Outback is no longer America's king of steaks
Summary
Texas Roadhouse and LongHorn have surpassed Outback Steakhouse as America's preferred steakhouse chains.
Outback parent company Bloomin' Brands stock has fallen more than 70% while competitors' stocks have risen.
Customers perceive competitors as offering better value, higher quality food and more vibrant dining experiences.
New Outback CEO Mike Spanos aims to simplify the menu and improve restaurant operations.
Outback plans to reduce promotions, focus on consistent pricing and remodel existing locations before expanding. 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
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
SEE IT: Steve Sarkisian and Co. roll out Lamborghinis in Austin amid recruiting camps
SEE IT: Steve Sarkisian and Co. roll out Lamborghinis in Austin amid recruiting camps Texas players have already inked promotional deals with Lamborghini Austin, with running back Bijan Robinson becoming the first to sign such a partnership in 2022. The Texas Longhorns are making headlines again, not just for their play on the field but for their high-octane recruiting tactics. Over the weekend, the university showcased a fleet of Lamborghinis outside its football facilities as it hosted some of the nation's top high school prospects for official visits. The luxury cars, parked in front of the Moncrief Athletics Center next to Darrell K Royal–Texas Memorial Stadium, were impossible to miss as blue-chip recruits arrived in Austin. The spectacle is part of an ongoing trend for Texas, which first rolled out the exotic cars during last year's recruiting cycle. This year's event featured around 14 to 15 top targets from the Class of 2026, including five-star running back Ezavier Crowell and Lamar Brown, as well as four-star edge rusher Jamarion Carlton, cornerback Davon Benjamin and four-star quarterback Kavian Bryant. The display is more than just a photo opportunity. It's a visual reminder of the opportunities available to student-athletes in the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) era. Texas players have already inked promotional deals with Lamborghini Austin, with running back Bijan Robinson becoming the first to sign such a partnership in 2022. Since then, other Longhorns, including Jordan Whittington, Jake Majors, Michael Taaffe, and Isaiah Bond, have also driven Lamborghinis as part of NIL deals. While the Lamborghinis have become a social media sensation, the move has drawn mixed reactions from fans and commentators. Some see it as a bold and effective marketing strategy, while others criticize it as a flashy distraction from the fundamentals of college football. Either way, it sticks out to recruits, come to Texas and Texas One Fund connections could net you an NIL deal with Lamborghini of Austin. As Texas prepares for its second season in the SEC, head coach Steve Sarkisian and his staff are making it clear that the Longhorns are willing to leverage every advantage to attract elite talent. Whether the Lamborghinis ultimately translate to wins on the field remains to be seen, but for now, Texas is sending a message to recruits and rivals alike: the Longhorns are back, and they're not afraid to make a statement.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Fix the wealth gap by changing the corporate tax code
As Congress crafts yet another budget, it is time to confront a quiet enabler of America's growing wealth gap: the way we tax corporate profits. The U.S. corporate tax system is a maze of complexity, distortion and avoidance. At the same time, the richest Americans — who own the lion's share of corporate stock — see their wealth balloon not from income, but from capital appreciation fueled by retained corporate earnings. They pay little or nothing in taxes until they choose to sell — if ever. Here is a simple idea that could transform that system: Replace the corporate income tax with a flat tax on retained earnings. Instead of taxing corporate profits on paper, tax the portion that companies choose not to distribute — those retained earnings that quietly accumulate on balance sheets, inflate stock values and end up driving inequality. The logic is straightforward. Retained earnings represent profits that aren't reinvested in capital or returned to shareholders. They sit — often offshore and untaxed — fueling stock buybacks or simply increasing book value. Meanwhile, shareholders can borrow against those unrealized gains, grow richer by the year and legally avoid income tax altogether. Under the current system, corporations face a 21 percent statutory income tax rate. But due to loopholes and global tax arbitrage, the effective rate is often much lower — closer to between 9 percent and 15 percent. At the same time, the top 1 percent of Americans own more than 90 percent of stocks and mutual fund wealth, much of which compounds through retained earnings without triggering taxable events. A 20 percent flat tax on retained earnings, applied at the corporate level, would be lower than the statutory income tax but much harder to evade. It would simplify the tax code, eliminate gamesmanship and ensure that profits benefit society, whether distributed or not. Companies could avoid the tax by issuing dividends — thereby transferring the tax burden to shareholders, who would then pay ordinary dividend taxes. Or companies could reinvest in productive capital expenditures or research and development, which could be exempted from the tax base. People often complain that the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes. A retained earnings tax addresses this directly, since the wealthy are by far the largest shareholders. By inducing higher dividend payouts, the tax would convert more untaxed wealth into taxable income — ensuring the rich pay more, proportionally and predictably. This plan is fair. Wealth would no longer accumulate tax-free inside corporations. Ultra-wealthy shareholders would see more of their income flow to dividends, triggering taxes like ordinary Americans face on wages. In 2024, S&P 500 companies earned approximately $1.9 trillion in pre-tax profits. Of that, they paid only about $248 billion in corporate taxes — just 13 percent of total profits — and distributed around $650 billion in dividends to shareholders. That left well over $1 trillion in earnings to be retained or used for stock buybacks. A 20 percent tax on just the retained portion — estimated near $870 