Ruth's Chris

[Varmint]

I took some clients out to dinner last night, giving them the choice of restaurants. Well, they chose Ruth's Chris, and after shelling out a buttload of money, I just wonder why people are willing to spend so much loot on something so relatively ordinary? C'mon, over $100 for a lobster? Or $40 for a steak that's not much better than what I do at home? Seven bucks for half a head of iceberg lettuce with blue cheese dressing?

I don't mind paying a lot of money for well prepared food, but I just don't see the value in this particular place. I spent easily 4 figures on the food cost alone for 10 people (don't talk to me about the free-loading behavior of the clients!), and I could think of 40 places in the area where the experience would have been so much better (at least from a food perspective).

I don't know if I have a particular point to make -- am I that much different than my clients who raved about their dinners? -- why would anyone open a food focused restaurant other than a steakhouse when the profit margins are so damned high? -- but I'm just venting. Yeah, great steak is memorable. But this was just good, and I felt a bit used after my dinner.

[bilrus]

I don't know if I have a particular point to make -- am I that much different than my clients who raved about their dinners?

Most likely you are that much different from other diners. I think we are all a little 'different' here on eGullet.

I think in general a lot of people are more impressed by the atmosphere, prices and portion sizes, assuming the food is of a reasonable quality, than they are about the more esoteric qualities of good food. I know I have beome more discerning in the few months I have been a member here than I was before.

I think Ruth's Chris fits right in with those criteria, along with most other upscale steakhouses.

[plax]

Two years ago, I took my mother and my partner (whose birthdays are a day apart) to the Ruth's Chris in Ft. Lauderdale for dinner. I think we were all quite disappointed-- the restrooms weren't clean, the service was oppressive (too many people hovering around, and then never available when you actually needed something) and the food just wasn't great enough to justify the price.

So Varmint, I agree with you, the place is quite overrated, and I don't see what keeps them in business.

[tommy]

and I could think of 40 places in the area where the experience would have been so much better

but could they?

[vengroff]

Ruth's Chris is carefully engineered to live off the expense accounts of travelling executives and professionals. You can hop off the plane in any of the top twenty or more business centers in the country and there's one nearby. You don't have to spend a second thinking about it. You know exactly what you are going to get, and the expense is a write-off anyway. Why take a risk on some unknown local place when closing the deal is riding on a successful dinner? Sure the food might be better, but the downside risk is too great.

[SobaAddict70]

Because people like what's familiar and for the most part, the ordinary masses aren't very adventurous.

I could be wrong of course, but this is a time-tested theory.

Next time, you can treat ME out to dinner and I'll compensate, capice?

Soba

[hollywood]

With rare exception, something about client dinners puts a damper on the food. So, in a perverse way, perhaps you are lucky the clients didn't "spoil" a good meal for you.

[Marlene]

Other than pricing, unfortunately, all Ruth's Chris are not created equal. I've been to several Ruth's in various parts of the states as well as the one here in Toronto. The food ranges from excellent to very substandard. The Toronto location has significantly improved over the last couple of years, although they continue to have trouble with their porterhouse, don't ask me why. It will be interesting to try their new location in Mississauga when it opens.

The New Orleans location is wonderful and has some local cusine built into the menu as well.

Orlando - Not great

New York, again, has improved. It was terrible the time we went there.

Dallas was outstanding

Houston was fair

Hartford was great!

There are others we've been to, but these are the ones that stand out in my mind.

[britcook]

So what is a Chris steak and why has Ruth got it? I've always thought Ruth's Chris Steak was a stoopid name, but I could just have missed the point. Again.

[bilrus]

Not saying it isn't stupid, but according to their website:

"In 1965, while scanning the classified section of the local newspaper, Ruth found an ad for a steak house - Chris Steak House - for sale. Against the advice of her lawyer and her banker, she mortgaged her house for $22,000 and bought the restaurant, and shortly thereafter, renamed it Ruth's Chris Steak House. "

[Marlene]

It was originally Chris Steakhouse. When Ruth Fertel bought the original one in New Orleans, she added her first name to it.

[Fat Guy]

Steak is a commodity, as is much steakhouse fare. The prices at Ruth's Chris are in the normal range for USDA Prime steaks of comparable size. Lobster prices per pound are in the normal range as well. That's just what this stuff costs: go ahead and try to open a restaurant and serve the same product for less money. You may at best be able to shave a couple of dollars off some of the prices, but that will have to come from somewhere else in the operation.

