Goodbye Ruby Tuesday?

To use a clichéd musical-themed pun, we could soon be saying goodbye to Ruby Tuesday. The Tennessee-based bar and grill restaurant chain announced this past March that they would be putting themselves up for sale or a potential merger. The unsurprising announcement comes after years of declining sales and location closures for the brand that thrived in the 1990s and early 2000s. Ruby Tuesday has not seen a year of growth since 2011 and approximately 100 locations closed in 2016 alone. The chain had also recently taken to selling certain locations to investors in sale-leaseback deals, foreshadowing the brand’s desperate move to come. More than anything, the sale of Ruby Tuesday signals an end to the reign of the casual dining category of the food industry.

Ruby Tuesday can’t seem to resurrect itself.

Unfortunately for Ruby Tuesday’s executives, the announcement also comes after years of attempts at menu innovation and risky marketing decisions. In 2016, Ruby Tuesday gained a new CMO and re-focused their advertising efforts on targeting families, especially millennial moms; in previous years, the brand had tried to do away with their focus on the family and move to a more adults-only aesthetic, even going as far as to remove diaper-changing stations from restaurant bathrooms. This attempt at brand revitalization resulted in removing advertising dollars from television completely, choosing instead to focus on paid social advertising and online video with Hulu and YouTube.

The nontraditional move was risky but allowed the struggling restaurant chain to geo-target their advertising to areas surrounding their locations, specifically reach their chosen audience and tell more emotional visual stories than a mere 30-second television spot could ever allow. 2016 also saw Ruby Tuesday honing in on their Garden Bar, a self-service salad bar, in advertising. There was an introduction of new, fresh Garden Bar ingredients, better to serve the moms the brand desperately wanted to appease. For all of their risk, it seems that the brand’s moves did not result in much reward.

Ruby Tuesday’s attempt to reinvent themselves is a great example of marketing trial and error, but it also signals trouble for the casual dining industry as a whole. Similar restaurant chains like Olive Garden and Applebee’s are struggling as well, though those brands have not made such brazen attempts at menu and marketing changes like Ruby Tuesday. Both still favor a heavily TV-focused media rotation, insisting that inundating consumers’ screens will work in their favor, and rely on limited time offers and slashed prices in order to attempt to make a splash in a dining landscape that currently favors fast casual restaurants and healthy food trends.

You wouldn’t exactly go to Olive Garden and eat their bottomless breadsticks if you were looking for a healthy place to eat out with your family, but a “two entrees for the price of one” deal can only do so much to convince you otherwise.

How casual dining can survive a changing industry.

So, were Ruby Tuesday’s last-ditch attempts to make a profit worthwhile? Yes and no. The re-focus on family dining and adding new ingredients to the Garden Bar menu prove that the brand wasn’t willing to go down without a fight.

The move away from traditional advertising and increased efforts in paid social advertising were innovative and forward-thinking, particularly because TV commercials are a familiar and effective way for brands to reach a wider audience and straying from that tried-and-true model will always be perilous. However, those risks might also have contributed to the chain’s demise. Other casual dining restaurant chains have stayed the course, choosing to put the majority of their ad dollars in television and not make drastic changes to their menus.

Those chains are still open for business, though they might soon follow in Ruby Tuesday’s worn footsteps. In February 2017, Applebee’s posted their sixth straight negative sales quarter and in March their CEO was ousted. Bloomin’ Brands, which owns casual dining chains Outback Steakhouse and Carrabba’s Grill, recently announced plans to close 43 locations after a rough 2016. Though brand reinvention wasn’t to be for Ruby Tuesday, perhaps other troubled chains could take a few notes from their demise and, at the very least, go down swinging

Coke vs. Pepsi: A very commercial rivalry

Pepsi’s recent controversial commercial may be off the air, but the bad taste it left in consumers’ mouths still lingers.

In early April 2017, Pepsi, the giant soda company, released an ad targeted to millennials that portrayed the era’s protest culture and aimed at the idea that Pepsi could bring everyone, despite their differences, together. What was meant to be a lighthearted ad about unity and peace was slammed by ad executives, TV pundits, and most importantly, the internet, as out of touch and completely tone-deaf. The company was accused of trivializing important causes like Black Lives Matter as a way of selling more soda. Within 24 hours of the commercial’s initial release, the company pulled the commercial from the airwaves and released an apologetic statement condemning their own ad. In an ironic twist, the shared hatred of the ad brought diverse groups of people together, though it didn’t help Pepsi’s sales. The brands stocks plummeted in the aftermath of the controversy. While the conversation Pepsi was attempting to start is a noble one, the execution of the ad failed it miserably.

The protest portrayed in the ad was generic, the decision to cast model and reality TV star Kendall Jenner as the leader of said protest was off-putting, and, perhaps worst of all, the idea that a can of soda could end a violent protest and unite protesters with police is laughable. If Pepsi’s goal was to get people talking about their product, they succeeded (sort of) – the YouTube video of the commercial amassed 1.6 million views in the first day and memes of the ad started almost immediately, and continued for weeks after. Saturday Night Live spoofed the ad in a scathing parody that very week. People were certainly talking about Pepsi, though not for the reasons they had initially hoped.

