FR vs US food critics' habits: do they differ in how many visits that pay to a place they review?

[pierre45]

Laidback said:

Some wise elder stated a long time ago: de gustibus est non disputandum. A good example is the bearded e-Gullet Johns two different takes on Ze Kitchen Galleries. Both are experienced gastronomes but one loves it the other hates it.

←

Actually i have had many such experiences.I think restaurants don't always deliver.

There are often variations bteween visits.That's why critics go several times before writing an article.

I am sure none of this is new amongst any of you.

[John Talbott]

There are often variations bteween visits.That's why critics go several times before writing an article.

I am sure none of this is new amongst any of you.

←

In my enquiry into French critics' habits as well as what they say in the books they're written, I was surprised to find that most go once (unlike the NYTimes folks, say) arguing that this more closely duplicates the average citizen's experience than going a half-dozen times before writing it up. I'm aware we're at the edge of the topic, so if this point generates a discussion that becomes too lengthy; I'll split it off.

[John Whiting]

I've always been certain that the "several visits" made by critics, like the "finest ingredients" used by chefs, are a matter of rhetoric--a custom more honored in the breach than in the observance. If first-string critics covering a lot of restaurants were to visit them all several times, they'd be eating out 24 hours a day. And how many visits is a publisher prepared to pay for these days?

A single visit will often tell you after the first course--or even before--whether you want to come back. You couldn't do Parkeresque point-based ratings on such scant evidence, but you'll probably know whether a particular restaurant has what you want. It's as instinctive as whether or not you think a stranger is beautiful or likeable. It's the job of the critic to convey these impressions, together with enough personal style to suggest to the reader whether or not to trust your judgment. For instance, anyone reading my review of Ze Kitchen Galerie or L'Atelier de Joel Robuchon will know exactly what my rather strong bias happens to be. For some, my dislike might even be a positive impetus to go there.

There, John--has the point degenerated enough to call for a split-off?!

Edited May 28, 2007 by John Whiting (log)

[pierre45]

A single visit will often tell you after the first course--or even before--whether you want to come back. You couldn't do Parkeresque point-based ratings on such scant evidence, but you'll probably know whether a particular restaurant has what you want. It's as instinctive as whether or not you think a stranger is beautiful or likeable. It's the job of the critic to convey these impressions, together with enough personal style to suggest to the reader whether or not to trust your judgment. For instance, anyone reading my review of Ze Kitchen Galerie or L'Atelier de Joel Robuchon will know exactly what my rather strong bias happens to be. For some, my dislike might even be a positive impetus to go there.

There, John--has the point degenerated enough to call for a split-off?! 

←

So the issue is whether its personal bias,likes/dislikes or uneven kitchen.

Often i go back to a restaurant that i have liked and come back disapointed.

So I would say that kitchen inconsistency seems to play a major role . Sometimes its minor and other times its significant.However its not always on the minus side.

Once in awhile the cuisine is better then on previous visit.C'est la vie.

[John Talbott]

There, John--has the point degenerated enough to call for a split-off?! 

←

Yes, indeed.

I've always been certain that the "several visits" made by critics, like the "finest ingredients" used by chefs, are a matter of rhetoric--a custom more honored in the breach than in the observance. If first-string critics covering a lot of restaurants were to visit them all several times, they'd be eating out 24 hours a day. And how many visits is a publisher prepared to pay for these days?

Leo Fourneau aka Thierry Wolton, admits that he didn't go to all the places listed in the Elle Guide each year nor do others, for instance, he says that while

He applauds Lebey for listing the date, price and plates consumed;...., he notes that doing the math, it would take sales of 14,000 to pay for the meals listed (and they only sell 10,000 copies), that some days 10 meals were consumed and some dates listed are for days the restos are closed.

[Fat Guy]

There are a very few large-market publications in the US where the critics nearly always make 3+ visits. The New York Times spends, by some estimates I've seen, something like US$175,000 on the dining budget, and the chief critic dines out on average ten times a week. After that, however, there's a huge falloff. Even in the New York Times regional sections (New Jersey, Connecticut, etc.) my understanding is that the standard is two visits, and this seems to be the case at all but the largest newspapers. And, yes, the overwhelming majority of reviews published in print in the US -- in the smaller papers and city magazines -- are based on one visit.

