Reservations and Regulars at Momos and

[jimk]

I still think this is a depressing view of the dining experience. I never want to go into a restaurant I love with that kind of chip on my shoulder. I still want to think of that comped glass of champagne as a nice gesture rather than something I earned. I also think both sides have made their points about three dozen times each and it comes down to a fundamental philosophical difference. If you think there's a correlation to be drawn between your relationship with your favorite restaurant and your relationship with Time Warner Cable then we see eating out in different ways.

←

I really think you're reading Steven's posts the wrong way. No one has more of a joie de vivre about dining than he does. He doesn't go in anywhere with a chip on his shoulder. He is just talking about how the industry works, from the perspective of someone who's studied it professionally.

You referred to that glass of champagne as a "nice gesture". It confirms what he is saying. Businesses do recognize their regulars, and treat them differently. How this plays out will vary with circumstances. If a place you patronized regularly treated you like an absolute stranger, how could it not influence your eagerness to bring them future business?

←

The perspective he's coming from has been one that has confused me from the start of this but enough's been said on that. I think most of the rest of us are coming at it from the perspective talking about what our own expectations are going to dinner at a place we have a relationship with. It would be one thing if the position he were taking was that our expectations are unusual. But he's actually saying that my expectations are wrong - I believe the word "pushover" has been used to describe those who don't expect/demand some sort of quid pro quo, IIRC.

If the place I patronized regularly treated me as an absolute stranger, it would depend on the place and what you mean by regularly. (There are restaurants we go to not more than once every couple of years where we are greeted as old friends - the place where we got the aforementioned glass of champagne is I guess an example of being treated nicely just for being us. A gesture of friendship, not a commercial tactic. Maybe it's a naive view, but I prefer it to the Machiavellian one. The truth probably lies in between.) But even if I were to concede that point - and I'm not sure that I do, but it's a whole other discussion - that doesn't make me a pushover for being low maintenance and it doesn't make Chang's no favorites resy policy "wrong" ...

[oakapple]

If the place I patronized regularly treated me as an absolute stranger, it would depend on the place and what you mean by regularly. (There are restaurants we go to not more than once every couple of years where we are greeted as old friends - the place where we got the aforementioned glass of champagne is I guess an example of being treated nicely just for being us.

That's part of what I meant by it "depending on the circumstances."

A gesture of friendship, not a commercial tactic. Maybe it's a naive view, but I prefer it to the Machiavellian one. The truth probably lies in between.)

You've set up a false dichotomy. A restaurant that in all sincerity treats its regulars like "friends" may nevertheless have a profit motive. And a place with a profit motive—that is, almost every place—isn't being Machiavellian; it's just being run intelligently.

But even if I were to concede that point - and I'm not sure that I do, but it's a whole other discussion - that doesn't make me a pushover for being low maintenance and it doesn't make Chang's no favorites resy policy "wrong" ...

←

Steven's use of the word "pushover" probably wasn't sensible. The fact is, you do recognize that places are treating you differently as a result of your repeat patronage. I cannot imagine that this is irrelevant to how you allocate your resources, even if you do so sub-consciously.

I do agree with you that Chang's reservation system at Ko might be the right one for his business model, at this moment. But I am sure that he is taking care of his best customers in other ways, even if the reservation system works the way he claims (and it very well may not).

[Nathan]

I'm not sure that accomodating a regular when there is a cancellation would be a violation of Chang's reservation system.

[jimk]

If the place I patronized regularly treated me as an absolute stranger, it would depend on the place and what you mean by regularly. (There are restaurants we go to not more than once every couple of years where we are greeted as old friends - the place where we got the aforementioned glass of champagne is I guess an example of being treated nicely just for being us.

That's part of what I meant by it "depending on the circumstances."

A gesture of friendship, not a commercial tactic. Maybe it's a naive view, but I prefer it to the Machiavellian one. The truth probably lies in between.)

You've set up a false dichotomy. A restaurant that in all sincerity treats its regulars like "friends" may nevertheless have a profit motive. And a place with a profit motive—that is, almost every place—isn't being Machiavellian; it's just being run intelligently.

