhood Wings and think, “hey, it’s Applebee’s wings – don’t care what you call it.” If I like Applebee’s wings I’m in, otherwise I’m out. Chuck E. Cheese was sleazy – it’s been 50-odd years since I’ve been to a kid’s party there – I don’t remember the characters. To not say there’s a relationship is misleading a customer.

I guess I’m not entirely sure I understand why people are frustrated by this branding, except perhaps the Chuck E. Cheese example, which only discreetly exposes the affiliation between the two brands via a character name. But even then, I am not sure why this is an issue. These chains are by no mean the first restaurants to prepare meals for multiple brands from the same kitchen, and while some may question the marketing efficacy of the branding decision, I do not see why people take issue otherwise. What does it matter whose kitchen prepared the meal? Either you like the product or you don’t. Am I missing something?

I am not sure why transparency is an issue. These restaurants are going farther than I would with “Crafted by Boston Market.” Does it really matter?

The way I see it, they open another channel to sell their products. They target a different consumer. If I want to order from Applebee’s, I will. If I don’t like Applebee’s but the name Neighborhood Wings sounds like something that would interest me, why not? “Ah, they specialize in wings.”

CPG companies do this type of multiple branding all the time. I don’t know where the ideas for these restaurant came from, but I surely would not be surprised if they were generated either internally or by third-party delivery companies whose marketing is being run by a P&G, Kraft or Unilever veteran.

I have no problem with this concept. However the key is to neither dilute the brand nor confuse the customer. One of the downsides of third-party delivery is the loss of brand recognition. However, unless these foodservice operations, chains and independents are willing and able to make the investment in in-house distribution, third-party vendors will be their primary option.

The creation of new brands, virtual, or otherwise, might be a good or bad idea from a marketing and business perspective, depending on specifics. Many restaurant companies have multiple brands. I cannot find fault with virtual brands that play off names or characters associated with parent brands. Pasqually is apparently a trademarked character associated with Chuck E. Cheese and, therefore, transparency is inherent to Chuck E.Cheese’s loyal customers. Ethically, however, there probably should be some text or logos on menus, apps, and ads, that identify an association between Chuck and Pasqually.

This is a smart move by all three chains. They are taking advantage of the opportunity presented by the increase in in-home deliveries to test new concepts and new menu items while protecting their core market.