What, Exactly, Is a Comp?

[Sneakeater]

I think FG is clearly right about this.

[Chris Amirault]

By that measure, most of the items on the numbered list above aren't comps.

[Sneakeater]

It's funny you'd say that. I'd think at least "3", "4", and "5" are comps by that standard.

[Chris Amirault]

The only difference between 2 and 3 is number. If you get three 2s in a row, then it's a "flight." And, remember, we're talking about tastes here. I'm certain I could get three tastes of just about anything in most bars.

I dunno about 4 & 5, but I can see your point.

[slkinsey]

It's funny you'd say that.  I'd think at least "3", "4", and "5" are comps by that standard.

Hard to say, exactly -- and it depends a lot on the bar. All of these things might reasonably happen at certain bars (and perhaps not in others) depending on the rapport the bartender has with the customer.

With respect to #3 - I can certainly see, that if a bartender were having a discussion about differences in vodka with a customer, he might taste that customer on very small pours of several different brands and bottlings. This is exactly the sort of thing that happens at better cocktailian and/or spirits-focused bars.

#4 is perhaps less probable, but again it's not impossible that if a customer is having a conversation with the bartender about a concept or odd combination ("I'm telling you, gin and Irish whiskey is a match made in heaven!"), the bartender might riff something off and present it gratis to most any customer. It must be said, however, that this is more likely with a customer the bartender knows or with whom the bartender has friends in common than with "the average customer." But it's not at all improbable even for a brand new for a customer who demonstrates some interest and knowledge about cocktails and spirits, and who is simpatico with the bartender. Then again, by the time that rapport has formed and the discussion well underway, it's likely that this cocktail will fall under the general practice of "one out of every four is on the bartender."

#5, tasting the customer on an unfinished cocktail still under development and soliciting feedback is unlikely to happen with just any customer. I've done a lot of this over the years, and in my experience, this sort of thing is likely to consist of little tastes of several iterations of the cocktail with discussions about impressions and possible adjustments in between iterations. Unless one of the iterations happens to hit a "eureka!" moment and hit on something so good that you have to finish the drink (I had one of these with Del Pedro at Pegu a few weeks ago that left us both laughing), there is usually no expectation that you will have more than a few sips of each iteration. I've got myself into deep, deep trouble doing this a number of times. Two or three sips of 15 iterations of a cocktail can really add up after a while, especially when you've already had a few cocktails before getting started. I remember (or more precisely, don't quite remember) sipping through way too many iterations of Erin Williams' brilliant-but-lethal Kill Devil cocktail with Audrey at Pegu. Ironically, wouldn't you know it, the original formulation turned out to be the best one. But we did discover all the different ways you can light a drink on fire.

[Sneakeater]

With respect to #3 - I can certainly see, that if a bartender were having a discussion about differences in vodka with a customer, he might taste that customer on very small pours of several different brands and bottlings.  This is exactly the sort of thing that happens at better cocktailian and/or spirits-focused bars.

Totally. But I view that as a comp. For one thing, the bartender probably doesn't "have conversations" like that with every single customer, or even most customers.

#4 is perhaps less probable, but again it's not impossible that if a customer is having a conversation with the bartender about a concept or odd combination ("I'm telling you, gin and Irish whiskey is a match made in heaven!"), the bartender might riff something off and present it gratis to most any customer.  It must be said, however, that this is more likely with a customer the bartender knows or with whom the bartender has friends in common than with "the average customer." But it's not at all improbable even for a brand new for a customer who demonstrates some interest and knowledge about cocktails and spirits, and who is simpatico with the bartender.  Then again, by the time that rapport has formed and the discussion well underway, it's likely that this cocktail will fall under the general practice of "one out of every four is on the bartender."

To me, that kind of selectivity makes it a comp.