billion — would yield $174 billion annually. More importantly, it would encourage companies to issue more dividends — triggering personal income tax obligations at rates of 15 percent to 23.8 percent. For the first time in decades, untaxed paper wealth held by the ultra-rich would convert into real, taxable income. This plan is earnings are already reported as a line item on corporate financial statements, so no need for armies of tax accountants. This plan also encourages efficiency. Corporations would be nudged to either distribute profits or reinvest productively — reducing hoarding, stock buybacks and financial manipulation. The scale of profit hoarding is not theoretical. As of late 2024, Apple held over $65 billion in cash and equivalents. Microsoft held more than $71 billion. Alphabet, parent company of Google, sat on over $95 billion and Amazon was at $100 billion. These figures represent retained capital sitting in balance sheets — largely untouched by taxation. In many cases, this hoarded cash fuels share repurchases or simply adds to paper valuations, thus benefiting the wealthiest shareholders while contributing nothing to public coffers. Of course, this idea has precedents. President Franklin D. Roosevelt experimented with an undistributed profits tax in the 1930s. Today, a version survives as the Accumulated Earnings Tax, but it's rarely enforced and easy to circumvent. This proposal is simpler, bolder and broader. Critics may worry this plan would discourage reinvestment or burden growth. But a well-designed system can exempt reinvested earnings tied to clear capital investment or innovation. What this proposal targets is not growth but excessive hoarding of profits that serves only the wealthy few. Others may fear that such a tax would prompt corporations to switch to alternative structures or shift operations abroad. But a retained earnings tax can be applied based on financial disclosures for U.S.-based public companies and expanded to large LLCs or partnerships. In fact, it may reduce incentives to move profits offshore, since it targets where wealth stays, not where it's reported. The politics are promising. A retained earnings tax is lower than the current corporate income tax — yet may raise more consistent, sustainable revenue. It eliminates the need to police every deduction, credit and carve-out. It also aligns with populist sentiments on both the left and right: no more tax-free stockpiling, no more billionaires (referred to by some today as 'oligarchs') borrowing off their gains while avoiding taxes. Congress has a chance to reset how we think about taxing wealth — not by chasing every dollar of income, but by targeting the retained profits that silently fuel inequality and sidestep the tax system. Fixing the corporate tax code is essential not just for raising revenue but for restoring fairness, transparency and trust in the American economic compact. Peter D. Wells is principal at Ancient Wisdom Consulting. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
New York Post
31 minutes ago
- New York Post
Gen Z says salary norm should be ‘banned' — but critics say ‘it really is not that difficult'
A fired-up Gen Zer has declared being paid fortnightly in Australia should be straight-up 'banned' because she finds it difficult to manage her salary. Ren Adelina, 21, has amassed over 700,000 views on TikTok by declaring she's unhappy with a fortnightly pay cycle. 'Getting paid fortnightly needs to be genuinely banned,' she said. 'One week I am so rich, I am so rich! The next week … I am living off genuine scraps.' According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, fortnightly is the most common pay cycle for Aussie workers, followed by weekly and then monthly. Speaking to Adelina reiterated her position and said she'd much prefer to be paid more frequently. A fired-up Gen Zer has declared being paid fortnightly in Australia should be straight-up 'banned' because she finds it difficult to manage her salary. 'I think it should be banned because for us Gen Zers we were never taught how to manage money properly,' she said. 'Getting a huge influx of money at once, of course, we are going to get excited and are going to blow it all on food, shopping, outings, etc.' Adelina said the problem with that is that once it is gone, it is gone, and then she's got to hang out for another grueling seven days. 'Then, after we spend it all, there is none left for the next week. Maybe I just have a shopping addiction,' she said. The 21-year-old doesn't just want to ban fortnightly pay with no other solution. She's got plans. 'I believe we should get paid weekly instead as it provides more frequent income, making it easier to manage all expenses. I think it also simplifies budgeting,' she said. Adelina's suggestion of banning fortnightly pay quickly took a turn when people on the internet broke the news to her that some people get paid … monthly. One warned, 'Wait until you get paid monthly.' The 21-year-old replied, 'Stop, that is so scary!' Someone else chimed in and said getting paid monthly is 'criminal' and another demanded to know what professions get paid monthly so they can avoid them. Ren Adelina, 21, has amassed over 700,000 views on TikTok by declaring she's unhappy with a fortnightly pay cycle. The commentator quickly discovered that monthly pay isn't specific to one industry. Everyone, from childcare workers to trade workers, get paid monthly. It is just up to the employer's discretion. The comment section quickly became populated by workers getting paid monthly who argued that fortnightly wasn't so bad in comparison. 'Babe, I'm counting my coins on monthly pay,' one said. 'Monthly is horrendous,' another shared. 'I get paid monthly. You got lucky,' someone claimed. 'Every adult I know gets paid monthly. Budgeting is hard,' another worker shared. 'Fortnightly isn't bad. Wait until you see monthly,' one warned. 'I applaud those who can wait a whole month. I can't even do two weeks,' someone else shared. Quite a few people also suggested to the 21-year-old that it wasn't how frequently she was getting paid but rather how she managed her money. 'Just budget. It really is not that difficult. I love getting paid fortnightly,' one shared. 'Not knowing how to budget should be banned,' another joked. 'I get paid fortnightly, and when you get paid, literally just split it in half and put it aside in another account until the following week,' someone else said.
