One night in Alsace

[marcus]

Cabrales -- I work for a large and profitable corporation which knows all about profit, but we measure customer satisfaction just as avidly, and over time it can be a more important indicator of success. This is the dimension that is missing from your profit maximization model.

I read your excellent review of Charlie Trotter, and even though it was not determinative, I could see that you were really unhappy that you didn't receive any complementary appetizers or a gift at the end. To a meaningful extent, this has colored your view of the restaurant and may affect future behavior. In a personal business, like a restaurant, generosity or the appearance of generosity is important, you can consider it a marketing expense if you like. On another thread, you indicated that you were pleased when a restaurant offered you free dishes and drinks.

Fashion companies such as Prada operate in a rather different environment. It is impossible for them to generate significant good will, as their customers will abandon them in a heart beat if they come out with a less than to the moment collection. So they truly do operate in a profit maximization environment.

[John Whiting]

I continue to enjoy those few restaurants scattered about France where I feel that the chef/proprietor is making just enough money to serve meals to people whom he likes, rather than serving meals in order to make money.

[cabrales]

I read your excellent review of Charlie Trotter, and even though it was not determinative, I could see that you were really unhappy that you didn't receive any complementary appetizers or a gift at the end.  To a meaningful extent, this has colored your view of the restaurant and may affect future behavior.  In a personal business, like a restaurant, generosity or the appearance of generosity is important, you can consider it a marketing expense if you like.  On another thread, you indicated that you were pleased when a restaurant offered you free dishes and drinks.

Fashion companies such as Prada operate in a rather different environment.  It is impossible for them to generate significant good will, as their customers will abandon them in a heart beat if they come out with a less than to the moment collection.  So they truly do operate in a profit maximization environment.

marcus -- The reason that I was not entirely happy with Trotter's is the food was not compelling. I did wonder why there were no amuses, but I did not dock the restaurant for that fact. I noted it because (1) I was curious about why a high-end restaurant had no amuses, and (2) I wondered whether the first four "courses" (so-called by the restaurant and so counted by the restaurant) were in fact quasi-amuses substitutes (with their portions being so small). I also wondered whether the restaurant might have been eager to push out the dishes, but that was not a likely explanation. We sat around for a while before the bento box with the first four "courses" arrived.

I never expect additional dishes, in the sense of feeling entitled to them. One can hope for something, knowing that it might not occur, and/or be happy when something is provided, without there being an expectation or a feeling of entitlement. I am not saying I am necessarily the typical diner, but whether I had received freebies would not affect my likelihood of return to a restaurant. Either the restaurant's cuisine is worth a return, or it is not. I appreciate that other diners' assessments of a restaurant might emphasize factors other than cuisine, but for me, it's a question of that -- no more and no less, and quality not quantity.

For example, it wouldn't necessarily bother me if Veyrat were gifting extra dishes to all adjacent tables (which he frequently does), without gifting any to me. I dislike his cuisine, so why would I want his "gifts"? Even if hypothetically I liked his cuisine, why would I expect him to give me dishes for free?

By the way, I think some gifts are better omitted. Like Ducasse's bread. What makes the restaurant think I would like bread from the place if I dislike the food there? I think menus would be a very nice gift from many restaurants. The nicest non-food and non-wine gift I have received from a restaurant was a box of four different-colored napkins from Troisgros. This was so unexpected, and done at the very last minute. It was snowing outside after our lunch meal, and we had moved the car to the front to facilitate the loading of our luggage. M Troisgros came out of the kitchen, bearing a menu with a nice message and a box that I believed initially were petit fours. As we were driving away, I opened the box and saw these brightly colored napkins -- I believe, a bluish purple, a magenta, an orange and some type of olive-like color. The colors were in such sharp contrast to the whiteness of the snow enveloping us. The next visit, Troisgros gifted a magenta apron to match one of the napkins and a see-through bag of clementines tied with a pretty ribbon. Nice gifts, but they did not push me towards returning to the restaurant. I like the restaurant a lot, and will return periodically. Another nice feature of Troisgros is that they write notes for guests purchasing rooms, and sometimes they note that they welcome your return.

I am sometimes happy to receive non-food and non-wine gifts, but never swayed.

[cabrales]

I continue to enjoy those few restaurants scattered about France where I feel that the chef/proprietor is making just enough money to serve meals to people whom he likes, rather than serving meals in order to make money.

John -- When you have a chance, could you describe why you would prefer a chef not to be in part, at least, motivated by a desire to earn money? Why shouldn't a painter with exceptional skills sell all paintings at a high price, if there is demand for them, instead of donating some paintings to a museum for widespread consumption? A chef, like a painter, can have (note the "can" part) special talents and those talents should be rewarded, just like the abilities of those who excel in other endeavors.

