Rick Bayless and Burger King - Part 2

[Fat Guy]

Eliot, to save you time, if you promise not to divert this thread, here's what I think: I think for our purposes there is objective taste. By that I mean that within the social and cultural milieu of contemporary gastronomy -- in other words the eGullet milieu -- there are basic objective-type standards that make conversation and communication possible. It is possible to use those standards to say that a Peter Luger steak is better than a Burger King Whopper. Whether these rankings and standards are fundamental to the nature of the universe or culturally imposed is not particularly relevant, because everybody on eGullet by virtue of speaking English, living in the 21st Century, being enculturated in a similar universe of food, and self-selecting for intensive food discussion is so firmly in the gastronomic subculture of this shared culture that for all intents and purposes we have a form of objectivity here. Otherwise there would be no reason to have eGullet -- every conversation would end with, "In matters of taste there's no dispute." Anything more, let's keep it off this thread.

[tirgoddess]

They will probably make him shave his goatee.

[FoodMan]

While channel surfing two BK regular customers (BKRC) happen to see RB show on PBS:

BKC1: Hey, Dude I know this guy. I cannot remember from where though.

BKC2: It's the guy from the Santa Fe Chicken commercial!!!

BKC1: Cool, the Santa Fe guy has his own show now??

BKC2: EWWWW....What is he cooking?

BKC1: Please change the channel, see if "Ed, Edd and Eddy" is on.

...From here then on Mr. Bayless became known as the "Guy From the Burger King Commercial"

[lowjones]

Aticle in 10/13/03 Chicago Tribune

Why is Rick Bayless doing Burger King Commercials?

By Phil Vettel

Tribune restaurant critic

October 13, 2003

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi...1,4111213.story

[eliotmorgan]

Thanks Steve,

My wife and I just ate at Frontera last Friday, only spent 1 ½ hours there because we had Marriage of Figaro tickets at the Lyric. It was crowded as usual with cabs and SUV’s coming and going (we ate outside). The tamale of the day was goat meat. I had no time to ask Bayless face to face what he thinking but the people I asked in Chicago—my home town—thought it was “cool.” The awful food at the Lyric is another thing all together. Rodney Strong jug wine for $5 to $7 bucks a glass? Evian for $3.00 for a 16 oz bottle?!! My 3 Tobolabampo martinis kept me from stooping to my normal raiding of the concession stand. The opera ended at 10:30, hungry again I considered going by Burger King. We dropped by the Weiner’s Circle instead—Chicago’s other great democratic institution on north Clark.

It’s all good, and again thanks for the explanation.

I still think Bayless is awesome, and I'm glad to see him make the big bucks. The Chicago Tribune guy has is right. It is a step in the right direction.

[Fat Guy]

This should put to bed any suspicion that Rick Bayless made a one-time error and regrets it. He is into a full-blown propaganda effort now: not only is he doing the ads, he's also now a media advocate for Burger King.

He says "step(s) in the right direction" twice in that interview. Clearly he has been programmed with this as his mantra. Problem is, it's not a step in the right direction. It's a step in the same direction.

I am really starting to feel bad for the people at Chefs Collaborative who put their trust in this guy. This adding of insult to injury must really hurt. Thus it is all the more important that they get out there and explain exactly why Bayless has compromised himself, Chefs Collaborative, and the trust of all those who have in the past looked to him as a culinary authority.

All this would be the case even if every word of Bayless's interview had the most genuine ring of truth about it.

Phil Vettel, the author, likes the sandwich -- he gives it a "pretty good." Strange, not a single eGulleter seems to have called it anything more than "palatable" overall.

Bayless says "All that Burger King money is going to organic agriculture," an interesting revelation this late in the game. I wonder why he didn't mention that plan earlier, in his letter to his colleagues?

[tommy]

Phil Vettel, the author, likes the sandwich -- he gives it a "pretty good." Strange, not a single eGulleter seems to have called it anything more than "palatable" overall.

i'm probably the person who hates this thing the least, and the best i could come up with was "the sandwich doesn't smell like the rest of BK".

i had it for the second time yesterday, and it wasn't as "good" as i remembered. in fact, i didn't want to finish it. and the sauce struck me as pretty disgusting the second time around.

