Outback is no longer America's king of steaks
Americans don't want Outback's Aussie-themed steaks anymore. Instead, they're craving Texas-style cuts from Texas Roadhouse and LongHorn's tender filets.
Texas Roadhouse and LongHorn's sales topped Outback's last year, and the chains' stocks are going in different directions. Texas Roadhouse's stock has increased around 15% over the last year, while shares of LongHorn-owner Darden jumped around 25%. Meanwhile, Outback parent company Bloomin' Brands' stock has tumbled more than 70% to roughly $8 a share.
As inflation pressures cut into consumers' spending, Americans are abandoning casual dining chains they don't perceive as good value such as Outback and TGI Fridays. Instead, they are shifting to Roadhouse, LongHorn, Chili's and other chains they feel offer them a better deal when they go out to dinner.
It's a steep fall for Outback, which defined the casual dining steakhouse model in the United States. Founded in 1988, customers jumped on Outback's cheap, juicy sirloin steaks and deep-fried onion blossoms during the 1990s and 2000s.
But Outback's mistakes and competitors' innovative strategies have tipped the power order in the restaurant steak wars. Outback hiked prices too high, relied too heavily on promotions to draw diners, and cut costs too far. Customers and analysts alike say food quality suffered, table service slowed and restaurants became dingy. Outback is also more expensive: The chain's check average was $29 last year — $6 above Roadhouse and $2.50 more than LongHorn.
That allowed Roadhouse to peel off Outback's budget-conscious customers, while LongHorn won diners by increasing the size of its steaks. Both chains also increased prices at a slower pace than Outback while investing in their staffs and restaurant remodels.
These factors, combined with better menu quality, has led to the success of these brands, according to RJ Hottovy, an analyst at Placer.ai. Roadhouse and Longhorn both rank at the top of the American Customer Satisfaction Index, a benchmark of consumers' opinions about restaurants and fast-food chains.
Outback was Richard Mathis's favorite restaurant in high school, even celebrating his graduation there. But he says Outback is 'consistently disappointing' these days.
'When I go into an Outback now, it feels sterile and cold. They just don't feel fun,' Mathis said. 'I want to eat and leave. I don't feel any desire to hang out there.'
He now prefers Texas Roadhouse when he goes out to eat with his wife or friends. The steak is better, the staff is friendlier and it's 'fun, bright and there's music,' he said. 'Roadhouse feels like going to a country bar.'
Although the three chains are all casual steakhouses, there are key differences that explain their divergent performance.
Outback, whose concept was based on the movie 'Crocodile Dundee,' spread nationally during the 1990s and 2000s. Although its four founders were not Australian, Outback had faux-Australian items on the menu like 'Ribs on the Barbie' and 'Walkabout Soup.' The chain sold a wider variety of casual fare beyond steaks, becoming recognized for its signature items like the 'Bloomin' Onion' and 'Alice Springs Chicken.' But the size of the menu became unwieldy for staff as the chain also offered limited-time promotions to try to spur customers to visit.
Location mattered as well. Outback for years opened restaurants around malls, but that backfired as foot traffic to malls dwindled. Outback has closed dozens of its older restaurants in recent years.
As Outback struggled, competitors stepped in.
Texas Roadhouse stuck to lower prices on most items compared to the one-off promotions at Outback. The chain also won over customers with its lively, rodeo-style restaurants, featuring wood-paneled walls, murals and upbeat country tunes. Roadhouse distinguished its brand with free peanuts, bread rolls with honey cinnamon butter and occasional line dancing by waiters.
'Roadhouse is winning because they have a much better value proposition than anybody else,' said Peter Saleh, an analyst at BTIG.
LongHorn has stood out through its upscale-dining feel and bigger steaks for similar prices to Outback's.
LongHorn started in the early 1980s as a budget-friendly roadhouse restaurant. But LongHorn ditched that concept and moved upmarket to court higher-income diners. In 2007, Darden, the owner of Olive Garden, Capital Grille and Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, bought LongHorn.
'LongHorn has made significant investments over the years in quality, and that continues to pay off,' Darden CEO Rick Cardenas said last year. He noted that LongHorn was attracting customers trading down from fine-dining restaurants.
But Outback says it can return to its past glory.
'Consumer research shows there is an affinity for [Outback],' a spokesperson for Bloomin' Brands told CNN. 'With the investments we're making to improve operations and deliver a better guest experience, we are excited about the future potential of our business.'
Despite its recent struggles, Outback believes it can turn its business around with a new strategy and leadership.
Mike Spanos, the former chief operating officer at Delta, became CEO of Outback parent Bloomin' last year. Outback also has a new president, Pat Hafner, a 29-year veteran of the chain.