Assuming a decent Ruth's Chris -- and most of them are decent provided they're company-owned (there are also some franchises that are less tightly controlled as I understand it) and have been around for awhile (they all suck when they first open, just like restaurants in general) -- what you get is a very good urban-steakhouse experience. In a market like New York City, a place like Ruth's Chris is going to be in the second-tier. In most places, it will be the best steakhouse in town, or be competing directly with the local Morton's, Smith & Wollensky, and Palm -- we're not talking about the Outback and Cheesecake Factory level of restaurant or product here.

So, again assuming a normal Ruth's Chris, if you weren't happy with your meal it basically means you don't like steakhouses. And that's certainly a view shared by many gourmets. Steakhouses just aren't targeted at us.

[Varmint]

My guests LOVED the place. Plus, the service was great. We have 2 local steakhouses that are as good as, if not better, than Ruth's Chris. I guess I just have some problems with paying for the "commodity." The food was fine, but I couldn't distinguish anything particularly great about my steak (except for the crust). It was all comfortable, simple, and presented in a very quiet and lush room. Folks love that stuff, and that's why there are so many steakhouses out there. I also think that you don't have to hire very talented cooks, either, as everything they make is very, very simple.

So, again assuming a normal Ruth's Chris, if you weren't happy with your meal it basically means you don't like steakhouses. And that's certainly a view shared by many gourmets. Steakhouses just aren't targeted at us.

Yup, that must be it. Even when my firm is footing the bill.

[beans]

They served an iceburg lettuce salad??

My experiences with steakhouses has been poor, with exception to a borrowed sous chef from Atlanta to start up Shula's Steak 2 -- once my employer. I'd say it was the usual steakhouse fare, however I *lived* for the chef's different daily featured off menu entree(s). Of course, that ended when he returned to Atlanta and the menu was entirely back to corporate specs.

I never got the thrill of a la carting my green beans at Morton's, and especially at an arm and a leg price. Give me a cheap eats hole in the wall with authentic cuisine anyday!

[tommy]

a lot of steakhouses serve iceburg lettuce and blue cheese.

[Bux]

I just wonder why

There's either a new, or recently relocated, Ruth's Etc. near a friend's house in Manhattan. I've passed it a few times and each time I wonder "why?" It's easy to say we're not the target audience, but why aren't we representative of that audience. Why do people seek out the commonplace, the familiar and even the mediocre?

Varmint, I'm sure your clients didn't care about cost. I won't dwell on the thought that you must have cheaper restaurants.t I'll bet you have more interesting ones, probably have better ones and may have better ones that are also more interesting (and probably less expensive, but what are these clients paying you for anyway). New York (where I don't know the cost of eating in Ruth's Etc.) is a diner's Mecca. I understand even less why one would settle for Ruth's let alone seek one out.

[Holly Moore]

So, again assuming a normal Ruth's Chris, if you weren't happy with your meal it basically means you don't like steakhouses. And that's certainly a view shared by many gourmets. Steakhouses just aren't targeted at us.

Lone Ranger: "We're surround by Indians, we're going to die."

Tonto: "What do you mean 'We' white man?"

Pardon the above political incorrectness, but I'm with Tonto here.

Breathes there a gourmet with soul so dead who has not walked into the Palm (or Ruth's Chris) and said, "Waiter, you finest, biggest rib eye! And your finest, biggest martini!!"

There are certain occasions when only a bloody slab of meat and a Saharran dry martini straight up will suffice.

[Varmint]

I love steak. I love lobster. I love creamed spinach and au gratin potatoes and cheesecake and crunchy red wines. I just don't want to pay $200 for that meal. Thus, I'm very, very glad that this wasn't my own money.

[=Mark]

This seems to be a higher class version of the conundrum as to why here in NJ, with a Mom & Pop family owned and operated Italian restaurant on every other corner, there are still lines to get into the local Olive Garden.

[Varmint]

Varmint, I'm sure your clients didn't care about cost. I won't dwell on the thought that you must have cheaper restaurants.t I'll bet you have more interesting ones, probably have better ones and may have better ones that are also more interesting (and probably less expensive, but what are these clients paying you for anyway). New York (where I don't know the cost of eating in Ruth's Etc.) is a diner's Mecca. I understand even less why one would settle for Ruth's let alone seek one out.

