What, Exactly, Is a Comp?

[Sneakeater]

I dunno. It's true that I've definitely been accused of bragging in the past when I was just disclosing comps I thought I was obligated to disclose. But I'm a big boy, and I can take that.

But how hard is it to remark, at some point in your write-up, that you're well known to the house? Once you make it a habit, it just comes easily.

And I don't think you have to do it every time you post, if you post about a place frequently. Just periodically, so that it never becomes stale information.

(As far as disclosing comps go, I just put a note at the end of every write-up I do, marked "COMP DISCLOSURE." It's inelegant, but it's easy.)

Edited May 7, 2009 by Sneakeater (log)

[slkinsey]

I think the hot girl and the person with a keen interest in mixology got disclosable comps.

Working in the performing arts as I do, it has been my privilege and duty to spend time and work in the company of any number of uncommonly beautiful women over the years. Without fail, most of them got preferential treatment in a wide variety of contexts. Almost without fail, they took full advantage of these oportunities. And almost without fail they did not fully appreciate that they were getting special treatment because of their looks. All of which is to say that, how is the hot girl to know that her 2 buybacks out of 4 are exceptional and therefore disclosable, presumably because "most people" would only get 1 buyback out of 4?

This is merely an example, but it's one of any number I could make in which distinguishing special treatment from SOP in a bar is not as easy as one might think.

[slkinsey]

(As far as disclosing comps go, I just put a note at the end of every write-up I do, marked "COMP DISCLOSURE."  It's inelegant, but it's easy.)

Really? You've made any number of posts in the Pegu Club thread, as well as on various other cocktail bars and cocktail bar-related threads. I don't think I've ever seen you disclose a comped cocktail in a single one of these posts. Does this mean you never get buybacks?

Edited May 7, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[daisy17]

All of which is to say that, how is the hot girl to know that her 2 buybacks out of 4 are exceptional and therefore disclosable, presumably because "most people" would only get 1 buyback out of 4?

This is merely an example, but it's one of any number I could make in which distinguishing special treatment from SOP in a bar is not as easy as one might think.

←

That's what I was getting at earlier. I don't know what everyone else gets. My hotness and enthusiasm may be getting me the same benefits that ugly disinterested people get. And if you think I'm going to start asking what the buyback policies are, I assure you, I am not.

To SE's point about being well known to the house - I think that many of us already make that evident. Sam's post on Dutch Kills, for example - did anyone reading it think that he didn't know Giuseppe?

[Sneakeater]

(As far as disclosing comps go, I just put a note at the end of every write-up I do, marked "COMP DISCLOSURE."  It's inelegant, but it's easy.)

Really? You've made any number of posts in the Pegu Club thread, as well as on various other cocktail bars and cocktail bar-related threads. I don't think I've ever seen you disclose a comped cocktail in a single one of these posts. Does this mean you never get buybacks?

←

I don't write many reviews of cocktail bars (as distinguished from random comments in discussions). When I do, I'm pretty sure I note whatever comps I got.

(I should also note that I adopted that usage toward the end of the time when I regularly posted reviews [as opposed to random comments] on eG. I think if you look at my more recent reviews elsewhere, you'll see a very regular practice.)

Edited May 7, 2009 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

To SE's point about being well known to the house - I think that many of us already make that evident.  Sam's post on Dutch Kills, for example - did anyone reading it think that he didn't know Giuseppe?

←

BUT DAISY, THAT'S MY POINT!

It isn't hard to do. Most of us do it anyway.

[slkinsey]

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.

I have to say that this attitude seems more than a little patronizing. I would never think of changing what I wrote about about a bar out of the concern that I might be encouraging people I was too cool to hang out with to go to my favorite bars. Talk about your ethical quandarys! Disclosing a comp pales in comparison to writing with the background motivation of keeping out the rubes. I assume you didn't mean for it to come out that way.

[Sneakeater]

I totally didn't.

To try to elaborate a little, nobody thinks it's a positive good to attract people whose taste is very obviously limited to (the excellent) Peter Luger's to, say, Corton. It's not a matter of "cool" or "uncool" -- and certainly not a matter of patronizing people who like Luger's. If somebody isn't likely to appreciate what a place does well, why is it such a good thing to attract them to the place?