#5, tasting the customer on an unfinished cocktail still under development and soliciting feedback is unlikely to happen with just any customer.  I've done a lot of this over the years, and in my experience, this  sort of thing is likely to consist of little tastes of several iterations of the cocktail with discussions about impressions and possible adjustments in between iterations.  Unless one of the iterations happens to hit a "eureka!" moment and hit on something so good that you have to finish the drink (I had one of these with Del Pedro at Pegu a few weeks ago that left us both laughing), there is usually no expectation that you will have more than a few sips of each iteration.  I've got myself into deep, deep trouble doing this a number of times.  Two or three sips of 15 iterations of a cocktail can really add up after a while, especially when you've already had a few cocktails before getting started.  I remember (or more precisely, don't quite remember) sipping through way too many iterations of Erin Williams' brilliant-but-lethal Kill Devil cocktail with Audrey at Pegu.  Ironically, wouldn't you know it, the original formulation turned out to be the best one.  But we did discover all the different ways you can light a drink on fire.

←

I guess we're in agreement that this constitutes a comp -- although we're also in agreement that it's not an unqualified good.

[Sneakeater]

depending on the rapport the bartender has with the customer.

←

I guess my bottom line is, if it "depends on the rapport the bartender has with the customer," it's a comp.

[RAHiggins1]

[*] Single samples of various items, both homemade and purchased, probably an ounce or so each, often accompanied by "You gotta try this...."

[*] A "flight" of samples -- at Teardrop, that meant four different locally distilled vodkas, also about an ounce each.

[*] An experiment: a one-off that a bartender puts together on the spot in accordance with your wishes, her whim, and whatever wacky ideas you've both got cooking. Sometimes these are knock-outs, forcing you and the bartender to scribble the recipe madly onto a coaster; sometimes they're one sip and done, no hard feelings.

[*] A menu item in development that needs a critique.

[*] A "thanks for being such an eager, interested cocktail enthusiast" nightcap. One bartender explained this as quid pro quo: I had made his evening a lot more fun, so in exchange he offered something in return.

So, thinking about 1-6 above and their food equivalents: Comp or not comp?

←

All of the above sounds like Lagniappe to me. I tend to think of a comp as deducting a price from or the whole amount of the ticket as a compensatory method of correcting a mistake made during service. or, Grant Atchaz walks in your restaurant and you send one of everything on the menu for him to sample.

Edited May 7, 2009 by RAHiggins1 (log)

[slkinsey]

With respect to #3 - I can certainly see, that if a bartender were having a discussion about differences in vodka with a customer, he might taste that customer on very small pours of several different brands and bottlings.  This is exactly the sort of thing that happens at better cocktailian and/or spirits-focused bars.

Totally. But I view that as a comp. For one thing, the bartender probably doesn't "have conversations" like that with every single customer, or even most customers.

That really depends on the bar, which illustrates just how hard it is to nail this sort of thing down definitively. We all seem to agree that the occasional "buyback" based on number of drinks purchased is more or less standard practice in most bars.

So, if the 50something guy gets 1 out of 5 drinks "on the bartender" and the hot 20something girl gets 2 out of 5, they're getting unequal treatment. But I would still say that a buyback isn't the same as a comp in a restaurant. On the other hand, if a bartender is the sort of guy who might put out a "micro-flight" or vodka for a customer with whom he is engaged in a pertinent conversation, every customer, more or less, who might be the bartender's counterpart in such a conversation has an "equal chance" to get similar treatment. Certainly a more equal chance than the 50something guy and the 20something girl.

#4 is perhaps less probable, but again it's not impossible that if a customer is having a conversation with the bartender about a concept or odd combination ("I'm telling you, gin and Irish whiskey is a match made in heaven!"), the bartender might riff something off and present it gratis to most any customer.  It must be said, however, that this is more likely with a customer the bartender knows or with whom the bartender has friends in common than with "the average customer." But it's not at all improbable even for a brand new for a customer who demonstrates some interest and knowledge about cocktails and spirits, and who is simpatico with the bartender.  Then again, by the time that rapport has formed and the discussion well underway, it's likely that this cocktail will fall under the general practice of "one out of every four is on the bartender."

To me, that kind of selectivity makes it a comp.

