Comped Meals - The Question of Ethics

[Fat Guy]

One of the problems with the status quo -- I'd describe the status quo as "the overwhelming majority of food writers take comps but they're ashamed to admit it because no-comps is held out as the ideal" -- is that it has prevented a much-needed dialog about how to behave ethically when comped.

Accepting a comp is, in my opinion, an ethically neutral act. Of course, if you believe that comps are by definition corrupting, then you won't see them as ethically neutral. But given that comps are routine in most areas of journalism, it seems that there's a strong argument to be made that they are ethically neutral. Rather, ethical concerns arise when a writer is unduly influenced by a comp.

Given that comps are here to stay, I think the ethical and the pragmatic need to work together if there is to be a meaningful set of guidelines. My suggestion, and this is how I try to conduct myself, is as follows:

- First and foremost, writers should say what they believe to be true about the places they cover -- regardless of the presence or absence of comps.

- Comps should be disclosed. This can either be specific disclosure in an article, or general disclosure in a policy. (Ideally, both.)

- There should be no quid pro quo. Publicists and others who hand out comps should be told that there's no quid pro quo (unless they already know). Publications that allow their writers to accept comps should have no-quid-pro-quo policies.

- Comps should be regular and customary. In other words, a comp at a restaurant that serves a US$25 prix-fixe menu should not include a $1,000 bottle of wine.

- Coverage of comped meals should be exactly the same as coverage of paid-for meals. A wide range of rules would be acceptable here. For example, a "no negative reviews" policy (in other words, "if we don't like a place we just don't write about it") is not inherently problematic, since many publications exist primarily to provide recommendations. It's only problematic if applied to comped meals but not to paid-for meals. (Unfortunately, I know several writers who have a comp-specific "no negative reviews" policy and will only write negative reviews of non-comped meals -- that's not okay.)

[slkinsey]

I'm curious:  Who paid for all the wines you reviewed in "Rogov's Guide to Israeli Wines"?  Was it you, or your publisher?

Sure as all get out it was not me. I never was and never will be wealthy enough for that.

If you factor out the notional anonymity of the restaurant critic, I don't see how there can be any ethical difference between accepting comped wine from a consortium, importer, distributor or winery, and accepting a comped meal from a restaurant.

[Daniel Rogov]

I don't see how there can be any ethical difference between accepting comped wine from a consortium, importer, distributor or winery, and accepting a comped meal from a restaurant. 

Please see my first post on this subject at http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=114197 I'm sure we'll get further into this issue on that thread. Thanks.

[slkinsey]

I will excerpt the portion of your post from the other thread that relates to restaurant comps, since continuing the discussion about the restaurant side seems more appropriate in this thread.

Considering the serious objections I have stated towards accepting complementary meals, the major question I expect to arise is: "Why is it acceptable to sometimes accept wines or attend wine-tasting events sponsored by commercial sources when it is forbidden (in my opinion) to accept such meals?"

Simple enough – of the thousands of wines that one receives as samples or tastes at events, 99% is tasted and spit and only 1% actually goes into the body.  True, one might save the best wine tasted in a given day for dinner but that hardly comprises a bribe or tempts one to change one's impression or tasting notes (after all, the wine was selected because we thought so highly of it).  Second, as much as tasting wine can be a very rewarding challenge, it is very, very hard work, the time and concentration involved in tasting dozens or more of wines in a day being enormous and then adding the time required to write up and post or otherwise publish the tasting notes.  The rewards are great because most critics love wine (as much and perhaps even more of a philosophical base than food) and love the challenge of testing and re-testing their own palates.

So, if I understand this properly, your main argument is that accepting free wines in performance of wine criticism is okay whereas accepting free restaurant mealsin performance of restaurant criticism is not because:

1. You don't digest the wine whereas you do digest the restaurant food

and

2. Wine tasting and evaluation is "hard work" whereas restaurant evaluation is not.

I'm sorry... but that seems like a pretty thin justification for approving one and condemning the other. If we're going to split wine hairs as fine as you have been splitting restaurant hairs, I simply do not see how there can be any ethical justification for accepting the wine. Any ethical conflict as to favorable treatment that comes along with accepting a free restaurant meal automatically comes along with receiving free wine -- especially if one is permitted to "save the best wine tasted in a given day for dinner." It's pretty easy to extend the logical argumets made in this thread to wine: If you receive a wine from a you are going to feel beholden to that consortium, importer, distributor or winery and this may influence you to write a better review -- even if only subconsciously. Furthermore, if you do write a bad review of the wine, there is the chance that the consortium, importer, distributor or winery (and perhaps others as well) may no longer provide you with free samples for evaluation, which may further influence you to write a better review. In consideration of the fact that you cannot afford these wines yourself and do not have a job that reimburses you for wine expenditures, you would like to continue receiving free wines, without which your wine-reviewing career would be impossible. This is further influence to write a better review. As you say, some wineries send bottles for tasting and others to not. This is a further influence. You do point out that the wine critic "should not 'hold it against' any winery that does not send wines for tasting"-- but that's like saying that a restaurant critic shouldn't be influenced by comps. How do we know that either is doing as he should? How do we know that the wine critic won't be biased in favor of wines he tastes at home compared to wines he has to evaluate at organized tastings?

