Zagat Guide

[ngatti]

John Mariani raises some pointed questions

About half way down the newsletter after the NYC report.

Nick

[Jinmyo]

Nick, I keep forgetting to check on that site. Nice link. Thanks.

[macrosan]

OK, so I love the questions Is there any realistic chance he'll get some answers ?

The last question, about whether the Zagats actually have any input into the final ratings, is probably unfair. My guess is that if they did, someone inside the organization would have blown the whistle by now. Surely, surely. You can't blame the Zagats for how restaurateurs treat them, they're just a funny bunch (the restaurateurs, I mean).

[thom]

Everyone should have a hobby, and mine is playing devil's advocate...

Below is a summary of the questions and some mildly flippant responses. I know it's a red rag to all the Zagat haters on here (I may even throw in the words 'elitist', or just plain 'snobby'), but it keeps me off the streets...

Q1.How does Zagat know how old or how trustworthy reports are?

A1. It doesn't really, but you would hope that out of tens of thousands of responses any anomolous results would be in the vast minority, and would be evened out. For them to have any impact at all is not ideal, but in terms of a pocket sized quick reference guide this is not the end of the world. You can also argue about whether an individuals ability to judge restaurants is up to scratch or not, but this is a subjective business. Even the rarified pallettes on egullet struggle to reach agreement on a restaurants qualities.

Q2. Why do restaurants that purchase expensive, customised copies of Zagat not get bad reviews?

A2. Turn it on it's head. The guides provide marketing for the restaurants. If a restaurant gets a positive review then in makes sense to purchase some extra copies to put into the hands of potential or current customers. Flagging up a glowing review which is respected and independent can only help a restaurant's cause. I can't imagine that many restaurants who get a slating feel compelled to call and order reprints.

3. How, of nearly 2,000 restaurants in the 2002 edition, almost none received a rating of “poor to fair” (0-9 points)?

A variety of reasons. Most guides (and indeed most reviewers) tend to naturally err towards including more restaurants with positive reviews than negative - kind of 'opt in' rather than 'opt out' eating. Also, due to the nature of such a quality scale the extremes tend to be rare, and varied opinions will reduce any peaks or troughs still further.

Secondly, it's very easy to say a restaurant was appalling because your asparagus was woody, your soup tepid or your brain masala overcooked. It's even easy to confuse 'appalling' as a relative term with 'disappointing' subject to perception or expectation. In reality though, a straight up 0-9 would have to be genuinely, gut wrenchingly grim, and for informed restaurant guide readers (which you would expect most of the respondents to be) to encounter such a meal in sufficient numbers to create an overall average of 0-9 would probably be almost as rare a situation as a place getting top marks.

In fact, would a restaurant that bad even stay around long enough to generate a number of reports? Feel free to post any examples from your own experiences...

Q4. How can Peter Luger (excellent though very limited) be ranked at the same level as Four Seasons, Lespinasse, and Aureole? Why has Daniel cut opening hours when 'Zagat' proclaims it 'popular'?

A4. That's market research for you (which is effectively what Zagat is), sometimes it throws up bizarre and inexplicable results. All Zagat does is neutrally report the statistical findings of its surveys. Statistics can be tricky things, and should not be taken as absolute truths - noone really has 2.3 children though it is the UK average. As long as you understand the process that produce the results it is possible to view them through a filter of common sense.

In the specific case of Daniel, many factors other than just perceived number of diners at a particularly time can affect a restaurants operation.

Q5. If Tim and Nina Zagat do not influence the final figures then why the panic when they turn up at restaurants?

A5. I think it is a bit Pavlovian, rather than anything more sinister. The name 'Zagat', with its perceived power to dispassionately crush an aspiring restaurateurs dreams in an instant, does actually strike fear into the heart of your average chef, particularly those whose restaurant operates within traditional Zagat strongholds (NY, Paris, London etc).

I genuinely think that the Zagats do not bend survey results to their own ends in any way. Harden's (a UK equivalent to Zagat, which I find pretty trustworthy and extremely useful) has a different approach and will clearly flag up a handful of reports each edition based on 'editors findings' to cover high profile restaurants that may have missed out on survey responses due to timing etc.

Ok, let the Zagat baiting bunfight begin...

[tommy]

thom addressed this beautifully and saved me a lot of typing.

the piece, to me, was pretty sophomoric.

[Ron Johnson]

Yes, thank god someone is defending the Zagats. I understand they are very fragile.

[tommy]

Yes, thank god someone is defending the Zagats.  I understand they are very fragile.  

seems more like he was picking apart the inane questions posed by the writer rather than defending the zagats. double

[ngatti]

That's what this is all about Thom. A thoughtful response. Whatever ones feelings about Zagat, your response should be read and stirred into the opinion forming mix.

Thanx

Nick

[Jinmyo]

Shaken. Not stirred.

Nice response thom.

[Wilfrid]

Good points, thom, although I still should have thought that the growing Zagat empire is ripe for some more thorough investigative journalism.

[Liza]

In the current Food Award issue of New York magazine, there's a shiny-paper-printed Zagat guide to heartwarming movies. Looks like the empire is expanding, just around the middle of course.

