Fat Guy

It's an absurd leap to go from statistical massaging of a few individual restaurants' ratings to the conclusion that all numbers presented by the Zagats are no more reliable than fiction. Again, it doesn't even matter if the numbers are off by some margin, so long as that margin remains steady. Nobody cares if the average meal cost is $39 or $49. What we care about is the year-to-year change. Nobody has demonstrated motive for the Zagats to fudge these particular numbers, nobody has provided even a hint of alternate citywide data, and so I believe they are the most reliable information anybody has introduced regarding year-to-year pricing trends in the sample group.

So I've collected some additional information about Asian Corner. First, Kathi Purvis sent me two articles from the Charlotte Observer archive (these are not available on the public website so I can't link to them). The first article, by Stella Hopkins, from 15 February 1999, is titled "WHEN 3 SISTERS TACKLED A START-UP, EVEN BUREAUCRATS PITCHED IN TO HELP." It indicates, among other things, that sisters Mimi, Ivy and Megan Nguyen opened the International Supermarket in the Asian Corner mall in January of 1999, and the grand opening of the mall itself was two months later. This happened only after more than a year and a half of renovation delays, including a flood caused by Hurricane Danny. The story, told at length in the article, of how hard the family worked to get the mall up and running is really inspiring. The second article, by Kathi Purvis, is from 21 January 2004, five years into the mall's operations. It's titled "COMPETITION GROWING AT ASIAN CORNER." The occasion of the story was the opening of the New Century supermarket, which is the other large Asian market (also owned by Vietnamese Americans: the Quach family) in the mall. Purvis described it as "bigger and fancier than International, with rows of fish tanks, a meat department and plans for a deli with takeout meals." I also had lengthy email correspondence with Mary Hopper of University City Partners and Tom Warshauer from Charlotte's Economic Development Office. One interesting thing I learned, in terms of why the parking lot is such a mess, is that Asian Corner is not the entire mall -- it's just the central section of the property. The other sections are under different ownership. As Mary Hopper explained it, "The left side, the middle (Asian Corners), the right side and various outparcels all have complicated cross easements and competing ownership interests. These owners have not been able to agree on how to divide costs associated with maintaining the parking lots and driveways."

I need to do a side-by-side test to be sure, but based on just eating some I think the organic De Cecco product may indeed be better. One thing I noticed is that the organic product does not appear to be enriched with niacin and all that other stuff. One persistent complaint I have about Fairway, of which I was reminded this morning, is that the lettuce offerings are really weak. The condition of the lettuce is rarely good. It seems as though Fairway almost always gets lettuce that's beginning to show brown around the edges. It's kind of odd. The average supermarket, in my experience, has lettuce in better shape than Fairway has. The Solana Gold Gravenstein apple sauce is back in stock upstairs. The regular Solana Gold apple sauce is always there, but this is the one that specifically says Gravenstein and has a slightly darker green banner graphic on the label. It's the best apple sauce I've ever had -- better than any packaged product (as we have a two-year-old, I've tried them all over the past couple of years) and better than anything I've managed to make at home -- so whenever they have some on the shelf I buy a few jars. At $2.79 for 24 ounces it's not even a significant indulgence.

I've always seen it done in disposable aluminum pie pans.

Apples and oranges. Whatever the Zagats do to enhance the standing of restaurants they like has no bearing on a basic cost average figure like the one we're discussing here.

I'll start: Why does anybody buy those three-packs of little envelopes of dry yeast, when for about the same amount of money you can get a pound of the stuff? Next?

The freeze-in-the-shape-of-a-pie trick is brilliant, however I should also note that in my opinion whole unbaked apple pies (crust and all) freeze quite well too. They deliver 95% (or something like that) of the satisfaction of a freshly made pie, and the convenience is incredible. If I had a huge freezer, I might fabricate like 50 whole pies at once each fall and have one every week during the rest of the year.

