Top Chef calls to rant about negative comments

[KD1191]

If the previous 6 visits had all been exemplary, the aberration should have been handled in private baring an indication of a pattern of descent.

The OP did say in a subsequent post that they had tried to deal with it that night and had not been successfull.

We did discuss it with the maitre d before leaving but he failed to address any of our concerns.

If you had a terrible experience somewhere because you happened to attend on an evening where all of the staff you'd grown to love/expect were absent, would you stop at mentioning your displeasure to one of the staff that same evening? Or, might you perhaps consider following up with the absent chef and/or manager you purported to have a relationship with prior to airing the dirty laundry?

Edited November 5, 2010 by KD1191 (log)

[IndyRob]

If the previous 6 visits had all been exemplary, the aberration should have been handled in private baring an indication of a pattern of descent.

The OP did say in a subsequent post that they had tried to deal with it that night and had not been successfull.

We did discuss it with the maitre d before leaving but he failed to address any of our concerns.

This being the new Maître d'... "(who we mistook for a regular waiter as he acted in all ways just like a regular waiter) didn’t even wish her a happy birthday."

Service was a problem and they identified the new Maître d' as a particular problem. So they complained to...the new Maître d'.

But then there's the CRM (Client Relationship Management/computerized relationship mockup) thing. The Maître d' should have known about the wife's birthday.

I've just had a birthday and was surprised by two letters from two restaurants (one I've been to, and one I have not) offering me free birthday entrees. My reaction was "WTF are you doing with my personal information?"

I'll go way out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps the new Maître d' was accustomed to old school personal service. Wherein you build a personal relationship with people by talking to them. Not from notes posted in a computer.

I suspect that I could be very well off base here, but I am feeling that this could have been handled far less publicly to better effect. Unless being public was the goal.

[dragonflychef]

Seems like publicity was the goal here, and we are playing into it. Sad

Edited November 7, 2010 by dragonflychef (log)

[BertieWooster]

Maybe he called to complain about the appalling way the original review was written. It's so pedantic and over-written as to come across as a spoof.

Oh come on Bertie, you cannot be serious...Shakespeare it is not but the criticisms were pretty mild..and as for pedantic and over written,check out AA Gill and Mr Coren or the King of Pomposity himself, the one and only Jay Rayner.

I wasn't talking about the level of criticism. Indeed, it IS very mild. So mild, in fact, that one wonders why the criticisms were made at all. However, the blog is appallingly written. Mostly grammatically correct, but empty, tedious, long-winded, and making Michael Winner appear shy and humble. I don't agree with much of what Gill says, but he's wonderful to read. We live in a world where more people want to write books than regularly read them. Blogs like this show why that is so wrong. Most people should have their fingers broken rather than being allowed anywhere near a pen or keyboard.

And, after reading a few of their reviews, they come across as so whiningly self-important that I seriously doubt the original claims about the phone call.

Interesting that the general feeling on this thread is abut 70% (though lessening) in sympathy with the bloggers. The tide on The Guardian thread is about 98% against them. The view of food obsessives vs the view of the real (okay, Guardianista) world?

[jenc]

And, after reading a few of their reviews, they come across as so whiningly self-important that I seriously doubt the original claims about the phone call.

From the Guardian quoting Marcus Wareing:

"I felt I could call them because we have spoken before - we then had a private conversation which I am saddened to see has now been posted."

MW was given the opportunity to respond and didn't refute the CC's claims - he was just "saddened" to see it posted. Just wanted to point that out.

I agree that with everyone that posts "they're doing it for the fame!" but really, who blogs for an absent audience? Just because they capitalized on things when interest from the public was raised doesn't make what occurred false. Or bad people. If they didn't have an audience, this thread would have fallen off the first page and not be on page 3.

The other thing I find perplexing about the haterade for the CC (whether you like their blog or not) - they had brought up their issues with the Maitre D before they left, which is appropriate. The staff, regardless of long-time patrons or not, should have responded. At a restaurant of that calibre, why would you expect less? Why would the onus be on the patrons to run to MW to complain further?

When they write about their experience, they state that this is one of many times they've gone to dine at MW's restaurant and that this was an anomalous experience for them and outlined what they felt was lacking.

Sure, they might have wanted to bring this up with MW when they next saw him, but they're not friends. It would have been nice, but there is no obligation between these parties.

So, I'm not sure what they did wrong here and why people think The CC are horrid people for detailing how they didn't feel this particular night was up to snuff. It's not like they're negating their previous visits. Just that out of eight(?) times, 1 visit was sub-par.

As someone who eats, it's nice to be able to read the reviews of many and ascertain if my dollars will be well spent. I like to know it's not always rainbows and kittens and I also like to know how I will be treated if my experience isn't good. Those are the salient points, for me, anyway.

Other random thoughts:

MW gifted the CC with this boon of a phone call (in regards to boosting the CC's blog) and well, like I said before, it could have been a positive PR thing for MW, but sadly, it was not. The CC posted about their lacklustre dinner, why would someone think they wouldn't post about a poor phone call regarding that dinner? I also think that this review would have gone quietly into the night had there been no phone call.

I think the most interesting thing to come of all this is the debate of the responsibility a blogger may or may not have toward what they review. While we all have the right to state our experience, what we do say has an affect on the bottom line for someone. This is true of all things, but we can see this more immediately for restaurants, I think.

