Bruni and Beyond: Reviewing (2008)

[oakapple]

Sheraton says that she sometimes visited restaurants up to 10 times. I seem to remember Reichl saying that she occasionally would visit even more.

I just don't understand why so many visits would ever be necessary. Sure, in the ideal world more visits would always be better. But surely the returns diminish severely after three visits. After three visits, what information does the critic lack to write a honest evaluation of the restaurant in 1,000 words? And why would it sometimes take 7 more visits to get that information?

←

The 10-visit reviews must be extremely rare. It would be physically impossible for them to do this very often, given how many restaurants the critic needs to cover. (Remember, Sheraton generally reviewed two restaurants per week.)

I am sure that she paid 10 visits only for "very important" restaurants with potentially controversial ratings, e.g. promotions to, or demotions from, four stars. Other factors might be a long menu, a menu that changes frequently, or inconsistency.

As an amateur critic myself, I have definitely had cases where I wasn't sure about a restaurant, even after three visits. For instance, I've been to BLT Fish three times. I had two very good experiences and one that was mediocre. How much of an anomaly was that mediocre visit? I probably wouldn't need 10 visits to answer the question, but I clearly need more than three.

[weinoo]

So, a bit lost in hubbab of Platt's review of Ko is Bruni's (re)review of oldest child Noodle Bar, previously reviewed by Peter Meehan 3 years ago. Likes it just fine - wonder how many times he ate there?

[Nathan]

So, a bit lost in hubbab of Platt's review of Ko is Bruni's (re)review of oldest child Noodle Bar, previously reviewed by Peter Meehan 3 years ago.  Likes it just fine -  wonder how many times he ate there?

←

probably one visit. it wasn't technically a review and therefore not subject to the Times review policy.

[oakapple]

So, a bit lost in hubbab of Platt's review of Ko is Bruni's (re)review of oldest child Noodle Bar, previously reviewed by Peter Meehan 3 years ago.  Likes it just fine -  wonder how many times he ate there?

←

probably one visit. it wasn't technically a review and therefore not subject to the Times review policy.

←

Probably one for this particular write-up, but I am sure he's been to Noodle Bar multiple times over the last couple of years.

[slkinsey]

So... when is the last time the NYT had a review this scathing? I don't think I can recall a single "poor" rating in the last 15+ years.

[oakapple]

So... when is the last time the NYT had a review this scathing?  I don't think I can recall a single "poor" rating in the last 15+ years.

←

Bruni has given POOR twice before: Ninja (October 2005) and Harry Cipriani (November 2007). I think both of those were actually more scathing than this one.

[slkinsey]

Huh. I guess I'm not paying enough attention!

[Nathan]

So... when is the last time the NYT had a review this scathing?  I don't think I can recall a single "poor" rating in the last 15+ years.

←

Bruni has given POOR twice before: Ninja (October 2005) and Harry Cipriani (November 2007). I think both of those were actually more scathing than this one.

←

yup

[oakapple]

The Ago review once again demonstrates the value of critic anonymity. There are about 15 things in that review that almost certainly would not happen if the restaurant realized that Bruni was their customer.

Of course, 80% of restaurants would recognize him — if not every time, certainly more often than not — but a critic that sheds anonymity would ensure that such a review could never be written. It also shows that Ago really and truly sucks, because they not only made those blunders, but couldn't even pretend to be good when the city's most influential critic was in.

[weinoo]

I guess this place isn't going to be too high on any "foodies" must go-to restaurants. I don't understand why servers can't be trained properly, but that has always been a complaint of mine.

[sethd]

I guess this place isn't going to be too high on any "foodies" must go-to restaurants.  I don't understand why servers can't be trained properly, but that has always been a complaint of mine.

←

Perhaps the problem with servers in new york city restaurants is the lack of a "trained professional waitstaff. Most people employed in all but the city's best restaurants are not professionals, but rather actors, models, singer hopeful's who are working in restaurants to help pay the rent. I am not surprised that Bruni had such an issue with the service at Ago. I am surprised, though, when I go to a three star NYTimes restaurant and get inferior service.

[Fat Guy]

The Ago review once again demonstrates the value of critic anonymity.

←

So there have been rave reviews from non-anonymous critics?

