While the initiatives taken by the private ownership were bold, they did not yield the fruits that were hoped for. The Sacramento Concept was completed, and neither store performed well. Howe Avenue had poor sales and was closed a couple of years or so after reopening, while the Citrus Heights store remained open for a few years. At a cost of over $1 million, no viable concept emerged from that experiment.

On the Impact ‘83 side, the Farrell’s moniker was now “Farrell’s Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour”. The new menus were quite stylish (although I always likened them to the Ground Round menus of that era).  Customer receptiveness of the food items was very favorable. There was one problem, though. Sales were not increasing enough to offset the increased costs of the new menu and associated food prep.

Aside from the menu, something fundamental had occurred which the owners had not thought (or cared) about. The consulting surveys were largely conducted at parlours located in shopping centers in the northwest. What was not realized was that the type of customer that frequents a parlour inside a shopping mall is very different from the customer that goes to a free-standing parlour. The elimination of the drum, siren and bell from the free-standing parlours had a detrimental effect on sales at those parlours. People did not frequent those parlours for lunch or dinner, they went there to have fun!

[A personal story - The Wisconsin-Illinois district used the Ford City parlour (a free-standing parlour) to train all the management on the new menu and procedures. As the training store, the menu and atmosphere changes were rolled out there on the day of our meeting. While we were there, a birthday party was being held on the other side of the store. When it was time to celebrate the birthday, we all went over (sans drum, siren or bell) and sang a nice round of happy birthday. The birthday child's father was so incensed by the lack of festiveness that he came over, interrupted our meeting, and demanded the corporate address so he could write. His disgust with the changes was reflected in that store's sales, which dropped nearly 30% over the next 12 months. Fourteen months after the drum and bell were removed from Ford City, the parlour was closed permanently.]

A sidebar event occurred during this time period (summer 1984), which also hurt Farrell's reputation. The marketing firm which Farrell's had previously used to maintain the birthday club database had sold the database to the Selective Service. This was done without the permission of Farrell's, which still owned the data. The database was returned to Farrell's shortly thereafter; however, the damage was done (although it did make fodder for the news media).

The private ownership of Farrell's had to infuse cash into the organization at least once in the 1983-84 timeframe, and soon became apparent to them that the vision of Impact '83 was not going to be profitable. In late 1983, Tom Petika resigned as president of Farrell’s. After a short search, Tom Charters was recruited in January, 1984, from the Steak ‘n’ Shake chain to head up the company. Mr. Charters first actions were swift; bring back the drum for birthdays, and cut the hemorrhaging costs throughout the organization.

The Impact ‘83 program was very labor-intensive; labor costs in most parlours were 5-6 points higher than they had been historically. This cost was killing the corporate bottom-line, so labor targets were tightened up in an effort to boost profitability and improve cash flow.

By this time, the company owed $10 million to its primary lender and was way behind in its repayment schedule. While the lender was pressuring the company to implement a liquidation plan in 1984, Board Director Richard Blum prevented that plan from going forward. It was an election year, after all, and Blum's wife (then-mayor Dianne Feinstein) was a finalist for the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate. Somehow, closing down the majority of Farrell's parlours during the campaign would not be viewed positively. Only after the convention in July (when Feinstein lost out to Geraldine Ferraro) did the company retain a real estate expert to begin divesting properties, primarily in the Midwest.

Tom Charters left Farrell’s in October, 1984. Comptroller Ken Weber became the fourth President of the company.

At this time, the company began revisiting its focus - a chain of competing ice cream parlours was starting to expand quickly in California. This chain offered 6-scoop ice cream sundaes for $1.95, and people could not get enough of it. The company felt that it was too expensive to continue to compete as a full food menu restaurant. Ice cream is not as labor-intensive, and one can make a decent profit off of it. The decision was made to abandon most of the food concepts. A new menu was unveiled in December, 1984; this menu had hamburgers, hot dogs, a chicken sandwich, and that was pretty much it for food. Ice cream was the focus now, and several new 6-scoop sundaes were added to the menu. Some of the classic sundaes were changed as well; the Pig's Trough was changed from 6 scoops to 12 scoops of ice cream, and the Pike's Peak sundae was doubled in size as well.

What the elimination of the drum did to the free-standing parlours in 1983, the reduction of the food items did to the shopping center parlours in 1984. The new menu was unveiled in the middle of the Christmas shopping season, and almost overnight sales at shopping mall stores dropped. (A personal note: The parlour in Woodfield Mall in Schaumburg served 1,300 guests on the day shift on the Saturday preceding the menu change. The new menu was rolled out mid-week, and the following Saturday so many guests walked out after seeing the new menu that the store only served 700 guests.)

Internally, the message from Farrell's corporate office was that they were going to downsize and refocus its operations on West Coast operations, particularly Southern California. One rumor was circulating that Farrell's had even offered to purchase the San Diego parlours from the long-time franchisee, who declined the offer.  In this context however, the latest menu revision was designed to place Farrell's in direct competition with the above-mentioned chain.