The customer is NOT always right

[ScoopKW]

It's almost comical some of the fits I've seen people throw when restaurants don't have a vegetarian option, or vegan options, etc. Do these people seriously expect the world to cater to their personal preferences?

Yes. And a lot of them are awfully damned sanctimonious about it.

And it's not just the vegans. It's the dingbats who have their incontinent little chihauhua annointed as a "service animal" so they can bring it into places where dogs normally aren't allowed. It's the "I'm deathly allergic to shellfish and most kinds of seafood" guy who goes to a sushi bar. It's the superiorly annoying group that comes to the restaurant and spends the entire meal yakking on their cell phone about their latest rectal exam so that all the rest of the guests can enjoy it, too.

There are a lot of spoiled pampered princesses out there. And there seem to be more of them every year.

[Edward J]

In the specific example of the onion-laced ketchup, I would say the customer is still out of line. That person has no right to walk into any establishment and demand onion-free ketchup, and they certainly are unreasonable if they find that offensive. Any given restaurant is offering their food as is, and it's the consumer's choice whether or not to go, eat, and pay for the food. If they don't want it, they can go somewhere else. They are not entitled to walk into a restaurant and tell them how to make their food. That privilege is reserved for especially affluent individuals who can afford personal chefs.

Of course the customer is out of line. Thing is, both the waiter/owner and the customer know that this is an unreasonable request, yet it is requested.

It's kind of like your Boss hauling you into his office and telling you that every August he takes a trek to Mt. Everest and does the climb. He reads your face and if he gets the slightest whiff of confrontation, will remind you that your bi-yearly employee review report is due and he will be doing it shortly.

So, here we have "Catch 23": If you respect the customer, you will challenge his request, after all there is a very slim chance that he is indeed allergic and you might save the situation. If you don't respect the customer you will get him his (deleted) ketchup and hope he chokes on it.

But with regards to IHOP and "white tablecloth" restaurants, I beg to differ. Yes we can swap bacon for fruit salad, and if there is a price difference we can adjust it. Yes we can sub the starch and vegetable garnish for the lamb with the one from the salmon, it is do-able and it shouldn't be a challenge for the kitchen.

Demand that IHOP have ethically harvested and sustainable coffee? Fruit juices that don't come from concentrate? Do we have this right?

Demand the high class restaurant have all of it's base sauces prepared without onions? Or tomatoes? Have a minimum of 6 vegetarian entrees and 3 vegan entrees? Do we have this right?

See after 48-ish odd years on this planet I have made one very broad observation about my fellow humans:

Whatever is free, undervalued, or available in bountiful quantities is to be treated with contempt and scorn.

Think about it, this includes restaurants, but it also includes fresh air, clean water, public libraries, and good manners.

[lindag]

Whatever is free, undervalued, or available in bountiful quantities is to be treated with contempt and scorn.

Think about it, this includes restaurants, but it also includes fresh air, clean water, public libraries, and good manners.

BRAVO!!!

[ElaineK]

Either way, they're getting what they want. They don't have to claim medical necessity. And I don't see why they feel they have to -- Perhaps they've been burned one too many times by a short-attention-span cook who didn't hold the mayo?

Oddly, I have medical necessity, but often cast it as a preference. I'm gluten intolerant, which seems to be better understood as allergic to gluten, even though it's auto-immune instead of an immune reaction. Then I have a whole host of things that I shouldn't eat because it upsets a different digestive disorder. They're all dose-dependent, and none of them are cross-contact concerns, so it's much less confusing for everyone if I say I'm gluten intolerant for medical reasons, and let the rest be interpreted as preference. I'd much rather not eat mashed potatoes that were on my plate than end up with YetAnotherCT because someone thought I was following a fad by asking for a gluten free meal.

[ScoopKW]

That's fine. You shouldn't have to eat anything that would make you sick, or even uncomfortable. But the point I've been trying to make is that there are scads of people out there who are claiming allergy to onions when they aren't actually allergic, they just don't like onions. And there are so many of them ordering meals lately, with (perceived) false claims of medical necessity that it does no favors to the people who really cannot eat certain foods.

I view these sorts of people the same way I view the people who insist on being pushed around airports in wheelchairs just so they can get through the lines quicker. It's the elevated sense of entitlement that drives me loopers. Once they're through the line, wow, it's a miracle! They can sprint through the airport gate like OJ Simpson.