I stopped getting Zagat surveys several years ago but have a 2004 copy that I got for free at a corporate event. Maybe others have the missing editions between 2001 and now so we can put together a list of average price claims. For 2004 they claimed "a .3% increase to $37.06 from $36.95." Also, on the issue of the relationship between the Zagats and the industry, I noticed that in the 2004 introduction they defend the smoking ban. That's not exactly what I'd call an industry position.

I don't think the methodology here is complex or mysterious. The Zagats are taking the self-reported data from their survey participants and generating an average meal price. The answer they're getting is that the average meal price isn't going up very much. This can mean one of two things: 1- the data are wrong, or 2- the data are right. If the data are right, we have to look at why. If I had to speculate, I'd say the Zagats' argument is true but incomplete. I think, if the data are right, it can only mean that most people simply aren't willing to spend more money per year on dining out, and they're equally unwilling to dine out less -- that they're basically at a plateau of spending, for example, $10,000 a year for 100 meals out (a <1% average annual increase for 6 years would typically be a plateau, though that average could result from peaks and valleys too). Needless to say, most people aren't consciously projecting it at this level of specificity, however if the Zagats' figures are correct then this would seem to be what a lot of people are doing. If the Zagats' figures are correct, it would also explain in part the lack of fine-dining restaurant openings right now. It would mean the market has anticipated this change in consumer behavior and is therefore not supporting new high-end openings with very expensive prix-fixe menus.

That's not what they meant. Have a look at the press release that I keep referencing. They unambiguously refer to "NYC's annual dining inflation averaging 0.97% since 9/11." A look at the whole quote should eliminate any doubts about what exactly the Zagats are arguing:

What I see on Grub Street is just an annotated link to Steve Cuozzo's story in the New York Post, which I don't believe responds to the Wall Street Journal story. Maybe there's something else on Grub Street, or on Eater, but you haven't provided any links and I haven't found anything. So I think, for now, the claim "that Zagat article was roundly pilloried in the press" remains unsubstantiated, save for one entry on a finance blog -- if that even counts. The Zagats have no greater detractor than yours truly, however it's important that we get our facts straight. It has certainly been clear to me for years that the Zagat survey participants underestimate how much they spend in restaurants. The first time I challenged the accuracy of such estimates was in 1998, when I refuted the $76 claim for dinner at Lespinasse. But there's no reason to think there's more underestimating going on now than in 1998. As long as the underestimation is constant, the information with respect to changing prices is no less valid. I think fundamentally there may be a nomenclature problem here. The Zagats have never disputed that there's inflation. They have never disputed that some restaurants are raising their prices. What they've posited is that average meal prices have not risen. In other words, many people are spending their money differently -- such as at "a slew of inexpensive newcomers" -- rather than spending more. That position is entirely consistent with the claim that there's inflation: getting less for the same amount of money is just as much a sign of inflation as spending more for the same thing.

The news release linked to above specifies "NYC's annual dining inflation averaging 0.97% since 9/11." This figure is repeated in the Journal piece as "Overall, the rate of inflation in New York City dining costs has been just 0.97% since 9/11 -- barely a third of the Consumer Price Index." The "rate of inflation" means the annual rate, not the change for the entire six-year period. It doesn't dispute anything. We would need to know the numbers for each year since 2001. Somebody who has the Zagat surveys for the past six years should be able to dig out those figures and list them. This theory depends on a number of unproven assumptions: 1- that the Zagats are shills for the industry (I submit they are more aligned with the consumer and would have no issue with calling "inflation" if their numbers demonstrated it), 2- that the industry is making false anti-inflationary claims (I have not seen any examples of such), 3- that people would dine out less if they thought prices were rising (unsubstantiated -- they may just change ordering behavior, or go to different restaurants), 4- that the Zagats are talking about same-restaurant figures (when they are explicitly saying that many same-restaurant figures are up but that newcomers and other forces are holding overall prices down). They're reliable but atypical. The people posting here are most likely dining at exactly the restaurants where prices are rising: the most highly acclaimed, successful places that would be on a natural upward pricing curve at any time, whether or not we had inflation in the economy overall. The people responding to the Zagat survey are on the whole much better representatives of the lowest common denominator than the people posting here (although they too are dining at the "best in class" level more than average people). Asking members of the eGullet Society about their dining habits and extrapolating that to an average is like asking a group of university professors about their educations and then arguing that the population is really smart.