[JeanneCake]

And, after reading a few of their reviews, they come across as so whiningly self-important that I seriously doubt the original claims about the phone call.

From the Guardian quoting Marcus Wareing:

"I felt I could call them because we have spoken before - we then had a private conversation which I am saddened to see has now been posted."

MW was given the opportunity to respond and didn't refute the CC's claims - he was just "saddened" to see it posted. Just wanted to point that out.

It was a private conversation. CC should have asked his permission or notified him prior or during the call that they would make this public. He is under no obligation to respond to inquiries regarding a private conversation. With the way the CC people are behaving, who knows what they would do with his response?!

It served them well, to get their 15 minutes of fame. We don't know what was said during that private call so we are in no position to start wondering about why he was "saddened" - he doesn't need to refute anything, just like the CC isn't refuting their claims regarding what they posted (they had said they would address the issues raised in this thread, but so far have not).

[PhilD]

The tide on The Guardian thread is about 98% against them. The view of food obsessives vs the view of the real (okay, Guardianista) world?

Bertie - I think that has more to do with the average Guardian reader thinking anyone spending over £20 on a meal has too much money and that those who spend £600 will be first up against the wall come the revolution.

However it is nice to see previous eGullet contributors find gainful employment with WoM and it is good they use the board for inspiration.

Personally I think we need a lot more of these impassioned debates - good to see a bit of life and activity for a change.

[jenc]

We don't know what was said during that private call so we are in no position to start wondering about why he was "saddened" - he doesn't need to refute anything, just like the CC isn't refuting their claims regarding what they posted (they had said they would address the issues raised in this thread, but so far have not).

well, I wasn't wondering why he was "saddened" - just trying to point out there wasn't a reason for BertieWooster to doubt the original claims of the phone call (I read that as: the phone call didn't happen, so apologies if that is incorrect) since MW admitted that it had taken place.

If the doubt was placed on what was said, well, he hasn't denied what The CC posted. That is all.

He is under no obligation to respond to inquiries regarding a private conversation.

No, he's not, but he did (to the Guardian). And it has furthered the debate I see his answer as being post-damage damage control.

[MrsCC]

I must apologise for not following up as I had said I would. The media picked up on this and we did not want to further stoke the fire.

We posted our last review about MW because we felt it honest to do so. I posted the information about the call because I was angry. I thought it would be of interest to other foodies but naively I never thought it would be of interest to the press.

If Marcus had engaged with us on the phone in a conversation rather than a one way shouting match then this would not have happened. I trust both parties have learned from this. I know I have.

[prasantrin]

When MW says he's saddened the phone call was made public, I would guess he really means he's saddened it was made public because it embarrassed him. We all do and say things we regret when we're angry. Had the issue not been made public, perhaps he would have called with an apology. Now he might be too embarrassed and/or too proud to offer any regrets.

Question to Mrs. CC--would you return to the restaurant (assuming you were allowed)?

[paul o' vendange]

I guess I remain puzzled as I don't find this a complicated thing. I should think anyone would be flabbergasted that a private conversation was made public, and once that line was betrayed, not sure what incentive would be in place to continue the conversation, since privacy wasn't honored in the first place (in fact, quite the opposite - at least a nominal publicizing, for reasons hashed over throughout the above, before a potential 100's of 1000's).

Less to do with whatever the nature of the conversation, and more to do with publically outing that private conversation in the first place, in my opinion. This is beyond the other issues raised in the thread, which I won't revisit.

Edited November 9, 2010 by paul o' vendange (log)

[JeanneCake]

I must apologise for not following up as I had said I would. The media picked up on this and we did not want to further stoke the fire.

We posted our last review about MW because we felt it honest to do so. I posted the information about the call because I was angry. I thought it would be of interest to other foodies but naively I never thought it would be of interest to the press.

If Marcus had engaged with us on the phone in a conversation rather than a one way shouting match then this would not have happened. I trust both parties have learned from this. I know I have.

So it's ok for you to be angry and post about a private conversation - but MW doesn't get the same courtesy? I am also appalled that you would take that step (of escalating matters and making a private call public); in anger we do and say things we cannot later take back.

Let's be clear about things: This would not have happened if you had never posted about the call.

[MrsCC]

When MW says he's saddened the phone call was made public, I would guess he really means he's saddened it was made public because it embarrassed him. We all do and say things we regret when we're angry. Had the issue not been made public, perhaps he would have called with an apology. Now he might be too embarrassed and/or too proud to offer any regrets.

Question to Mrs. CC--would you return to the restaurant (assuming you were allowed)?

Never. We would have before his phone call but not now.

[MrsCC]

Actually, that is not true. I think we would have moved on

[Stephen W]

The media picked up on this ...

Funny that. I wonder how it happened?

...but naively I never thought it would be of interest to the press.

Really? This tweet to Jay Rayner and this one to Giles Coren would seem to indicate otherwise.

[paul o' vendange]

The media picked up on this ...

Funny that. I wonder how it happened?

...but naively I never thought it would be of interest to the press.

Really? This tweet to Jay Rayner and this one to Giles Coren would seem to indicate otherwise.

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2. Methinks.

[Infrasonic]

[rudallrose]

Oh my... too clever for words!!