I loved my parents, but I would never take them to a fancy French restaurant. They just wouldn't have liked it. What would be the point?

I see the flaws in what I just said, and its application to what we were discussing. But I just wanted to try to clear up what I was trying to say.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Sneakeater (log)

[GordonCooks]

A free appetizer is a comp. Heat & A/C are not.

[Sneakeater]

Something that occurs to me is that I'm making an assumption that perhaps isn't self-evident.

I'm assuming the disclosure rules I'm advocating apply only to write-ups in the nature of "reviews", and not what I've referred to as "random comments." I don't think they're implicated every time you talk about a place -- only when you sit down and write something meant to be a full-bore evaluation.

I guess I'd add, unless it directly affects your comment.

For example, let's say (as often happens) that Daisy mentions that a particular cocktail somewhere is really good, and I then chime in to say I agree. I don't think I need to disclose that I'm known to the house, or that other drinks I had were comped the night I tried that cocktail. If that particular cocktail were comped, though, I think I'd have to disclose that. If I'd had the cocktail several times, sometimes comped, sometimes not, (a) I probably wouldn't remember the comps and (b) I don't think they'd matter anymore, probably, in terms of having affected my judgment.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

A few thoughts in no particular order:

1. The more you think about the review/non-review distinction the less you'll think there's a meaningful distinction to be made. As a matter of ethics it seems clear enough that any statement offering a judgment about a product or service should trigger the same set of requirements. (If no judgment is being offered, as might be the case in an essay about a childhood food memory, there's not much disclosure potential.)

2. I've found over the past few years that a reliable quick test for yes/no on disclosure is "If I don't disclose this and tomorrow the whole world learns about it will it look bad in the eyes of the average hypothetical moderately well informed reader?"

3. When there have been a variety of freebies and pseudo freebies falling at various places on the comp continuum and maybe the status of some or all is unclear, it's exhausting and probably gratuitous to go on and on about the specifics and unknowns. Saying something along the lines of "A lot of freebies came my way and I have no way of knowing whether that's SOP at this place," if true, would seem to cover it.

4. Special relationships can present potential conflicts of interest quite aside from the issue of comps. If I ever get the sense that, in his or her relationship with me, a person in the biz might be transitioning from service provider to something more then I figure that's worth noting.

[Sneakeater]

1. The more you think about the review/non-review distinction the less you'll think there's a meaningful distinction to be made. As a matter of ethics it seems clear enough that any statement offering a judgment about a product or service should trigger the same set of requirements. (If no judgment is being offered, as might be the case in an essay about a childhood food memory, there's not much disclosure potential.)

←

I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree.

If I'm writing something in the nature of a review, where I describe my experience of a meal or set of meals at a restaurant or a night or set of nights at a bar, then it's obvious I have to make comp disclosures.

If I'm joining a discussion where I say, "I agree that not allowing standees keeps noise and croud levels tolerable at that bar," or, "on the whole, I prefer the drinks at D&C to the drinks at Pegu," it's hard for me to see how comp disclosures come into play.

Even though those statements are in some sense evaluative, they aren't specific enough to implicate the disclosure of any comps. Even if I've received comps at the bars being discussed, they're not implicated by those statements.

If I'm friends with management, that might be different: that might warrant disclosure. But as Sam and Daisy have pointed out, that usually becomes obvious in any event.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

Which is really a complicated way of making the rather obvious point that you only should feel constrained to disclose comps if they relate to what you're writing about.

[slkinsey]

If I'm joining a discussion where I say, "I agree that not allowing standees keeps noise and croud levels tolerable at that bar," or, "on the whole, I prefer the drinks at D&C to the drinks at Pegu," it's hard for me to see how comp disclosures come into play.