Neither of those citations appears to be a response to the Wall Street Journal article.

What possible stake could the industry have in denying that there's inflation? If anything, the industry would want to say there's tons of inflation, and therefore they need to charge more to keep pace with it. The Zagats, in their article, don't deny that there's inflation. They're simply pointing out that their average meal cost statistics aren't matching up to inflation, and they speculate about why that might be so. They're not saying 0.97% since 9/11, they're saying an average rate of 0.97% since 9/11. In a six-year period, an average rate of 0.97% totals up to much more than 0.97%, however they're saying it represents 1/3 of the CPI, meaning that average meal costs are going up much less than inflation. A given individual's average meal costs may be going up more, however the Zagats are looking at a much larger pool of data. While I'd be eager to dismiss those statistics if given a good reason, I haven't heard one yet.

Fast Food Nation was on Showtime the other night, so I decided to watch. Although I disagreed with much of the Fast Food Nation book, I was nonetheless able to recognize that it was a very well written, provocative, thought-provoking piece of work. So I know it's possible to separate one's critical judgment from one's opinions about issues. Why, then, has it been so difficult for professional film critics to realize what an awful movie Fast Food Nation is? For example, A.O. Scott, writing in the New York Times, positively gushes over the film: Really? "Far too rich and complicated to be understood as a simple, high-minded polemic"? The film is neither rich nor complicated. It is painfully shallow, lecturing, leaden and utterly predictable. Peter Travers, writing in Rolling Stone, claims: There is nothing sly or provoking about the film, nor are any of its cultural observations the slightest bit clever. It's a simple-minded, poorly made piece of propaganda: an insult to the excellent book upon which it was based. I could agree with, worship and love Eric Schlosser and Fast Food Nation but I would still think this was one of the worst films ever made. It's so bad that Avril Lavigne is just as good as the other actors.

A restaurant that was charging $20.01 for a meal in 2001 and is charging $24.07 for the same meal now has certainly raised its prices. However, if a restaurant was charging more than $24.07 for lunch in 2001 and is now offering a $24.07 lunch special year-round, its prices have come down. My impression is that there are a number of restaurants that used to participate perhaps only in the Restaurant Week promotion, or not even, but that now offer $24.07 or $24 lunches year round. Overall there has been a lot of downward pricing pressure on lunch.

Not to defend the Zagats, but that argument, made by a blogger named Barry Ritholtz, is hardly compelling. I have never known the Zagats to skew in favor of the restaurant business -- they are far more closely aligned with the consumer. While I have little confidence in the Zagats' methods, or in self-reported studies in general, it does seem difficult to dismiss the overall changes that the collected data show from year to year. If people are underreporting meal prices, the amount of underreporting shouldn't necessarily change form year to year. Especially against the background of widespread public perception that things are getting more expensive, I find it very interesting that thousands of Zagat survey participants are reporting level average meal costs. I was recently talking to a family that owns several established, middle-market restaurants in the area, and they were telling me that they haven't felt that it was possible to raise prices, even though their costs have been creeping up. Their position was that the dining public right now won't tolerate even small price increases at their regular haunts. So they've been focusing on strategies for increasing volume on slower nights, etc. -- and profits are off a bit. There are quite a few explanations in the Zagat press release for why overall prices may not be going up. It can be found here. In particular, the statement "Credit for keeping the average cost steady goes to a slew of inexpensive newcomers," seems at least worth considering. This is certainly a phenomenon I've been observing over the past couple of years.

Nathan, do you have any links to those articles? I'd like to check them out.