'Outback is a great business. It is a great brand,' Spanos said last month. 'It is a very fixable business.'
Outback plans to cut 20% of the menu and reduce limited-time promotions to simplify operations for restaurant staff. These promotional offers hurt Outback's profit and created bottlenecks for workers. Instead, Outback will shift to setting consistently low prices.
'We were featuring items in short promotional periods that created complexity for our operators, and we failed to drive value in our core' menu items, Spanos said.
Outback also will slow its new restaurant openings and direct its investments to remodeling current locations.
'We need to focus on getting the guest experience right before we earn the right to grow,' he said.
Chili's recent turnaround offers hope for Outback and a roadmap it can follow.
Chili's has unexpectedly pulled off its comeback thanks to upgraded French fry and chicken tender recipes, fast food-like prices and viral TikTok videos of customers pulling apart its gooey mozzarella sticks.
Chili's sales at restaurants open for at least a year increased a whopping 31% last quarter. It was Chili's third-straight quarter of double-digit sales growth.
Old Outback customers like Richard Mathis are rooting for a Chili's-like comeback.
'I love the brand and wish it was back to the way it was,' he said. 'I want to go to Outback.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Baby Boomers: 1 in 3 say they'll never sell their home, according to survey
(NewsNation) — Over one-third of baby boomers who own their homes claim they will never sell them, according to a Redfin-commissioned survey. The survey also found that an additional 30% say they will at least hold on to their home for a decade, but are willing to sell. Those who are older (the Silent Generation) are even less likely to sell their homes, with 44.6% saying they never would. Younger homeowners, however, are on the opposite side of the spectrum. 21% of millennials/Gen Zers and 25% of Gen Xers said they would never sell their homes. According to Redfin, these results could reflect the fact that many baby boomers don't have the financial incentive that is typically needed to sell a home. Also, many older homeowners have lived in the same home for a while and prefer to stay where they are. Around 67% of the baby boomers in the study had lived in their homes for at least 16 years. Fifty-five percent of baby boomers said they like their homes and have no reason to move, which is the most common reason they stayed. Other common reasons included: Housing prices are up around 40% since before the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Redfin, with mortgage rates nearing 7%. That's up from around 4% before the pandemic. Currently, 31% of baby boomers said they wouldn't be able to own a home in a neighborhood similar to theirs in today's economy. This reasoning is also making it harder for younger Americans to find homes. 88% of homes owned by Baby Boomers are single-family homes, which also might not be large enough to fit an entire family. Only 5% are condos and 4% are townhomes. An analysis by Redfin in 2024 showed that baby boomers are much more likely to have larger homes, despite most millennials and Gen Z homeowners having minor children living at home, compared to only 4% of Baby Boomers. Redfin Chief Economist Daryl Fairweather said, 'With baby boomers opting to age in place rather than sell, it's challenging for younger buyers to find affordable options that fit their lifestyle. But it's worth noting that even though many older Americans say they're not planning to sell their homes, many are likely to eventually part ways as it becomes harder to live independently and/or keep up with home maintenance.' The study also showed that around 25% of millennials and Gen Zers won't be buying a home anytime soon because they can't afford one where they want to live. Other reasons include: At least supply is up, with nearly 500,000 more home sellers than buyers in the current market, according to Redfin. Redfin economists believe that home prices will decline by 1% by the end of 2025. This survey was commissioned by Redfin and conducted by Ipsos in May. Around 4,000 residents were included in the survey.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Jean Chatzky sends powerful message on Social Security, 401(k)s
For many Americans, preparing for retirement means carefully evaluating key financial milestones tied to different stages of life in order to maintain financial security and preserve the quality of life they hope to enjoy. Everyday costs - such as groceries, utilities, mobile services, and transportation - play a major role in shaping workers' financial priorities and determining how much they can put toward savings and investments. Jean Chatzky, former financial editor for NBC's "Today Show" and now with AARP, recognizes these challenges. She works to guide people through smart strategies for boosting their Social Security benefits and making the most of employer-sponsored 401(k) plans. