Fat Guy

Just to be clear: "a little bit of favoritism" is exactly what I'm in favor of when it comes to reservations; I hope you don't think I'm in favor of turning every restaurant into Rao's. Indeed, that business model wouldn't work for most restaurants. Most businesses -- and pretty much every restaurant except Rao's -- needs a mix of repeat business and new business in order to succeed. A little bit of favoritism, where repeat clients are rewarded while new clients can still have access (albeit with higher barriers to entry), makes sense. Anybody with the means and the determination can still become a regular. Plus it's not likely that Ko will stay at 12 seats forever if the concept is wildly successful. Eventually, like Jose Andres's 6-seat Minibar in Washington, DC, we could expect it to expand to meet demand.

I guess you're not going to let go of the desire to personalize the argument. Still, I'll do my best to engage you on the substantive, non-personal aspects of what you're saying. It sounds pretty cool, so most people can be expected to think it's pretty cool. I don't. That's why we're having this discussion. But surely you'd agree that arguments -- as opposed to legislative disagreements -- don't get resolved "democratically." They get decided by things like facts. Eventually, we'll have a lot more factual data, but we already have some. For example, the friends and family thing: "Friends and family" is of course euphemism for "high-value customers, members of the press, and a few friends and family." I believe that concept is inherently at odds with an egalitarian system of allocating seats. That's why you get comments like the introduction to Ruth Reichl's piece on Ko: I wouldn't say it's flat out hypocrisy to invite Ruth Reichl for the purposes of press coverage while claiming "No favorites." But I do think it's borderline. Certainly, it's a clear "have your cake and eat it too" situation. Let's assume he isn't. Don't you agree that if the owners of the restaurant ever do those things in the future then it will be clearly hypocritical? If every seat at the restaurant is full all the time, those points could turn out to be academic from a business perspective. Likewise, if all manner of other schemes for rewarding regulars are kept intact (extra dishes at Ko, VIP treatment at the other Momofuku restaurants) then the reservations piece of the egalitarian plan could be sustainable -- though again we get into contradictions between the no-VIP reservations theory and the old-paradigm-VIP theory applied to all other aspects of the Momofuku group's operations. But if every seat isn't full all the time -- if business slows down on Monday nights a year from now -- there could be problems. That's when a business looks back and says, gee, maybe we should have cultivated a group of regulars a little better. Because regulars keep restaurants full on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights. In addition, even in a 100%-reserved-every-day scenario, regulars are many times more reliable in terms of no-show rates than a group of people selected at random. Regulars are also likely to spend more on marginal items. Regulars, for the most part, are more enjoyable for the staff to deal with. I have no axe to grind, I have not "built a career" on preferential reservations for regulars, and if you persist in accusing me of having ulterior motives I'll have little choice but to ignore your subsequent comments.

I haven't advocated foregoing the diversity part of the equation. Most people I know who are serious regulars at a few great restaurants do indeed try the important new places, and various other circumstances arise (e.g., their friends choose where to eat some nights) that satisfy the need for diversity. Or maybe sometimes you just want the seafood sausage at Chanterelle even though in all other respects you can't stand Chanterelle. Diversity gets its share, pretty much no matter what. But you talk to people who are entrenched regulars at great restaurants and the overwhelming majority say, "You know, I'm a regular at X, Y and Z, and they treat me so well at those places, and I only dine out Q times a month. So a different restaurant has to present a fairly compelling argument in order to get a place on my dining schedule."

My knowledge of New York City restaurants is hardly encyclopedic. Most weeks, I probably don't even dine out as often as you or Nathan or whomever. But our positions are also different, because I do this for a (sort of) living. So I'm able to maintain some breadth of knowledge because, for example, I was just doing a story for Crain's on wine bars and so I visited about 40 wine bars over a period of a couple of weeks -- sometimes several a night -- and Crain's paid. Now I know a lot about wine bars, it's true. I also get invited to various press previews and such, which helps me keep tabs on new places. What you can be sure of, though, is that when I pay for a meal out of the household budget it will usually be at a place where I'm a regular or expect I might become one. There are of course exceptions. If a new opening is very important -- like Ko, or Per Se -- I'll pay to go there at least once even though I'm sure I won't become a regular (at Per Se, on account of the cost; at Ko, on account of the reservations policy). But most of the time you'll find me allocating my limited dining budget at places where I'm a regular. (Except at New Green Bo where they've abused me for a decade but I don't care because it's so cheap and good.) And I think your conclusion, that being a regular isn't "necessary or useful" for most people, is a claim you're not in a position to make at this time. Certainly, personal tastes vary. You may be a person who fundamentally favors diversity of experience to depth of experience. But you only have the diversity part right now, so it's premature for you to judge. I've corresponded with hundreds of people (well, a few dozen at least) who've read my book (judging from my sales figures they all shared one copy) and have been amazed and delighted at the treatment regulars can get at restaurants. I mean, I've seen enough "My eyes are opened!" correspondence hit my inbox on this issue in the past couple of years that I can say for sure that the "not necessary or useful for most people" theory is not valid.

