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
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You Can Only Buy 1 Cathie Wood Stock in 2025, It Should Be This
Cathie Wood, founder, CEO and chief investment officer of Ark Invest, continues to make headlines for her high-conviction approach to disruptive innovation. Her flagship fund, the Ark Innovation ETF (ARKK), has posted a 52.9% return in the past 52 weeks, reflecting investor confidence. Known for identifying transformational themes early, Wood maintains focused exposure to industries like genomics, autonomous technology, and blockchain. Within this context, Natera (NTRA) has drawn sharp relevance. The company leads in cell-free DNA testing and precision medicine, aligning directly with Ark's long-term thesis. CoreWeave Just Revealed the Largest-Ever Nvidia Blackwell GPU Cluster. Should You Buy CRWV Stock? AMD Is Gunning for Nvidia's AI Chip Throne. Should You Buy AMD Stock Now? The Saturday Spread: Statistical Signals Flash Green for CMG, TMUS and VALE Tired of missing midday reversals? The FREE Barchart Brief newsletter keeps you in the know. Sign up now! For investors seeking a stock that fits the Ark playbook, Natera may represent one of the most fundamentally aligned additions under Wood's current investment lens. Based in Austin, Texas, stands Natera (NTRA), a pioneer in the field of cell-free DNA and genetic testing. The $23.3 billion biotech firm's arsenal includes powerful offerings like Panorama for prenatal screening, Signatera for real-time cancer surveillance, and Prospera, which sharpens the lens on transplant rejection. Over the last three months, the stock has climbed 16.9%, leaving the broader S&P 500 Index's ($SPX) 5.4% gain behind. On May 8, Natera opened the books on its first-quarter, and the results exceeded Wall Street expectations. Investors responded swiftly, with the stock inching up 1.5% the same day. Natera posted $501.8 million in total revenues, a 36.5% year-over-year increase that soared past Wall Street's $443.3 million forecast. Behind those numbers were powerhouse operations. The company processed 855,100 tests during the quarter, up 16.2% year over year. Women's health volumes climbed meaningfully over the fourth quarter, but it was Signatera that stole the spotlight. The personalized, tumor-informed molecular residual disease test reached new heights, recording its highest volume quarter ever. Clinical volumes for Signatera grew 52% year over year, with a sequential gain of roughly 16,005 units over Q4, marking the most significant quarter-on-quarter growth to date. Gross margins landed at 63.1%, reflecting solid cost discipline. Moreover, Natera's net loss narrowed 1% from the year-ago period to $66.9 million. Also, the company managed to trim its loss per share by 10.7% to $0.50, outperforming analysts' projections of a $0.59 loss per share. As for liquidity, the balance sheet remained in good shape. Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash climbed to $973.8 million, up from $945.6 million on Dec 31, 2024. CEO Steve Chapman has made no secret of the firm's long-term vision. He believes Signatera could ultimately generate over $5 billion in annual revenue, and he emphasized that they are still playing in the shallow end of a much deeper market pool. In a move that reinforced this optimism, Natera has raised its full-year revenue guidance to between $1.94 billion and $2.02 billion. That is a $70 million boost from the midpoint of its earlier outlook, pointing to a 26% year-over-year growth. On the other hand, analysts expect the Q2 2025 loss per share to widen 100% year over year to $0.60. For FY25, the loss per share is projected to increase 37% to $2.10, but FY26 could bring relief, with a forecast 64.8% narrowing to $0.74, hinting that profitability may finally be within reach. Analysts seem to be singing in harmony when it comes to NTRA, marking it with a firm 'Strong Buy' rating. Out of 19 analysts following the stock, 16 have given it an enthusiastic 'Strong Buy' rating, and the remaining three have placed their bets on a 'Moderate Buy.' The average price target of $200.42 represents potential upside of 17.6%. Meanwhile, the Street-High target of $251 hints at a 48% climb from current levels. Such projections do not come lightly and often reflect deep-rooted confidence in future earnings momentum and strategic execution. On the date of publication, Aanchal Sugandh did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is It Worth Delaying Claiming Social Security If It Means Withdrawing More From Your 401(k)?
