Sounds like they have copied Morton's. Out here (Scottsdale) Morton's has a early (5-6:30) and a late happy hour with several appetizers for $5 (filet sliders, burger sliders, crab cakes, chicken, and a few others).
Although their crab cakes sure don't look like those in your photo.

I wonder why they just chose those locations. They seem to me, to be the busier locations while Pikesville and Ocean City are slower and might get a larger crowd from such incentive.

ah, really, I just want it to be in Pikesville so I can take advantage of it without having to drive downtown.

And, honestly to this day, I recall one commenter ever saying they'd gone to the Ruths Chris in OC. I still think it seems out of place there unless that well heeled retired are living it up in there.

Those three are all owned by the same person. EL

I'm surprised there aren't more high-end restaurants in OC. A week "down the ocean" is a fairly expensive trip. In some cases it can be cheaper to go to Europe. In light of that, it is surprising that the dining there isn't better.

I agree with your thoughts about dining in OC, RoCK. I think it's a matter of "because they can". There are a handful of places that we've scoped out over the years that we think are very good, and in the case of expense, it's worth it. We've also found a few lower end places where good food can be found at a lesser price.

But the continuation of the thriving of meh restaurants must be a continuous infusion of unaware tourists dollars.

Just returned home from the free Prime Time event at Ruth's Chris, Pier 5. It was heavenly. The $5 Ahi Tuna, $5 Kobe Burgers, and $5 Shiraz were my absolute favorites. The bar was packed...the crowd was great...and so too was the atmosphere. Thanks, EL, for sharing this deal with Charm City food lovers.

Reminder, Sandbox -- Andrea Karfakis is a PR flack for the Steve de Castro restaurant group, including the Ruth's Chris at Pier 5, so her comments about the quality of the food should be taken with a pinch of salt, at least.

thanks, hmpstd. I actually was kinda thinking about a city roadtrip to partake of this special. Not that I'm going to feel like driving any further than already have to when I get home from work in the midst of our latest monsoon season and it being dark at 4:30!

When I was reading these comments I immediatly knew that the comments made by Ms. Amanda Karfakis were planted to miss lead the consumer and influence their decision. Thank You hmpstd

i checked out this prime time thing on tuesday night. i was at pier 5 location with a bar full o' peoples. really liked the food. surprisingly good portion sizes. i thought for sure this deal would be a rip off. not at all....

It is never my intention to miss lead anyone, let alone users of this blog. My name is hyperlinked directly to my firm's web site and my obvious "Thank You" to Elizabeth was quite intentional as she was very helpful in spreading the word for this event.

Growing up, my family operated and owned restaurants. I consider myself a bit of a foodie. I did attend the event last night where I also ate dinner. Had I not honestly enjoyed the night, or the food, I never would have posted a single thought.

It is my goal to promote when there is good food, great prices, and great atmosphere. Some of us still have integrity in advertising and PR. I am sorry if you misunderstood my post for anything otherwise.

Happy Eating Everyone!

Amanda Karfakis, you just don't get it. Your family's restaurant background does not enable you to make objective comments about the quality of food at a restaurant that pays you to spread positive PR about its business. The very payment creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest, since, as you freely admit, you would never dare to post a negative comment about your client. If you are not a member of the Public Relations Society of America, you would be well advised to take a look at its Code of Ethics on conflicts of interest. (You might also take a page from EL, who declines to review Donna's because Donna Crivello formerly worked at The Sun and remains a good friend.)

EL may be familiar with your identity and your client list, but the same cannot be said of the readers of this blog, especially those who may be reading it for the first time. The mere inclusion of a hyperlink to your website is not sufficient disclosure, as it would require new readers to click numerous pages on your website to discover that Ruth's Chris is your client (assuming that they know how to navigate your website). You might as well include a hyperlink to Google, on the assumption that someone will "go fish" and do a Google search of your name which might reveal your connection to Ruth's Chris.

I agree that payment for positive spin can inherently flaw one’s perceived objectivity. However, I think Amanda Karfakis’ point was that she was being honest in the recount of her experience.

Not taking sides, just playing devil’s advoc.

If one truly believes in a product, and spreads the word, what’s the harm? As long as someone is honest, why does it matter what connections they have?

At the end of the day, don’t we all want to get-in-the-know? Isn’t that why we are here? If the knowledge passed is accurate, why does it matter how it got delivered?

I think Ms Karfakis is being disingenuous by saying she disclosed. I do not generally click through to websites. I'm sure not going to dig around to see if someone is being paid.

If even the perception of a conflict of interest is possible, it is necessary to flatly state the (possible) conflict. If this were a library review blog, after all, I'd make a disclosure about any I'd worked at, had friends who worked at or who's director had snubbed me at a conference.