Well, in Chang's defense, he has been proactive about appearances here. As chronicled in the GQ profile of Chang: So it's certainly possible that he'll tell his parents no.

I thought the 60-second time made sense. What happens in 10-30 minutes of soaking isn't relevant to actual cooking.

Mushroom type: white button Dry weight: 149.0 g Wet weight: 156.0 g Soak time: 60 s % change: +4.7% There are some additional variables here. For example I made sure to shake the mushrooms thoroughly after soaking, in order to remove as much surface water as possible. I can think of a lot of seemingly minor issues that might affect results: age of mushrooms, temperature of water, etc. Also, I think the most revealing experiment will be to cook washed and unwashed mushrooms in order to compare their behavior and end results.

Were I pissed off, the main thing I'd be pissed off about is the insistence that I have some ulterior motive here. You'll find that the discussion makes a lot more sense if you take what I'm saying at face value, just as I've always done with your comments no matter how sure I am that you're wrong in any particular instance. To the substantive argument that you've made, reservations are not just "ONE PERK." Reservations are foundational. Without them, you can't go to the restaurant. So yeah, where I'm a regular, I absolutely expect that the restaurant will do what it can to accommodate me. This expectation is based on both common sense and empirical observation. And it's not about my paradigm or any sort of paradigm particular to the restaurant industry. It's about businesses giving valued customers their due. I don't become a regular customer of a business -- especially not a luxury business -- when that business doesn't allocate its resources in favor of its best customers. That's not a paradigm, that's just a mistake. But again, it's not about me, no matter how much you wish to personalize the argument. It's about the problems inherent in this sort of contrived egalitarianism.