Also, as you know, a chef who wants to make a profit can readily harbor a desire to provide wonderful meals for his clients. I don't believe that the two objectives are even in tension necessarily.

Separately, I'd like to point out that I would rather have dined at Blue Hill than to have eaten at Trotter's, in hindsight.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Fat Guy - Hang on . All businesses, whether they are real estate properties, intelectual property businesses or restaurants have a limit to what their actual income can be. And every three star restaurant does a projection at the beginning of the year as to what their gross receipts are likely to be. Just like a landlord projects his rental income, or a music publisher projects his income from mechanical and synchronization licenses based on historical earnings. And while the landlord knows what the cost of running his buildings is going to be (unless he has a unique event occur,) his expenses are a fixed percentage of the rental income. And a music publisher, since his biggest expense is royalties to his writers, his biggest expense is fixed as well. How is a restaurant any different? Do you mean that Troisgros has a 20% cost of goods sold for food in year A and a 40% cost of good solds for food in year B? It couldn't possibly happen that way. And if it does, I promise you they would be out of business.

I am usually the one who argues that a meal is worth whatever a diner is willing to pay a restauranteur. But there are other definitions of worth too. There is, is it worth it to me, and is it worth it given other items in the market of similar quality at a different price point? I think the last one is at issue here. Because I can't say that the 106 euro veal chop at Taillevent would be worth it in any other place then in Paris. I can't imagine paying that much for a veal chop in the U.S. under any circumstances.

[John Whiting]

Cabrales writes:

John -- When you have a chance, could you describe why you would prefer a chef not to be in part, at least, motivated by a desire to earn money?

It's very simple. In half-a-dozen different occupations, I've spent my entire life working with people who weren't interested in money but who loved their work. Everywhere we gravitated to restaurants which operated on the same principle. It's the way I've always lived and I've always been drawn to those who felt similarly. It's not a judgement on those who are differently motivated -- it's an instinctive response which for me is as basic as sexual attraction.

[cabrales]

I've spent my entire life working with people who weren't interested in money but who loved their work.

John -- When you have a chance, please discuss why someone cannot both be interested in money and love their work? For a chef like that, why would being interested in money diminish the quality of what he could accord to his clients?

I guess, if a chef did not love his work, but produced excellent cuisine, that would not bother me. I imagine that toiling in the kitchen has its advantages and disadvantages, like any other occupation, and that a chef could produce excellent cuisine without necessarily loving his work. I'd have to think a bit further about that.

Also, charging more does not, of course, equate to being motivated principally by money. Price, like other criteria, can be a means of allocating products/services that are sought after.

[Fat Guy]

How is a restaurant any different?

It isn't, but if you go back and read your previous post you're trying to say that it is. You're valuing property and licenses based on earnings over time versus fixed costs, and then you're turning around and valuing restaurant meals based on what meals at inferior restaurants cost. It doesn't work that way. Restaurants, unless they are subsidized, need to take in enough money to cover their costs and make a little profit -- maybe a lot of profit if there's no worthy competition and people are willing to pay. This is completely unrelated to the notion of worth you're advocating for restaurant meals. A consumer is welcome to justify a personal notion of worth in any way he wants, but it's purely an internal dialog if it doesn't represent mainstream thinking among the target audience -- the restaurant's management doesn't think that way, and the market doesn't behave that way.

[John Whiting]

Cabrales wrote:

John -- When you have a chance, please discuss why someone cannot both be interested in money and love their work?

I didn't say it was impossible. I'm sure it happens often. I'm only saying that, for me and the people I've been closest to, the money was incidental and important only inasmuch as it was necessary to do what one most wanted.

Certain people I've known and worked with who have made a generous amount of money would have been exactly the same people if they had made only enough to survive. The money was irrelevant. John Cage, Simon Rattle and Alice Waters would, I'm sure, fall into that category. No fundamental decision they ever made, I'm convinced, was influenced by which of two alternatives would have been more profitable.

[jaybee]

No fundamental decision they ever made, I'm convinced, was influenced by which of two alternatives would have been more profitable.

But if two alternatives were equal in all other respects but profitability, would you fault them for choosing the money?

This fundemental issue keeps returning, like Nosferatu, from the graves of long dead threads.

I have to say, Steve, that a $100 veal chop exceeds even my standards of self-indulgence.

[cabrales]

the money was incidental and important only inasmuch as it was necessary to do what one most wanted.

John -- That's an interesting statement. What if one really enjoyed dining at restaurants in France (including relatively expensive ones) and one needed money for plane tix, hotel rooms and, of course, the cost of the meals? Wouldn't money then become necessary to do what one wanted?

