Restaurant and Food Service Operations: Sales Growth, Traffic Pressure and Cost Control in the United States

Summary

This report covers restaurant and food service operations in the United States, with global data used only for food waste. Latest available data point to rising nominal sales alongside weak customer traffic. The National Restaurant Association projects total US restaurant and foodservice sales of 1.55 trillion US dollars, up 4.8% nominal and 1.3% real ¹. Same-store sales rose 1.5% in April while same-store traffic fell 1.7% ⁴, which suggests growth is driven more by check size than by visits. Cost pressure is the main constraint. Operators report food costs more than 35% above pre-pandemic levels ¹, and a benchmark compilation puts full-service labor at a median of 36.5% of sales ⁵. An industry vendor estimates off-premise orders at close to 75% of restaurant traffic ⁸. The principal risks are margin compression, soft visits and food waste. Food service accounts for an estimated 28% of global food waste ⁹, although sources conflict on the exact share. The outlook is modest growth, with cost discipline mattering more than volume. Occupancy, average daily rate, RevPAR, covers, repeat visits, seasonality and customer ratings were not verified and are not reported.

Key findings

1. 1

   Sales are growing in dollars while traffic is falling

   Same-store sales rose 1.5% in April while same-store traffic fell 1.7%, and traffic had improved from negative readings in February and March ⁴. The industry forecast of 4.8% nominal growth implies that price and mix carry much of the expansion ¹. This is an interpretation of the two sources, not a stated finding of either.

   Confidence: High
2. 2

   Food costs remain well above pre-pandemic levels

   Operators surveyed report average food costs more than 35% above pre-pandemic levels ¹. The figure is an operator-reported observation, not an audited cost index, so it indicates direction and scale only.

   Confidence: High
3. 3

   Labor cost benchmarks show a wide gap between typical and profitable operators

   Full-service labor runs at a median of 36.5% of sales, while profitable operators hold it at 34.2% ⁵. Only 36% of restaurants meet labor cost targets, and 44% spend more than planned ⁷. These are secondary compilations of association and government data, and definitions vary.

   Confidence: Medium
4. 4

   Off-premise channels now carry most traffic, according to a vendor estimate

   Takeout, delivery and drive-thru orders are estimated at close to 75% of restaurant traffic, and 58% of limited-service restaurants generate a larger off-premise share than before the pandemic ⁸. The source is a vendor report and the figure is approximate, so it should be treated as directional.

   Confidence: Medium
5. 5

   Food service is a large but disputed share of food waste

   Estimates place food services at 28% of global food waste ⁹ and at 26% in an earlier UNEP-based estimate ¹⁰. The pack does not reconcile the two methodologies, so the share should be presented as a range of estimates, not a settled figure.

   Confidence: Qualitative

11. Industry definition and scope

This report defines the industry as commercial businesses that prepare and sell food and drink for consumption on premise or off premise. Within that definition, the report separates full-service restaurants, where guests are seated and served, from limited-service operators, where guests order at a counter or through a drive-thru, app or delivery platform. The distinction matters because the two models differ in labor intensity, tipping practice and off-premise exposure. Full-service restaurants surpassed limited-service restaurants in share of food-away-from-home sales, at 36.3% versus 36.2% ⁷.

The geographic scope is the United States for operator sales, traffic, labor and cost metrics. Global data is used only for food waste, because the pack offers no comparable US food waste measure. Hotel metrics such as occupancy, average daily rate and revenue per available room are outside the core scope, since the pack contains no verified restaurant equivalent.

Key terms include same-store sales, which compare sales at restaurants open in both periods; same-store traffic, which tracks visits; labor cost share, which may include payroll taxes and benefits in some sources; and wage share, which counts wages only ⁶. Sources do not always use these terms consistently, so comparisons across reports are approximate.

Definitions follow the cited sources. Where a source's definition is unclear, the report states the gap rather than assuming one.

22. Market size, structure and value chain

The National Restaurant Association projects total US restaurant and foodservice sales of 1.55 trillion US dollars for the current year, a 4.8% nominal increase, or 1.3% after inflation ¹. These are forecasts, not observed results. The same association forecasts that operators will add more than 100,000 jobs, lifting industry employment to about 15.8 million ². Forecasts from a single trade body should be read as an industry view.

The value chain runs from food and beverage suppliers and distributors, through operators who prepare and sell food, to customers who buy on premise, for takeout or through delivery platforms. Data providers, payment processors and point-of-sale vendors sit alongside this chain, supplying the traffic, tipping and labor data that the market relies on ⁷. Revenue models differ: full-service operators earn most of their revenue from dine-in checks, while limited-service operators earn more from counter, drive-thru and digital orders ⁸.

The pack does not provide verified shares of supplier concentration, independent versus chain ownership, or delivery platform market share. The only platform share found comes from a source outside the pack, so it is excluded.

The table below summarizes the headline indicators available in the pack, with each row attributed to its source and value type.

