Submitted By Simon Hardy Butler, March 16, 2017

Tender is the night. The American dollar is legal tender. One might tender a resignation.

I’m still trying to get over what the hell kind of product “chicken tenders” are.

When did this term come into the lexicon as an acceptable moniker for a slim poultry cutlet? Fast-food chain Burger King debuted its fried Chicken Tenders offering years ago, and I’m wondering if that’s the derivation. But has this arrived at the public domain?

Honestly, I dislike the label intensely. It’s awkward and ungrammatical, with a probable origin story derived from marketing and focus groups rather than good taste and organic sentiment. Yet it has become de rigueur to call this ingredient “chicken tenders” in the media, despite the fact that its name mirrors that of a trademarked product.

I say: Enough with this nonsense. Call the darn things chicken slices. Or forget about it and just opt for a hamburger instead.

The problem is, with this stamp, we are, in effect, advertising an existing menu item from another company, whether we want to or not. We’re not going our own way here. We’re going the way of a restaurant chain.

What’s next–calling salmon steaks “Filet-O-Fishes” and beef patties made to our liking “Whoppers”? Where does the wackiness end?

To my mind, the best thing to do is give everything generic monikers describing what they are. Period. Otherwise, you get corporate chaos. And we don’t want that, do we?

Certainly not. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to Xerox my recipe for Tater Tots before I take a Tylenol for the headache I’m getting from all this company jargon.

It’s never easy.

Facebook Comments

Know a restaurant or issue we should write about?

Give us the scoop!

Contact Us