Can a can of soda change the world?

Coke vs. Pepsi: The rivalry continues

Pepsi’s big fumble brought to mind a similarly idyllic ad that rival soda brand Coca Cola produced in 1971, the famous “Hilltop” commercial. More than 40 years after its debut, people are still talking about “Hilltop”, and for good reasons. The ad was referenced in the finale of the AMC show Mad Men and it consistently makes the cut on lists of the best commercials ever made. Coke even remastered the original footage and re-released the commercial in 2016. The theme of the ad is similar to Pepsi’s attempt; it features a crowd of diverse people gathered together on a bucolic hillside with bottles of Coca Cola singing “I’d Like to Buy the World a Coke”. So why is Coke’s unity ad considered iconic while Pepsi’s was immediately reviled? The simple answer: execution.

Instead of using a bottle of Coke to bring people together in a big event, a diverse group of people simply gathered together to share their differences and commiserate over soda. Coke wasn’t the stimulus for the unity displayed in the commercial, people were. Coke’s ad is about people coming together in peace and harmony as a way to sell soda, not the other way around. That thought, combined with a catchy song, is what makes the commercial iconic.

Can soda change the cultural landscape?

Brands should use caution when tiptoeing the line between social commentary and social activism. Forward thinking brands are rewarded for taking a stand when consumers sense it is authentic. But companies are punished when people detect commerce behind the public social message. Things are not as simple as they were in 1971.

It could be argued that the success of Coca Cola’s ad in 1971 and the failure of Pepsi’s ad in 2017 is a difference in eras. In 1971, the Vietnam War was in full swing, with anti-war and women’s rights protests arising all over the country. It was a turbulent time that “Hilltop” was attempting to pacify. 2017 has seen a resurgence of social movements and terror attacks have launched a new era of global turbulence, something Pepsi wished to capitalize on with their Kendall Jenner-starring ad. What Pepsi failed to recognize is that, no matter the year, a can of soda can’t change the world.

commercial, Pepsi
The not-so-memorable Kendall Jenner commercial from Pepsi.

How Food Delivery is Changing the Restaurant Landscape

The delivery craze is getting your food into the hands of more people. But are the compromised brand experience and revenue worth it?

We’ve all been there, you’re stuck at the office and it’s past 7PM and you’re hungry – there’s no time to run out so you cue up the UberEats app and get to work. In a world that used to be limited to pizza delivery to satisfy our late night cravings without heading out into the world, we now have choices at our fingertips and it doesn’t show any sign of stopping.

We know that the restaurant industry is always evolving, whether it is a new style of restaurant, a new way to manage POS or a disruption like food delivery. With millennials working more than ever and spending less time cooking at home, services like UberEats, Postmates and Doordash are making waves in the way consumers make purchase decisions.

In today’s on-demand economy, we want things when we want them and the expectation of quick delivery grows day by day. The food delivery industry is no different. In fact, the disruption being made by food delivery services is paving the way for other on-demand services to throw their hat in the ring.

When you think of a service like UberEats, it seems simple: You click on what you want, pay in the app and get it delivered to you ASAP. This is exactly why the service has become so appealing to restaurants. When a restaurant has a delivery driver on staff, they have to send them out and then wait for them to return, losing time and money in the process. With services like UberEats, the driver picks up the delivery and takes it where it needs to go – no need to return to the restaurant or wait around.

In today’s on-demand economy, we want things when we want them and the expectation of quick delivery grows day by day.

With the growing millennial population and their need to have everything right now, the on-demand trend shows no signs of stopping. Just recently, Amazon introduced their own brand of food delivery with Amazon Restaurants and Amazon Fresh – answering not only the restaurant delivery question, but bringing groceries along for the ride. By eliminating the need to leave home and freeing up more time for millennials to do the things they enjoy without having to worry about a grocery trip, Amazon has set themselves up for years of future success.

Downsides?

Of course, everything that glitters is not gold. There are downsides to these types of services that restaurants must address. The main concern is handing the hospitality that you have cultivated in your restaurant over to a third party. Once food is prepared, packaged and handed to the delivery driver, the restaurant loses control of the product and customer service.

Additionally, delivery apps are taking 20-30% off the top of each order which can spell trouble for a restaurant that is not booming with delivery orders. Restaurants who use these services are realizing that although the additional orders are coming in because of these delivery apps, the commission that is being taken off the top is counterproductive to the additional sales.

With the pros and cons of these delivery services, it is easy to see why deciding to utilize one as a restaurant brand is such a tough decision. The on-demand culture that we are building lends itself to wanting more and more of these services by the day. Without an end in sight, restaurants need to take a look at the value added versus the revenue lost and determine if this is a trend worth taking a risk on.

As a society, we continue to side with convenience and ease when it comes to dining decisions and restaurants have an opportunity here to make things easier than ever for customers – but at what cost?