The Cheesecake Factory is eliminating 13 menu items in major makeover
New York CNN —
Say your final farewells to the 'Loaded Mashed Potato Omelette,' because it's one of the more than dozen menu items that the Cheesecake Factory has eliminated from its menu as part of a broader shakeup.
The Cheesecake Factory's massive, spiral-bound menu, which has more than 250 items, is perhaps the most recognizable trademark of the company, but it undergoes a yearly change to keep diners coming back. That has helped the chain buck overall weakness in the casual dining sector in which only a few have been able to successfully crack the code — notably, Chili's — while others have fallen into bankruptcy or continue to struggle.
'We've changed the menu twice a year, every year, for 40 years,' founder David Overton said in a 2017 interview. 'That's what keeps people interested. And it keeps us current. We don't rest on our laurels. There's nothing that America wants to eat that can't go on the Cheesecake Factory menu.'
As part of this shakeup, the chain is ditching 13 menu items:
But shrinkflation isn't eating into its novel-like menu. The Cheesecake Factory is replacing the ousted items with about 20 new foods and cocktails, plus it's getting into the 'mocktail' trend. Some notable new menu items are inspired by TikTok, like the Asian Cucumber Salad that took over people's feeds last year. Others have been pulled from its fast food rivals, like the Double Smash Burger.
Keeping the menu fresh has helped the 53-year-old chain avoid the fate of its rivals and its bolstered its bottom line. The Cheesecake Factory's (CAKE) stock is up more than 35% over the past year and its sales at stores open at least a year have fallen only once since the beginning of 2023. The chain has about 200 locations in United States and Canada.
A recent report from Placer.ai, a consumer analysis firm, said the Cheesecake Factory benefits from its 'ability to harness the power of annual dining milestones,' adding that these days 'can be powerful drivers of foot traffic at restaurants, offering chains a prime opportunity to grow visits – and sales.'
Plus, the chain is benefiting from Flower Child, a casual spinoff with about 40 locations that focuses on healthy foods, like sandwiches and salads. Same-store sales jumped 11% in its most recent quarter, according to its earnings report, helping propel the overall company's health.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
TikTok's latest budget hack is ‘dating for dinner' — which says a lot about love and money right now
When Katheryne Slack realized she was out of coffee one Sunday morning, the Hinge notification that lit up her phone became an opportunity. The graphic designer from South Carolina figured she could score a free cup from the guy who had messaged her on the dating app. They had been chatting casually days earlier, but attempts to make plans had fizzled out due to scheduling conflicts. With the timing aligned on this particular weekend, they planned to meet an hour later at a coffee shop in West Columbia, where they both live. 'It might be another Apple or Microsoft': My wife invested $100K in one stock and it exploded 1,500%. Do we sell? 'The situation is extreme': I'm 65 and leaving my estate to only one grandchild. Can the others contest my will? 'I prepaid our mom's rent for a year': My sister is a millionaire and never helps our mother. How do I cut her out of her will? A local restaurant has a 5% container charge and 3% kitchen-service fee. Is this as nuts as it sounds? I bought my mother-in-law a condo — and she took out a $30,000 car loan. Now she refuses to get a roommate. 'As soon as I met him, I knew I wasn't into him. But I was already there and needed my coffee,' Slack said. 'Plus, I like to be optimistic: Maybe he would do or say something sweet and charming and my mind could change.' After some pleasant enough conversation over coffee and a breakfast sandwich, however, it was clear their intentions weren't aligned. When Slack opened Hinge MTCH to message her date a thank-you note afterward, his profile was gone. 'I think he must have unmatched me from Hinge as soon as he left the shop,' she said. 'The way I see it, I only wasted an hour of my time for a coffee and a breakfast sandwich. So, oh well.' As the cost of dining out has climbed and economic uncertainty has grown, TikTok has become riddled with tongue-in-cheek videos of people talking up 'dating for dinner,' as some experts call it, as a budgeting hack to save money on food. Some joke that scheduling dates throughout the week is their way of meal prepping. 