On 10 October, Tim and Nina Zagat had a piece in the Wall Street Journal about prices at New York restaurants. Their research disagrees with what appears to be the consensus on this topic. They report: and The Zagats do observe, however, that the "best in class" restaurants are getting more expensive. One thing I'd note is that most very successful restaurants increase prices a little while after they open. Those who dine at the leading edge are always going to perceive a price increase, because it's the natural progression of restaurants in that category. At the same time, there are always newcomers offering lower prices -- this past year or two has seen a lot of innovation in that department. Incidentally, Frank Bruni blogged yesterday in "Diner's Journal" about $20 entrees.

The radio broadcast begins "Slurping is as Japanese as sumo wrestling . . ." and gives a little background on slurping. "But," the report continues, "like many things in Japan, the tradition of slurping is undergoing change. Many young Japanese simply don't have the passion for it." They interview a 22-year-old Japanese woman who can't stand the sound of middle-aged men slurping, and who refuses to slurp. The report goes on to say that Japan's older generation is concerned about the loss of this cultural tradition, and reports that there have been newspaper editorials in Japan denouncing the decline of slurping. The report concludes by saying that some young Japanese are now even eating their noodles like pasta, swirling them around the utensil before eating them in one bite.

A couple of things about wax: First, organic produce is often waxed too. It's just waxed with organic wax. You can go into any Whole Foods and this is explained on a sign by the produce section, or at least it was last time I checked. (It's also a common misconception that organic produce is never treated with pesticides. It can be. The pesticides just have to be organic.) Second, it has not been my experience that hot water is necessary. For example, when I wash a single apple I normally don't fill a bowl with water. Rather, I turn on the cold water, run the apple quickly under the water, spray it with a spray of produce wash, rub the produce wash over the whole surface of the apple with my hands, then rinse under running water while rubbing with my hands. It takes only a few seconds longer than rinsing without produce wash. And it seems to me that this gets the apple very clean of wax -- at least that's how it feels -- whereas simply rinsing with water doesn't do very much. Sure, whatever chemical reaction is occurring will occur faster when the water is warmer, but cold water plus produce wash seems sufficient.

Went back to Naruto Ramen this evening and tried the miso ramen. Very nice. Similar to the regular house ramen but with a miso-enhanced broth, the addition of corn kernels and, I think, some butter in there. Definitely want to try the curry ramen soon. Also had the kara age (chunks of boneless fried chicken) as an appetizer -- not a particularly great example -- and a small order of pork fried rice that was not as good as what the average crummy Chinese restaurant serves. I really don't get the naruto fish cake. Do Japanese people really think this stuff tastes good? I've never tasted an example that I liked. To me it tastes overly processed, with a fishy taste but no actual fish flavors and a mushy texture.

Here's a report that ran on NPR awhile back. The summary is:

The apple kimchi has got to be one of the best dishes in Momo-Ssam history. The apples are given a light kimchi treatment, and the spice is set off my the maple yogurt underneath. The jowl bacon is a beautiful complement to the dish. I tried the skate for the first time, and was blown away by it. Best skate dish I've ever had. I'm not much of a skate fan, but the dish won me over: a big fat piece of skate with crispy exterior, served over fingerling potatoes and garnished with preserved lemon. The chicken and escarole special was on offer, and was excellent and very subtle. I definitely recommend trying it if it's available -- it's a good counterpoint to some of the spicier dishes. Momo-Ssam has gone back to the 2am schedule. I don't think the word has really gotten out, because at 12:30am it was pretty dead.

At the restaurant I described, it was naruto -- the name of the restaurant is Naruto Ramen. The product I see in New York, made by S&B, says "La Yu" on the label. I don't like it either. I also don't like the "Table Pepper" product very much. I like the "Ichimi" (red pepper powder), though. At Naruto Ramen, and at most places where gyoza are served in New York, they bring a little dish of vinegar-soy dipping sauce already mixed. I keep reading articles that say slurping is losing favor in Japan. Is it true?