A recent online flare-up involving Ruth’s Chris Steak House and Chili’s is a clear example of how quickly a routine decision can become strategic risk. And how fast things can go from a quiet dinner to a full-blown food fight.
It started with a posted dress code. Ruth’s Chris sought to reinforce its “business casual” standard, restricting items like gym wear, tank tops, and ball caps in their main dining room, with some guests who failed to meet those standards being redirected to the bar area.
Controversy began when the announcement of the policy enforcement went viral. Critics framed it as outdated or exclusionary, while others defended it as appropriate for a premium experience. Then Chili’s entered the fray with a simple social post commenting, “The only dress code is that you have to be dressed.” That comment gained traction and reframed the issue into a broader debate about accessibility versus exclusivity.
What happened next is what matters. The conversation shifted away from policy details and toward brand identity. Ruth’s Chris became associated with restriction. Chili’s positioned itself as easy and inclusive. Neither company changed its core approach, but the narrative contrast stuck. We have seen before that not all policies, even well-intended ones, are received the way brands expect.
But the situation encourages us to ask a question. Was the decision to announce the enforcement of the dress code a strategic risk? One that they made to maximize economic value? In this case encouraging customers who wanted a more formal environment to come back?
At the end of the day, Ruth’s Chris held its position. Chili’s leaned into the moment. The issue eventually cooled, but not before shaping perception at scale. In this case, the social reaction more or less aligned with the businesses’ intentions: enforcing a standard of dress for its dining rooms versus being welcoming to the most casually dressed.
For leaders, the lessons are straightforward.
- Operational choices are brand signals: A dress code is not just a rule. It communicates who the experience is for.
- Context can be hijacked: A competitor or third party can redefine your decision in seconds.
- Defend Strategic Risks: strategic risk as a business decision that was smart and positive for both consumers and the company, and vigorously defend it.
This situation, when it all boils down, was not really about attire. It is about the goals Ruth’s Chris had in making the decision. If it is for the right reason, then they should have put more around the announcement and been prepared to vigorously defend it. Here are a few thought starters you can discuss at your next team meeting to help your leaders and team see how your business would handle this situation:
Discussion Questions:
- If you were leading Ruth’s Chris, would you clarify, double down, or adjust the policy? Why?
- If a competitor reframed your decision publicly, how would you respond without amplifying them?
- How would you pressure test a routine policy for reputational risk before it goes live?
Kith facilitates crisis preparedness workshops that will help your company attain the clarity, trust, and strategic speed you need to respond confidently – no dithering! – to any crisis. We’d be happy to have a conversation about how we can help your company be ready to chart an effective course to reputation protection.
Looking for more fresh insights? Crisis of the Month is a no-fluff Substack that breaks down real-world crises and what they teach us about leadership, communication, and damage control. Whether you’re in comms, ops, or just crisis-curious, this is your monthly guide to what went wrong — and how to do it better. Sign up today!