Again... in some cases and in some ways, yes -- in others, no. Let's suppose that you and I each drink 4 cocktails at a bar, and the third cocktail is free for both of us. You get your free cocktail in the form of a buyback ("this one's on me, Sneaky my good fellow"). I get my free drink because we're in a conversation about mixing gin with Irish whiskey, and the bartender riffs something up but doesn't put it on the bill. My drink is a comp and yours isn't? The only way I can see my drink being a comp is if it wouldn't also qualify as an SOP buyback.

#5, tasting the customer on an unfinished cocktail still under development and soliciting feedback is unlikely to happen with just any customer.  I've done a lot of this over the years, and in my experience, this  sort of thing is likely to consist of little tastes of several iterations of the cocktail with discussions about impressions and possible adjustments in between iterations.  Unless one of the iterations happens to hit a "eureka!" moment and hit on something so good that you have to finish the drink (I had one of these with Del Pedro at Pegu a few weeks ago that left us both laughing), there is usually no expectation that you will have more than a few sips of each iteration.  I've got myself into deep, deep trouble doing this a number of times.  Two or three sips of 15 iterations of a cocktail can really add up after a while, especially when you've already had a few cocktails before getting started.  I remember (or more precisely, don't quite remember) sipping through way too many iterations of Erin Williams' brilliant-but-lethal Kill Devil cocktail with Audrey at Pegu.  Ironically, wouldn't you know it, the original formulation turned out to be the best one.  But we did discover all the different ways you can light a drink on fire.

I guess we're in agreement that this constitutes a comp -- although we're also in agreement that it's not an unqualified good.

Again, it's more complicated than that. If I have two sips each of three iterations of a Mai Tai variant, what am I really getting. It's like the chef at a restaurant letting a customer try three teaspoons full of some sauce he's working on. If you have the whole drink, and if that whole drink wouldn't also qualify as an SOP buyback, then you have a comp.

This is, I think, a good bit more complicated and grey in the case of a bar than a restaurant.

Edited May 7, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Chris Amirault]

depending on the rapport the bartender has with the customer.

←

I guess my bottom line is, if it "depends on the rapport the bartender has with the customer," it's a comp.

←

I didn't know Daniel Shoemaker & co. personally before that night, and the only thing we knew about each other was that we are all really, really into cocktails. The only rapport we have was built through that experience. Over the course of the night, I obtained what many people here would consider comps due exclusively, I believe, to my enthusiasm for their craft, which was fueled by their own.

For some people, it's clear that comps that resulted from our shared enthusiasm would somehow threaten the legitimacy of any assessment I shared -- an assessment that would communicate that enthusiasm as a matter of course. That also suggests that someone who showed little to no interest in cocktails would both fail to get comps and would have more legitimate grounds for assessment. And that seems really odd to me.

[slkinsey]

The reality is that, even though buybacks are SOP in most bars, there is some discretion involved and the extent to which one gets buybacks will depend on the "rapport with the bartender." I don't know of any bar that has a policy of "every fourth drink is on the house." Buybacks are not exceptional in the way that restaurant comps are. But they're not given equally either.

[Sneakeater]

I didn't know Daniel Shoemaker & co. personally before that night, and the only thing we knew about each other was that we are all really, really into cocktails. The only rapport we have was built through that experience. Over the course of the night, I obtained what many people here would consider comps due exclusively, I believe, to my enthusiasm for their craft, which was fueled by their own.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Not "rapport" as in they know you, but "rapport" as in they like you, and so are giving you special treatment.

For some people, it's clear that comps that resulted from our shared enthusiasm would somehow threaten the legitimacy of any assessment I shared -- an assessment that would communicate that enthusiasm as a matter of course. That also suggests that someone who showed little to no interest in cocktails would both fail to get comps and would have more legitimate grounds for assessment. And that seems really odd to me.

←

It's not "suggesting" anything. It's something that has to be disclosed because it could have affected your judgment, that's all.