[slkinsey]

Bayless says "All that Burger King money is going to organic agriculture," an interesting revelation this late in the game. I wonder why he didn't mention that plan earlier, in his letter to his colleagues?

Yea... I found a couple of things a bit disingenuous:

Bayless was paid for his efforts, of course, but he says it wasn't a great deal of money. In any case, all of it is going into the Frontera Farmer Foundation, which supports small farms that supply restaurants in the Chicago area. "All that Burger King money is going to organic agriculture," says Bayless, in a voice that suggests he's pretty satisfied with that balance.

Okay... what, exactly is "not a great deal of money?" $10,000? $100,000? $1,000,000? $5,000? And, if he intended all along to give the money to the Frontera Farmer Foundation, why didn't he hold out for more money? For that matter, why didn't he mention this donation in his letter to CC? It certainly would have gone a long way towards smoothing any ruffled feathers among his colleagues there. The decision to donate money to Frontera Farmer Foundation, besides being a huge tax-deductible contribution to a non-profit organization for him, strikes me as after-the-fact spin control.

Also, am I the only one whom the article struck as written by an unabashed Bayless admirer/apologist?

I suppose it is now traditional in this thread to end every post with something like: werd to yo' mutha © tiresome device, inc...

[mamster]

"The meat is less briny tasting than other members of the re-formed chicken-patty universe" is the best compliment ever.

[hollywood]

Also, am I the only one whom the article struck as written by an unabashed Bayless admirer/apologist?

Some people will do anything to get a good table at 8:00.

[ronnie_suburban]

Okay... what, exactly is "not a great deal of money?"  $10,000?  $100,000?  $1,000,000? $5,000?  And, if he intended all along to give the money to the Frontera Farmer Foundation, why didn't he hold out for more money?  For that matter, why didn't he mention this donation in his letter to CC?  It certainly would have gone a long way towards smoothing any ruffled feathers among his colleagues there.  The decision to donate money to Frontera Farmer Foundation, besides being a huge tax-deductible contribution to a non-profit organization for him, strikes me as after-the-fact spin control.

Also, am I the only one whom the article struck as written by an unabashed Bayless admirer/apologist?

I asked a hypothetical question upthread about how Bayless' future efforts would be perceived. I hope that the perspective communicated here won't be the typical one...now that he's done a BK ad, his every effort will be called into question.

I suppose that's only fair, but the logical extension of such cynicism is that it can only hurt the very causes that Bayless works to advance; the same causes whose "betrayal" by Bayless caused so much disappointment here in the first place. So much of that disappointment has been about what Bayless did to those who trusted in him (CC, FFF, etc.). Now we learn that he is still working to advance those same causes, yet his effort is now of questionable motive. IMO, if the efforts are still being made (and appreciated by the beneficiaries), the efforts are still laudible. While a court room may exist on a "black and white" axis, real life does not. It's filled with shades of grey.

And as for the loyalties of Mr. Vettel...again, who cares? His personal biases are no less (or more) significant than those of anyone posting here. His piece has an editorial slant. Because it differs from one of ours, it is somehow questionable?

=R=

Edited October 13, 2003 by ronnie_suburban (log)

[Michel Nischan]

(Fat Guy @ Oct 13 2003, 01:37 PM)

Bayless says "All that Burger King money is going to organic agriculture," an interesting revelation this late in the game. I wonder why he didn't mention that plan earlier, in his letter to his colleagues?

Yea... I found a couple of things a bit disingenuous:

 

Bayless was paid for his efforts, of course, but he says it wasn't a great deal of money. In any case, all of it is going into the Frontera Farmer Foundation, which supports small farms that supply restaurants in the Chicago area. "All that Burger King money is going to organic agriculture," says Bayless, in a voice that suggests he's pretty satisfied with that balance.