[Fat Guy]

I think it's the difference between viewing money as a necessary evil and viewing it as a good thing. Very often one will make the same choices based on either set of motivations, but you will see different patterns of behavior overall. Those who come from the necessary-evil school will do what they need to do to earn enough to survive and achieve what they want to achieve, but usually not more than that -- and usually their material desires are modest by the standards of others who share the same level of talent and money-making ability. Those who enjoy making money will often go much farther. They both seem like acceptable world views to me.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I'm confus-ed as they say.

If the cost of goods sold to gross reciepts ratio in a restaurant is a standard ratio, how is it any different? Restaurants that expect to gross $4 million expect one return on their investment, and ones that gross $6 million expect a different one. And if I was going to sell you my $6 million a year grossing restaurant, and it threw off a profit of 10%, why wouldn't there be a standard multiple you would pay for the place providing there wasn't something unique about the goodwill I brought to the place when I worked there? I'm failing to see how this is different then any other business,save for the vagueries of it being a restaurant business. And as to your point about how a diner interacts with the restaurant, and decides how much his dinner is worth, how is how much I budget on my three star meals any different then the amount of rent I'm willing to pay on an annual basis?

Don't answer . I know you are going to say that wealthy people don't care about the price of tea in China. If they want to drink '61 Petrus every night, so be it. But that isn't how the three star restaurants in France, especially the ones outside of Paris made their mark on the world. They made it by guys like Bux, Robert B. and I, and all the other tourists who were able to fit their three star meals into the budget of their entire vacation. And the higher the cost of those meals, the more people it will exclude. Because indeed people who used to believe that they were worth the price of admission, will stop believing that and they will either stop going, or they will go less. And like my wife said after her nine stars of Paris dining last week, "I don't need to do any of this next time we come to Paris. I'm finished with this, especially at this price. I can be just as happy eating in bistros and having a cous cous." And I doubt she would have felt as strongly if the cost of a meal wasn't in excess of 225 euros per person, let alonw what the meal at Arpege cost which was significantly higher then that.

[John Whiting]

FG, your cogent summary says it all.

[John Whiting]

jaybee wrote:

But if two alternatives were equal in all other respects but profitability, would you fault them for choosing the money?

The word "fault" immediately strikes the wrong note. We all have to work for money unless we're very rich. What I'm talking about is major decisions -- whether they are based on principle or profit.

Edit: And almost never are two alternatives "equal in all other respects".

Further edit: But all this is far from what Jay began with. I'm off to Paris first thing in the morning, to spend less in a week than Steve and his wife spent in a night. But it's every bit as self-indulgent and therefor in no way morally superior!

[cabrales]

What I'm talking about is major decisions -- whether they are based on principle or profit.

John -- Why wouldn't principle and profit sometimes yield the same decision? For example, if the objective is to have the freshest possible ingredients, the desire to use fresh ingredients is appropriate from a cuisine quality perspective. However, better ingredients are generally more expensive, so prices have to go up for the same profit level to be maintained, all other things being equal (artifically). Or take a restaurant's choice about the number of services, perhaps a place like la Regelade. Perhaps the number of turns a night for tables reflects the restaurant's desire to be inclusive and serve a large number of customers. That is entirely consistent with profit increasing.

Viewing money as a necessary evil is not a perspective that I had thought about before, I'd have to admit. If one likes strawberries, for example, fraises des bois and gariguette strawberries are more expensive than regular strawberries. How is one going to purchase better strawberries without financial resources? Even if an individual actually preferred regular strawberries, money gives him the option of picking fraises des bois. Just like I might prefer to eat Joe Shanghai tonight. But I wouldn't want to feel like I couldn't have dinner at Daniel (leaving aside the question of reservations) if I felt like it. Not that I could have dinner at Daniel every night, but I wouldn't want to feel like I couldn't from time to time as appropriate.

Also, I'd like to add that it could be more painful to be without an appropriate amount of financial resources if one had been exposed to certain things and would have to experience an affirmative decline in one's childhood/teenage standard of living as an adult. What if one had sampled Restaurant B as a young adult, liked it, and then could not go to resample the cuisine as a adult? Could one imagine how disconcerting it might be to have identified restaurants that appeal, and then be unable to return to them?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Cabby - You are looking at it the wrong way. John is saying that he prefers to eat in an environment where they make choices based on pricipals other then how much money they are going to make which is in essence the same manner that he would does it. He usually finds those places have an additional enjoyability factor for him and his friends. Why not, groups of people who share the same sensibilities are usually comfortable with each other. But I don't think it skews his opinion very much as to how good the food is. But on the other hand, John would probably say, and rightly so, that a restauranteur who is not in it for the money is also likely one to be interested in serving top quality food. So it's the same result, different ways of getting there. Did I get that right J. W.?