I mean, comps in restaurants (and I'm talking from experience here) pretty much work the exact same way as what you describe above. You sit there and seem engaged and knowledgeable, and suddenly all this extra food starts appearing, and charges end up being dropped from your bill. And we all agree that should be disclosed.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

Last summer a friend and I went to some NYC restaurant you've all heard of, and I engaged in a lengthy chat with the sommelier during wine selection (and selected a moderately pricey although not anything near exhorbitant "special interest" wine-geek bottle, remarking that I also had some at home). A lot extra dishes started appearing. Then, after dinner, the sommelier reappeared and said to me and my friend, "we have an unfinished bottle of 1973 Barolo tonight and were wondering if you would like to join the staff in finishing it."

Is there any doubt that these are "comps"? How different are they from your experience with Daniel Shoemaker & Co.?

Edited May 7, 2009 by Sneakeater (log)

[Chris Hennes]

This is all semantics without the ethics discussion on the other topic. What matters in the end is going to be, whatever we choose to call them, is it unethical not to disclose them when you post comments on your experience? Maybe we can work backwards from that, then, to define "comp" as something the bartender has given you for free that you would feel ethically obliged to disclose in a review. What, of the above list of might-be-comps, would any of you personally feel obliged to disclose in a review of the bar?

[Sneakeater]

It probably isn't clear, but that's EXACTLY how I'm analyzing it.

To be clearer, in my view:

If the "comp" is something that isn't given out generally to most or all customers, as a matter of course, then you have to disclose it. You have to disclose it because (a) it made your experience atypical and (b) it (or the circumstances surrounding it) might have affected your judgment of the experience (even if you firmly believe it didn't).

Edited May 7, 2009 by Sneakeater (log)

[Chris Hennes]

In that case, I have trouble imagining that any of us would write a review of a bar as though we were purely analyzing the contents of the cocktails, and I think it would be disingenuous (i.e. unethical) to omit the fact that we were sitting at the bar chatting up the bartender the whole time. Or to omit the fact that we helped develop a new drink by tasting several varieties, or that we were provided with samples of a half dozen vodkas, etc. It's not so much that these things are "comps" per se as that they are things that a reader would be legitimately concerned might bias a review.

[Sneakeater]

I personally totally agree with you.

[tupac17616]

So it makes more sense to think of "free" as "it doesn't show up on your bill but in the normal course of business it shows up on other people's bills." That may not always be 100% possible to ascertain, of course, in which case when in doubt disclose.

Definitely. That's more precise.

[slkinsey]

In that case, I have trouble imagining that any of us would write a review of a bar as though we were purely analyzing the contents of the cocktails, and I think it would be disingenuous (i.e. unethical) to omit the fact that we were sitting at the bar chatting up the bartender the whole time. Or to omit the fact that we helped develop a new drink by tasting several varieties, or that we were provided with samples of a half dozen vodkas, etc. It's not so much that these things are "comps" per se as that they are things that a reader would be legitimately concerned might bias a review.

Who cares if it would be disingenuous? And screw the "biasing the reviewer." Include these things in your writeup of the bar because it's something great about the bar that you want people to know about, and your report would be meaningfully incomplete without it because this is what bars are all about. The "freeness" of it, unless it really goes far above and beyond what would be possible for most any customer in terms of buybacks, etc. seems like a red herring to me. The idea of "purely analyzing the contents of the cocktails" seems nonsensical, impossible and irrelevant to me.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of things that could bias a report I write about a bar far more than any free drink. For example, I was hanging around engaging in drunken banter with some bartenders after hours a few weeks ago. One of them mentioned how he got a bit nervous when his mentor from a previous bar came to visit and wanted to make sure they were really on their "A Game." Then he turned to me and said something like: "honestly... Sam, you know a lot of people and you've known us for a long time. . . I get a little nervous and want to make sure we're on our A game when you come in here, too." Now, besides being a flattering and sweet to say, because I can't even see the ballpark his mentor plays in, it does make me wonder whether it's possible for me to go into most any of the cocktail bars I'd want to go to and have a "typical experience." I'm sure this is true for a lot of people.