Okay... what, exactly is "not a great deal of money?" $10,000? $100,000? $1,000,000? $5,000? And, if he intended all along to give the money to the Frontera Farmer Foundation, why didn't he hold out for more money? For that matter, why didn't he mention this donation in his letter to CC? It certainly would have gone a long way towards smoothing any ruffled feathers among his colleagues there. The decision to donate money to Frontera Farmer Foundation, besides being a huge tax-deductible contribution to a non-profit organization for him, strikes me as after-the-fact spin control.

Better yet, why didn't Rick just have BK make the check out to the Frontera Foundation directly? It's not uncommon for spokespeople to do work in exchange for a donation to a worthy cause.

[hollywood]

And as for the loyalties of Mr. Vettel...again, who cares?  His personal biases are no less significant than those of anyone posting here.  His piece has an editorial slant.

I say we make him walk the plank. To Davey Jones Locker with him. Damn! It's not Talk Like a Pirate Day anymore, is it? Maybe we could make him walk like an Egyptian.

[ExtraMSG]

You know it's a little bit of a copout to say all the BK money will be going to charity. Certainly the amount is in the six figures. I know people who've done regional commercials for chains much smalller than BK and they make in the 10s of thousands. After than money goes to charity, certainly it's Bayless who will receive the hefty tax write-off.

Personally, I don't see a problem with it unless his claims are fraudulent. If he was using his "stature" to say they were making haute cuisine for under $5 or arguing that the stuff should be certified organic when it comes from the same processing plants that everything else does, then it would be a problem. But people should be able to compartmentalize a little better. Certainly it's a little hypocritical given his Collaborative involvement.

btw, for you weirdos who have a thing for Rachel Ray, click here. She seems nice enough, though her shows aren't my thing, and on looks, she's pleasant enough, but certainly nothing special. (Not to be mean, but they're doing a lot of hiding in this photoset; I don't mind a girl who doesn't look like a rail, but I think most of the FHM readers do, unless the extra padding is located in the front of the upper torso, which it ain't here).

[hollywood]

btw, for you weirdos who have a thing for Rachel Ray, click here.

Been there, done that.

[slkinsey]

btw, for you weirdos who have a thing for Rachel Ray, click here.

Been there, done that.

Hi5!

[Jason Perlow]

btw, for you weirdos who have a thing for Rachel Ray, click here.

Been there, done that.

Now all we need is a girl on girl spread with her and Nigella, and we'd be alll set.

[FancyIdeas]

Desperate for non-fast-food type food.... on the road in the middle of nowhere and in a hurry ... we tried the chicken sandwich in question (rather than starving for another 2 hours).

The best part of it was the French type roll -- surprisingly! The chicken needed some serious seasoning, and the peppers & onions were grossly overcooked. The 'special sauce' that accompanied said gastric disaster was more 'pizza-like' than Southwestern. All told, it made me yearn for a hamburger - freshly made - which would have been better! Seems like it was a good idea....but only with some serious tweaking!

Speaking of Rick Bayless..... Does anyone else think he should tint his scant-appearing facial hair so it looks as if he has a moustache and ?beard? -- instead of a 5-day growth he can't decide about???

[Fat Guy]

Better yet, why didn't Rick just have BK make the check out to the Frontera Foundation directly?  It's not uncommon for spokespeople to do work in exchange for a donation to a worthy cause.

Better yet, why not consult one's colleagues on the Chefs Collaborative board in advance and give them the opportunity to make a choice: 1) don't do the ad, or 2) do the ad and negotiate for the greatest possible amount of money to go directly to a designated charity.

Also, as any accountant can tell you, it means absolutely nothing just to say that the money will go to a foundation that you're already giving money to. Money is fungible. Say Bayless gave $250,000 last year to this foundation. Say the BK ad gets him $100,000. How do we know he will give $100,000 plus $250,000 plus an adjustment for inflation to the foundation this year? For all we know he will simply give the $100,000 from Burger King and $100,000 less of his own money.

