Sneakeater

Chang says.

You can name an album Momofuku, and even THAT won't get you a Ko reservation.

Nathan has said exactly what I think, too.

The point is, to be painfully clear, that it has been argued in this thread that Ssam Bar regulars should be sufficiently pissed off to stop frequenting Ssam Bar by the Momofuku group's denial to us of preferred reservations at Ko. I'm trying to show that they can keep at least one of us happy even without that additional perk.

To be clear, as Nathan says, I don't think you could replicate the Ko "experience" at Ssam Bar (nor of course could you replicate the Ssam Bar "experience" at Ko). I'm only saying you could approximate (but not reach) Ko quality at Ssam Bar.

And, of course, plating fans will note that the plating at Ko is much much better than at Ssam Bar.

On the basis of one (F&F) meal there: Some dishes at Ko are better than anything at Ssam Bar. Some are as good as the top level of Ssam Bar's dishes. None is worse. So I'd say Ko is marginally better than Ssam Bar, but doesn't blow Ssam Bar out of the water. I need to eat at Ko a few more times to make this determination (har har), but my initial thought is that I prefer Ssam Bar as an experience.

That's nuts, weinoo. I haven't ever even tried to make a (non-F&F) reservation at Ko. This is the kind of care they've always taken of me (since I became acknowledged as a regular). I wouldn't ask Cory for that favor, because it goes against what they say is their stated policy. I've already explained that I think that would be rude.

So I took a date to Ssam Bar tonight. Weirdly, I'd never done that before. This girl is always late. As I was leaving the 3rd Ave. L station, I got a text message from her that she was running maybe 20 minutes late. I arrived at Ssam Bar. Probably because of the New Yorker piece, it was even more packed than usual. As I walked in, the hostess asked me if I was alone as usual and offered to seat me immediately. I told her I was waiting for someone who'd probably join me in a half hour, and that I'd wait in the back. I went to the back counter, being greeted by all the staff as I passed through. When I got to the counter, a glass of sparkling shiraz appeared, and was constantly replenished as I waited for my date. My date arrived a half hour or so later and, wouldn't you know it, two seats at the bar were made available to us as soon as I advised the hostess my party was complete. Even though many other people had been waiting at the back longer than me. We sat down. A glass of sparking sake appeared for my date. Then, pork buns for both of us. We ordered. As we were waiting for our orders to come, a plate of that new striped bass dish with huckleberry and fried lotus -- boy is it good: you think their raw dishes can't get any better, but they do -- appeared. Throughout our dinner, just about everyone on the staff came by to check with us, solicit our thoughts on various dishes, and make sure we were happy. After our copious meal, the check arrived. As you'd expect, we were charged only for those items we specifically ordered. All the by-the-glass drinks, all the extra dishes were on the house. I'm supposed to think they're not taking sufficient care of me because I can't get immediate seating at Ko?

That's because nobody* can get in. * But Johnder.

But as I keep saying, this particular restaurant says that this particular perk is NOT available. And, at least as I read him, FG is saying that regulars should insist on it anyway, and if they don't get it, they should take their business elsewhere. (Otherwise, they're "pushovers".) That's what I don't get. He seems to be saying not just that "most restaurants" act the way he prefers, but that there's no excuse for one's not acting that way -- or for consumers' accepting any such deviation from the norm, no matter how well-intentioned and no matter what the surrounding circumstances.

This whole disagreement is ONLY about whether it's wrong -- a breach of commercial etiquette -- to withhold THE PARTICULAR PERK OF PREFERRED RESERVATIONS in a 12-seat restaurant subject to insane demand after you've announced that preferred reservations wouldn't be available. ← Actually I think there's one other issue being discussed here and that's whether it's "wrong" for a Momofuku regular to not be offended or aggreived by such a policy. And I'm pretty sure we have yet to hear from a Momofuku regular who thinks Chang's system is unfair. We are just hearing from a couple of people who say that's how they should feel and if they don't feel that way then they are having an inappropriate emotional response to the situation or whatever. That by being chill about the system, they are "wrong." I agree that there's nothing wrong or in any way inconsistent with buying a regular a drink or whatever, while at the same time having a no-favorites resy policy. I also think a third, much smaller, issue here is whether Chang deserves the benefit of the doubt in the short term while he experiments with a new way of handling resys as he executes an entirely new restaurant concept. And whether a failure of that experiment would make him a hypocrite or a liar or whatever. ← Of course you're right. But I've already told everybody to read your posts instead of mine.

And I have to keep repeating: no one is saying it's wrong to "take care" of your best customers, and no one has denied that Chang is doing so. This whole disagreement is ONLY about whether it's wrong -- a breach of commercial etiquette -- to withhold THE PARTICULAR PERK OF PREFERRED RESERVATIONS in a 12-seat restaurant subject to insane demand after you've announced that preferred reservations wouldn't be available. Whether a regular "should" abandon a place that does this (or, alternatively, insist it deviate from its stated policy) because it's not giving sufficient recognition to his patronage -- even though the regular is continuing to get plenty of other perks. All the other stuff is noise. Diversion.