One of the most common dilemmas people face as they near retirement is whether to start collecting Social Security or delay it for a higher monthly benefit. But delaying Social Security often means relying more heavily on other resources, like a 401(k) or other savings, to fill the gap. Is it worth it? Read More: Find Out: 'When it comes to decisions about money, it is a matter of feeling in control and not feeling anxious or stressed,' said Trevor Houston, CEO at ClearPath Wealth Strategies in Frisco, Texas. 'One of the most common questions is whether to wait for the Social Security payments or to take money out of the 401(k) plan early.' Here's what to consider before tapping your 401(k). Delaying your Social Security retirement benefits beyond full retirement age (FRA) results in a higher monthly benefit amount until age 70. 'If you delay taking Social Security, the monthly check will increase by about 8% each year until you reach age 70. That's equivalent to getting a salary increase every year,' Houston explained. 'Pretty nice, right? However, the strategy of waiting only makes sense if you have enough in savings, investments or your 401(k) to cover your bills while you are waiting.' Here are some important factors to consider: Life expectancy: Do you have any serious health conditions? Have your parents and grandparents lived long lives? If you're in good health, waiting could give you a bigger monthly check. On the other hand, Houston explained that if your health or family history suggests a shorter life expectancy, it may make sense to claim Social Security early and use the money while you can. Monthly living expenses: How much money do you need every month to pay your basic living expenses? 'If you start taking out your 401(k) too early, you could end up short later on, especially if the market declines,' Houston said. This is called sequence risk, which could disrupt your retirement plan. A 2024 Vanguard report found that the average 401(k) balance for those age 65 and older is $272,588. However, the average is often skewed by high earners, and the median balance is $88,488. Taxes: Money from your 401(k) is taxed as ordinary income. According to Houston, taking out large sums of money could push you into a higher tax bracket. Safety and security: A stable monthly income provides a feeling of safety and security. 'Some people like to have the Social Security check coming into their account each month. It feels like a regular paycheck, and that provides a great deal of peace of mind during retirement,' he pointed out. Discover More: To show when this strategy might work, Houston provided an example: Let's say David reaches age 66, is in good health, and his parents are in their 90s. His 401(k) balance is around $400,000, and he doesn't need Social Security to pay bills or meet other financial needs. David chooses to delay Social Security and withdrawal from his 401(k) instead. Also, because of his conservative risk tolerance, his 401(k) generates a 5% annual growth rate, less than the 8% annual increase he'd get by waiting on Social Security. 'At the end of the day, waiting for Social Security and using your 401(k) could be a smart strategy if you have enough savings, and you expect to live a long time. But everyone's situation is different,' Houston wrote. 'A financial professional should evaluate your personal goals to determine the best course of action for your specific situation.' More From GOBankingRates 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses This article originally appeared on Is It Worth Delaying Claiming Social Security If It Means Withdrawing More From Your 401(k)? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Miami Herald
27 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Why More Boomers Are Deciding to Rent
Baby boomers are redefining the rental market, a new study has found, with millions more older Americans now renting homes than was the case a decade ago. Over the past 10 years, the number of renters aged 65 and older has surged by nearly 30 percent, adding 2.4 million senior renters across the country-by far the largest growth of any age group, according to new research conducted by Point2Homes. While the number of renters declined in other age groups, particularly those aged 18 to 54, the number of seniors opting to rent has boomed. Past generations viewed homeownership as a hallmark of independence, but today's older adults are embracing the flexibility of renting. Downsizing, relocating to warmer climates, and avoiding the burdens of home maintenance are just a few of the more positive reasons behind the trend. But rising housing costs, inflation, and limited affordable inventory also play a critical role. As more seniors navigate retirement on fixed incomes, renting is becoming not only a practical alternative, but in many cases, a financially imperative one. The reasons behind the growing number of senior renters are varied, a mix of both lifestyle choices and financial necessity. "Seniors value the flexibility