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Assessing one's future income sources - including Social Security and personal retirement accounts such as 401(k)s - is a key part of building a secure retirement plan. Chatzky encourages Americans to think strategically about when to begin collecting Social Security, as claiming early can significantly shrink monthly payments. For those who anticipate a longer lifespan, she suggests holding off until age 70 to receive the maximum possible benefit. When it comes to married couples, Chatzky advises that the spouse with the higher earnings history delay tapping into benefits - especially if the other partner is likely to live longer - helping to ensure greater long-term financial support. She also highlights the upside of continuing to work while drawing Social Security, whether one does so for financial reasons or to stay active and connected during retirement. Related: Tony Robbins sends strong message to Americans on 401(k)s Beyond Social Security, Chatzky highlights both the opportunities and potential pitfalls tied to retirement accounts such as 401(k)s. She underscores the fact that many Americans are at real risk of depleting their savings during retirement. To help combat this, Chatzky shares practical approaches aimed at stretching retirement dollars further and minimizing the chance of financial shortfalls later in life. Chatzky emphasizes her belief that regularly setting aside money is essential for making more room in one's budget to invest in a 401(k) plan. "This is why saving in a 401(k) plan works," Chatzky explained in "Money Rules," a book she authored that offers solutions to personal finance challenges. "The money is swiped out of your pay before it ever lands in your checking account so you never see it. It's invisible, which makes it safe, for out-of-sight means you can't pull it out of the ATM." "If you can't see it and you can't touch it, you won't spend it," Chatzky wrote. More on retirement: Dave Ramsey offers urgent thoughts about MedicareJean Chatzky shares major statement on Social SecurityTony Robbins has blunt words on IRAs,401(k)s Chatzky advises people that there is no need to limit this philosophy to one's 401(k) contributions. "Have money swiped out of your checking account as soon as you get paid," she wrote. "Barricade it by parking it in places that penalize you for early withdrawal like 529 college savings accounts, IRAs, and certificates of deposit." "Even putting the money in an Internet savings account that doesn't come with an ATM card can do the trick surprisingly well," Chatzky continued. Related: Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary warns Americans on 401(k)s Chatzky explains one way to look at retirement savings tasks such as boosting 401(k) values to achieve goals: as financial security maps. "The only way to find financial security is to draw yourself a map," Chatzky wrote. "Folks who have specific financial plans that detail what they want - say, retirement at 67 with a paid-off mortgage, membership at the local golf club, and enough money to take two trips to the Caribbean a year - save more than people who don't have specific financial plans." Chatzky points out that people tend to get sidetracked by everyday distractions, which is why having a clear financial plan is essential. Without a direction, it's difficult to make meaningful progress toward retirement goals. Of course, she acknowledges that plans can - and should - evolve. One day, she explains, you might realize you no longer see yourself retiring in your current home and instead imagine starting a new chapter somewhere more adventurous or serene. When that moment comes, the solution isn't to abandon planning altogether - it's to create a new roadmap that reflects your updated vision. To Chatzky, regularly refining one's goals is far more effective than drifting without any at all. Related: Dave Ramsey sends strong message to Americans on Medicare The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
How The Big Beautiful Bill Will Handicap Clean Energy
The Capitol Building, home of the United State Congress. Green Technologies At Risk In Current Mega Bill As it was written, the Big, Beautiful Bill (Mega Bill) passed by The House of Representatives in May would handicap certain green projects (solar, wind, and batteries) that are in line to receive tax credits made available by the Biden government. The handicap is hard to understand because in the U.S. over 90% of new energy projects in 2023 and 2024 was generated by solar, wind, and batteries. What is the handicap? The Mega Bill mandates that such projects must begin within two months of passage of the bill, and would have to be completed, and in service, by the last day of 2028, or the tax credits would be canceled. To see what impact this would have on green projects, one analysis looked at clean electrical projects that are currently in the interconnection queue, and due to go online during 2028 or later (it wouldn't be uncommon for projects slated to complete in 2028 to spill over to 2029, which would cancel the tax credits.) The total for all these at-risk projects in Figure 1 amounts to 600 GW (gigawatts). The largest three projects are CAISO of California at 183 GW, ERCOT of Texas at 128 GW, and MISO (Midwest and South) at 111 GW. Figure 1. The truth is, current electrical production in U.S. is 1200 GW, and this will need to grow rapidly to power new AI data centers. So, if all these seven green projects lost their tax credits and dropped out of the interconnection queue, it would represent a huge loss that is 50% of current electrical production in the U.S. This loss would be like tossing away 600 traditional power plants that added up to 50% of current U.S. electricity supply. Granted, a number of projects in Figure 1 would drop out of the queue anyway, due to other factors such as financial commitments that fall through. But still, a loss of remaining projects that would stand to boost current U.S. power by 30% or 40% or 50% would be an unforgiveable loss—especially since solar, wind and battery projects have all the market momentum in the past few years. Speaking of momentum, in 2023 and 2024 in the U.S., the vast majority (93%--94%) of new energy sources were solar, wind, and batteries. The only commercially proven competitor is gas-fired power plants, which are facing serious delays, and they cost more. What if projects that lost their tax credits were to go ahead to