For the sake of argument: What if it turns out that you get a lot more buybacks or other kinds of special treatment* at D&C compared to Pegu? If you believe this is significant enough that you should mention it in a more lengthy writeup, why wouldn't it also be significant enough to disclose even when saying that you prefer the D&C drinks over the Pegu drinks? One could certainly argue that a number one-liners to the effect that you prefer D&C drinks over Pegu drinks (and you mention this frequently enough that I've been well aware of your preference for some time) has a cumulative effect that is far more influential than a single, more detailed post. I say that if you believe something absolutely must be disclosed in a detailed post, then you should disclose it in any post.

* Not that I'm saying you do.

[Sneakeater]

I agree with that.

[slkinsey]

So, what does that mean? From now on you're going to put a disclosure at the bottom of every bar post you make saying, "Disclosure: I'm a regular visitor to both of these bars, I've known some of these bartenders for years and at one or more bars, and in addition to probably getting some special attention at this bar as well as other bars where these bartenders have worked, my bill has often been discounted to the tune of 20% and occasionally as much as 50%"?

Edited May 8, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[Sneakeater]

See, if it's Pegu and D&C, where my relationship with both the bars is about the same, I don't see how any disclosure is necessary. I think the standard is, you need to disclose if it's something that could be thought to affect your judgment. If it's something that's equal at both places being compared, it's a null factor. If (contrary to fact in this case) it weren't equal, then I don't think it would hurt for me to qualify my statements that I prefer the drinks at D&C to those at Pegu with the addendum, "of course, I'm particularly well-treated at D&C."

I'll also repeat that I agree with you and Daisy that over the course of a posting history it can become obvious that you have a history with a place, so that you don't have to repeat it in every post. Only often enough that it doesn't become buried.

For example, if every review I write of Ssam Bar or Franny's contains a long list of disclosed comps, I don't think that each random comment I make in between reviews needs to refer back to the fact that I'm a well-treated regular.

Similarly, your review of Dutch Kill made it obvious that you're friends with many people there. I don't think you need to keep repeating that throughout that thread.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Sneakeater (log)

[slkinsey]

First, I should mention that you're being a very good sport about me breaking your balls on some of this stuff. It's just because you're willing to play, and because you either have a position contrary to mine or are in a position for me to make a larger point.

I think the standard is, you need to disclose if it's something that could be thought to affect your judgment.

My problem is that there are such radically different viewpoints on this that I think it's difficult to even come up with an idea of what the hypothetical Reasonable Person would think.

I, for example, don't particularly think that any amount of comping from 0% to 100% would make me believe that someone's report about a cocktail bar was unduly influenced, so long as that person's report or history of reports made me think that they knew what they were talking about. If, to make an example, I were to read a glowing report about a bar from Robert Hess, whose opinion I believe is well-informed in this area and who I believe to be ethical, and were I to later find out that he had been comped 100% by the bar -- it wouldn't affect my reading of his report one iota.

[Chris Hennes]

In the judicial world, a judge is is expected to recuse himself from a case to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. I'm not sure it matters that a hard-core cocktailian thinks that Robert Hess is ethical: we're trying to ferret out what a "hypothetical moderately well-informed reader" would think. And, for example, when I read Hess's book and he has a recipe for the "Bloomsbury," he doesn't say "I recommend Tanqueray 10," he says "I created this drink as part of a promotion for Tanqueray 10, and so that is the recommended gin to use." He's only got one paragraph in there, and 1/4 of it is this disclosure!

[Sneakeater]

First, I should mention that you're being a very good sport about me breaking your balls on some of this stuff.  It's just because you're willing to play, and because you either have a position contrary to mine or are in a position for me to make a larger point.

I think the standard is, you need to disclose if it's something that could be thought to affect your judgment.

My problem is that there are such radically different viewpoints on this that I think it's difficult to even come up with an idea of what the hypothetical Reasonable Person would think.

I, for example, don't particularly think that any amount of comping from 0% to 100% would make me believe that someone's report about a cocktail bar was unduly influenced, so long as that person's report or history of reports made me think that they knew what they were talking about. If, to make an example, I were to read a glowing report about a bar from Robert Hess, whose opinion I believe is well-informed in this area and who I believe to be ethical, and were I to later find out that he had been comped 100% by the bar -- it wouldn't affect my reading of his report one iota.

