Suit backed vs. Chef patron,

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Following on from Magnolia's comments in this thread;

http://forums.egullet.org/ibf/index.php?s=...=0entry102842

It would be interesting to know what others feel about restaurants that are backed by money men and those operated by their own chefs and/or front of house.

In my own opinion it is the chef patron run establishment that wins hands down both in Britain and abroad.

Any thoughts?

[Gavin Jones]

I'm spending money on something I could provide (food, wine ambience) myself. Chef Patron in tune with my ( admittedly bizarre tastes) wins hands down over a consistent accountant designed operation - designed to stabilise profit over a week.

[macrosan]

The reality of any business, particularly one that embodies special "technical" skills or the need for continuous innovation, is that it needs a number of people with complementary skills to run it. These people are normally called the Board of Directors, and each one concentrates on his own special expertise while they all collaborate in producing overall business strategy.

A skilled chef who was also a skilled personnel manager, customer service manager, designer, financial controller and marketer would indeed be a rarity. So whilst I have sympathy for the concept of the chef supreme who also controls all other aspects of the business, I can't believe the result would be satisfactory overall.

A good restaurant requires balance. The food cannot be subsumed to financial (or other) demands, but nor can the reverse be the case.

[Simon Majumdar]

In principal the notion of a Chef/patron is the ideal and when it works, it really works. However, in reality most chefs are not always great business people and are blinkered to the economic realities of running a restaurant. So while the chef wants foie and amuse, the businessman wants portion control and table turning

This is true of many businesses. Citing my own industry as an example. If a publishing company is run just by a highly creative publisher, it will produce great books but probably go belly up pretty soon, the example of Sinclair Stevenson proved the point. The reverse is also true. If the company is just run by a bean counter it will make paper profits but produce nothing of worth.

I think in the end, if such a thing is possible, a healthy dynamic between a creative and an economic mind will produce the best results.

With Chavot and his frequent moves one should also take into account that he can be, by all accounts, a thoroughly unreasonable man.

S

[Andy Lynes]

A couple of examples that I am particularly familiar with :

The Merchant House - chef/patron, not a bean counter in sight, arguably one of the best and certainly most individual restaurants in the country. Without doubt offers exceptional value to it's customers in terms of the quality and quantity of food on the plate e.g half a lobster to start, or a roast grouse with no supplement to the £32.50 set menu.

Nigel Platts Martin group of restaurant (Chez Bruce, the Square etc) - partnership between a former city man and a number of chefs. Again, arguably amongst the best and most successful restaurants in london. Proof that a profitable operation with "money men" involved can succeed on the same terms as a chef/patron led business.

[magnolia]

In principal the notion of a Chef/patron is the ideal and when it works, it really works.  However, in reality most chefs are not always great business people and are blinkered to the economic realities of running a restaurant....

I don't really know whether it's so much that most chefs are not good businesspeople - as posters have pointed out, there has to be a balance. Most people probably are not good at "business", if you looked at their balance sheets as would an accountant - few people live debt free and in the black (and of course there's a good argument that it's better business to spend someone else's money than your own).

But there are lots of people the world over who work for themselves - this is a perhaps wild, outrageous guess - but I wonder whether individual traders as a group make more money than corporations combined. Many, many chefs, too, fall into the former category - the ones who have their own names on the canopy - and they seem to muddle through. They open, they close, the re-emerge and reinvent, they work for someone else, they make a comeback - for a variety of reasons.

One huge problem is of course Greed - particularly in big cities like London and New York. Chefs, backers, landlords - whomever - have stars and money signs - in their eyes. Many are not willing/can't afford to let something develop naturally, they are impatient, they try to speed things up or cut corners or shoot their wad on decor or whatever, exerting energy and effort on "the wrong things" (i.e. NOT food) - and when there's no *immediate return* they crash and burn. Simon I think you brought this up in relation to High Holborn, a much-lauded (for the food) restaurant that shut down too quickly for most of us to try out !

On the other hand, there are so many restaurants - paricularly in Italy and France, probably Spain and elsewhere too (I don't know other places well enough to comment) - where chefs who would not necessarily think of themselves as such - they are "cooks"- run a restaurant for their entire lives, either they make a good living or just get by. This is their livelihood, and they look at it as such - they *have to make a living out of it* for themselves. It's what they do, just like Simon's a publisher and I'm a journalist - it's what we do. And if we didn't do it well enough, we'd try something else. Maybe.

But they turn out perfectly respectable, even great food. They toil quietly, stay out of range of backers and banks and critics. I think they are the ones we're all always looking for in fact. That elusive restaurant on a sidestreet that is actually always full, though nobody has "discovered" yet, so it's full of nobodys.

We are - or at least I am - intrigued by chefs because they do something that I can't necessarily do, or at least they do it much better than I do- therefore, like artists or great musicians or other "creatives" - they command from me a great deal of awe. So they are on some kind of higher plane, where they shouldn't be limited by such a dirty thing as money. But the landlords don't agree, neither do the bankers or their brothers in law or the mob or whomever is footing the bill. And who's to say whether it's right or wrong to be looking at the bottom line? After all, we as diners pay the bills (along with the bakers, bro-in-law, mob, bank, et al).

To say a chef should not have to worry about costs is like saying a newspaper should not take advertising because it morally corrupts the editorial content. Without advertising/diners/backers/etc. - there will be no magazine/restaurant, or they would all be 'private/members only', paid fully by "subscription". Who would be most hurt by that? The reading/dining public.

OK, the soapbox has just collapsed.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Why would this make a difference to anyone providing the food and service is good? There have been many famous restauranteurs over the years. Vrinat at Taillevent, Maccioni at Le Cirque, Danny Meyer, Henri Soule at Le Pavillon. Many a good meal has been served in those restaurants. They just needed to employ good chefs. But obviously, when great chefs own their own restaurants you are assured the chef is good. But then they need to hire good managers. So I'm straining to see the difference.

[Basildog]

Right on!.Some of us a just happy to plod along, not that fussed by the guides, critics etc.No plans to expand, or roll out 35 franchised units by 2005.

I don't have a career, just a life i enjoy, doing what we do for the hell of it.If i wanted the money, then we could turn tables, open more, cut costs etc etc...but wheres the fun in that?

[magnolia]

A couple of examples that I am particularly familiar with :

The Merchant House - chef/patron, not a bean counter in sight, arguably one of the best and certainly most individual restaurants in the country. Without doubt offers exceptional value to it's customers in terms of the quality and quantity of food on the plate e.g half a lobster to start, or a roast grouse with no supplement to the £32.50 set menu.

Nigel Platts Martin group of restaurant (Chez Bruce, the Square etc) - partnership between a former city man and a number of chefs. Again, arguably amongst the best and most successful restaurants in london. Proof that a profitable operation with "money men" involved can succeed on the same terms as a chef/patron led business.

I think the operative words are 'not...in sight' but definitely there.

If the staff and suppliers and landlord are being paid consistently, then you can be sure someone very astute - be it the chef or the city man (you can bet your bottom bean that he's the bean-counter in residence in that scenario) has sat down and figured out how much to charge customers, and how many customers are needed - to cover expenses.

You've just cited two examples of restaurants that have struck exactly the right balance that Macrosan indicates: they make and spend just enough money to keep everyone happy, including their customers. It's not rocket science, but it can't be so easy or else restaurants would not be going out of business every five seconds due to lack of funding.

What I think you are chafing against is the 'bean counting' of a big faceless corporation that puts its unimaginative stamp on the experience being provided to diners, and wants a 'sure thing' which translates into 'safe bet, no creative limb', and I'm right with you, there - best not to see them - but still necessary.