renting provides, which can allow them to downsize, move to better locations, or avoid the responsibility that comes with owning a home and its expenses," Alexei Morgado, a Florida realtor and CEO of Lexawise Real Estate Exam Preparation, told Newsweek. "Owning a home can take a lot of physical energy and money. When renting, you can simply enjoy life without worrying about major repairs, the uncertainty of property taxes, or if your home will lose value or be hard to sell." Shifting cultural attitudes toward aging and independence are also influencing this trend. "In the past, homeownership was viewed as a key indicator of independence in retirement," says Morgado. "The cultural shift in the thinking surrounding aging has moved rapidly, however, and seniors no longer feel as though homeownership is a mainstay of independence and a comfortable life in retirement." He notes that the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this rethinking. "Seniors began to focus on flexibility and ease rather than stability and predictability, which is often associated with homeownership," Morgado said. "Many seniors have begun seeking smaller properties or apartments in more desirable areas away from their long-time homes and may prefer urban and suburban environments even if there is additional cost or a long-term rental lease. "In this way, renting allows for added freedom of movement if they feel they need to move or relocate." The study found that many senior renters are relocating to warmer climates, particularly in Florida, which is well-known for its large retirement community. Other southern states, such as Louisiana and Texas, are also experiencing an increase in the number of graying renters. In Baton Rouge, the percentage of properties rented by older Americans has boomed by 88.7 percent over the last ten years. Similar numbers are reported in Jacksonville, Florida, and Round Rock, near Austin, Texas. But for many, the switch to renting isn't just a matter of lifestyle-it's a financial necessity, Morgado explained. "The gap between owning and renting is widening, especially for seniors who rely on a fixed income. Home prices have skyrocketed in many parts of the country over the last 10 years with continued high mortgage interest rates," he said. "Rapid changes in housing demand mean that local areas with very limited affordable housing options have both renters and former homeowners looking for an affordable lifestyle. Seniors that once owned homes are now renting for value." Steve Sexton, CEO of Sexton Advisory Group, agrees. "This trend is fueled by both convenience and necessity; however recent economic uncertainty is the more likely driver of seniors renting in retirement," Sexton told Newsweek, noting that many retirees live on fixed incomes that have failed to keep pace with rising housing costs and inflation. "Utilities, insurance, property taxes, and maintenance costs associated with owning a home continue to increase, while Social Security and pensions struggle to keep up," he said. This is exacerbated by a lack of affordable homes on the market, even for those who may prefer to own, Sexton said, a problem that is getting worse over time. As a result, "for many seniors, renting offers a more predictable and/or simplified budget in which they don't have to account for repairs and certain housing expenses." Yet the underlying issue of housing affordability remains a serious concern. A 2024 report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies found that more than 40 percent of renters aged 65 and older spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent, the threshold at which the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers a household "cost burdened." "The availability of affordable housing, however, is a glaring reality for many seniors," Morgado said, noting that it's "a barrier obstacle to seniors maintaining their independence." Boomers having to rent out of financial necessity is likely to continue. For now, most adults aged 65 and older are homeowners, according to the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. However, more than one in five older households, some 7 million, choose to rent, according to the 2023 Housing America's Older Adults study by JCHS. Jeff Lichtenstein, CEO and broker at Echo Fine Properties, said the trend "will get worse in the next decade," with "inflation being the main culprit." "With increased costs coming from tariffs and with cuts in the new bill and from DOGE, it puts seniors in a tough situation," he told Newsweek. "In the next decade, there will be an explosion of baby boomers in that age group. As one loses a spouse or looks at financing, there should be more of a need to rent." Related Articles Gen Z Is Significantly More Afraid of This Trend Than Older GenerationsSocial Security Claims SkyrocketIt's Not Gold-Digging, but Gen Z Will Marry for Money, Predicts ExpertGen Z's Trauma Therapy Compared to Millennials, Boomers 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
