Off the Menu at 15 Restaurants

Steve Plotnicki · February 17, 2003

Steve, while I agree with you generally, I have to say, I don't think money's the issue

Elyse - Well it is to Suzanne. Read her comment about Americans with big wads of money. What she doesn't realize, is that it isn't motivated by money. It is motivated by people wanting to enjoy themselves at a certain level. That they might have to pay more for it is not relevant to the exercise. They would be happy paying less if it got them the quality meal they wanted.

Suzanne F · February 17, 2003

Steve, while I agree with you generally, I have to say, I don't think money's the issue.

No, actually, money IS the issue: Steve said

But at the same time I believe that the guy with the most money is entitled to drink that last bottle of 1947 Petrus that the sommelier has been hiding for a special customer. ... It's his entitlement for being able to afford it. And if his ability to do that means I don't get to drink any, too bad for me. I should work harder and make more money so I can afford it too. But at the same time, it also means that I want to maximize what I can afford to buy. ... Unless, you are interested in preventing people from enjoying their hard earned money.

(emphasis added)

He who has the most money is entitled to whatever he wants simply because he can afford it. He has no compunction about causing the establishment to (possibly) alienate a "special customer" (which presumably the moneyman is not). I have no doubt that in an emergency situation, moneyman would have no compunction buying up all life-sustaining supplies, just because he can. And because he presumes that others have not worked hard enough to earn enough money to be able to outbid him. This is very dangerous "code word" territory, so I won't venture any further onto it.

I simply find other ways to enjoy my own money, such as trying to ensure that other people's quality of life is improved. I don't need special treatment in expensive restaurants to feel valued.

tommy · February 17, 2003

edited for topic drift.

Edited February 17, 2003 by tommy (log)

Wilfrid · February 17, 2003

Suzanne, I don't recognize much of what you said there in preceding posts by anyone, but the logical inference seems to be that all restaurants should charge exactly the same, giving everyone an equal opportunity to have the same meal in any of them. Now, I am all in favor of uprooting hierarchical social relations, seizing the commanding heights of the economy, and abolishing property, but since I seem to be in a tiny minority I have learned to control my surprise at the fact that, in a market economy, people with more money can buy more expensive things. Are we really talking about anything else?

Incidentally, it really is a side issue unless it had been demonstrated that ordering off menu is necessarily and significantly more expensive than ordering from the carte, and I just haven't seen that here.

tommy · February 17, 2003

edited for snow drift.

Edited February 17, 2003 by tommy (log)

Fat Guy · February 17, 2003

There are three arguments going on here: 1) An argument about the WSJ article and the issues raised therein; 2) A political argument; and 3) A personal argument. Perhaps a bit more focus on number 1 would make sense and help keep this topic productive, civil, and interesting. I realize it's impossible to avoid flirting with issue number 2, but perhaps it could remain peripheral and we could all just accept current reality as a given. As for number 3, there's no reason to go there at all.

Wilfrid · February 17, 2003

Tommy, I'm sorry, you've lost me. Honestly, I have no idea what you're referring to. I withdraw, and will erase, my earlier attempt to figure out what you meant by comments like "those who might be prone to entitlement " and "because people who have money and work hard deserve the best", but [...edited...] I have no idea what you're driving at.

Like I said earlier, let's discuss the article and related issues.

Edited February 17, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

maggiethecat · February 17, 2003

and we could all just accept current reality as a given.

I am not trying to appear either bratty or obtuse here . :blink: But could you please explain the "current reality" thing?

Number 3)? Of course.

Steve Plotnicki · February 17, 2003

I rest my case.

Wilfrid - You know I was admiring that sport coat of yours from the other evening. I went to buy one just like it but it turns out they don't make them anymore. So I went to visit the Director of Equality, and he ordained that you have to share it with me. He suggested the following system. We each get to wear it on every second day, with tailoring to suit us occuring on the in-between days. I thought it was a clever suggestion. What do you think?

elyse · February 17, 2003

Steve, while I agree with you generally, I have to say, I don't think money's the issue
Elyse - Well it is to Suzanne. Read her comment about Americans with big wads of money. What she doesn't realize, is that it isn't motivated by money. It is motivated by people wanting to enjoy themselves at a certain level. That they might have to pay more for it is not relevant to the exercise. They would be happy paying less if it got them the quality meal they wanted.

Sorry. I mistook that for your thought.

Wilfrid · February 17, 2003

I rest my case.
Wilfrid - You know I was admiring that sport coat of yours from the other evening. I went to buy one just like it but it turns out they don't make them anymore. So I went to visit the Director of Equality, and he ordained that you have to share it with me. He suggested the following system. We each get to wear it on every second day, with tailoring to suit us occuring on the in-between days. I thought it was a clever suggestion. What do you think?

