After Menulog: Rethinking Your Delivery and Takeaway Channel Mix

Australia’s food delivery market lost its second-largest platform in November 2025. For venues that relied on it, the exit is a prompt to rethink platform dependence, direct ordering and how the kitchen handles off-premise trade.

For more than a decade, a venue’s food delivery strategy often meant listing on every platform and letting the orders arrive. That approach became harder to sustain when Menulog stopped operating in Australia late last year, leaving Uber and DoorDash as the two largest remaining platforms. Almost a year on, the question for operators is not which app to add next, but how much of their off-premise trade they want any single platform to control, and whether their kitchen and pricing are designed for it.

What changed in the market

In its report on Menulog’s Australian closure, the ABC said the platform would remain active until 23:59 AEDT on Wednesday 26 November 2025. Citing IBISWorld’s 2024 report on online food ordering and delivery platforms, it said Menulog accounted for 23.8 per cent of the Australian market, making it the second-largest player, while Uber held 53.8 per cent and DoorDash 14.6 per cent. Deliveroo had already stopped operating in Australia in 2022.

Alex Veen, senior lecturer in Work and Organisational Studies at the University of Sydney Business School, told the ABC that Menulog’s share had fallen “from around 80 per cent in 2014 to less than 25 per cent”. The market has been consolidating for years; Menulog’s exit has concentrated it further.

The channel data pulls in two directions

The demand picture is less clear than the market structure. Lightspeed’s 2026 State of Hospitality Report states that dine-in “remains the largest revenue stream”, but that its share fell from 31 per cent in 2024 to 20 per cent in 2025 “as takeaway, delivery and alternative channels continued to grow”. It also reports that 40 per cent of operators are expanding online channels, and that customers are now dining out and ordering takeaway equally, three times a month on average.

Now Book It’s analysis of the same report reads the data differently. It describes “one of the most significant trend reversals in the report: takeaway orders dropped sharply in 2025 following strong growth in 2024”, and attributes dine-in’s falling share to other channels such as “catering, events, pre-packaged meals, and subscriptions”. Both are vendor sources, and Lightspeed does not publish its sample size. We have not resolved the tension, and operators should not try to resolve it from national averages either. The useful lesson is that revenue is spreading across more channels, and that the right mix differs from venue to venue.

The platform decides how many people see your menu. It should not decide your margin, your packaging or your relationship with the guest.

Concentration risk is a business risk

When two platforms carry most of the market, a change to one platform’s fees, ranking rules or service area can move a venue’s revenue overnight. That is a concentration risk, and it deserves the same attention as reliance on a single supplier or landlord. The first step is to know the numbers: what share of total revenue comes through each platform, and what each order contributes once platform fees, packaging, discounts and refunds are deducted.

Direct ordering, done properly

Direct ordering through the venue’s own website or app avoids platform fees, keeps the customer relationship and lets the venue control pricing. It also brings costs the platforms used to absorb, including payment processing, marketing and, if the venue delivers itself, drivers and insurance. We set out the questions to ask before choosing a system in Five Things to Consider when Choosing the Right Online Ordering Platform; the market has changed since then, but the questions about integration, fees and data ownership still apply. For many venues, the practical model is a blend: platforms for discovery, direct ordering for regulars, and pick-up as the lowest-cost channel of all.

Design the kitchen for off-premise trade

Off-premise orders compete with dine-in for the same pass, the same cooks and the same peak hours. A venue that treats delivery as an afterthought ends up with drivers crowding the entrance, packaging stored wherever it fits and dishes that travel badly. A dedicated packing point, a separate collection area and a menu edited for travel all protect the dine-in experience while delivery orders are prepared.

A channel-mix review in six steps

1. Measure contribution by channel. Calculate what each dine-in, pick-up, direct-delivery and platform order contributes after every channel cost, not just its gross value.

2. Set a concentration limit. Decide the maximum share of revenue you are willing to route through any single platform, and plan how to reach it.

3. Price each channel on its own costs. Where platform menus carry different prices, keep them consistent with the platform’s rules and clear to guests.

4. Give regulars a reason to order direct. Use loyalty offers, pick-up incentives or exclusive items to move repeat customers onto channels you control.

5. Edit the delivery menu. Remove dishes that travel poorly and package the rest to arrive as close as possible to how they leave the pass.

6. Separate the flows. Give packing and collection their own space, so off-premise trade does not slow the dining room.

Menulog’s exit was a reminder that the channels venues rely on can change quickly. At Alto Cibum, channel strategy is part of our food and beverage masterplan work, where we look at the menu, the kitchen layout and the revenue mix together, so a venue’s off-premise trade is designed for rather than tolerated.

Robert Clifford, Managing Director, Alto Cibum