But even if I were to concede that point - and I'm not sure that I do, but it's a whole other discussion - that doesn't make me a pushover for being low maintenance and it doesn't make Chang's no favorites resy policy "wrong" ...

←

Steven's use of the word "pushover" probably wasn't sensible. The fact is, you do recognize that places are treating you differently as a result of your repeat patronage. I cannot imagine that this is irrelevant to how you allocate your resources, even if you do so sub-consciously.

I do agree with you that Chang's reservation system at Ko might be the right one for his business model, at this moment. But I am sure that he is taking care of his best customers in other ways, even if the reservation system works the way he claims (and it very well may not).

←

Thinking of your first question - what if a place where we are regulars treated us as complete strangers - I could think of one example. There's a place just downstairs from where we live. It's a place that's well regarded on eGullet and that has a couple of stars from the Times ... it's basically a really strong neighborhood restaurant that draws a crowd from far beyond the neighborhood. We go there probably more often than we go anywhere else. The GM and a couple of the waiters know us well enough to say hi. I think maybe once they bought us a cava but I think that was mostly about the fact that they'd lost our reservation. It's a great place, but the special treatment extends about as far as a smile when they see us ... they call us by name, they ask how our weekend went, and I suppose if that's a perk that I earned by being a regular, then it's a perk that I appreciate. It's never occurred to me to expect anything beyond that - they make food food, they are nice to us, they charge reasonable prices. The other night we went there, and it was the GM's night off and our usual waiter wasn't there and there was a new waiter working and nobody knew us and as far as anybody knew we were a couple of tourists from Peoria and we enjoyed ourselves just fine. So I guess that's an example of a place where we are regulars treating us as complete strangers.

As far as a false dichotomy, you're right - that's why I said the truth lies somewhere in between.

As far as your point that I recognize when I occasionally get a bit of special treatment ... actually I rarely know why exactly. I don't see that I necessarily get more comps at the places I go more often. If anything if I get a drink or an extra course or something I've suspected it to be more likely because 1) I cracked a joke that made the waiter laugh; 2) I asked an intelligent question about something on the menu; 3) some shared common ground that comes up in conversation with a waiter or bartender - I'm sure I got a free round just for being a Mose Alison fan not too long ago; 4) indicators of a special occasion (gift on the table, etc); 5) the fact that Bruni used to use a name close to mine as one of his aliases; 6) once the waiter overheard someone at my table speak the phrase "Ben at Eater"; 7) they can tell from my Open Table profile how often and where we eat out; 8) the fact that I live in the neighborhood. I think of the places where I'm most likely to get an extra course or a free drink or whatever and I'm not a regular at any of them. Honestly, I like the special treatment more when it doesn't feel like quid pro quo.

The part that bothers me about this is that this is how I eat out. This is how I enjoy eating out. This is the philosophy that makes me happy. There's nothing "wrong" about it.

And you're right that the profit motive is a large part of most operations. But it's not the only part. Most chefs I know cook for a living because they like to cook. And they want to make a good living for themselves - as good a living as possible - while still having some integrity and enjoying what they do and not "selling out." Chang speaks quite frankly in the New Yorker piece about the fact that are lots of things that are more important to him than making money but that making money is absolutely part of the equation. I believe him, because I think the way he runs is restaurants is consistent with what he says.

I don't actually think that Chang necessarily decided this reservation system was the "best one for his business model." I suspect he decided that this was the one that would cause him the least amount of personal grief when everyone he's ever met starts calling asking him for a couple of seats at the restaurant. He can just tell everyone "no favorites, no exceptions." When the first response to him doing this is (here, of all places!) along the lines of "clearly that's a ridiculous approach and won't we all have a good laugh watching it unravel" (paraphrasing) and laying in wait to catch him as some sort of hypocrite (the word that some folks keep bringing out to describe what Chang is for having a pre-opening F&F and press week), I think it's a shame...

Whatever his reason, and whatever conclusions are drawn as to whether it's the soundest businsess decision or not, I'm a guy who spends a lot of money eating at restaurants and I like the policy. That's as valid a POV as anyone else's.

[oakapple]

I'm not sure that accomodating a regular when there is a cancellation would be a violation of Chang's reservation system.