[John Whiting]

The New York Times spends, by some estimates I've seen, something like US$175,000 on the dining budget, and the chief critic dines out on average ten times a week.

I find it hard to imagine that anything approaching anonymity can be preserved when (1) the same face appears three times within a relatively short period and (2) a very small amount of the food on the plate is eaten. If the latter is not the case, then, with ten restaurant meals a week, with proper sampling of multiple courses, the reviewer would make you, Steven, look like a zero size fashion model.

[Ptipois]

Leo Fourneau aka Thierry Wolton, admits that he didn't go to all the places listed in the Elle Guide each year nor do others, for instance, he says that while

He applauds Lebey for listing the date, price and plates consumed;...., he notes that doing the math, it would take sales of 14,000 to pay for the meals listed (and they only sell 10,000 copies), that some days 10 meals were consumed and some dates listed are for days the restos are closed.

←

I have inside experience of how the Guide Lebey is made, or was made a few years ago, but there's no reason why it should have changed considerably.

- Meals are reimbursed by the publisher to the "enquêteur" up to a fixed sum, which is rather small — most restaurant meals cost much more, so it means that most of the time the enquêteur pays for part of it. A small "pige", or payment, is given for each restaurant report, but you may choose to add it to the fixed sum so that you may hope to have your whole meal refunded (which rarely happens). If you choose to do so, your earning is zero.

- Only one meal is reimbursed, if you are accompanied by another person it makes no difference. Which I always thought was, methodologically speaking, not a good thing, since eating alone, in my experience, is not the right conditions to judge a meal. Interaction and the ability to taste several choices are important.

So, one can say the Guide Lebey is made on a relatively small budget.

I heard somewhere (about a guide I don't remember, not the Lebey, maybe it was Michelin) that they found it necessary to go to a restaurant more than once only when the first experience was bad, in order to give an extra chance to the restaurateur, according to the theory that if the restaurant is bad, it may be an accident, but not if it is good. I think that makes sense.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Ptipois (log)

[John Talbott]

- Meals are reimbursed by the publisher to the "enquêteur" up to a fixed sum, which is rather small — most restaurant meals cost much more, so it means that most of the time the enquêteur pays for part of it. A small "pige", or payment, is given for each restaurant report, but you may choose to add it to the fixed sum so that you may hope to have your whole meal refunded (which rarely happens). If you choose to do so, your earning is zero.

- Only one meal is reimbursed, if you are accompanied by another person it makes no difference. Which I always thought was, methodologically speaking, not a good thing, since eating alone, in my experience, is not the right conditions to judge a meal. Interaction and the ability to taste several choices are important.

So, one can say the Guide Lebey is made on a relatively small budget.

←

I have some small experience that mirrors Pti's where the lowest cost meal (eg "menu") was reimbursed for two persons with 15 E for all liquids. If you do the math you'll see it's hard for all folk like Pti to even break even, unless they also write an article for a monthly, do a radio or TV review or have some other source of income. Which, I think, is one reason why all the "big" boys and girls have multiple media and projects in play at any one time.

And, getting back to Steven's point, in the US

After that, however, there's a huge falloff.

I'd posit that in France, there's just a "falloff."

[Ptipois]

I have some small experience that mirrors Pti's where the lowest cost meal (eg "menu") was reimbursed for two persons with 15 E for all liquids.  If you do the math you'll see it's hard for all folk like Pti to even break even, unless they also write an article for a monthly, do a radio or TV review or have some other source of income.  Which, I think, is one reason why all the "big" boys and girls have multiple media and projects in play at any one time.

←

I should add a few things: the other source of income is absolutely mandatory. With the exception of big guides like Michelin (and others I have no knowledge of, each one having their policy), there is no way an enquêteur could make a living from visiting restaurants for a guide. Some of the time, they actually pay for it. As for the media projects, etc., well — you can only become a "restaurant visitor" through contacts, so it figures that contacts are found in the trade.

Also — and this is important —, in the case of the guide Lebey, some of the visitors were businessmen (without any contacts in press or publishing) and it really did not matter to them that their meal was not refunded, since they were doing that for fun and had no financial issues. Which made it impossible for people from press and publishing like me to ask for better conditions — the absence of moral support was tangible. However, some of the business guys (not the journalists, who had a clearer idea of publishing ethics) even had a habit of "losing" the justificatory check and going back to the restaurant to ask for a new one, so that they could have it refunded twice: by the publisher, and by their own company or employer. Of course, this was not included in the policy of the guide.