Only if I can get a time share in some of your wristwatches. :cool:

Steve Plotnicki · February 17, 2003

Fat Guy - Sorry about this tangent. We went down this path back at Martin Rosen's post which called asking for off menu items "pretentious," among other things. Maybe he could withdraw the comment because of the inherent personal value judgment implied in that allegation. Then maybe we can get back to the original question which was, does it make a difference or not and did the WSJ guys go about it the wrong way?

tommy · February 17, 2003

Tommy, I'm sorry, you've lost me. Honestly, I have no idea what you're referring to. I withdraw, and will erase, my earlier attempt to figure out what you meant by comments like "those who might be prone to entitlement " and "because people who have money and work hard deserve the best", but if you weren't blowing a raspberry at Steve, I have no idea what you're driving at.
Like I said earlier, let's discuss the article and related issues.

4 people have used "entitlement," including plotz. i think you're reading way too much into my comments. if you read steve's, you'll see that he states something like, as suzanne quotes, that people who have the money deserve the best the restaurant has to offer. i posted something to that affect in response to Jaz, only so i could post about left-over short ribs without being told i was off topic. :raz:

if you erase your references to this, i'll gladly do the same, in an effort to keep this on-topic.

Edited February 17, 2003 by tommy (log)

Steve Plotnicki · February 17, 2003

that people who have the money deserve the best the restaurant has to offer

I hope I haven't said this and I apologize if I had. What I thought I did say was that "people who have the money are entitled to the best they can afford." Meaning nobody should be able to tell you how to spend your money if you aren't hurting anyone by doing it.

tommy · February 17, 2003

that people who have the money deserve the best the restaurant has to offer
I hope I haven't said this and I apologize if I had. What I thought I did say was that "people who have the money are entitled to the best they can afford." Meaning nobody should be able to tell you how to spend your money if you aren't hurting anyone by doing it.

why would an apology be necessary? i really can't see that much of a difference btwn that paraphrased quote and your direct quote. at least not enough that would merit an apology. :blink:

Ron Johnson · February 17, 2003

Chances are I choose a particular restaurant BECAUSE I like or anticipate liking at least one dish that is on the menu. In fact, I can think of no time I have ever chosen to eat at a restaurant where I knew that I did not like anything on the menu on the basis that I would be able to order something off the menu.

What happened to Wilfrid today at Le Cirque is not really what we are talking about. He ordered something that is generally on the menu, but wasn't today because of extenuating circumstances. However, they had it and were happy to provide it to him.

There is no doubt that it feels good to be the beneficiary of special treatment. We all like that, but it shoud be delivered unsolicited. The best treat you can get from the kitchen is when you don't have to ask for it. When you have developed a relationship with a restaurant or the server picks up on your enthusiasm for the cuisine and communicates this fact to the chef, that is when you should be on the receiving end of some special treatment by the kitchen. The idea that one is entitled to such treatment and comes to expect it is ridiculous. Only more ridiculous is the concept of criticizing a restaurant where one is unhappy with the manner in which the restaurant reacted to the diner's sense of entitlement for special treatment. Presumably, a chef has worked very hard on his menu, and it reflects his best efforts to put some cuisine forward of which he is proud and that is suggestive of his background and training. It is insulting for the diner to casually dismiss this fact and imply that these efforts are unsatisfactory to him/her by telling the chef to cook something else specifically for that diner or his/her table.

The thing is, we all hear anecdotes about the table who received special treatment from this chef or that chef at some well-known restaurant. We want that treatment as well, but we are unwilling to take the time to develop a relationship with the restaurant or are unable to communicate our appreciation of the cuisine to the server that might result in the occurrence of such treatment. Instead, we attempt to shortcut the process and demand special treatment NOW!

Sometimes the best that a restaurant has to offer is ON the menu. Maybe its our egos that refuse to let us acknowledge that fact.

Gavin Jones · February 17, 2003

Are you saying Menus aren't just for tourists?

Ron Johnson · February 17, 2003

Are you saying Menus aren't just for tourists?

:laugh: :laugh:

I'm trying Gavin!

Wilfrid · February 17, 2003

What happened to Wilfrid today at Le Cirque is not really what we are talking about. He ordered something that is generally on the menu, but wasn't today because of extenuating circumstances. However, they had it and were happy to provide it to him.

But that was only one of my examples.