[mrsadm]

A few months ago, we were invited to a dinner party at a restaurant. Most of the 10 attendees are vegetarians, a vegetarian selected the restaurant. When it came time to order every single person, except my husband and myself, requested something off menu. It was so bad, the waitress had to get the chef to come out and verify what could and could not be done.

<snip>

If a vegetarian picked the restaurant, couldn't they find one with enough choices for vegetarians? Sounds like they made a bad choice!

[gfweb]

Or maybe these people are just entitled pains in the ass.

[Edward J]

Ahhh.. but when they "educate" you on thier peculiar affliction/diet/choice of life/personal philosophy. That's when you have to exercise great control not to whop them one in the nose.....

[Panaderia Canadiense]

I think there's also a huge difference between "leave the onion off my hamburger" and "remove all of the mushrooms from my lasagne" - the first is a reasonable and easy to accomodate request, whereas the second is pure asshattery. The difference between being a good restauranteur is knowing where that line is, and never ever letting customers cross it.

As a catering baker, I have no problem doing certain substitutions ("leave the cheese off my quinua bagels", for example, is something I'll do without blinking. Ditto to "please make the cake with stevia instead of sugar.") However, I do draw a line - usually it's somewhere around "I'd like a carrot cake, but without the carrots in it."

ETA - I should mention that every request used in this example is one I've actually had made to me. I think I told the no mushrooms guy that if he really hated them that much, he should either order something else or just pick them out himself and shut the hell up about it.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Panaderia Canadiense (log)

[ScoopKW]

Or maybe these people are just entitled pains in the ass.

I think that many of them LOVE the confrontation. "I'm a vegetarian, and by God I'm going to make sure everyone knows about it. I'm going to go to a steak house, and make them serve me an off-menu vegan entree. And then I'm going to talk about how gross meat is so everyone gets to hear about my philosophy. I sure hope they serve foie so I can make a scene about that, too!"

Based on the way some of these dingbats act, you have to imagine that's what's going through their head.

[gfweb]

Yup. I've seen it myself.

Nobody wants a lecture about anything, esp from a crazed vegan.

[huiray]

. . . .

This is not intended to sound rude, but what I don't get is the use of "actively engaged' in describing the dining experience.

The problem may simply be in the lack of a general agreement on the meaning of terms, but in my opinion (and this aspect of the discussion is highly subjective) when you make a decision, you're actively engaged.

When you consider a a variety of restaurants, look over their menus, talk to others about them, and choose a place to eat, you're actively engaged in selecting where you dine.

When you order, in most places, there are decisions involved (if the place has a set menu, then that decision has been made previously).

The same holds true of the wine(s) you select, whether or not you have coffee, dessert.

You don't just go into a restaurant and say, 'feed me', tell the waiter to just bring you what he or she deems best. You become involved. I don't know about other people, but if there's something interesting going on behind the scenes, I'll read about that beforehand, since I find context interest; basically, when I eat out, I think.

This doesn't mean I believe I have the right to tell the chef what to do, but I do ask questions about items on the the menu (e.g. 'Does this come with a creamy sauce?', or 'I'm planning on having a fairly substantial dessert, is one of the main dishes particularly light?').

When you go the theater, do you go backstage when you enter, demand to see the director and then describe for him the plot line you're in the mood to see that night?

If you golf, would you tell your club pro that while, yes, you do want to lower your score, you think you should still keep that hitch in your back swing, and since you really like hitting off your back foot, he should work around that too?

Do you tell your mechanic how to rebuild your carburetor, your doctor how to perform surgery, or would you approach Mike Ditka in the middle of a game to tell you think it's time to run a draw play?

In my experience, it's not an issue of trust, it's a matter of control. For some people (certainly not all, as those with actual medical restrictions) the dining experience is simply one more extension of their need for control.

For me, I go, I dine on what's offered. If it's good I go back. If it's not I don't.

The scenarios you describe are not parallel: On any given evening, a theatre shows a set selection of performances, they don't offer a menu, and, while I wouldn't argue with an expert, I certainly would ask questions, because I'm an adult, and since I am accountable for my decisions, I prefer to be familiar with the options, tho process, what lies under the surface. I do know what I enjoy eating, and choose restaurants accordingly. Dining room staff not only take my order, but provide helpful information.