←

I think (this is going to get practically Rawlsian) that you have to do your "reasonable reader" analysis on the assumption that the writer is an unknown quantity. I don't think there can be a different standard for well-known posters than for unknown posters -- and certainly not for knowledgeable posters than for unknowledgeable ones.

ETA -- Except, of course, insofar as someone's previous posts have made a relationship so obvious that it needn't be repeatedly redisclosed. But that's different from what you're talking about.

ETA -- Chris said the same thing much better.

PS re the first paragraph -- I've argued with you enough in person to know that.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Sneakeater (log)

[Dave Hatfield]

Maybe what's needed is a more precise definition of what is or is not considered a 'comp'

Let me try this:

To me a comp is when one is provided a free meal, service or product. That is a whole meal, a kettle of fish, free tickets to XX or whatever.

Then there is what I might call a 'freebie'; something that is thrown in as an extra be it dessert, a glass of wine, a thirteenth egg or whatever. These are common as gestures of goodwill to a customer (particularly a regular customer) and a whole different kettle of fish to a comp.

Thus jesteinf & his wife were given a freebie, not a comp.

Oakapple, sorry to disappoint you, but I never look at Chowhound. I guess I'm more of the Michelin school of thought.

Sneakeater, I have no real problem with freebies. My problem lies with 'comps' as I define them. We eat out a lot and have done for a long time, but never get offered a whole meal on the house.

Makes for a good discussion doesn't it.

[Peter Green]

It's a fair questions. I've been offered extra dishes on the basis of the kitchen having messed up. I don't really consider that a comp. They're just being good about making amends (and more often that not they don't do this)

In other cases, I've arranged a meal across continents through conjoined restaurants, and they've been kind enough to have some bubbly waiting for me when I do show up, a month or two later. Then it's just the (unwarranted) anticipation of a guest.

Is this a comp, or just kindness?

A more important question, for many here....you frequent a restaurant because you appreciate what they do. Because you appreciate what they do, you strike up a friendship with them. A camaraderie develops, and, lo and behold, you have the simple human act of making friends.

Does this mean you can no longer comment on what they are doing in the kitchen?

Myself, I would hope not. I think that we must put some sense of community in perspective. For the true professionals, it's another matter. They're paid for what they do, and they're beholden to their masters. At work, depending upon the position I occupy, I don't socialize with those above or beneath me in the hierarchy.

That's business.

This isn't business, this should be fun.

Honest fun.

But fun.

[Dave Hatfield]

Is this a comp, or just kindness?

A more important question, for many here....you frequent a restaurant because you appreciate what they do.  Because you appreciate what they do, you strike up a friendship with them.  A camaraderie develops, and, lo and behold, you have the simple human act of making friends.

Does this mean you can no longer comment on what they are doing in the kitchen?

.

←

To me its a kindness and nothing wrong with that.

Of curse you can & should comment upon your friend's cooking. That's a good honest relationship & if your friends want to to treat you to a free meal occasionally that's fine too.

As to business relationships all I can say is that your style is very different to what mine was before I retired. Some of my best friends are those I met in business who either worked for me or I them.

[prasantrin]

Grant Achatz wrote a bit on comps and "special treatment" in his Back of the House column in The Atlantic.

Interesting to see the other side (though in part I, it's less about comps than why some people get different treatment at his restaurant--it's more a matter of logistics in Alinea's case, so it seems).

[Fat Guy]

He gives the logistics explanation in support of one incident of special treatment, but on the larger point he notes:

The chef and the restaurant has a certain responsibility to "take care of" its valued guests, that is just the way the world works. But at the level we are striving for we also have the accountability to make everyone feel special.

That, to me, is exactly the attitude a restaurant needs to have. But even then, there are customers who can't live with other customers getting better treatment.

Me, when I see other customers getting better treatment than I'm getting, I may see it as a positive thing. If I go to a restaurant for the first time, and I have an excellent experience, but I see regulars getting lots of comps and special items over and above the excellent baseline, it makes me want to become a regular too. I've really got to wonder about people who, when they're getting a great meal, can allow that to be ruined by the fact that other people -- generally people who've earned it through repeat business -- are getting a better one.