Daniel, it seems clear that you give these things a lot of ethical thought, and so my going-in assumption is that you don't have any ulterior motives in making these different points. But I can't help pointing out that, in the case where you have a salaried/reimbursed job doing something you couldn't afford to do on your own dime, you have constructed some ethical logic to come out against comping; in the case where you are a freelancer who is not reimbursed for somethign you couldn't afford to do on your own dime, you have constucted some ethical logic to come out in favor of comping. I can't help noticing that both of these things justify your own special case, and I can't help saying that hinging the ethical logic that differentiates these two cases on something as esoteric as digestion versus non-digestion and "hard work" versus "less hard work" (which I submit will depend greatly on the individual -- ask the NYT critics how much "fun" they're having eating at restaurants 14+ times a week) seems a little weak.

[Holly Moore]

One of the problems with the status quo -- I'd describe the status quo as "the overwhelming majority of food writers take comps but they're ashamed to admit it because no-comps is held out as the ideal" -- is that it has prevented a much-needed dialog about how to behave ethically when comped.

Accepting a comp is, in my opinion, an ethically neutral act. Of course, if you believe that comps are by definition corrupting, then you won't see them as ethically neutral. But given that comps are routine in most areas of journalism, it seems that there's a strong argument to be made that they are ethically neutral. Rather, ethical concerns arise when a writer is unduly influenced by a comp.

Given that comps are here to stay, I think the ethical and the pragmatic need to work together if there is to be a meaningful set of guidelines. My suggestion, and this is how I try to conduct myself, is as follows:

- First and foremost, writers should say what they believe to be true about the places they cover -- regardless of the presence or absence of comps.

- Comps should be disclosed. This can either be specific disclosure in an article, or general disclosure in a policy. (Ideally, both.)

- There should be no quid pro quo. Publicists and others who hand out comps should be told that there's no quid pro quo (unless they already know). Publications that allow their writers to accept comps should have no-quid-pro-quo policies.

- Comps should be regular and customary. In other words, a comp at a restaurant that serves a US$25 prix-fixe menu should not include a $1,000 bottle of wine.

- Coverage of comped meals should be exactly the same as coverage of paid-for meals. A wide range of rules would be acceptable here. For example, a "no negative reviews" policy (in other words, "if we don't like a place we just don't write about it") is not inherently problematic, since many publications exist primarily to provide recommendations. It's only problematic if applied to comped meals but not to paid-for meals. (Unfortunately, I know several writers who have a comp-specific "no negative reviews" policy and will only write negative reviews of non-comped meals -- that's not okay.)

←

Steven, within this structure, is it ok for a reviewer or writer to solicit a comp from a restaurant as opposed to the writer being invited by an owner or publicist?

[Fat Guy]

I don't see a problem with soliciting comps. It's standard procedure in other forms of reviewing.

[slkinsey]

This is not to say, I think, that soliciting comps can't be or isn't now occassionally abused. But just because something can be abused doesn't make it automatically unethical in all cases.

[Nathan]

1. comped wine for a wine reviewer is different. why? cause they can't change the wine! comping a restaurant reviewer has some of the same issues as non-anonymous reviewing.

2. accepting comps (and this argument does apply to wine too) is most pernicious because of what it does to restaurants that don't offer comps. they're the ones that are inevitably going to be unfairly hurt.

3. btw, Bruni isn't as recognized as you think. part of it being his choice of reviews makes him more unpredictable. I'm sure they spot him at Adour. but they didn't at Babbo. I doubt they did at La Sirene. maybe the first time at Mas but probably not the second time. etc.

[slkinsey]

1. The fact is -- and this is simply too widely acknowledged to be worth debating -- that any regular restaurant reviewer operating in a given city will be recognized most of the time. All of the time? Probably not. But most of the time. And I would suggest that a reviewer who goes into restaurants under the (usually mistaken) assumption that he is not recognized and is not receiving any special treatment is much more susceptible to having his opinion swayed by the special treatment he will be getting most of the time than a reviewer who goes in with his eyes open. On top of that, even when it's clear that a reviewer is recognized and the restaurant is making maximum effort to turn out their absolutely best product, there are limits to the changes a restaurant can effect (they can't keep one extra-prime steak in the walk-in just in case a reviewer walks in) and dishes still come out as disappointments. There have been any number of occasions where Bruni was clearly recognized and still got so-so food and service.

2. Given the food cost, any restaurant operating at a price point at which it would be unduly burdensome for a reviewer to pay out of his own pocket will easily be able to afford dozens of comps.

3. I'd say Bruni is recognized around 75% of the time, and that most likely goes up to 95% on his second visit. He may not have been recognized at Babbo (I have no position on this) but if he wasn't, it was also practically the first review he wrote and I don't think anyone at Babbo supposed he would be re-reviewing them as part of his earliest work.