So, the question is whether I go through all the tedium of disclosing that when I write about a cocktail bar, as well as documenting every discount I might receive and the circumstances in which I received it. It doesn't seem useful or worth it. If I did all the disclosing about possible sources of bias in my recent writeup of Dutch Kills the post would have been 50% longer with 0% added value. I even used to work a day job in the nearby Citicorp building years ago!

Edited May 7, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Sneakeater]

You don't know it's 0% added value because you don't know how much worse a "normal" person's experience would be.

In this case, I'm sure the bottom-line average experience at Dutch Kill is of a very high quality. But there are too many places in the world where experiences differ greatly based on whether you're a friend of the house (or, more to the point -- since we all agree there's nothing wrong with a place's treating its friends well -- places where the "friends'" experience is excellent but the bottom-line "average" experience can be deficient). Think of Ruth Riechl's famous Le Cirque review, or the obvious differences in experience given out at Daniel.

Meaning, it's possible -- in this case highly unlikely -- that your review without disclosures is of 0% value to nonmembers of the "cocktail club". I don't say that as an accusation; I just think it's a possibility you have to consider.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Sneakeater (log)

[daisy17]

In that case, I have trouble imagining that any of us would write a review of a bar as though we were purely analyzing the contents of the cocktails, and I think it would be disingenuous (i.e. unethical) to omit the fact that we were sitting at the bar chatting up the bartender the whole time. Or to omit the fact that we helped develop a new drink by tasting several varieties, or that we were provided with samples of a half dozen vodkas, etc. It's not so much that these things are "comps" per se as that they are things that a reader would be legitimately concerned might bias a review.

Who cares if it would be disingenuous? And screw the "biasing the reviewer." Include these things in your writeup of the bar because it's something great about the bar that you want people to know about, and your report would be meaningfully incomplete without it because this is what bars are all about. The "freeness" of it, unless it really goes far above and beyond what would be possible for most any customer in terms of buybacks, etc. seems like a red herring to me.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of things that could bias a report I write about a bar far more than any free drink. For example, I was hanging around engaging in drunken banter with some bartenders after hours a few weeks ago. One of them mentioned how he got a bit nervous when his mentor from a previous bar came to visit and wanted to make sure they were really on their "A Game." Then he turned to me and said something like: "honestly... Sam, you know a lot of people and you've known us for a long time. . . I get a little nervous and want to make sure we're on our A game when you come in here, too." Now, besides being a flattering and sweet to say, because I can't even see the ballpark his mentor plays in, it does make me wonder whether it's possible for me to go into most any of the cocktail bars I'd want to go to and have a "typical experience."

So, the question is whether I go through all the tedium of disclosing that when I write about a cocktail bar, as well as documenting every discount I might receive and the circumstances in which I received it. It doesn't seem useful or worth it. If I did all he disclosing about possible sources of bias in my recent writeup of Dutch Kills the post would have been 50% longer with 0% added value.

←

We're talking about egullet posts here? Frank Bruni doesn't even go into that much detail about who he's talked to on his visits - am I supposed to? If it's disingenuous and unethical to omit the fact that you chatted with the bartender the whole time and tasted some stuff that you weren't charged for, you're going to have to ignore every post of mine about a dining or drinking experience that took place when I was sitting at a bar. Anywhere, even if I'm not a regular. As Sam said, this is what bars are all about.

On the buyback thing, I have no clue what policies exist for each bar I go to. I may have my 2nd round bought back and the guy next to me may never see a free drink. There's no way for me to know what the rest of the world gets. The bartender gave me a taste of an amaro I haven't tried, or asked me to try a new cocktail he's working on. So? If I believed that being these details meant that non-regulars would automatically have a less impressive experience then I wouldn't feel comfortable writing posts as I do. There is simply no way to account for all these variables. Got to agree with Sam here - adding this kind of detail just doesn't tell the reader very much.

[Sneakeater]

Daisy, you have to remember you're writing for other people to read and rely.