←

However, I believe that you cancel the same way as you book: online. And any cancellation is immediately available to get snapped up. Eater asked Chang HQ about this, and they said that cancellations usually disappear within 10 minutes.

[jimk]

I cannot imagine that this is irrelevant to how you allocate your resources, even if you do so sub-consciously.

←

Perhaps one reason this debate keeps going around in circles is the notion that I can say "I'm a consumer/diner/guest/whatever and this is how I feel," and you can respond with "Well, I know that's how you say you feel, and I know that's how you think you feel, but I don't think that's how you really feel deep down." Honestly don't know how to respond to that without creating a seperate eGullet account for my subconscious to respond to your counterargument. I'm pretty sure that if I did so, my subconcious would confirm that it's how I really feel.

I wonder if anyone has registered the email address jimsid(at)hotmail.com ...

[Nathan]

I'm not sure that accomodating a regular when there is a cancellation would be a violation of Chang's reservation system.

←

However, I believe that you cancel the same way as you book: online. And any cancellation is immediately available to get snapped up. Eater asked Chang HQ about this, and they said that cancellations usually disappear within 10 minutes.

←

well..I was thinking about last minute cancellations actually...

[jimk]

I'm not sure that accomodating a regular when there is a cancellation would be a violation of Chang's reservation system.

←

However, I believe that you cancel the same way as you book: online. And any cancellation is immediately available to get snapped up. Eater asked Chang HQ about this, and they said that cancellations usually disappear within 10 minutes.

←

And as I mentioned in the other thread the night I was there they are, at this point, handing no-shows by seeing if there's anyone in the line at Noodle Bar who is up for a dinner at Ko. The couple they sent down to from noodle bar the night we were there were definitely not regulars. Chef mentioned that when they extend the invitation to people in line at noodle bar there aren't necessarily a lot of takers because the price point at Ko is so much higher and the time commitment so much greater.

[Sneakeater]

I was thinking overnight about why there seems to be so much mutual incomprehension in this thread. Why FG is puzzled over my using words like "selfish" and "pushy" for what he considers proper consumer behavior. Why people get confused as to whether FG is saying Ko's reservations policy is wrong or just misguided.

I think people are giving insufficient attention to one factor here: Ko has expressly stated that it will not give out preferential reservations. If we take them at their word, then whatever consumer's expectations might normally be, in this case they know they can't expect that one perk.

In my opinion, in a case where a restaurant says it won't do something and there's a discernable reason for that policy (even if you think they could have done otherwise), I think it's simply rude to ask them to do it anyway. I wouldn't treat my friends that way, and I don't treat businesses I deal with that way.

I acknowledge that other people, who have much more juice than me, might not share my compunctions. But in this case, I think they're rude. Not because they expect favors from places they regularly patronize, but because they expect THIS restaurant to do something its owners specifically said it won't do for reasons one can respect even if one disagrees with them. Maybe the owners will feel constrained to accomodate the request, but that doesn't change the fact that, in my view, IN THIS CASE it was wrong for the requester to put the restaurant in such a position by asking.

FG seems to be saying that the fault lies with the restaurant for even attempting such a policy. I generally side with consumers, but in this case, I don't see why that is.

(Other than the foregoing, jimk has articulated my own thoughts about this much better than I could, and I leave all that to him.)

Edited March 19, 2008 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

But I am sure that he is taking care of his best customers in other ways, even if the reservation system works the way he claims (and it very well may not).

←

And I have to keep repeating: no one is saying it's wrong to "take care" of your best customers, and no one has denied that Chang is doing so.

This whole disagreement is ONLY about whether it's wrong -- a breach of commercial etiquette -- to withhold THE PARTICULAR PERK OF PREFERRED RESERVATIONS in a 12-seat restaurant subject to insane demand after you've announced that preferred reservations wouldn't be available.

Whether a regular "should" abandon a place that does this (or, alternatively, insist it deviate from its stated policy) because it's not giving sufficient recognition to his patronage -- even though the regular is continuing to get plenty of other perks.

All the other stuff is noise. Diversion.

[jimk]

But I am sure that he is taking care of his best customers in other ways, even if the reservation system works the way he claims (and it very well may not).