Incidentally, in the Gawker coverage of the review they once again post Bruni's photograph.

[oakapple]

The Ago review once again demonstrates the value of critic anonymity.

←

So there have been rave reviews from non-anonymous critics?

←

The only other review that comes to mind is Richman's, and I believe he has the same anonymity policy as Bruni. (That is, he tries to dine anonymously, knowing all the same that he'll often be recognized.)

I am just drawing the pretty obvious conclusion that if he'd walked in and said, "Hi, I'm Frank Bruni, here to review for The New York Times," it's unlikely most of those things would've happened. The food might still have sucked (then again, it might not), but he sure wouldn't have been treated like Joe Bridge and his wife, Martha Tunel.

[Fat Guy]

So based on this scenario the "value of critic anonymity" is what exactly? That in the 20% of cases where Frank Bruni is not recognized and the 5% of cases where Alan Richman is not recognized, if a restaurant screws up service really badly then we'll all be treated to a very public "gotcha!" in print? That seems like a very limited value proposition. And where are all the positive comments about this restaurant from non-anonymous critics? We already knew of the consensus that Ago sucks before Bruni's review was published. Eater, for example, correctly predicted zero stars before the review ran. So did you, Marc (edited to add: even though you yourself gave it one star?). Apparently the information is getting out there just fine. In order to provide actual support for this theory of the "value of critic anonymity," we'd need to see a statistically significant number of examples where the same restaurant was reviewed by anonymous and non-anonymous critics and the anonymous critics as a group thought it was terrible while the non-anonymous critics as a group were duped into thinking it was great.

[LESider]

who knew that anger was gonna be the impetus for bruni's most interesting writing.

[oakapple]

So based on this scenario the "value of critic anonymity" is what exactly? That in the 20% of cases where Frank Bruni is not recognized and the 5% of cases where Alan Richman is not recognized, if a restaurant screws up service really badly then we'll all be treated to a very public "gotcha!" in print?

Public "gotchas" on this scale are admittedly rare, I believe for two reasons. The first is that most critics, since they are limited to (at most) one review per week, don't spend much time writing about restaurants that suck. As Bruni once said, it usually doesn't make a lot of sense to call attention to something that you're then suggesting should be avoided. The second is that most restaurants aren't this incompetent.

But even in reviews where Bruni awards one or more stars, it's quite common to find mention of service glitches that—although I can't prove it—are unlikely to have happened if he was recognized. I suspect that at a majority of restaurants he reviews, he dines unrecognized at least once.

And where are all the positive comments about this restaurant from non-anonymous critics?

Most of the professional critics in this town follow some version of the anonymity principle. The only one that has loudly rejected it is Restaurant Girl, although she claims she at least reserves under a false name. I suspect most of the critics ignored the place for the reason given above: it's usually not worth wasting a review slot on a place that sucks.

We already knew of the consensus that Ago sucks before Bruni's review was published. Eater, for example, correctly predicted zero stars before the review ran. So did you, Marc (edited to add: even though you yourself gave it one star?).

←

The weekly BruniBetting that Eater and I run is "inside baseball." There probably aren't more than 15-20 people who pay any attention to what I predict. I seriously doubt that the typical Times reader already knows as much about the restaurant as we do.

My one-star verdict on Ago says more about my limitations as a critic. I visted the restaurant once, and it so happens I ordered the dish Bruni liked best. Unlike Bruni, I'm not being paid to do this, and I don't consider myself professionally obligated to taste the whole menu before I write. If the rest of the menu were as good as the T-Bone, Bruni probably would have awarded a star—service glitches notwithstanding.

Edited June 12, 2008 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

Most of the professional critics in this town follow some version of the anonymity principle. The only one that has loudly rejected it is Restaurant Girl, although she claims she at least reserves under a false name.

←

So you don't think that, for example, Alan Richman being the former host of a show on the Food Network is a rejection of anonymity? It seems you're saying that all critics other than Restaurant Girl dine anonymously, which is certainly the belief most critics want to hoodwink the public into holding. But surely you know better. In addition, I still don't see how you've made the case for the "value of critic anonymity" with this example. Am I to understand that the "value of critic anonymity" is that a few service glitches -- and the occasional total breakdown -- might happen that wouldn't have happened otherwise? If so, big deal. And as a matter of logic it's still clear that, in order to demonstrate the "value of critic anonymity" in anything more than a purely speculative and asserted manner, one would have to demonstrate that recognized (which is synonymous with non-anonymous) critics give more favorable reviews to restaurants than anonymous ones. I can't think of any recent examples of that happening in a statistically meaningful way.