Thanks for starting this topic, Mitch. I think I'd like to add to it with an excerpt from the "How to Dine" class from the eGCI, which was based on my book, Turning the Tables. +++ Most every restaurant is really two: the one the public eats at, and the one where the regulars dine. Being a regular affects every aspect of the dining experience, from getting that tough-to-book table on a busy Saturday night, to getting the waitstaff's best service, to getting special off-menu dishes and off-list wines. The best restaurant isn't the one with the highest Zagat rating, the most stars from the local paper, or that cute celebrity chef. It's the one where you’re a regular. This news can be discouraging to some, but it needn't be to you: by being a proactive and knowledgeable customer, you can start getting treated like a regular on your very first visit. A special relationship with a restaurant is one of life's great pleasures, and such a relationship can be far easier and quicker to establish than many people think. You don't need to be wealthy, a celebrity, or great-looking to be a regular. I’m none of the three, and I do pretty well in restaurants. And while you can't exactly become a regular in a single visit, you can make a lot of progress in that direction. The benefits of being a regular will, of course, increase with each visit to a restaurant. Although each individual meal at a top restaurant should be excellent, most seasoned veteran diners take the long view. To them, eating a first meal at a restaurant is like a first date: it's a preview that helps you decide if you're going to want a second date. Most every restaurant, like every dating partner, keeps a little something in reserve for subsequent encounters. The first meal won't expose you to the full range of an establishment's capabilities, but it will give you a taste. On the later visits, things can get even more interesting. But you can't make those repeat visits if you're constantly eating at the latest trendy place. Becoming a regular requires focus, whereas the relentless pursuit of the new and the different cuts directly against depth of enjoyment at just a few well-chosen places. There are more than six thousand restaurants in Chicago, and New York has something in the neighborhood of twenty-thousand; given how many close and open each week, any large city has too many to visit in a lifetime. Since you'll never visit them all, don't try. Instead, zero in on a handful of restaurants to satisfy your various dining needs -- the special-occasion place, the business-lunch place, the neighborhood place where you go for a quick bite -- and cultivate the heck out of your relationship with the staff at each one. You'll soon find you don't often get the urge to eat anywhere else, and that new restaurants have to fight to get onto your schedule instead of vice versa. Before and during your first visit, do a little research. Every level of restaurant in every city has both an official and an unofficial dress code. The official dress code tells you the minimum ("no jeans, no sneakers" or "jackets required for gentlemen"), but what you want to know is the unofficial code: what are people really going to be wearing? The way to find out is to call ahead and ask. Other questions -- there are no stupid ones -- should be asked on the spot, while dining. Those in the service profession usually love to share their knowledge with newcomers to their restaurant or to fine dining in general. Whether you want to know what a funny-shaped utensil is for or what the best dish on the menu is, just look your server in the eye and ask, "Can you tell me about this?" The first time my wife (then-girlfriend) and I dined at Bouley in New York City, we didn’t know what a sauce spoon was. When we asked, the waiter took us under his wing -- and that's exactly where you want to be. Most good restaurants' waitstaffs will recognize you after two or three visits (and certainly the restaurant's reservations computer will, assuming you use the same name and phone number each time). In that sense, anybody who visits a restaurant often enough eventually becomes a regular by default. But there are levels of regulars, and if you're going to visit the restaurant anyway, you may as well attain the highest, super-VIP level by being proactive. Learn the name of your waiter and the maitre d' or manager, and, more importantly, make certain they learn yours. The easiest way to accomplish this: "I really enjoyed my meal today. My name is Steven Shaw." If you aren’t answered with, "Thank you, Mr. Shaw, my name is François, please let me know if there’s anything I can do for you in the future," then there’s something wrong with you, or with the restaurant. (Of course you should use your name, not mine. There are still a few places out there that are annoyed with me for giving them bad reviews.) A restaurant is a business, but a relationship with a restaurant is not just about money. Especially when dealing with waitstaff, the human element can often eclipse financial concerns. Sure, money is important to people in the restaurant business, just as it's important to lawyers. But like the law, the restaurant business is a service business, and all lawyers know that there are good clients and bad clients, and that you can have bad billionaire clients and great penniless clients. When cultivating a relationship with a restaurant's service staff, being nice often counts at least as much as callously throwing money around. The use of "please" and "thank you," and general acknowledgment of your waiter as a fellow human being, will immeasurably improve your stock. And there's something that counts as much as or more than being nice: being interested. Any chef or waiter can tell you how disheartening it is to work so hard to create the best possible food and service experience, and then to dish it out to a mostly uncaring clientele that chose the restaurant for the scene, not the food. If you can distinguish yourself as someone who really cares about the restaurant's work, you will be everybody's favorite customer. The quickest approach? Again, ask questions, which indicates interest. Interest is one of the highest compliments you can pay. Of course, if you do choose to distribute a little extra cash, a twenty-dollar bill and a discreet "thank you" never hurts. Do not, however, make the egregious mistake of faking it. Don't try to be someone you're not in order to impress a restaurant's staff. Aside from being undignified, this is doomed to failure. Every experienced waiter is a part-time amateur psychoanalyst and can spot a poseur clear across a crowded dining room. It's not necessary to try to appear learned about wine and food, or to appear absurdly enthusiastic. You'll get a lot further by deferring to the staff's expertise than you will by showing off your own. You may learn something, too. +++ Lots more to say on the subject . . .

According to tests run by Alton Brown of Good Eats, the bit about soaking appears to be a culinary myth. Per his tests, 4 ounces of button mushrooms soaked in 1 liter of water for 10, 20, and 30 minutes gained 0.2, 0.25, and 0.15 ounces, respectively (about a teaspoon, max). This works out to 3.75% to 6.25% gain. The kicker? Another 4 ounces of button mushrooms, subjected to a brief blast of cold water, gained 0.2 oz - same as when soaked for 10 minutes. ← I think this would be a great, separate, topic. Long ago, McGee did this same experiment and reached similar conclusions. Yet I'm not sure it was a complete experiment. Anyway, perhaps somebody will start a topic on the subject?

We have no idea whether any reservations were made available at 10am, because it's no longer possible to see the grid. Yesterday, no reservations were made available at 10am. Instead, some time around 2am today, those reservations showed up and were either immediately booked or had been pre-booked. Soon after, the grid was made invisible.

I didn't say that. I didn't say I think I'm a friend and a guest. I said the restaurants treat me like a friend and a guest. ← If you think restaurants are treating you as a friend and a guest, try not paying. Conversely, try going to a friend's house as a guest and sending back an overcooked steak. Not the same thing, just the same idea: both are anti-egalitarian. Which is fine, except for people who go on about how "democratic" they are. Chang has succeeded in scoring PR points on two fronts: 1- by claiming no special treatment, 2- by giving special treatment to regulars and media. I've got to congratulate him for pulling it off so far. But I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.

If you think you're a friend and guest at a restaurant, try not paying. Let us know how that works out for you. I suspect an unfortunate number of people may be buying into the fallacy that Ruth Reichl, Alan Richman, Ed Levine, et al., are "friends and family" of Momofuku. Regardless, I was simply pointing out the absurdity of your claim that Chang's idealism means no special treatment for Ruth Reichl. Because, as you know, she has already had special treatment. Which, by the way, I support. Do you?