←

This whole disagreement is ONLY about whether it's wrong -- a breach of commercial etiquette -- to withhold THE PARTICULAR PERK OF PREFERRED RESERVATIONS in a 12-seat restaurant subject to insane demand after you've announced that preferred reservations wouldn't be available.

←

Actually I think there's one other issue being discussed here and that's whether it's "wrong" for a Momofuku regular to not be offended or aggreived by such a policy. And I'm pretty sure we have yet to hear from a Momofuku regular who thinks Chang's system is unfair. We are just hearing from a couple of people who say that's how they should feel and if they don't feel that way then they are having an inappropriate emotional response to the situation or whatever. That by being chill about the system, they are "wrong."

I agree that there's nothing wrong or in any way inconsistent with buying a regular a drink or whatever, while at the same time having a no-favorites resy policy.

I also think a third, much smaller, issue here is whether Chang deserves the benefit of the doubt in the short term while he experiments with a new way of handling resys as he executes an entirely new restaurant concept. And whether a failure of that experiment would make him a hypocrite or a liar or whatever.

[Jesikka]

Thinking of your first question - what if a place where we are regulars treated us as complete strangers - I could think of one example. There's a place just downstairs from where we live. It's a place that's well regarded on eGullet and that has a couple of stars from the Times ... it's basically a really strong neighborhood restaurant that draws a crowd from far beyond the neighborhood. So I guess that's an example of a place where we are regulars treating us as complete strangers.

←

I also have a restaurant that I eat in quite often which is well regarded on eGullet (though not the type of place to get reviewed). Even though I eat brunch there weekly and dinner there many weeks, I've never gotten a single comp there. I do get a boistrous hello (I don't think they know my name, but they are certainly friendly and acknowledge that they know me). I often get a copy of one of the magazines I like brought to my table/bar seat at brunch. Obviously I'm not being treated like a stranger. Those are the sorts of perks I "expect" as a regular. Anything else is just gravy.

[Sneakeater]

But I am sure that he is taking care of his best customers in other ways, even if the reservation system works the way he claims (and it very well may not).

←

This whole disagreement is ONLY about whether it's wrong -- a breach of commercial etiquette -- to withhold THE PARTICULAR PERK OF PREFERRED RESERVATIONS in a 12-seat restaurant subject to insane demand after you've announced that preferred reservations wouldn't be available.

←

Actually I think there's one other issue being discussed here and that's whether it's "wrong" for a Momofuku regular to not be offended or aggreived by such a policy. And I'm pretty sure we have yet to hear from a Momofuku regular who thinks Chang's system is unfair. We are just hearing from a couple of people who say that's how they should feel and if they don't feel that way then they are having an inappropriate emotional response to the situation or whatever. That by being chill about the system, they are "wrong."

I agree that there's nothing wrong or in any way inconsistent with buying a regular a drink or whatever, while at the same time having a no-favorites resy policy.

I also think a third, much smaller, issue here is whether Chang deserves the benefit of the doubt in the short term while he experiments with a new way of handling resys as he executes an entirely new restaurant concept. And whether a failure of that experiment would make him a hypocrite or a liar or whatever.

←

Of course you're right.

But I've already told everybody to read your posts instead of mine.

[oakapple]

This whole disagreement is ONLY about whether it's wrong -- a breach of commercial etiquette -- to withhold THE PARTICULAR PERK OF PREFERRED RESERVATIONS in a 12-seat restaurant subject to insane demand after you've announced that preferred reservations wouldn't be available.

←

I think Steven's view was merely that it would be commercially advisable (in his view) for restaurants to offer this perk, not that those who fail to do so are violating etiquette.

Actually I think there's one other issue being discussed here and that's whether it's "wrong" for a Momofuku regular to not be offended or aggreived by such a policy.

Several of Steven's points got jumbled in the course of some heated rhetoric.

In his book, he argues that at most restaurants these perks are readily available, if you know they exist and how to ask for them. This is useful information that might come in handy one day. I doesn't harm anyone to know that restaurants work this way. I can't make use of the information right now, but perhaps someday I will.

He goes on to suggest that everyone who cares about dining would be better off cultivating such a relationship with just few restaurants, and I think he is wrong to suggest that this strategy has such universal appeal.