Sure, there are a very few cynical restaurants out there that operate in the old stereotypical Le Cirque mode where there are very clearly two classes of diners and one class gets treated like crap. It's possible that the alleged "value of critic anonymity" is that we may occasionally unmask such a place, but such places rarely operate in secret. Again, the information on Ago was out there without any help from Frank Bruni, who merely amplified in a funny way what had already been published. And, if anything, the New York Times critic is the person least likely to unmask such restaurants -- and even then will do so in a statistically insignificant percentage of cases. So there are really three possibilities: Ago is so bad that its badness would have been easy to grasp even for a non-anonymous critic (my guess is that this is the case); or Ago is capable of putting out a great meal with flawless service for a recognized critic (in which case let's see the evidence in the form of rave reviews); or every journalist to visit Ago has been anonymous/unrecognized (fat chance).

[oakapple]

Most of the professional critics in this town follow some version of the anonymity principle. The only one that has loudly rejected it is Restaurant Girl, although she claims she at least reserves under a false name.

←

So you don't think that, for example, Alan Richman being the former host of a show on the Food Network is a rejection of anonymity? It seems you're saying that all critics other than Restaurant Girl dine anonymously, which is certainly the belief most critics want to hoodwink the public into holding. But surely you know better.

My understanding is that no professional critic in town (even RG) reserves under his or her own name, and except for her, no pro critic goes out of his or her way to deliberately call attention to themselves. They don't, for example, walk in the door and say, "I'm Alan Richman from GQ, here to review your restaurant."

Since photos of the major critics are readily available, savvy restaurant staffs are likely to recognize them more often than not. But it is pretty obvious that they go unrecognized often enough to get a good idea of how the "ordinary diner" would be served. Even if they get that idea only 20% of the time, it's better than getting it zero percent of the time.

I don't think that any of these critics are hoodwinking the public, because they all acknowledge—at different times, and in different ways—that they realize they're frequently recognized.

You can do the math: if Bruni pays 3-4 visits before he writes, and if he's recognized 80% of the time, it means that at most restaurants he reviews, he has at least one truly anonymous visit. Richman's face may be more familiar, but he is also a lot less important, so restaurants are probably less concerned about spotting him. It probably evens out.

Am I to understand that the "value of critic anonymity" is that a few service glitches -- and the occasional total breakdown -- might happen that wouldn't have happened otherwise? If so, big deal.

Assuming you believe that service is part of the experience of dining at a restaurant, why are service glitches not a big deal?

And as a matter of logic it's still clear that, in order to demonstrate the "value of critic anonymity" in anything more than a purely speculative and asserted manner, one would have to demonstrate that recognized (which is synonymous with non-anonymous) critics give more favorable reviews to restaurants than anonymous ones. I can't think of any recent examples of that happening in a statistically meaningful way.

Since most critics haven't embraced your idea, I admit that there is no statistically provable sample. But it just seems self-evidently true that if the restaurant knows you're an influential critic, you're going to get the best soignée treatment they're capable of, and you'll never get the experience of the average diner. In other words, instead of getting the typical experience 20% of the time—which at least permits intelligent extrapolation—you'd never get it at all.

Again, the information on Ago was out there without any help from Frank Bruni, who merely amplified in a funny way what had already been published.

←

Are you suggesting that when Frank Bruni reviews a place, most of his readers already know whether it's good or bad, and the only purpose of the review is so that they can be entertained by his prose? I would be surprised if that were the case. The readers of this thread are atypical. I assume that most readers of the Times reviews have not assiduously followed the early buzz.

Edited June 12, 2008 by oakapple (log)

[slkinsey]

You can do the math: if Bruni pays 3-4 visits before he writes, and if he's recognized 80% of the time, it means that at most restaurants he reviews, he has at least one truly anonymous visit.

