U.S. News and World Report spotlights some restaurant chains that are in financial trouble. Obviously, a lot of that is because the economy is swan-diving all over the place…but I'd like to suggest that several of the named companies are probably in trouble because of what you get when you go into them and/or what it costs you.
You been to a Marie Callender's lately? I haven't…because the last few times, I got tasteless food that probably had been sitting in the kitchen under a heat lamp since my previous visit.
You been to a Mastro's Steakhouse lately? I haven't…because the two times I was in one, you could have bailed out General Motors with what the check came to. I wasn't paying either visit but I did see the total and felt that the steaks, though wonderful, weren't that kind of money wonderful. I don't mind paying for a great meal but I know a couple of superb steakhouses (one is a block from the Beverly Hills Mastro's) where you can get just as fine a piece o' meat for about 60% of the same tariff.
You been to a Sbarro lately? Actually, I have. Recently in an airport, it was the only option to grab a necessary bite of something before my flight and I was reminded why they have Sbarro in airports and malls. It's to make the Pizza Hut Express look good. Does anyone anywhere like that food? I've heard a lot of odd things in my life but I've never heard anyone say, "I'm in the mood for Italian. Let's go to Sbarro!"
And as for Krispy Kreme: Well, I gave up sugary delicacies of that sort some time ago…but even when I did eat things like doughnuts, Krispy Kreme always seemed too sweet to me. It was like eating birthday cake that was all frosting, no cake. Obviously, there's a market for food that is fried and loaded with sugar but just as I think there are better places to spend your beef-eating money than Mastro's, I think there are more enjoyable ways to ingest 300 calories in about four bites.
I haven't been to the other places cited in the article…but I wonder how much of their current financial downturn is the economy (people aren't dining out or aren't going shopping in the areas where the restaurants are situated) and how many of them are mainly suffering from lack of quality. It could also be — and probably is — both: With money as tight as it is, consumers are getting fussier about where they consume. I just hope the lesson some chains learn is that while you can go out of business because the economy stinks, you can also go away because your food does.