Finally, it was not in the habit of Lebey to have a check presented to him at the end of a meal, and he did visit quite a few restaurants. And whenever an enquêteur was comped, it was considered all the better for everybody.

So you see that all those factors, added up, help to explain a bit further why the Guide Lebey was not a large-budget guide (at the time). Of course, it is my experience with only one guide, I have no idea of how things are run regarding other guides.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Ptipois (log)

[russ parsons]

the new york times is certainly not alone, though it is true there are few papers that hold to these standards. one of them is my own Los Angeles Times. our restaurant critic dines anonymously, at least three times for each review and pays for all of her own meals (reimbursed by the paper, of course).

this practice varies tremendously, as steven points out, there is a steep fall-off, just as there is with the far more troubling number of papers with a white house correspondent or a full-time baghdad bureau (the last i saw, that was exactly 3).

[Nathan]

The New York Times spends, by some estimates I've seen, something like US$175,000 on the dining budget, and the chief critic dines out on average ten times a week.

I find it hard to imagine that anything approaching anonymity can be preserved when (1) the same face appears three times within a relatively short period and (2) a very small amount of the food on the plate is eaten. If the latter is not the case, then, with ten restaurant meals a week, with proper sampling of multiple courses, the reviewer would make you, Steven, look like a zero size fashion model.

←

well, Bruni's picture (the NY Times' restaurant critic) is posted throughout high-end restaurant kitchens in NY just so staff will keep an eye out for him. restaurants with four-star (the Times' highest accolade) aspirations have been known to hire a full-time person at their opening (until the review) just to keep an eye out for him. nevertheless, many (if not most) restaurants appear to miss at least some of his visits.

as for the other points you raise....the Times' restaurant critic appears to usually eat with groups....allowing him to try multiple courses without having to eat a lot of each. he also wrote an article on his workout regimen.

but yes, he does appear to go at least three and sometimes as many as six times. remember that this doesn't necessarily always happen over a short period. a restaurant can be open for six months (or longer) before he reviews it....allowing him to stagger visits.

as for smaller city restaurant critics in the U.S. some appear to only go once...others (such as Dennis Getto in Milwaukee) make a point of visiting each restaurant multiple times.

[John Talbott]

well, Bruni's picture (the NY Times' restaurant critic) is posted throughout high-end restaurant kitchens in NY just so staff will keep an eye out for him.

←

You'd be surprised whose pictures are posted in Parisian places. And it's rumored that our own Francois Simon, who supposedly avoids group dinners, awards ceremonies, etc so as to be completely anonymous, is known by his peers (natch) and chefs.

A side comment/anecdote: a while back, I ate at l'Arome and was convinced that two grey guys (one with an identifiable tic, the other with an identifiable way of looking things over) were "Michelin men." A day later, Daniel Rose of Spring confirmed my hunch, saying they identified themselves to him. So much for anonymity.

[John Whiting]

John, how do you manage? Do you wear a false beard to hide your real one?

[John Talbott]

John, how do you manage? Do you wear a false beard to hide your real one?

←

Nope, I'm always me without the bow-tie. But I'm usually eating with such a captivating-looking or schlumpily-dressed guest, who sees me?

I think it's on topic to say that chefs or their staffs read eGullet; after I post a review and go back, I'm greeted by name and sometimes chefs say that the eGullet review has brought them custom. So we count. Caller ID is also used (at places like Cerisaie) and I make most reservations from my home (listed) phone.

What spooks me is when I'm greeted, as at l'Arome, by someone who cannot possibly recall that he saw me two years ago at his former restaurant that I hated.

The lesson, I think, is when you're a real critic, and want to maintain anonymity, you have someone else reserve or call from another phone and use a name that's easily remembered (I'm told here that that includes one middle name, brother's name or grandparents' family name.)

[Ptipois]

And it's rumored that our own Francois Simon, who supposedly avoids group dinners, awards ceremonies, etc so as to be completely anonymous, is known by his peers (natch) and chefs.

←

I can confirm that. His picture may be seen not in kitchens but in chefs' offices. It is meant for staff education, chefs having no need, in this case, to refresh their visual memory.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Ptipois (log)