Even assuming that I accept the 80% number -- this isn't how the math works. If he's recognized 80% of the time, that means he's recognized at 80% of the restaurants he visits. Realistically, what this means it that for most restaurants he has zero truly anonymous visits.

I would hazard a guess that, based on 3-4 visits per restaurant, Bruni is recognized by something closer to 95% of the restaurants. Most likely perhaps 80% of them recognize him the first time he walks in the door, and another 15% or so figure it out by visit number four. The number of truly anonymous visits that goes into the typical review by a significant restaurant reviewer is clearly less than 1 on average.

I'm also interested that no one has responded meaningfully to Steven's point: Operating on the assumption that Bruni is recognized at virtually every restaurant of note he visits (let's say it's 100% of the time by the 4th visit for the purposes of discussion)... can we think of any examples where his experience has been successfully gamed by the restaurant such that he turned in a review reflecting a significantly higher level of quality than what is reported by the general population of truly anonymous food blogers and internet forum participants? If restaurants were able to effectively game non-anonymous reviewers this way, one would expect that, at least 50% of the time, Bruni's reviews would indicate a significantly better restaurant than what is reported by anonymous foodies. This shouldn't be a subtle effect.

[Fat Guy]

You can do the math: if Bruni pays 3-4 visits before he writes, and if he's recognized 80% of the time, it means that at most restaurants he reviews, he has at least one truly anonymous visit.

←

More on the rest of what you said later, but I think this statement may call for a refresher course in mathematics. Being recognized 80% of the time (and the real number may be higher) does not translate into being not recognized 1 time at every restaurant, even assuming a 5-visit average (which is not the average -- it's probably 3 or 4 at the most). Mathematically, it can just as easily be that he's recognized on 0% of his 5 visits at one restaurant, but recognized 100% of the time at several other restaurants. Indeed that is the far more likely scenario. Although there are a few notorious instances when top-tier restaurants (like Ducasse at the Essex House) have missed him on one visit, for the most part the better restaurants have multiple members of their service teams who are familiar with him as well as with scores of other critics and other writers. This ongoing game of cat and mouse, which is the inevitable response to "Gotcha!" journalism, hardly demonstrates the value of occasionally anonymous reviewing. If anything, the "Gotcha!" rules overall work against any restaurant that doesn't play the game and play it well.

(Edited to add: Sam cross-posted this better than I did)

[Fat Guy]

Are you suggesting that when Frank Bruni reviews a place, most of his readers already know whether it's good or bad, and the only purpose of the review is so that they can be entertained by his prose? I would be surprised if that were the case. The readers of this thread are atypical. I assume that most readers of the Times reviews have not assiduously followed the early buzz.

←

Well, I certainly think the only "value" of Frank Bruni's Ago review was entertainment. But no, my point was simply that in a world of bloggers and zillions of anonymous eaters there's little additional merit to Frank Bruni's very occasional anonymity other than that it might yield a punishing review here and there. I say punishing because the cat-and-mouse scenario can mean that restaurants are punished for not recognizing Frank Bruni and, on top of that, eliminating service glitches while he's in the house.

Bryan Miller's statement, in his 1985 review of the Four Seasons -- before blogs but not before the invention of the US Mail -- seems unassailable to me. He wrote:

As with any restaurant of this size and scope, lapses occur. I have received complaints from customers who have been unhappy with the food or service; however, disappointments seem rare based on my six visits over the last four months. Although I am known to the owners, Tom Margittai and Paul Kovi, this does not obviate a valid report. A careful observer should be able to rise above his situation and watch how others are treated. On the whole, the staff appears to be professional on a fairly consistent basis.

[Fat Guy]

Assuming you believe that service is part of the experience of dining at a restaurant, why are service glitches not a big deal?

←

Because all adults who dine out with any frequency eventually learn that every restaurant has bad nights. Even Taillevent. Even Gramercy Tavern. I've had bad service experiences at both. If a critic visits a restaurant 3-4 times (or, in most cases, 1 time), but the restaurant serves 10,000 meals a year, there is little statistical significance to minor service glitches. Though perhaps 4 visits and a 100% disaster rate can be meaningful, glitches on 1 or 2 visits are, I believe, from a mathematical standpoint, as likely as not to be random occurrences. The statistically reliable way to rate service is through a mechanism like Zagat, adjusted for Zagat's laughable lack of a qualifying process or a serious audit process.