'I literally had dates for 10 days straight bc I didn't want to go grocery shopping,' wrote a commenter on one recent clip. 'That's definitely one way to save,' chimed in another. Some videos coach daters on how to defuse the tension over who will pay the bill. While the concept of 'dating for dinner' isn't new — these dates were even dubbed 'foodie calls' in one 2019 study — it's striking a chord as tariffs threaten people's budgets, recession fears have mounted and concerns about job security have grown. In some cases, people who 'date for dinner' have no romantic interest in their date; in others, there's a hope that the date could lead to both a meal and a mate. 'One major purpose of partnership has always been to have someone to share the load and rely on in times of need,' said dating coach Damona Hoffman. 'It makes sense that in the current economy and postpandemic, many people are looking to romantic connections for a sense of stability.' Even though the practice of dating for dinner has been popularized by social media, it can be harder than it looks to score free meals, especially during economic slowdowns. As consumer sentiment dips near a record low, singles are being more intentional with dating, said Devyn Simone, Tinder's resident relationship expert. When times are tough financially, people are less likely to spend money on someone with whom they don't intend to have a second date. See more: Consumer sentiment falls for 5th straight month in May as inflation worries grow 'We're calling it 'loud looking,' but people are actually being just much more intentional about their time and what they're looking for,' Simone said. 'Even if it does mean I'm intentional about going on a date for a sushi roll, either way they're still just being more clear, versus in the past when the 'situationship' was on the rise.' A large majority of singles (95%) said worries about the future are impacting who and how they date, according to Bumble's BMBL 2025 dating-trends report. Nearly 60% of women surveyed around the world said growing concerns about the future are causing them to put more emphasis on stability when dating, and they're looking for partners who are 'reliable' and 'have clear goals.' More than a quarter of U.S. women are pushing for conversations about topics like budgeting, job ambitions and housing to happen earlier in a relationship. While there's scant data available to indicate how many men feel the same way, data from Tinder show three out of four men are comfortable dating a woman who makes more money than them. The discourse around 'foodie calls' — which primarily centers on a man buying dinner for a woman who isn't planning on a second date — tends to be steeped in sexism and ignores same-sex couples, critics point out. But in reality, the trend transcends gender. Making your intentions clear up front — even if those intentions entail getting a free meal — can go a long way. From the archives (June 2024): I met a woman on Hinge who says she wants a man who believes in 'chivalry.' Is this just code for a free meal? 'I make it clear I'm a material girl on my profile, which does a lot of the heavy lifting,' one TikTok commenter said. 'I also always ask for an Uber/car to the date if they don't offer so they know what the agenda is. 100% success rate.' On the flip side, during boom times people feel more optimistic about dating. Singles place less emphasis on frugality as they have more disposable income to spend on fancy dinners, according to eharmony relationship expert Laurel House — but there are also more first dates that don't lead to a second. 'During economic upswings, the wallets come out, bottles of wine are ordered, valet is paid,' House said. 'Dates tend not to prequalify as much — throwing caution to the wind and going on a dinner date at a nice place with someone who they didn't get to know well at all — because [they think], 'May as well.'' While people going on dates for a free dinner may be all over your For You page, the concept wasn't invented by Generation Z. 'We see it among all age groups,' Hoffman, the dating coach, said. 'It's simply that Gen Z has the most financial insecurity overall.' In fact, nearly half of Gen Zers (48%) say they do not feel financially secure, according to Deloitte's 2025 Gen Z and millennial survey — up significantly from the 30% who said the same last year. 'Ugh, in this economy no one listens to me when I say it's free dinners and free experience,' one TikTok commenter wrote on a 'dating for dinner' video. 