I don't know what it is about this topic that gets everyone so fired up. I agree with Ron - and it was the point I tried to make back on page 1 - that it makes little sense for diners unfamiliar with a restaurant to reject the menu. That's the puzzling thing about the WSJ piece; why go to a restaurant for the first time - even a steak house, for God's sake - and ask for an off menu meal? But I don't know where all the stuff about "entitlement", and being "insulting" to the chef, comes in. If you walk into Peter Luger and order the haddock, then you are doing yourself no favor, but I don't know that you are expressing some sense of "entitlement" to fish or being "insulting" about the steak.

It would be interesting to hear from other chefs. Would this kind of request really insult you? I am having trouble imagining Dean Fearing or the executive chefs at Emeril taking this kind of thing personally. In fact, I bet it's low on the list of ways in which customers annoy them. But tell me I'm wrong...

Suzanne F · February 17, 2003

Ron -- and that's why you're an Ombuddy and I'm not! :laugh: :wub:

Steve Plotnicki · February 17, 2003

It has nothing to do with special treatment. It has to do with a level of a restaurant's cuisine that is not available on the menu. It's the difference between buying a suit off the rack and having one custom made. A custom made suit fits better because it is made especially to suit you. That makes it more enjoyable. This is the same concept. A restaurant prepares a meal to suit your needs and desires. It doesn't have to cost more money. And I don't see how anyone is doing anything wrong, obnoxious or pretentious, merely by asking if that service is available? In fact in most places one would think to ask for it, it usually happens to be available. That is because the types of customers who frequent those places are used to getting that level of service elsewhere.

elyse · February 17, 2003

How come we're throwing around words like "entitled" and "demand" when what we're really saying is "request" and "ask?"

macrosan · February 17, 2003

Just to clarify for you, Wilfrid, I was not being sarcastic back there, and it didn't occur to me that Tommy might be.

The discussion about ordering off-menu being inherently wrong, or unacceptable, or any of those other adjectives, is simply not the view I expressed, and I don't subscribe to that position. What I said earlier in this thread, and have also said in other threads, is as follows.

There are different motivations for people to order off-menu. I characterized four motivations which I have observed, and said that I found two of them (craving status and testing the restaurant) distasteful. The third (dietary restrictions) I was entirely neutral about. I'm very familiar with the need to ring a restaurant in advance to check they can meet dietary restrictions, and it is zero problem for me or for them. Then lastly, came what I described as a "whimsical" motivation. I have no problem at all with whimsy, and as I said earlier, I can't believe that anyone with such motivation would get worked up about having it turned down.

Now your episode at Le Cirque was what I would describe as whimsical. You got there, decided on the spur of the moment you would rather have ribs than salmon, and asked for it and got it. Terrific. I do that often in restaurants I know, and specially if there's a limited menu on offer. I ask politely, and accept the answer I get immediately. And I don't think less of a restaurant that says no, and I don't think it's their "duty of service" to say yes.

The WSJ article makes out that off-menu selection is a big socio-economic issue, and I disagree with that. They make it into a fight between them and us, between businesses that don't want to deliver off-menu but are being forced to do so by financial exigency, and the diners who don't realize how much power they now have to force the restaurants to toe the line. They imply that they've discovered a way for Mr Average to get the key to the Executive Washroom, but in fact they haven't. At least, I hope they haven't, and that's my point. If indeed the ability to get off-menu dishes, and the "properness" of that, is just an issue of social standing and prestige and money, or if the WSJ article makes diners start to believe that it is, then they will have damaged the restaurant industry, in my view.

It's akin to the celeb-watching restaurant scene. I remember a colleague taking me to Barolo (?) in SoHo for an really poor, hugely expensive meal. When we came out, he said "I'm never going there again" and I said "Yeah, the food was disappointing". He said "No-one goes there for the food, but there wasn't a single celebrity in there tonight".

I think that if restaurants get a growing demand for celeb-spotters, they will cater to that demand at the expense of the food. I think the same will happen if they get a growing demand by people wanting off-menu if that demand is from people who just want to be made to feel special and care more about that prestige than about the food.

Ron Johnson · February 17, 2003

But I don't know where all the stuff about "entitlement", and being "insulting" to the chef, comes in.

If I am a chef and I have worked very hard to put together a great menu, and some guy walks into my restaurant for the first time and says, "I really expect a lot more than the average joe, so I dont want whats on your menu, I want you to cook me something really good." I would be insulted on some level. Probably not personally, but possibly professionally. Obviously, the implication is that my menu items are not suitable for someone who considers himself a "gourmand".

However, I am not really that fired up about this topic, just thought I would throw in my $0.02 on it.

Vanessa · February 17, 2003

The only time in my life I had a piece of clothing custom-made - a suede shirt - it fit so badly I refused to buy it. I can only presume that he used another person's measurements.

v

Sign In

Off the Menu at 15 Restaurants

Recommended Posts

Similar Content

Recently Browsing 0 members