I simply do not see the desire to be informed as an expression of the need for control, or in the least likely to offend a chef (Seriously, who becomes disturbed by someone taking the trouble to be aware of how much effort they've put into something?). Submission is for infants, who, eyes and mouths agape, swallow whatever Mum and Dad choose to spoon in.

Interesting posts & responses.

I, too, am one who gets what Bourdain meant when he commented about eating being submission.

Just curious - do you dislike going to restaurants with tasting menus or set menus only? Places where you do not have a choice from a list of selections from a menu? You did mention set menus as an instance when these "active engagement" decisions have been already made beforehand, implying you do go to such places... You also mention choosing restaurants based on what you like to eat (which many people do, one whould think) so presumably you research the set menu or tasting menu (if there is one) and go only to those places with a menu to you liking? What about places where there is no published menu at all and you eat what the chef decides to do that day based on what he finds at the market or what he feels like doing...? (e.g. Masa in NYC)(Not that I've eaten there myself) (Or places like Recess in Indy, especially in the early days, when Greg Hardesty might not even decide on what he was going to do that day until maybe around noon or so let alone publish his daily menu [which had no choices for you - at least in the early days] until then or later. in the early afternoon... I had great experiences "just going" and trusting him to cook delicious meals with combinations that I would not have chosen myself if I were choosing stuff to eat. Later on he started adding a *limited* number of alternate courses, e.g. a choice between two appetizers, say; but not a panoply of 6, 7, xx number of options)

[i know there are folks who refuse to go to such places because they feel they cannot control their meal with being unable to choose what they want to eat...so they don't go to such places unless the place posts their daily or seasonal menu and they study it beforehand and decide they like everything on the menu that day.]

As for "You don't just go into a restaurant and say, 'feed me'" - another poster here commented that he does it all the time. :-) I do this too although only in certain places and/or as occasion arises. If you go to a Japanese place and request "Omakase" you are certainly asking the place to just "feed me" in effect, and I think many people do indeed do this, surrendering themselves to what the chef sees fit to provide - although some (better?) places would honor such requests only from regular diners where their preferences have become known to the chef or sushi itamae. At other places one would indeed be asking the chef to provide you with whatever he felt like feeding you. ;-)

[huiray]

I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed in the NYT article. Certainly Chang and other chefs have the ability (or even the "right") to say what they will or will not do, and I as the diner can choose whether to dine there or not.

Reading about some of the shenanigans pulled and hissy fits thrown by overly-demanding diners is both annoying and sad at the same time. No, the customer is not always right. Pulling apart a dish carefully conceived by a chef and demanding substitutions not based on medical necessity (but just merely on choice) is not right. Asking for "non-critical" substitutions - where possible - is fine in my books and I do that on occasion. (Rice instead of mashed potatoes, for example, when both sides are clearly available from inspection of the menu; or linguine with my white clam sauce instead of spaghetti, when both pastas are seen to be available; etc)

Some places/chefs are certainly more accommodating than others, even "at the last moment". Some places would ask diners whether there are any food restrictions they may have for their tasting menu only when the diners arrive that night (although they do appreciate it if the diner had told them beforehand, when they made they reservation) [Volt is one place that does it, for their Table 21 for example; and their Table 21 menu is certainly not published for you to research it, with the menus blogged about by past diners being useful only as "guides" for what you might get that particular night you eat there] But most folks here know these things of course.

[Mjx]

. . . .

This is not intended to sound rude, but what I don't get is the use of "actively engaged' in describing the dining experience.

The problem may simply be in the lack of a general agreement on the meaning of terms, but in my opinion (and this aspect of the discussion is highly subjective) when you make a decision, you're actively engaged.

When you consider a a variety of restaurants, look over their menus, talk to others about them, and choose a place to eat, you're actively engaged in selecting where you dine.
When you order, in most places, there are decisions involved (if the place has a set menu, then that decision has been made previously).
The same holds true of the wine(s) you select, whether or not you have coffee, dessert.

You don't just go into a restaurant and say, 'feed me', tell the waiter to just bring you what he or she deems best. You become involved. I don't know about other people, but if there's something interesting going on behind the scenes, I'll read about that beforehand, since I find context interest; basically, when I eat out, I think.

This doesn't mean I believe I have the right to tell the chef what to do, but I do ask questions about items on the the menu (e.g. 'Does this come with a creamy sauce?', or 'I'm planning on having a fairly substantial dessert, is one of the main dishes particularly light?').

. . . .