You don't have to be just another diner either. Every restaurant above the level of a McDonald's offers one or another form of preferential treatment. I've written a book explaining how to take advantage of this situation, rather than being a victim of it. Every consumer should be motivated by self interest. What's your alternative hypothesis about what should motivate consumers? Of course your conspiracy theory about how I'm protecting the new paradigm or whatever is completely off base, and it's kind of ironic that you're taking umbrage at me telling you what to do when you started this conversation by calling me a liar. But again, it's a peculiar phenomenon that so many people have been guilted into attaching negative connotations to concepts like "demand," "expect," and "self interest" when, in reality, these are exactly the concepts consumers should be comfortable with. Oh, so that's why he invited Ruth Reichl to a preview tasting!

I was interested to see that in the middle of the night the Wednesday 19 March reservations showed up seemingly all at once as all booked, and the graphical reservations grid has now gone behind a wall. Of course I draw no conclusions from that. It could just be that a lot of people noticed and jumped on the open reservations at 2am, and that the new "as of [TIME] there are currently no open seatings" message is to reduce load on the server.

I expect *and* appreciate preferential treatment when I'm a regular client of a business. So should you.

Does anybody know why they accept reservations for 1, 2 or 4 people but not for 3 people?

Thanks for your permission. Now let me try to do you and everybody else a kindness in return: I give you -- all of you -- permission to expect superior treatment from any business that you support over the long haul. I give you permission to expect that hotels where you've been a long-time customer will give you priority in booking rooms, and give you the best rooms available. I give you permission to demand that doctors you've supported for years squeeze you in for appointments even when they're busy. I give you permission to expect that restaurants where you've spent thousands of dollars will make every effort to accommodate any reasonable request you have, especially when it comes to getting in. I give you permission to feel entitled to those things, because you've paid for them with your hard-earned money that you're so blessed to have. And I give you permission to take your business elsewhere if you don't get those things. Plus, you'll never need to make any demands because a well-run business gives you these things before you need to ask for them. Various claims of egalitarianism in reservations have been made in the past. Perhaps most famously, when Ducasse opened in New York he announced "There will be no special treatment for the press." After getting hammered long and hard by the press, he switched publicists, started hosting press luncheons and clawed his way to some semblance of equilibrium with the press. Chang was smarter: he had all the press people in before implementing the egalitarian system. So now he only has to worry about the consumers.

It sounds like Ko isn't the restaurant for you. One less person pressing the refresh button when I'm trying to get a reservation is fine with me. I'm sure you'll still manage to find somewhere to take your friends. ← Ko isn't a restaurant where I'll be a regular, that's for sure. But of course I'm going to go once or twice, and if it's really great I'll go occasionally. And then over time we'll see how the egalitarianism plan holds up. Will it be a brilliant stroke that's successful, institutionalized and imitated; or will it be the next "all ssam all the time" mistake that needs to be corrected by the team?

So am I. But I fail to see how this is in any way related to the point we're discussing.

My objection in this instance is not selfish but theoretical. ← The thing is, I don't believe you. ← I believe you.

It's never inconsistent to distinguish between good ideas and bad ideas. Chang has had some brilliant ideas. He has also had some really bad ones, like having a restaurant that only serves those ssam things. Luckily, the worst of his ideas have been corrected by his team. That's good leadership, when you're open enough to advice to change your mind on issues as fundamental as, say, the entire concept of your restaurant. We'll see what happens this time around.

Shudder away, but when you pay a couple of hundred dollars for dinner gratitude may not be the appropriate sentiment. I have tremendous respect for the people who provide me with excellent dining experiences, just as I have tremendous respect for anyone who provides great services: my son's music teacher, my dentist, etc. They would probably tell you I'm a pretty nice client to deal with. But that doesn't mean I have to roll over and be a submissive consumer. I'm paying for these services, and I expect to be treated as a valued customer. If I'm not, I'll find other service providers who will do that. I can't believe how many people are uncomfortable with that notion.

At Ko, probably not. There are so many people ahead of me in the hierarchy of Momo regulars that I wouldn't be given the secret code or special access. My objection in this instance is not selfish but theoretical. Anyway, I'll get my reservation "fair and square." I'm a professional at this -- I even got a reservation before it was possible to do so. However, I willingly admit to having selfish motives at many other restaurants where it is indeed correct to say of me "like them to have such a system because you would benefit from it." How is that such a bad thing? Again, if I pay in to a restaurant over time, I expect the system to benefit me. You bet I do.

You don't see why I think they SHOULD have a system that gives priority to regulars? I think I've explained it a few times already.