All things that could have been cleared up if he had acted responsibly and with integrity in advance, rather than betraying his colleagues and covering his tracks after the fact.

[KarenS]

I don't eat fast food. My reaction to Rick Bayless endorsing Burger King. I will also never eat at his restaurants or purchase his books. His choice and my choice. It is about farming communities, health, the enviornment, and choices.

I hope that he feels that the money is worth it.

[ExtraMSG]

I don't eat fast food. My reaction to Rick Bayless endorsing Burger King. I will also never eat at his restaurants or purchase his books. His choice and my choice. It is about farming communities, health, the enviornment, and choices.

I hope that he feels that the money is worth it.

Try living in Wyoming sometime and you might change your tune.

[hollywood]

I don't eat fast food. My reaction to Rick Bayless endorsing Burger King. I will also never eat at his restaurants or purchase his books. His choice and my choice. It is about farming communities, health, the enviornment, and choices.

I hope that he feels that the money is worth it.

Try living in Wyoming sometime and you might change your tune.

I hear you, but isn't there a lot of game available? Does that compensate for the lack of commercial choices?

[ExtraMSG]

I hear you, but isn't there a lot of game available? Does that compensate for the lack of commercial choices?

True, and if you're on the Atkin's diet or don't mind a rock-solid GI, you could probably get away with it. I lived in the Rocky Mountain states for a while after growing up in California and Oregon. I never gained so much weight. Lots of cheese, meat, and starches. The fruits and vegetables just weren't up to my standards, especially as someone who grew up with a garden and around orchards.

I don't think Alice Waters would have done crap if she'd been trying to make a go in Wyoming, Utah, or Montana. Those people don't have the luxury of being local/organic minded. They're just lucky to get something that has any flavor at all and hasn't gone rotten. I remember reading an article on restaurants that had tried to go local/organic and just couldn't really make it work. There's a lot of sacrifices that have to be made to do so, especially outside of places like California which is really in a unique position.

The organic/local movement I think is one of those ideas that sounds good on the surface, but has a lot of holes underneath. It's not as flawed as the raw foods movement, but it's very susceptible to reductio ad abusrdum challenges and on some shaky scientific grounds.

[Fat Guy]

I agree, ExtraMSG. Ultimately the arguments of the local/organic movement are doomed because it's simply not possible to feed six billion people that way. The world is being fed, and will continue to be fed, by industrial agriculture, pesticides, genetically engineered crops, etc. -- that's the simple reality and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change it. Local and organic agriculture will always be a niche market, mostly catering to the elite.

At the same time, the local/organic people have it right when they say we can do a lot better even within the current framework. There is absolutely no reason why very good fresh produce -- not organic, not locally grown, not Chez Panisse quality, but still very good -- can't be provided in Wyoming all year round. Wyoming is a lot closer to California than, say, New York City. Likewise, I'm totally aware that in some places in those big middle states the best restaurants in town are indeed the national chains. But just because they have no competition in those places doesn't mean they have to suck as bad as they do. Most of these places could dramatically improve their food products, and would do so in a heartbeat if consumers demanded it.

It's extremely difficult to build a movement around aesthetic principles. It's much easier to organize an anti-fast-food group if you can find an anti-capitalist hook, or an anti-genetic-engineering hook, or an exploitation-of-laborers hook. But all those are red herrings. In the end, the problem is that people don't know good food from bad. And as long as that's the case, all the yelling and screaming about evil capitalism and the "fast food nation" is wasted breath. All the fast-food-nation types actually know this -- you can find it said and quickly forgotten even in Schlosser's book -- but they're not really willing to face up to it: this is a cultural problem, not a political or economic one. The only way to improve the fast food situation is for consumers to act based on an informed understanding of what good food is, aka aesthetics. The second that framework is in place, fast food chains will adapt to it, and not a moment before. And what Rick Bayless has done is a step in the wrong direction: he's telling ignorant people that bad food is good. He has been coopted and he doesn't even seem to know it. It's really quite sad -- it sounds as though he wasn't even paid very well.