• Projected total US restaurant and foodservice sales 1.55trillion US dollars (nominal) Forecast United States, Current year [1]

Values are copied from the cited sources without adjustment. No market size for food service beyond the national sales figure is verified in the pack.

33. Customers, demand and adoption

Demand signals are mixed. More than 7 in 10 consumers say they would use restaurants more often if they had more disposable income ². This is an observed survey result that points to price sensitivity and discretionary spending as the main constraint on frequency, rather than a lack of interest in dining out.

Full-service visits rose 5% year over year in a fourth quarter survey, and fast casual visits rose 3% ¹². These are survey-based visit changes from a news report citing a consultancy survey, so they are directional. Full-service tipping averaged 19.2% of the bill in the third quarter, near a seven-year low, according to Toast tipping data ⁷. This is a provider dataset, not a census, and it indicates pressure on server earnings and perceived value.

Operators also expect different outcomes by segment. Among full-service operators, 32% expected higher sales and 47% expected similar sales, while among limited-service operators, 29% expected higher sales and 27% expected a decline ³. Customer expectations for service speed, digital ordering and value are discussed in industry commentary but are not quantified in the pack.

Several demand measures commonly used in this sector are not verified: covers, average check per cover, repeat visit rates, reservation or booking mix, seasonality indices and customer ratings. They are noted as gaps, not estimated.

• Full-service tips, average share of bill, third quarter 19.2percent of bill Observed United States, Third quarter, latest available data [7]

Survey and provider figures are reported as stated. Survey samples and weighting are not described in the pack.

44. Competitive landscape and key players

The pack does not verify the share of sales or units held by independent operators versus chains, so concentration cannot be quantified. Comparison is therefore made by operator type and by the providers that measure the market.

Full-service and limited-service operators compete on different terms. Full-service operators carry higher labor intensity and depend on dine-in checks, service quality and tipping practice, while limited-service operators depend more on speed, throughput, digital orders and off-premise sales ⁸. The outlook gap is visible in survey data: a larger share of full-service operators expected higher sales than limited-service operators, while a notable share of limited-service operators expected a decline ³.

Measurement providers play a visible role in the market narrative. Black Box Intelligence publishes same-store sales and traffic trends for US restaurants ⁴. Toast publishes tipping and labor target data drawn from its platform ⁷. Boostpoint computes labor cost shares from government data ⁶. Each provider uses its own sample and method, so their figures should not be averaged or ranked without adjustment.

Mindshare Consulting, a vendor, publishes off-premise estimates ⁸. Its figures are useful as a directional view but are not independently verified in the pack. Comparable examples across chains and independents were limited, and no like-for-like operator financial comparison is available in the pack.

Provider roles are described from the source pack only. No ranking of companies is implied.

55. Technology, operations and workforce

Labor is the largest operating cost after food. The median full-service labor cost is 36.5% of sales, while profitable operators hold labor at 34.2% ⁵. The chart compares these labor measures with the wage-only share for the broader food services and drinking places sector, which fell from 32.3% to 28.9% between the start of the comparison period and the first half of the latest year ⁶. The definitions differ, so the bars are not directly comparable.

Labor target performance is weak across the sector. Only 36% of restaurants hit labor cost targets, while 44% spend more than planned ⁷. This points to scheduling and productivity as operating priorities, but the pack does not identify which practices drive the gap.

Labor productivity, measured as sales per labor hour, was found only in calculator contexts and is not verified, so no productivity figure is reported. Technology adoption, including point-of-sale, scheduling and kitchen systems, is not quantified in the pack. Talent supply and skills shortages are not verified beyond the employment forecast ².

Business-model change is visible in the shift toward off-premise orders ⁸, which requires different kitchen layouts, packaging and digital ordering. The operational effects of this shift are not measured in the pack.

• Full-service labor cost, median share of sales 36.5percent of sales Observed United States, Latest available benchmark [5]

Benchmarks rely on secondary compilations. Primary tables were not retrieved in this pack.

66. Regulation, standards, risk and sustainability

The pack contains no binding regulatory texts for restaurant operations, and no jurisdiction-specific rules on food safety inspection, labor standards, privacy or accessibility were verified. Those areas are therefore not assessed here. Readers in regulated settings should consult the relevant national, state or local authorities. This report does not provide legal, medical or engineering advice.

Food waste is the most developed sustainability measure in the pack. Food services account for an estimated 28% of global food waste ⁹. An earlier UNEP-based estimate gave 26% ¹⁰. The pack notes that these shares conflict and that a separate estimate of about 1.05 billion tons of total food waste was not reconciled to one methodology ⁹. The shares are estimates, not observed measurements.

FAO guidance notes that a limited-service restaurant can generate less food waste than a full-service restaurant, because specials and onsite preparation raise waste ¹¹. This is qualitative guidance, not a measured comparison, and it is undated in the pack.