[Orik]

Could one imagine how disconcerting it might be to have identified restaurants that appeal, and then be unable to return to them?    

What a disturbing proposition

As a side note, I thought Haeberlin's truffle was not very impressive although I enjoyed his cooking in general. Certainly the cream of truffle and parmesan at L'Arpege provided a much more intense culinary pleasure at a somewhat lower cost. (I think it was priced at 450FF at the time, or maybe 500FF)

[John Whiting]

Steve - can't fault it!

[cabrales]

This thread is prompting me to go try Haeberlin's truffle one of these days. It's one of the dishes on my list to sample, right after the Bresse chicken in a pig's bladder at Bocuse, Henrioux's chicken F Point style at Pyramides, and the chicken in a bread crust (volaille en croute de pain) at Grand Hotel du Lion d'Or. **I'd be interested in members' input on any of the above dishes.** Oh, the Haeberlin truffle would also be below Truffle in Cabbage 'Michel Lorain' and Senderens' Lobster with vanilla. My personal goal (a stretch goal) is to have sampled three of the above five signature dishes by the end of the year.

Separately, I recently sampled Pacaud's pastilla of tuna with dried apricots -- poor.

[g.johnson]

The decision on how much it’s appropriate to pay at a restaurant is largely irrational. No one who goes to Michelin 2 and 3 star places is worried that they won’t be able to pay the phone bill if they opt for a $250 tasting menu over a $150 menu. But people do have limit on what they think it’s reasonable to pay. For me the limit used to be around 80 for food. So I cheerfully ordered a couple of £80 tasting menus in England over the summer but balked at a $120 menu at Le Bernadin.

[cabrales]

Very generally, I am willing to pay any price demanded by restaurants I have visited for food (except for certain very large abalone which are extremely expensive in Asia). I find that, if I am careful about wine expenditures, I can usually do alright budgetwise. Unfortunately, as I am beginning to learn a bit about wine, I am also becoming tempted by certain bottles on wine lists.

[jaybee]

I'm off to Paris first thing in the morning,

Bon voyage and bon appetite, JW. I look forward to reading your dispatches.

[cabrales]

Just like I might prefer to eat Joe Shanghai tonight. But I wouldn't want to feel like I couldn't have dinner at Daniel (leaving aside the question of reservations) if I felt like it. Not that I could have dinner at Daniel every night, but I wouldn't want to feel like I couldn't from time to time as appropriate.

My diet is going to ruin. A very, very good friend is in town, and I have succumbed to Annisa reservations.

[robert brown]

Jay, thanks for the marvelous discussion. If you want to read about my spending a lot of money for a disappointing meal in an expensive restaurant in France, see the topic I started on Le Moulin de Lourmarin.

Up to now, I believe I am the only e-Gullet poster that from 1974 until the early 1990s dined in three-star Michelin restaurants in France on a consistent basis; probably as much as one could who lived 3000 miles away. My perspective, therefore, as the handful of people who follow what I write, is as much relative as absolute when I write about dining in France today. While I attempt to analyze the relevant trends in concrete ways, I can also say that what John Whiting looks for was an important ingredient in the years I mentioned: that some of the best chef-restaurateurs were content to eek out a living at the expense of providing value and satisfaction for their customers. I suspect that a major reason for it was the lack of greed and the certain badge of self-worth that net worth conferred, a state of affairs that started in the late 1980s and reached its crescendo two or three years ago. With this prosperity, now shown to be transitory for many of all-but-the wealthiest people, what people considered luxury became more widespread and, as a result, more diluted. I believe that this phenomenon also invaded restaurant-going at the highest level, for what else can explain the diminution of what characterized the great French restaurants a quarter off a century ago: large formally-trained serving staff and kitchen brigades, copious portions of whatever one selected from dozens of a la carte dishes, and prices for food and wine that did not seem outrageous (only in times of dollar weakness in the late 1970s and somewhat less from the late 1980s until the mid-1990s did dining prices in France feel expensive).

What I find troublesome is that today one receives a lot less for a lot more. Not only have I noticed the above considerations, but also a certain amount of wiliness and cunningness I never noticed before: that chefs do not change their menus to the extent they used to; that certain parts of the meal-- cheese and dessert, mainly—are not the extravaganzas they used to be; and that humble products that great chefs would have treated lightly are conferred a certain status and offered, of course, at elevated prices.

In the end, what I would like to know is why does a 25-course, amazingly elaborate “menu” at the restaurant that is the most sought after for reservations and the incontestably “hottest” in the world (the Spanish El Bulli) cost 115 euros, or why does the Italian two-star restaurant, Miramonte l’Altro, that I and a few other posters adore and would likely consider it to be the equal of several of the best restaurants in France, offer its cuisine for 100 euros?