'Around 6 months ago I was so broke I couldn't afford groceries. … There were weeks I went on a different date every single evening,' another commenter said. In addition to the high cost of living and mounting student debt burdening members of Gen Z, they're also facing higher-than-average levels of unemployment. In May, 9.7% of 16- to 24-year-olds were unemployed, compared with 4.2% of the overall U.S. labor force, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Gen Zers also have high expectations for what constitutes financial security. Many expect to make $100,000 at their first job; in one survey, adult Gen Z respondents said they would need at least $585,000 on average to feel financially successful. Still, dating for dinner is a 'practice many daters have followed for decades,' Hoffman noted. People are simply being more vocal about it today, and are able to find more dates through apps than the traditional analog ways of meeting. While apps have made dating more accessible, many say the culture around dating has deteriorated as a result. 'There's more dating-app disappointment now than ever before,' Hoffman said. 'People are frustrated with the churn of people on dating apps and craving deeper connection, but at the same time we've been accustomed to a faster speed of dating that offline dating just can't deliver.' A transactional first date where one person is dating for dinner can be a bummer for the person footing the bill if they were genuinely looking for love. But it also can take a toll on the person receiving the free meals. 'There's an internal cost to being an inauthentic human being,' said Pepper Schwartz, a sociology professor at the University of Washington who specializes in family, marriage and sexuality. 'In the short run, you get a free dinner. But the long run, you change over time into a person that you might not want to know.' If you want to be proactive about setting money-related expectations before a first date, it's fine to ask your date ahead of time what they're comfortable with, said Winnie Sun, co-founder and managing director of Irvine, Calif.-based Sun Group Wealth Partners. Asking, 'Do you want to split the meal or do you think one person pays for the whole thing?' before the date can avoid any awkwardness once the bill arrives. If you can't pay for a fancy meal, but want to get across that you intend to be more than just a meal collector, offering to pay for dessert or their cab home can go a long way, too. Talking about money is a key component of a relationship, though many couples fail to do this early on. Asking about who should pay for dinner could be a way to force the conversation. While gender roles have historically played a part in who pays for dinner, 44% of people believed whoever earns more money should pay for the date, according to a survey about the cost of dating conducted on behalf of Self Financial. Nearly 36% said they prefer to split the bill equally, and 21% believed the payment should fall on whoever organized the date. For those who plan on paying for the entire date, there are ways to have a good time while remaining money-conscious. Happy hours can be 'diamonds for your budget,' Sun noted. Sun also suggested having a picnic in the park with takeout, snacks or a meal from home, to make the date less about the food and more about the experience of getting to know one another. 'It keeps things light and affordable,' she said. 'A reusable cooler bag, a simple beach towel or picnic blanket makes it feel thoughtful and intentional.' To avoid heated conversations that can set a relationship off on the wrong foot, money questions beyond 'who pays' can wait until four to eight weeks into the relationship, Hoffman said. But in the early stages, don't always assume the other person will pick up the tab. 'Dating is a rich man or woman's game,' Hoffman said, 'and going into any date with the expectation of having it paid for is a recipe for disappointment.' What personal-finance issues would you like to see covered in MarketWatch? We would like to hear from readers about their financial decisions and money-related questions. You can fill out or write to us at . A reporter may be in touch to learn more. MarketWatch will not attribute your answers to you by name without your permission. 20 stocks bucking bad trends on Wall Street — what might be next for them? 'He failed in his fiduciary duty': My brother liquidated our mother's 401(k) for her nursing home. He claimed the rest. Why Goldman Sachs says high-flying tech stocks may be headed for a tough stretch My son, 39, will be released from prison in 2030. Do I leave him my $100K life insurance? How do I make sure my son-in-law doesn't get his hands on my daughter's inheritance?