There are too many places I've been to -- not cocktail bars so much, but since I'm part of that "club", too, it wouldn't happen to me at those -- where it was apparent to me that I was misled by overpraise from a claque or coterie, who were having an experience I just wasn't. I resented that, as a reader. So would you.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Sneakeater (log)

[slkinsey]

Meaning, it's possible -- in this case highly unlikely -- that your review without disclosures is of 0% value to nonmembers of the "cocktail club".  I don't say that as an accusation; I just think it's a possibility you have to consider.

Well, perhaps the value isn't zero percent. But the value approaches zero percent relative to the volume of text it would take to explain all the various connections and potential sources of bias I might have with respect to any number of NYC cocktail bars.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, what is a comp, even if you go by your standard of "something that isn't given out generally to most or all customers, as a matter of course" it is still difficult to nail this down. What's "normal" for some people is not normal for others. A good looking young girl is likely to get more comps than weatherbeaten older man in many bars (unless the man is, say, Tom Jones). Is her experience "normal" or not? Someone who has a keen interest in mixology and who knows something about cocktails is likely to have certain interactions with bartenders that are more likely to lead to certain kinds of treatment. Normal? Or a "disclosable comp""? Some people are simply more gregarious (or more brazen) than others, and are therefore likely to have a different kind of experience at a bar than another person. Should this be disclosed? Meanwhile, if it's the kind of bar that is built for repeated business, perhaps it's not meaninful to write about the bar from the perspective of an entirely neutral stranger who just walked in the door for the first time and don't know nothin' about mixin' no cocktails.

Again, I think it's a lot more clear-cut in a restaurant, where free anything is clearly exception and not SOP, and plenty of people may go an entire lifetime without getting anthing comped at a restaurant.

There are too many places I've been to . . . where it was apparent to me that I was misled by overpraise from a claque or coterie, who were having an experience I just wasn't.  I resented that, as a reader.  So would you.

Or... now I know this is a radical idea... or, you were misled by people who did not know what they were talking about, or who were easily led into fawning fandom.

Edited May 7, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Sneakeater]

I think the hot girl and the person with a keen interest in mixology got disclosable comps. The gregarious guy should disclose any comps he gets; otherwise, I don't think he has to disclose that he's gregarious. I do think he should disclose it if he's any kind of friend of the 'tender, though.

I think your last point is salient. I have to think about it.

But one initial response is that you may be encouraging the hordes of clueless Vodka Tonic drinkers that pollute Serious Cocktail Bars during prime time. I understand that what's "pollution" to me may be "outreach" to you. But nobody thinks it's such a great thing to get steakeaters into Yasuda so they can complain that the fish isn't cooked.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Sneakeater (log)

[daisy17]

Daisy, you have to remember you're writing for other people to read and rely.

There are too many places I've been to -- not cocktail bars so much, but since I'm part of that "club", too, it wouldn't happen to me at those -- where it was apparent to me that I was misled by overpraise from a claque or coterie, who were having an experience I just wasn't.  I resented that, as a reader.  So would you.

←

Yes, you are totally right, and your point about Ruth Reichl's Le Cirque review is spot on. There's no way to control for everyone's personal experience. The treatment of the people around me influence how I feel about a place. How many nights at the bar at Death & Co have I watched people swoon from a taste of their first real cocktail? If I felt that they (and everyone else) were not having a stellar experience, I wouldn't feel comfortable writing the way I do about the place. No matter where I was - regular or not - if I was being treated well and others weren't I would not leave with a good feeling. I realize that can't be accounted for every time and may not be accurate. What I'm grappling with is that I simply don't know how I would ever post if I felt that I had to disclose all these things. Does anyone want to read about it? No. Would I want to come off as bragging? No. I have never taken for granted being treated well (whether I'm a regular or not) and certainly am not about to start sounding like I do. If it means I have to detail my conversations and relationships with bartenders and waitstaff, I probably just won't post.

The way to best ensure it doesn't happen? Many posts by many people reflecting a variety of experiences. We have that already.