The absolute cost was somewhat irrelevant. Shelling out a couple of grand for great clients is just a cost of doing business. It's what they wanted, and I gave it to them. We did indeed have fun, but I still wonder what is it about Ruth's that excites people so. Is it the name? The tuxedoes? The room itself? Again, we could have gone to 2 other steakhouses in town that are, in my opinion, superior, offering better meat, wine, and value. They wanted to go to Ruth's Chris. And before you think this is a "guy" thing, spouses were included and 2 of the 4 clients were women. I guess there is something mighty powerful behind what Ms. Fertel created.

[elfin]

I love a great steak and can not duplicate same at home. Have stayed away from most chain steak houses since I live in Chicago and we have terrific local spots (Gibsons for example). So, steak joints on an expense account are one of work's perks. However, it would not be my first choice if there are other 'splurge/account expense places that have more complicated,local or famous cuisine. My last expense account meal was at Tru which I picked out (my firm's tab). Also if I am in Florida I would eat at the best fish place rather than eat steak.

What I can't understand, is why everything at a steakhouse is served a la carte and at outrageous prices---$7 for creamed spinach or a baked potato. Isn't the mark-up on the beef enough?

[tommy]

I love steak.  I love lobster.  I love creamed spinach and au gratin potatoes and cheesecake and crunchy red wines.  I just don't want to pay $200 for that meal.  Thus, I'm very, very glad that this wasn't my own money.

was the meal really that horrible? can you save much money going elsewhere?

i've been to Ruth's Chris. and, as everyone else, i've spent a lot of money there and said "gee, that was pretty pricey." but i've done the same at Gallaghers, Smith & Wollensky, Trotters, and a number of other high end steak houses. looking back i don't think i can tell one from the other. all have been decent, or good, and expensive.

Edited July 7, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Fat Guy]

Why do people seek out the commonplace, the familiar and even the mediocre?

Familiar is the big one on that list, and the "why" of that is obvious: it's human nature.

I've written about/reviewed Ruth's Chris twice, so I've been to the Manhattan branch five times now. Every time I'm struck by pretty much the same things: 1) The service is outstanding, both in terms of professionalism and Middle American friendliness; 2) The steak is very good USDA Prime in large cuts, though not dry-aged; 3) The preparation is expert, though they use too much butter; 4) The seafood is of very high quality; 5) Side dishes are more overpriced than usual for steakhouses, but not by much; and 6) Business is booming, including a sizeable local audience that presumably favors consistency and friendliness (aka the upside of familiarity) over the marginal superiority of, say, Smith & Wollensky (where the service and quality are erratic, it's loud, you often have to wait for your table, etc.).

I'd also invert the question: Why aren't people attracted to unique, unfamiliar restaurants? And I think the answer has to look at both consumer issues (lack of imagination and willingness to try new things, mistaken stereotyping, uneducated palates) and restaurant issues (failure to provide consistently reliable experiences to first-time customers, inability to market themselves effectively, idiosyncratic chef and staff behavior, etc.).

[Holly Moore]

This seems to be a higher class version of the conundrum as to why here in NJ, with a Mom & Pop family owned and operated Italian restaurant on every other corner, there are still lines to get into the local Olive Garden. 

Not really, because chains like the Palm, Mortons and Ruth's Chris are generally very good at what they do and represent their products well.

The Olive Garden, on the other hand, is there for those too lazy to open up a can of Spaghetti-o's so they dine out instead. The Olive Garden does not represent their products well.

[Varmint]

was the meal really that horrible?  can you save much money going elsewhere? 

Nope, the meal was not horrible (except for Mrs. Varmint's swordfish, which was horribly overcooked, and not wanting to make a scene in front of clients didn't say anything). It was OK. It was, as Fat Guy stated, a commodity. Something that I could have obtained at many a steakhouse. Perhaps it's not just Ruth's Chris, but the concept of most high end steakhouses in general. I can buy that.

As far as saving money is concerned, that's not the issue. I'd gladly have paid more for a better dining experience, an experience where the chef had to do something -- anything -- interesting. Again, it's back to the notion of commodity dining.