Burger King’s Satisfries Off The Menu In 2/3 Of Restaurants

Less satisfrying than Burger King had anticipated.

Less satisfrying than Burger King had anticipated.

Satisfries are dead. Long live Chicken Fries! Less than a year after they hit the menu, Burger King has given their franchisees a choice: they can keep Satisfries, a version of the chain’s French fries that have less fat and fewer calories, on the menu if they’re performing well, or ditch the fries if they aren’t. A little over a third of the Burger Kings in North America will keep them on the menu for now.

The new fries were designed to be pretty much the same thing as regular Burger King fries, but with a different coating that prevented them from absorbing as much oil from the fryer. Both types of fries even cook in the same oil. In a statement today, quoted by Bloomberg Businessweek, the chain said that . Our brave colleagues on the Consumer Reports sensory panel tried out the fries last fall and found that they tasted a lot like Burger King’s regular fries. That was not intended as a compliment.

Satisfries apparently didn’t catch on in most markets, even though BK tried fun publicity stunts like pretending to change its name, and even adding Satisfries as an option in their meals for children.

Burger King’s Satisfries Are Over [Bloomberg Businessweek]

Read Comments8

Edit Your Comment

  1. theoriginalcatastrophegirl says:

    new coating? what, like plastic?

  2. oomingmak says:

    I tried them once or twice and thought they tasted exactly the same — maybe even a little bit better. If Burger King really cared about their customers they just would have made the switch to the new fry. Nobody would have cared and nobody would have known the difference. But their half-assery almost guaranteed the failure — in much the same way the U.S. dollar coin fails time and time again.

  3. Xenotaku says:

    I prefer(red?) the Satisfries to the regular fries. For one, because of the thicker, crinkly form, they had more insides than the others. For another, they just had a slightly different taste (maybe the less oil?).

    My problem, though, was that they cost more. Sure, you could sub them in a kids meal, but not in a regular combo. And it’s a difference of, like, $.75-1, depending on the size.

  4. SingleMaltGeek says:

    They’ve just doomed them to fail, as people will not order them regularly if they aren’t sure if they can get them everywhere. Also, it’s not like people who are looking to eat healthier are Burger King’s biggest demographic. If I had gone to BK while they were available I would have tried them, but it’s usually years between my visits to places like that.

  5. ComputerGary says:

    I had them once and they were okay. I’d have ordered them again, but they had two strikes against them:

    1) They were more expensive than regular fries.

    2) I felt silly asking for “Satisfries.” “Satisfry” sounds more like the tag line in a marketing slogan – ‘Try Burger King’s new formula french fries – they satisfry.’