Operational risk is closely tied to cost. Food costs more than 35% above pre-pandemic levels, as reported by surveyed operators ¹, and the labor share of sales is high relative to profitable peers ⁵. Price increases may slow traffic further ⁴. Customer and staff health and safety, data privacy and environmental reporting are not quantified in the pack.

• Average food costs compared with pre-pandemic levels 35percent above pre-pandemic levels (more than) Observed United States, Latest available operator survey [1]

Food waste shares are from global estimates. The report does not apply them to US operators.

77. Challenges, opportunities and case examples

The main constraints are cost, traffic and labor productivity. Operators face food costs far above pre-pandemic levels ¹, soft visits ⁴, and labor targets that most restaurants miss ⁷. Consumers say more disposable income would increase their restaurant use ², which means demand is partly tied to household finances outside the operator's control.

Opportunities cluster around off-premise channels, where most traffic now appears to occur ⁸, and around waste reduction, where food service is a large share of an estimated global total ⁹. Limited-service operators in particular may benefit from the lower waste profile FAO describes ¹¹, although this is a general pattern rather than a measured result.

Case example one: Black Box Intelligence's April data show same-store sales up 1.5% while same-store traffic fell 1.7% ⁴. This pattern illustrates how an operator can grow revenue while serving fewer guests. Case example two: Toast's tipping data show full-service tips averaging 19.2% in the third quarter, near a seven-year low ⁷. This is a platform dataset, so it reflects Toast-served restaurants and may not represent the whole market.

Case example three: Boostpoint's calculation shows the wage share of sales falling from 32.3% to 28.9% between the start of the comparison period and the first half of the latest year ⁶. The pack does not explain whether this reflects higher sales, lower staffing or both, so the cause should be treated as unresolved.

Comparable operator-level case studies were limited in the pack. The examples are drawn from market data providers.

88. Outlook and strategic implications

In the near term, the most likely path is modest growth in sales with flat to weak traffic. This is an interpretation based on the industry forecast of 1.3% real growth ¹, the April traffic decline ⁴ and the mixed operator outlook ³. Scenarios depend on whether food and labor costs ease, which the pack does not forecast.

Over the medium term, the balance of growth may depend more on off-premise channels and on the efficiency of labor deployment than on dine-in volume ⁸⁵. If traffic remains negative, operators that cannot raise prices without losing guests may see further margin pressure. If costs stabilize, the labor and food benchmarks may become the main differentiators between profitable and weaker operators ⁵.

Practical implications for stakeholders: operators should track labor against target and food cost against pre-pandemic benchmarks; suppliers should expect pressure on price and volume; delivery and data providers should expect continued demand for channel data; policymakers and waste programs should work from consistent definitions of food service waste ⁹¹⁰. These are interpretations of the evidence, not recommendations from the sources.

Forecasts from the trade body are shown as forecasts. Vendor and survey results are treated as directional.

99. Conclusion

The latest available evidence points to a US restaurant sector that is growing in dollars but not in visits, under sustained cost pressure. The most defensible takeaways are that food and labor costs are the central operating constraint, that off-premise channels now carry much of the traffic, and that food waste estimates require a common method before they can be compared.

How this was built

Sources

1. 1

   State of the Restaurant Industry report

   National Restaurant Association Industry association

   wtop.com
2. 2

   Persistent Cost Increases and Enduring Demand Will Shape the Restaurant Industry press release

   National Restaurant Association Industry association

   restaurant.org
3. 3

   Restaurant industry faces modest growth amid cost pressures

   Nation's Restaurant News News report

   nrn.com
4. 4

   Restaurant Industry Trends, April results

   Black Box Intelligence Market research

   blackboxintelligence.com
5. 5

   Restaurant Financial Benchmarks and Restaurant Operating Costs Breakdown (labor and food cost benchmarks)

   Whipplewood and Zoomshift (secondary benchmark compilations citing NRA and BLS) Market research

   whipplewood.com
6. 6

   Restaurant Labor Costs: 28.9% of Sales

   Boostpoint (computed from BLS and Census data) Market research

   boostpoint.com
7. 7

   Restaurant and Food Service Industry Statistics

   MakeMyReceipt (citing USDA ERS, NRA, Toast) Market research

   makemyreceipt.com
8. 8

   Restaurant Industry Statistics and Trends

   Mindshare Consulting Vendor report

   mindshare.consulting
9. 9

   Food Waste Index Report and FAO Optiwaste

   Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Official statistics

   fao.org
10. 10

    Food Loss and Waste reduction in hospitality and food service sector

    FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia (citing UNEP Food Waste Index Report) Official statistics

    fao.org
11. 11

    FAO food loss and waste guidance for restaurants and catering

    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Official statistics

    fao.org
12. 12

    Restaurant Sales and Traffic Trends (Restaurant Performance Index context)

    QSR Magazine (citing Revenue Management Solutions survey) News report

    qsrmagazine.com