Not to mention, most any critic can tell you dozens of stories of being recognized but still getting bad service. In both my Taillevent and Gramercy Tavern experiences, my identity was known, and though I'm a small-time critic it's still pretty interesting that they could have screwed up as badly as they did. Knowing that you're serving a critic can trigger mistakes. There are managers who, for that reason, don't even tell their service teams and cooks that a critic is in the house.

So the whole "it just seems self-evidently true that if the restaurant knows you're an influential critic, you're going to get the best soignée treatment they're capable of, and you'll never get the experience of the average diner" thing is just empirically not true. Yes, it does just seem self evident. But it's wrong, sort of like how it seems self-evident that the Earth is flat but it isn't. And even if it's right, you can just look around the room. And even if the restaurant stacks the deck and fills the room with friends of the house (as happens once every few years I guess), you can still read your mail. Which all together is why Frank Bruni, even though he's usually recognized, does not generally overrate restaurants.

[oakapple]

You can do the math: if Bruni pays 3-4 visits before he writes, and if he's recognized 80% of the time, it means that at most restaurants he reviews, he has at least one truly anonymous visit.

←

More on the rest of what you said later, but I think this statement may call for a refresher course in mathematics. Being recognized 80% of the time (and the real number may be higher) does not translate into being not recognized 1 time at every restaurant, even assuming a 5-visit average (which is not the average -- it's probably 3 or 4 at the most).

←

Oh, I'm not that mathematically naive (I majored in math). I do realize that the truly anonymous visits are not going to be distributed evenly. He might be recognized 100% of the time at Jean Georges, and 0% at La Sirène. But there's a hefty amount of empirical evidence scattered throughout his reviews (including the L'Affaire ADNY) that even top-tier restaurants miss him sometimes, and the farther down the ladder you go, the more likely this is to happen.

Are you suggesting that when Frank Bruni reviews a place, most of his readers already know whether it's good or bad, and the only purpose of the review is so that they can be entertained by his prose?

←

Well, I certainly think the only "value" of Frank Bruni's Ago review was entertainment.

Would that not, then, be the only value of every Times review?

Bryan Miller's statement, in his 1985 review of the Four Seasons -- before blogs but not before the invention of the US Mail -- seems unassailable to me. He wrote:

As with any restaurant of this size and scope, lapses occur. I have received complaints from customers who have been unhappy with the food or service; however, disappointments seem rare based on my six visits over the last four months. Although I am known to the owners, Tom Margittai and Paul Kovi, this does not obviate a valid report. A careful observer should be able to rise above his situation and watch how others are treated. On the whole, the staff appears to be professional on a fairly consistent basis.

←

Actually, Miller's experience seems to stand for precisely the opposite conclusion. I mean, think about it: enough customers are pissed off that they saw fit to complain to him; and he got enough of those complaints that he saw fit to mention them in his review. Yet, when he visited himself, he found such lapses to be rare. We have only his dubious assurance that he thinks he would have noticed if such lapses occurred at other tables.

Assuming you believe that service is part of the experience of dining at a restaurant, why are service glitches not a big deal?

←

Because all adults who dine out with any frequency eventually learn that every restaurant has bad nights. Even Taillevent. Even Gramercy Tavern. I've had bad service experiences at both.... The statistically reliable way to rate service is through a mechanism like Zagat, adjusted for Zagat's laughable lack of a qualifying process or a serious audit process.

←

Would not that be true of the food, too? I mean, the folks at Peter Luger generally know how to broil steak, but you can have a bad steak at Peter Luger. All adults who dine out with any frequency know that.

But just as some restaurants have better food than others, some have better service than others. Even though GT has its bad nights, they are rare, and their typical performance is better than at most places. It's the critic's job to gather enough data to see through that.

Edited June 13, 2008 by oakapple (log)

[slkinsey]

Again... since we all recognize that the Times reviewer is recognized by at least 80% of the restaurants he reviews, can we think of any instances where it's clear that he was successfully gamed to the extent that his review clearly overrates the restaurant versus the consensus of other "anonymous" non-soignéed customers? If the answer is no, I don't see how there can be any tangible basis for furthering the argument for anonymity.

[Nathan]

I wonder about Adour.