As for "You don't just go into a restaurant and say, 'feed me'" - another poster here commented that he does it all the time. :-) I do this too although only in certain places and/or as occasion arises. If you go to a Japanese place and request "Omakase" you are certainly asking the place to just "feed me" in effect, and I think many people do indeed do this, surrendering themselves to what the chef sees fit to provide - although some (better?) places would honor such requests only from regular diners where their preferences have become known to the chef or sushi itamae. At other places one would indeed be asking the chef to provide you with whatever he felt like feeding you. ;-)

When a baby opens its mouth, it says 'feed me'. Its blind trust and absence of thought arise from the baby's more or less complete helplessness in this situation. But even babies quickly become active, expressing appreciation and distate, showing glimmers of thought, and learning the names of the foods they like best.
I've never had a problem with set menus, but it seems impossible to express a suitable interest in the food or appreciation for the chef's efforts if all one does is passively 'feed'. There may be no conversation about the food (although this is rare, in my experience), but if the food has been prepared intelligently and interestingly, that calls for acknowledgement, at the very least.

The bottom line is that the way people eat reflects the rest of the way they exist, which is going to exhibit the same variety as humans themselves. So, in the very same dining room you may have one party chatting with the chef about Pistachios in mortadella, yes or no?, while at an adjacent table, the party is simply sitting, and silently absorbing the exact same dish being analysed at the first table. As long as everyone is being polite and considerate, they're both fine.

[furzzy]

Found this old topic while looking for something else.

In Lessons in Excellence From Charlie Trotter, his plan for restricting his clientele to the "upper echelons" ($$$$$) diners, is interesting. He is agruably the most successful restauranteur of his time. We really miss Charlie Trotter's.

That said, whenever a reservation was made there, the patron was asked if there were any food restrictions that they should be aware of. And after the second time one dined there, the restrictions were already in their database. The person taking the reservation would quickly name them and asked if that was complete.

Lessons in Excellence, for sure...for that type of restaurant.

[PSmith]

Good thread revival that I must have missed first time round.

Personally I would never dream of asking for something to be changed. My OH hates mushrooms, so he rarely orders something with mushrooms, but if he does, then they are left on the side of his plate for me to help myself.

[Taveren]

When I was a cook at a restaurant in downtown Milwaukee, an older couple ordered a porterhouse for 2, and requested that the strip be half MR, half MW, and the filet half rare, half medium. For whatever reason the request was accepted by the powers that be. Thankfully I wasn't working the meat station that night.

[cookingdiva]

I agree that customers are really not always right. But not allowing customers to customize the menu is a different thing. What if you're allergic to an ingredient and you want it removed?

I always order burger without tomato.

[Tri2Cook]

I agree that customers are really not always right. But not allowing customers to customize the menu is a different thing. What if you're allergic to an ingredient and you want it removed?

I always order burger without tomato.

Ordering a burger without tomato is a little different than ordering the bourguignon without wine or the hollandaise without butter or some of the other ridiculous things people come up with. I don't think anybody actually has a problem with trying to accommodate allergies, the problem is people figured that out and everybody that doesn't want something in their food claims to be allergic to it. So now you get the person who doesn't like tomato on their burger telling their server they're allergic to it even though they ate all of the tomato in the salad they had to start. Makes people lean towards the skeptical. But, for the most part, I agree there's nothing wrong with accommodating sensible special requests.

[gfweb]

Part of the problem is that many don't understand what an allergy actually is. As in "I'm allergic to cigarette smoke"

[cookingdiva]

I agree that customers are really not always right. But not allowing customers to customize the menu is a different thing. What if you're allergic to an ingredient and you want it removed?

I always order burger without tomato.

Ordering a burger without tomato is a little different than ordering the bourguignon without wine or the hollandaise without butter or some of the other ridiculous things people come up with. I don't think anybody actually has a problem with trying to accommodate allergies, the problem is people figured that out and everybody that doesn't want something in their food claims to be allergic to it. So now you get the person who doesn't like tomato on their burger telling their server they're allergic to it even though they ate all of the tomato in the salad they had to start. Makes people lean towards the skeptical. But, for the most part, I agree there's nothing wrong with accommodating sensible special requests.

I think it also depends on the request of the customer. It's okay if you want to replace your rice with mashed potato or order a burger without tomato. However, ridiculous requests like half of the steak should be well done while half should be medium rare shouldn't be accommodated.