I was thinking overnight about why there seems to be so much mutual incomprehension in this thread. Why FG is puzzled over my using words like "selfish" and "pushy" for what he considers proper consumer behavior. Why people get confused as to whether FG is saying Ko's reservations policy is wrong or just misguided. I think people are giving insufficient attention to one factor here: Ko has expressly stated that it will not give out preferential reservations. If we take them at their word, then whatever consumer's expectations might normally be, in this case they know they can't expect that one perk. In my opinion, in a case where a restaurant says it won't do something and there's a discernable reason for that policy (even if you think they could have done otherwise), I think it's simply rude to ask them to do it anyway. I wouldn't treat my friends that way, and I don't treat businesses I deal with that way. I acknowledge that other people, who have much more juice than me, might not share my compunctions. But in this case, I think they're rude. Not because they expect favors from places they regularly patronize, but because they expect THIS restaurant to do something its owners specifically said it won't do for reasons one can respect even if one disagrees with them. Maybe the owners will feel constrained to accomodate the request, but that doesn't change the fact that, in my view, IN THIS CASE it was wrong for the requester to put the restaurant in such a position by asking. FG seems to be saying that the fault lies with the restaurant for even attempting such a policy. I generally side with consumers, but in this case, I don't see why that is. (Other than the foregoing, jimk has articulated my own thoughts about this much better than I could, and I leave all that to him.)

Come the revolution, your heads will all be displayed on pikes on 1st Ave.

Also, to make explicit something that's been implicit in many of "my side"'s posts, to listen to FG you'd think that people pay extra to become regulars. He goes on about the "thousands of dollars" regulars have paid to the restaurant -- as if they'd gotten nothing in return. But in fact, they've paid the stated rate for food and service, and have received the food and service they paid for. If I went to Ssam Bar on nights when I didn't really want to, because I thought they needed the business, I might feel more like they owed me something. But I have to admit I've never done that.

But even Bouley Upstairs isn't analogous. Two and a half times the number of seats as Ko. And I'm sure Bouley Upstairs does more than two turns a night. That's also why all this airline stuff is completely off-point. You read David Ross's posts and you can see how much capacity airlines have to work with. But Ko is a 12-seat restaurant doing two turns a night. (A better analogy in that context might be if some airline developed a super-exclusive boutique line where there'd be one transatlantic flight a day of a plane with room for only eight couples, each getting a suite the size of a NYC apartment. How easy do you think it would be for garden-variety frequent fliers to get bumped up to that?)

But that's exactly what "my side" has been saying ALL ALONG. We're not saying it's wrong for regulars to expect (or at least to want) special treatment. We're only saying it's wrong for them to expect special treatment when its unreasonable, or at least unworkable. And that in this case we think it is.

No, it means that I am sufficiently acquainted with the real world to acknowledge that there are people who are both more selfish than I am and better connected than I am, and that they may be able to strongarm Chang into acting against his stated principles. And that I don't blame Chang for that. What I don't understand is the elevation here of selfish strongarming to a consumer right.

As oakapple and Simon have noted, the "other side" has sort of vacillated between saying it CAN'T work and saying it SHOULDN'T work. I guess they reconcile it by saying that the reason it can't work is that Momofuku regulars shouldn't (and won't) accept being denied preferential Ko reservations.

Come on, though. Every restaurant plays favorites while denying it. I think we're dealing here with a question of scale and emphasis. I don't expect Chang to deny preferential Ko reservations to someone who could do his business serious harm if alienated. I don't even consider giving such reservations to be a violation of "policy" if the policy is otherwise generally adhered to.

That's the way I read possibilities Nos. 1 & 2 (although I can see how "possible" wasn't the best word for me to use):

FG, are you saying we'll all eat crow if they give preferential reservations to a very few superregulars, or are you saying that'll happen when they start setting aside seats for ordinary regulars like, say, me? If the former, I'm sure it's happening already. And I don't begrudge it. If the latter, I think Oakapple's correct that, by the time that becomes possible for them, it won't matter. I don't agree with your statement that those of us who were invited to F&F will eventually feel the "sting" of not being able to get easy access to Ko. First, there are a lot of excellent restaurants in New York, so I don't see how not getting into this one is going to have much effect on my happiness. I've been able to live a fairly happy life without access to table service at Babbo. Second, the foregoing is especially true when I can still get into Ssam Bar. Maybe this'll change over time, but for now, Ko and Ssam Bar simply aren't so distinct that Ssam Bar isn't a reasonable substitute. Even to the extent that Ko is better, Ssam Bar is still great enough to satisfy my craving for "that type of food." Third, people apparently somehow are getting into Ko. I don't know how hard it's been, since I haven't tried. If it were important enough to me, I would.

Two related problems. If by setting aside seats each night they make it too difficult for the unconnected to ever get into Ko, the unconnected may stop trying. (I recognize that this is a problem even now; I'm suggesting that their might -- and I admit I don't know -- be a tipping point that hasn't been reached yet.) Moreover, if it ever becomes apparent to the unconnected that scarce seats are being set aside, they may become sufficiently pissed off that they will stop trying. Either of these things would increase the tendency toward Ko's becoming a private club. I'd be curious to eat at Rao's, but I would never consider calling them to try to make a reservation.

Not to argue, but aside from the understandable wastey-faced part, that's kinda like being in JG and asking the kitchen to make you a hamburger cuz that's what you're in the mood for. Anyway, just ragging on you for no reason. Sounds like a great trip.