[hollywood]

If you are like me you are jealous you didn't think of the Zagat guide first. But I do think they shape the results and ignore ballot box stuffing by others. I also think there's a tendency on the part of voters to exaggerate their habits in terms of number of times they eat at high end spots. In the early years in LA, I used to write in places all the time. But they never made the guide. Yet the editors routinely name new places that have just opened and weren't on the ballot. Also in the days of the paper ballots, some local places were known for handing out ballots to their customers in hopes of getting good votes.

On the movie front, their guide lacks credibility in that it is so focused on films of the last 5 years. They worked around this a little by getting a lot of film students to vote. Otherwise lots of classic films wouldn't have gotten any votes. Basically, it's a decent check list or inspiration for what to rent at the video store. Can't see this being published more than every 3 or 4 years.

[Wilfrid]

I hadn't seen the film guide. There's a Zagat guide to golf courses now. Where will it all end?

[macrosan]

On the 18th green, I assume.

[hollywood]

Where will it all end?

You are making an unwarranted assumption.

[Bux]

Good points, thom, although I still should have thought that the growing Zagat empire is ripe for some more thorough investigative journalism.

I take it you've not read Fat Guy's opinions as published in Commentary a year or more back in time. They were interesting, but I'm not sure if they're online.

Thom's post was excellent as far as it was a criticism of the criticism of Zagat and not a defense of the Zagats. Have you ever seen a couple arrive at a restaurant and do the what-do-you-mean-you've-lost-our-reservation song and dance. How often do you think the house lost the reservation and how often do you think the couple is trying to scam their way in? When it's the Zagats looking indignant, is it easy to believe it's a name the restaurant would lose?

[hollywood]

How often do you think the house lost the reservation and how often do you think the couple is trying to scam their way in? When it's the Zagats looking indignant, is it easy to believe it's a name the restaurant would lose?

That does it! I'm changing my name to Zagat.

[Deacon]

In reality though, a straight up 0-9 would have to be genuinely, gut wrenchingly grim, . . . In fact, would a restaurant that bad even stay around long enough to generate a number of reports?

Good point. Of course, the gut-wrenchingly bad places are the ones you don't return to a second time. They put themselves out of business with no repeat business and bad word-of-mouth before the low rating can be published.

And also, the most fitting punishment for a score of 0-9 for food is just to leave it out of the NYC guide altogether. The thing's already thick enough to choke a horse and has tiny type: T & N don't need to include the deadwood.

[tommy]

Of course, the gut-wrenchingly bad places are the ones you don't return to a second time. They put themselves out of business with no repeat business and bad word-of-mouth before the low rating can be published.

if only it really happened that way. 20% of NYC restaurants would be long gone without taking up valuable real estate.

[Deacon]

That does it!  I'm changing my name to Zagat.

I'm changing my name to either James Hoffa or John Gotti. Just for restaurants. I want to see the looks of shock on the faces of the staff at the reservation desk when I arrive.

(Maybe "Randall Flagg" would be good too. Just for Vegas. Perhaps "Keyser Soze"?)

This brings up an interesting point, one which perhaps Shaw can address. I know it's illegal to give a credit card number that is not your own, of course, to ensure a table, but what about making a reservation under a fictitious name? If you were famous but wanted a quiet evening, you'd make a reservation under a fictitious name to avoid publicity. But what about everyone else? If I wanted to reserve a table as "John Smith," that surely couldn't be illegal, could it--just for fun? What about "Cameron Crowe," though? What about "Russell Crowe"? Where do you legally draw the line?

[tommy]

If you were famous but wanted a quiet evening, you'd make a reservation under a fictitious name to avoid publicity. But what about everyone else?

why would it matter?

i often use names other than my own to make reservations. so do several people i know. i have no fear of being sued or arrested.

[Ron Johnson]

Yes, thank god someone is defending the Zagats.  I understand they are very fragile.  

seems more like he was picking apart the inane questions posed by the writer rather than defending the zagats. double

Seems that way, doesn't it?

[Deacon]

i often use names other than my own to make reservations.  so do several people i know.  i have no fear of being sued or arrested. 

I guess the only risk you're running is disappointing the staff when you show up and you're not Russell Crowe, as they were expecting. I guess they can't legally FORCE you to make a reservation under your own name. (That will probably come later, after some restaurateur complains.) I suppose it ranks with the crank call as an annoyance for them.

[tommy]

I guess the only risk you're running is disappointing the staff when you show up and you're not Russell Crowe, as they were expecting. I guess they can't legally FORCE you to make a reservation under your own name. (That will probably come later, after some restaurateur complains.) I suppose it ranks with the crank call as an annoyance for them.

i would hope this doesn't annoy anyone. names, unlike CC numbers and SSNs, are not unique. of course, if you pull some sort of song and dance on the phone, putting on a woody allen impression, well then you're just ridiculous. but i doubt you're upsetting anyone or breaking the law.

on a related note, when my assistant calls to make a reservation for me, she often uses her own name. do you think at some point she'll be forced to use my name? and then if i can't make it but send someone in my place, do you think there's some sort of ramification because "mr. tommy" didn't show up to dinner? all due respect, i just can't fathom any of this.

[hollywood]

On a related note, when my assistant calls to make a reservation for me, she often uses her own name.  do you think at some point she'll be forced to use my name?  and then if i can't make it but send someone in my place, do you think there's some sort of ramification because "mr. tommy" didn't show up to dinner?  all due respect, i just can't fathom any of this.

So, how much clout does your name carry? What's your last name? Mind if I pose as you on the Left Coast?