[ExtraMSG]

At the same time, the local/organic people have it right when they say we can do a lot better even within the current framework. There is absolutely no reason why very good fresh produce -- not organic, not locally grown, not Chez Panisse quality, but still very good -- can't be provided in Wyoming all year round. Wyoming is a lot closer to California than, say, New York City. Likewise, I'm totally aware that in some places in those big middle states the best restaurants in town are indeed the national chains. But just because they have no competition in those places doesn't mean they have to suck as bad as they do. Most of these places could dramatically improve their food products, and would do so in a heartbeat if consumers demanded it.

From one fat guy to another, I generally agree with you. I do think many of the chains do a surprisingly good job. It's amazing how competitive, eg, Chevy's is with even the above-average Mexican restaurant or how decent the food from even places like Chili's, Applebee's, and serveral others is. It's not great. It's not interesting. But it's decent food -- it's better than most people in the US can actually cook at home -- and you'd have a hard time finding an entree over $10 at most of them. Most of the truly good restaurants out there are hard to find appetizers for at the same price.

I don't eat at these places regularly, because a) I can cook, and b) I'm a bit of a food snob just like everyone else on this site. But I have friends who can't afford to go to many of my favorites or who don't like the ethnic foods that comprise most of the good quality cheaper options. They're not that bad, though. And they're getting better all the time. I couldn't stand Applebee's a few years ago, and I was way less picky then than I am now. But I visited a friend recently and he picked Applebee's and I had a decently tasty, huge salad for less than $8. He had a steak for about $10. The steak, a top sirloin cut, was actually tender and juicy and nicely seared. Not great, but I've had worse in supposedly good restaurants.

All the fast-food-nation types actually know this -- you can find it said and quickly forgotten even in Schlosser's book -- but they're not really willing to face up to it: this is a cultural problem, not a political or economic one. The only way to improve the fast food situation is for consumers to act based on an informed understanding of what good food is, aka aesthetics. The second that framework is in place, fast food chains will adapt to it, and not a moment before.

Well, it's all wrapped together -- the culture, the economics, the politics, the aesthetics, and just the practical realities of our lives. (I'm actually half-way through Fast Food Nation, which is still on the best-seller list out here at Powell's Books in Portland, and the interesting thing for me is how I can keep thinking, man, if I ever start a restaurant or whatever, I'll have to remember how -- put your evil capitalist conglomerate here -- did that.) Fast food restaurants actually are making an effort to provide higher-end options, as this sandwich is supposed to show. McDonald's has been really hitting the "fresher, healthier" bandwagon lately. But remember, there are lots of homeless people, poor families, and so on, that really depend to some extent on 59 cent burgers, 89 cent burritos, and value menus where everything is less than a dollar. Eliminating these "bad" items from their menu would not only be bad business, I think it would probably literally hurt a lot of people. Most poor people can't just spend hours cooking at home. And living off of ramen is a worse kind of living than burgers and fries.

What is "good" food anyway? Is it "good tasting"? If so, what, in the whole scheme of things, does that matter? Better flavor doesn't mean much compared to whether your belly is full. Flavor is a luxury item. I'd say cheap is more important to a poor person than "good". I don't care if McDonald's makes "good" food or not, because I can afford to go where I want and because I'm a computer programmer who works from home and can cook everyday. I have that luxury.

And what Rick Bayless has done is a step in the wrong direction: he's telling ignorant people that bad food is good. He has been coopted and he doesn't even seem to know it. It's really quite sad -- it sounds as though he wasn't even paid very well.

I disagree with this one. I think Bayless is a bit of a hypocrite, but had he not been a part of a group that generally buys into the Fast Food Nation ethos, it wouldn't matter to me at all. The sandwich is probably a move forward in taste and freshness, and apparently RB thinks it is. That's positive movement and Bayless shouldn't be ashamed to praise it. And people know, and we as food snobs should recognize, that given the context, fast food, people don't, and we shouldn't expect, it to be comparable to what Zuni Care would produce (at $10 or more).