In-N-Out Burger CEO Lynsi Snyder faced a backlash in late July when she announced on a podcast that she was moving to Tennessee, where the brand is building a new office.
The burger chain has been synonymous with California, and the Western U.S., since its founding in Baldwin Park in 1948. Snyder said on the podcast that it was difficult to raise a family in California, doing business here was hard, and the move would allow workers to buy more affordable homes outside of the expensive Golden State housing market.
RELATED: In-N-Out debate: Which is better for families, California or Tennessee?
Backlash was swift, with many of In-N-Out’s biggest fans pointing out Snyder’s net worth was estimated to be $7.3 billion (according to Forbes) and that she had personally benefited from California. She later took to Instagram to say the company would still be headquartered in California and she appreciated the state’s customers.
Business types and opinion writers came to her defense, noting the state’s high income tax and that other big companies have decided to relocate.
Question: Does the In-N-Out Burger CEO moving to Tennessee hurt the brand?
Economists
Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy
NO: People go to In-N-Out for the burgers, not the boardroom biography. If you can still order multiple quality patties from the secret menu, the brand will be just fine. The real eyebrow-raiser here isn’t branding — it’s California’s business and living costs. Maybe it’s time the Golden State focuses more on reducing delays for zoning permits and such to rival the line at an In-N-Out. Otherwise, we are going to see more businesses moving Out than In.
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research
NO: Numerous major firms leave California because of the state’s oppressive regulations, taxes and operating costs. Since 2018, 275 headquarters relocated from the state, worth more than $550 billion, according to Business Insider. The CEO and other execs moving is likely the first step in later relocating headquarter operations. Moving is a highly disruptive action taken to preserve and prosper a business that would otherwise prefer not doing. In-N-Out’s relocation further reflects the dimming of Southern California’s fading lifestyle image.
James Hamilton, UC San Diego
NO: The brand name that should be hurt by CEO Lynsi Snyder’s move is the state of California, not In-N-Out Burger. California has the highest tax rates in the U.S. and near the highest minimum wage. Our government piles regulations on businesses and turns a blind eye as shoplifting ruins retail outlets. The politicians try to blame company greed every time the state loses more of its wealth creators. But I think the blame is in Sacramento.
Norm Miller, University of San Diego
NO: Most consumers don’t know where CEOs live or where headquarters are, except for some local brands. Amazon Prime members rarely check product origins unless shipping costs are involved. In-N-Out Burger sources meat, buns, and sauces from California and Texas. What more do you want? Lynsi Snyder should not be attacked for making claims about the relative costs of living or regulatory burdens employers face here that most of us know are true.
David Ely, San Diego State University
NO: The backlash from the poorly chosen comments may cause some customers to shift to rivals, but In-N-Out can engage in damage control and repair the brand by emphasizing a continuing commitment to its California customers. The company is not alone in having a CEO make negative statements about California or to move operations and staff to another state. Moreover, some customers may agree with the CEO’s statements that California is expensive and not business friendly.
Ray Major, economist
NO: In-n-Out’s decision to relocate reflects a practical response to California’s anti‑business climate, economic realities and housing unaffordability. The move does not harm the brand. This is just the beginning of the exodus of businesses from California due to high corporate and income taxes, and ridiculous state and local regulations. Furthermore, this move positions In‑N‑Out for better national growth and improved operational efficiency while providing corporate employees a higher quality of life with lower taxes and housing costs.
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
YES: One aspect of In-N-Out’s brand is that it is a California institution. Many of its locations have crossed palm trees outside and its packaging features palm trees. It has a cult-like following that spreads through word-of-mouth, and people make a point of visiting the restaurant during trips to California. Moving to Tennessee may help it in terms of expanding nationally, but its uniqueness may be reduced as it becomes more available and competes against McDonald’s and Burger King.
Executives
Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere
NO: In-N-Out’s popularity is built on high-quality ingredients, a concise menu, limited presence across the country and strong brand values — not the location of its headquarters or its CEO. The CEO’s move to Tennessee reflects a broader trend of business (and residential) departures from California, which isn’t a business-friendly state because of regulatory and economic challenges. This move is unlikely to harm the brand, which remains beloved for its culture and customer experience.
Phil Blair, Manpower
NO: Not the brand, just California’s pride. Where the CEO and their families live is irrelevant to the quality of the product. It does speak to high state income taxes in California and what the wealthy are doing to avoid them.
Gary London, London Moeder Advisors
NO: This is probably a tax dodge. California has the fifth highest overall tax rate in the U.S., while Tennessee has the 46th lowest. Snyder should enjoy Tennessee’s weather. While she can’t jog outside most of the year, she can well afford an indoor running track. I am confident that this will have zero impact on In-N-Out’s business. My sons will still rate their burgers No. 1 and covet their animal-style fries
Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates
NO: Californians see the brand as a cultural icon. The company is opening an “eastern territory” office to support expansion, and In-N-Out has a fiercely loyal customer base. Past controversies, like political donations, sparked brief outrage but didn’t dent sales. Furthermore, Tennessee offers significant tax advantages, including no personal income tax and lower corporate taxes, which could benefit the company financially. We all understand that, as we live in a state that seems anti-business. Let’s change that.
Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth
NO: Lynsi Snyder’s relocation won’t dent In-N-Out’s rabid following. Quality, consistency and price drive the brand’s loyalty, and the supply chain remains California-based. The company is already expanding eastward, and backlash over the CEO’s address will fade quickly. In my view, the larger reputational risk lies in reports of increasingly explicit “Christian values” pushed on staff and patrons — a trend that could eventually alienate customers in diverse markets.
Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health
NO: The customers who love In-N-Out will continue to love it. Few will know or care where the company CEO lives. Their CEO is correct that it is more difficult to do business in California compared to many other states due to regulations, high minimum wages — critical for fast-food restaurants — and taxes. Other states are trying to attract businesses with incentives, low taxes and fewer regulations. That’s how jobs are created and economies grown.
Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020
<