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Meta and TikTok challenge tech fees in second highest EU court
By Foo Yun Chee LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) -Meta Platforms and TikTok said a European Union supervisory fee levied on them was disproportionate and based on a flawed methodology as they took their fight with tech regulators to Europe's second highest court on Wednesday. Under the Digital Services Act that became law in 2022, the two companies and 16 others are subject to a supervisory fee amounting to 0.05% of their annual worldwide net income aimed at covering the European Commission's cost of monitoring their compliance with the law. The size of the annual fee is based on the number of average monthly active users for each company and whether the company posts a profit or loss in the preceding financial year. Meta told judges at the General Court it was not trying to avoid paying its fair share of the fee, but it questioned how the Commission had calculated the levy, saying it had been based on the revenue of the group rather than of the subsidiary. Meta's lawyer Assimakis Komninos told the panel of five judges the company still did not know how the fee was calculated. He said the provisions in the Digital Services Act, or DSA, "go against the letter and the spirit of the law, are totally untransparent with black boxes and have led to completely implausible and absurd results". ByteDance-owned Chinese online social media platform TikTok was equally critical. "What has happened here is anything but fair or proportionate. The fee has used inaccurate figures and discriminatory methods," TikTok lawyer Bill Batchelor told the court. "It inflates TikTok's fees, requires it to pay, not just for itself, but for other platforms and disregards the excessive fee cap," he said. He accused the Commission of double counting the companies' users, saying this was discriminatory because users switching between their mobile phones and laptops would then be counted twice. He also said regulators had exceeded their legal power by setting the fee cap at the level of group profits. Commission lawyer Lorna Armati rejected both companies' arguments and defended the Commission's use of group profit as a reference value to calculate the supervisory fee. "When a group has consolidated accounts, it is the financial resources of the group as a whole that are available to that provider in order to bear the burden of the fee," she told the court. "The providers had sufficient information to understand why and how the Commission used the numbers that it did and there is no question of any breach of their right to be heard now, unequal treatment," she said. The Court is expected to issue its ruling next year. The cases are T-55/24 Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission and T-58/24 TikTok Technology v Commission.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Meta and TikTok challenge tech fees in second highest EU court
By Foo Yun Chee LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) -Meta Platforms and TikTok said a European Union supervisory fee levied on them was disproportionate and based on a flawed methodology as they took their fight with tech regulators to Europe's second highest court on Wednesday. Under the Digital Services Act that became law in 2022, the two companies and 16 others are subject to a supervisory fee amounting to 0.05% of their annual worldwide net income aimed at covering the European Commission's cost of monitoring their compliance with the law. The size of the annual fee is based on the number of average monthly active users for each company and whether the company posts a profit or loss in the preceding financial year. Meta told judges at the General Court it was not trying to avoid paying its fair share of the fee, but it questioned how the Commission had calculated the levy, saying it had been based on the revenue of the group rather than of the subsidiary. Meta's lawyer Assimakis Komninos told the panel of five judges the company still did not know how the fee was calculated. He said the provisions in the Digital Services Act, or DSA, "go against the letter and the spirit of the law, are totally untransparent with black boxes and have led to completely implausible and absurd results". ByteDance-owned Chinese online social media platform TikTok was equally critical. "What has happened here is anything but fair or proportionate. The fee has used inaccurate figures and discriminatory methods," TikTok lawyer Bill Batchelor told the court. "It inflates TikTok's fees, requires it to pay, not just for itself, but for other platforms and disregards the excessive fee cap," he said. He accused the Commission of double counting the companies' users, saying this was discriminatory because users switching between their mobile phones and laptops would then be counted twice. He also said regulators had exceeded their legal power by setting the fee cap at the level of group profits. Commission lawyer Lorna Armati rejected both companies' arguments and defended the Commission's use of group profit as a reference value to calculate the supervisory fee. "When a group has consolidated accounts, it is the financial resources of the group as a whole that are available to that provider in order to bear the burden of the fee," she told the court. "The providers had sufficient information to understand why and how the Commission used the numbers that it did and there is no question of any breach of their right to be heard now, unequal treatment," she said. The Court is expected to issue its ruling next year. The cases are T-55/24 Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission and T-58/24 TikTok Technology v Commission. Sign in to access your portfolio