completion? They might, but it's obvious this would translate to higher cost of electricity for consumers. Mega Bill Changes Suggested By Senate. The House Mega Bill has gone to the Senate, and on Monday June 16 they have proposed some changes. UtilityDive reports that the harsh 'start by – complete by' House requirement to access the tax credits has been removed. In one box, nuclear, geothermal and hydropower can claim the tax credits so long as they start construction by 2033. But in another box, wind and solar can obtain only 60% of the tax credits and only if they break ground by 2026. Or 20% if by 2027. Or zero if after that. This is a serious handicap for the frontrunners, solar and wind, that have provided over 93% of new electrical capacity in 2023 and 2024. And it comes at a crucial time, because the U.S. needs to quickly boost its power capability by a massive amount to supply AI data centers. One positive: battery storage or BESS (battery energy storage systems) can access tax credits until 2036, although the credits will be tapered down, according to Canary Media. Also, some solar and wind projects would be able to keep the tax credits beyond the end of 2028—provided they exist on federal land, generate 1 GW or more power, and have obtained right-of-way approval from the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). The next steps are: the Senate as a whole has to pass these changes, and then attempt to reconcile with the House. The timeline is short as the goal is to get the final version of the Mega Bill to President Trump's desk by July 4. Coming out of all the discussion and debate, it seems the Mega Bill wants to handicap wind and solar and batteries. But why? Reasons Why The Mega Bill Would Handicap Wind And Solar Energy. First, the Bill will cause electricity prices to rise. If cheap wind, solar and batteries are handicapped in preference to expensive almost-defunct coal power plants, commercially unproven SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors), and next-gen geothermal methods, then prices of electricity will rise. Table 1 lays this out, using the most recent LCOE data from Lazard. Table 1. Most recent LCOE estimates for various electrical sources. With tax credits and based on a utility scale, solar PV + BESS and wind + BESS are cheaper than geothermal with tax credits, and much cheaper than gas-fired power, nuclear, and coal. If the Mega Bill handicaps wind and solar in the race, electrical costs will zoom upwards. Second, the Bill seems to be unaware of green energy success in Australia. In the state of South Australia renewables plus batteries have been providing 72% of grid electricity continuously for three years, and this is expected to rise to 100% by 2027. Solar, wind, and batteries have proven the stability and reliability of renewables commercially. The first grid-scale BESS was started in 2017 by Elon Musk in South Australia, and BESS are expanding rapidly in the U.S. as well as in Australia. Intermittent power is no longer a reason to dismiss renewables, despite what the Energy Secretary says, because BESS have solved this problem and electricity from solar and wind renewables with BESS is dispatchable. Third, the Bill assumes new investments in old energy (coal, natural gas, and nuclear) will be embraced by the U.S. population. However, global spending on low-carbon power has doubled in the past five years. Solar PV is the leader in this space, with investments that will reach $450 billion in 2025. Coal is too dirty when it burns, and in the U.S. the market share has dropped from 50% in 2011 to 11% in 2024. Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, but the market for new gas-fired power plants has dropped out in the past two years, due to cost and delays in permitting and supply chains. The cost of new nuclear reactors, whether traditional reactors or SMRs, is substantially higher than renewable energies (Table 1). There is also the ubiquitous threat of being exposed to nuclear radiation, either from nuclear accidents or from underground storage of nuclear waste. It has been reported that U.S. nuclear reactors that were decommissioned some time ago can be recommissioned, but at a heavy cost of around $1 billion per unit. Fourth, the Bill enables China to forge ahead with a green energy economy, while the U.S. goes backward. Energy from solar, wind, and batteries is cheap, and has a short new-build time. It will continue to provide jobs and grow the economy, and benefits include lower electricity prices and less pollution. A key advantage is already-commercialized power for data centers that will enable the U.S. to compete with China in the race for AI. The handicap and setbacks of a thriving clean industry in the U.S. would be China's gain. Fifth, the Bill will force job losses by handicapping green industries. If projects in the above list of seven in Figure 1 were to be canceled due to the Mega Bill handicaps, there could be serious job losses. To illustrate by results in 2024, one report quotes $80 billion invested in clean power in 2024, which supported 1.4 million jobs in the U.S. Another answer is that current tax credits would enable strong economic growth by 2035: almost $2 trillion of monetary growth and almost 14 million jobs. This amounts to a return on the federal investment by four-times. The green energy benefits and financial returns of wind and solar with battery storage apply to both Republican and Democratic states in the U.S.. But so do the losses, if Congress decides to handicap wind and solar renewables. The biggest losses may be soaring electricity costs in the U.S., and the U.S. bending to China's clean energy boom of surging solar and BESS projects that will reliably service their AI data center programs.