I also think a third, much smaller, issue here is whether Chang deserves the benefit of the doubt in the short term while he experiments with a new way of handling resys as he executes an entirely new restaurant concept. And whether a failure of that experiment would make him a hypocrite or a liar or whatever.

←

In fairness, whenever any restauranteur tries something new, there are those who say, "It'll never work." And if it doesn't work, there's a tendency to gloat about having been proved right, and to say, "I told you so."

There is much that Chang says that I don't believe. If he is saying that the system is totally egalitarian, while actually holding seats back for VIPs, then he is a hypocrite. If it simply turns out that the system doesn't work, and he changes it later on, then he's not a hypocrite; he's just learning from his mistakes.

[Sneakeater]

In his book, he argues that at most restaurants these perks are readily available, if you know they exist and how to ask for them. This is useful information that might come in handy one day. I doesn't harm anyone to know that restaurants work this way. I can't make use of the information right now, but perhaps someday I will.

←

But as I keep saying, this particular restaurant says that this particular perk is NOT available. And, at least as I read him, FG is saying that regulars should insist on it anyway, and if they don't get it, they should take their business elsewhere. (Otherwise, they're "pushovers".)

That's what I don't get. He seems to be saying not just that "most restaurants" act the way he prefers, but that there's no excuse for one's not acting that way -- or for consumers' accepting any such deviation from the norm, no matter how well-intentioned and no matter what the surrounding circumstances.

Edited March 19, 2008 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

Pretty much. When some consumers settle for less than they deserve, it's bad for all consumers.

[jimk]

This whole disagreement is ONLY about whether it's wrong -- a breach of commercial etiquette -- to withhold THE PARTICULAR PERK OF PREFERRED RESERVATIONS in a 12-seat restaurant subject to insane demand after you've announced that preferred reservations wouldn't be available.

←

I think Steven's view was merely that it would be commercially advisable (in his view) for restaurants to offer this perk, not that those who fail to do so are violating etiquette.

IIRC, this isn't your first post today softening his position. My recollection is that he tends to use words like "right" and "wrong" rather than "comercially advisable." He hasn't said he would do it differently if he opened a restaurant - he said that the way Chang is doing is just plain wrong, that Chang is probably lying about how it's working in practice, that the system will alienate Chang's regulars, and that it will be "amusing" to watch it fail. He has said that those who don't insist on such perks are "pushovers", and that it's "unfortunate" when regulars don't expect and demand special treatment. He's never backtracked from any of these statements.

[jimk]

Pretty much. When some consumers settle for less than they deserve, it's bad for all consumers.

←

So glad I don't live on your planet.

[jimk]

Pretty much. When some consumers settle for less than they deserve, it's bad for all consumers.

←

So, then, I suppose I must from now on eat every scrap of food on my plate, no matter how hungry I am, because a failure to do so will result in smaller portions for all diners. This burden of having to stand up for the rights of all consumers is really ruining my appetite.

[oakapple]

IIRC, this isn't your first post today softening his position.

←

I have now realized that he has a much more hard-line view than I had thought. And I do strongly disagree with it.

At lesser extremes, he has useful points that we could all learn from.

[jimk]

IIRC, this isn't your first post today softening his position.

←

I have now realized that he has a much more hard-line view than I had thought. And I do strongly disagree with it.

At lesser extremes, he has useful points that we could all learn from.

←

Kind of entertaining that there are now 270 posts on the thread about how aggrieved a hypothetical momofuku regular does/doesn't/should feel and only 244 on the thread that's about the food.

[Sneakeater]

That's because nobody* can get in.

* But Johnder.

[oakapple]

That's because nobody* can get in.

←

Maybe it's because eGullet members are only a small percentage of those that do get in.

[Fat Guy]

Pretty much. When some consumers settle for less than they deserve, it's bad for all consumers.

←

So glad I don't live on your planet.

←

Since we all do live on the same planet, our actions affect one another. Passive consumer attitudes are damaging to consumers in general.

[oakapple]

Since we all do live on the same planet, our actions affect one another. Passive consumer attitudes are damaging to consumers in general.

←

It's hard for me to see how the experimental reservations policy at one highly unusual restaurant, out of 20,000 in just one city, will have such alarming consequences.