Restaurants fail to take advantage of the internet

[Andy Lynes]

Restaurants could do better on the net if the findings of a new survey by American Express are accurate. "More than three-quarters of potential customers felt that restaurants were not taking full advantage of the internet".

Does the fact of a restaurants web presence increase the chances of potential customers making a booking? Would a poor site put you off making a reservation? What are the barriers preventing restaurateurs from creating attractive websites as a marketing tool? Thoughts please.

[fresco]

"Despite the importance of the internet, American Express (said) word of mouth recommendations were the most common reason for choosing a restaurant".

Kind of takes the wind out of their own survey, doesn't it?

[zilla369]

I don't know that a poor website would keep me from trying a recommended restaurant, but i know for SURE that a good website with a current menu and lots of pictures of the food, dining room and kitchen, and chef bios, would make me more apt to try a place i'd never been.

I recently went on a road trip to Cleveland to eat in the demo kitchen at Lola Bistro. I was leaning towards not going until i saw the website.

I think as consumers become ever more internet-savvy, a good website will be an invaluable sales tool for high-end restaurants.

[tommy]

i'm with zilla.

it's an invaluable part of the research that goes into choosing restaurants, especially when one is going on a trip.

[Kim WB]

I recently needed a specific venue in Philly, and my first step was to ask on e-gullet..and then I looked at the site each restaurant that was mentioned..the ones that did not have a site were out of contention ( because it was business and I had some specific criteria) and the two or three I narrowed it down to had web sites, and the one I went to had the best site...so I guess I used a combination of word of mouth and web. The restaurant, BTW, was VEtri, and it is absolutely wonderful.

[macrosan]

My general view is that Amex's conclusions were extravagant. Obviously we have no idea how many people they surveyed, nor what kind of people. More importantly, we have no idea what question they asked, nor how they interpreted the answers. My limited experience of Amex suggests they know little or nothing about conducting surveys.

I instinctively discount the possibility that one could assign any truth to the results that "Three out of four respondents said a really informative and innovative website would increase their loyalty to a restaurant and would prompt them return more often. One third said a good website would encourage them to book at a restaurant that exceeded their price range." Both such positions seem to me extraordinary, qualitatively and quantitatively.

On the wider issue, I do believe that :

• A high quality website will be of value to a high quality restaurant
  
• Lesser restaurants probably shouldn't bother
  
• No website is better than a poor one
  

[tommy]

I instinctively discount the possibility that one could assign any truth to the results that  "Three out of four respondents said a really informative and innovative website would increase their loyalty to a restaurant and would prompt them return more often. One third said a good website would encourage them to book at a restaurant that exceeded their price range." Both such positions seem to me extraordinary, qualitatively and quantitatively.

On the wider issue, I do believe that :

• A high quality website will be of value to a high quality restaurant
  
• Lesser restaurants probably shouldn't bother
  
• No website is better than a poor one
  

we've had a thread or two on this (recently even). if you want a poll of experts, perhaps we should voice our opinions. cursory reading of this thread suggests to me that this particular group of experts thinks that a good website is a good thing, and might even be a part of the decision to visit a restaurant. also, an expert just PM'd me, and another emailed me agreeing with me. so there you have it. i'm right.

Edited July 2, 2003 by tommy (log)

[macrosan]

I instinctively discount the possibility that one could assign any truth to the results that  "Three out of four respondents said a really informative and innovative website would increase their loyalty to a restaurant and would prompt them return more often. One third said a good website would encourage them to book at a restaurant that exceeded their price range." Both such positions seem to me extraordinary, qualitatively and quantitatively.

On the wider issue, I do believe that :

• A high quality website will be of value to a high quality restaurant
  
• Lesser restaurants probably shouldn't bother
  
• No website is better than a poor one
  

we've had a thread or two on this (recently even). if you want a poll of experts, perhaps we should voice our opinions. cursory reading of this thread suggests to me that this particular group of experts thinks that a good website is a good thing, and might even be a part of the decision to visit a restaurant. also, an expert just PM'd me, and another emailed me agreeing with me. so there you have it. i'm right.

Indeed you may be right (just this once) Tommy, but that still wouldn't make Amex right

You see, you just said "... a good website is a good thing, and might even be a part of the decision to visit a restaurant" whereas Amex said "... a really informative and innovative website would ... prompt them to return more often". See ? Geddit ? I agree that a good website might encourage me to try a place for the first time, but the idea that having actually been there then the website would be more likely to encourage me to return sounds like crass nonsense to me

And on the second point, would you be persuaded to "exceed your price range" just because the restaurant had a good website ? Incredible !!! Of course that is an entirely hypothetical question, since we all understand that the restaurant has not yet been opened which exceeds your price range

[tommy]

You see, you just said "... a good website is a good thing, and might even be a part of the decision to visit a restaurant" whereas Amex said "... a really informative and innovative website would ... prompt them to return more often". See ? Geddit ?

i missed that bit. that's just poppycock.

[kurl]

[From another thread:] Your question was hardly clutter and I thank you for posting that information for the rest of us. I thought your $150 was too high and very safe. On the other hand, my wife always tells me I'm living in the past when I remember prices. $118 for 7 courses seems a good buy for a place of JG's caliber.

I'm really disappointed when I find a restaurant's web site that offers out of date information or lots of fancy web tricks in lieu of information. I'm disappointed a lot. The trend on the web seems to be away from communication. This is a topic for the rebirth of another thread.

This probably isn't the place to discuss it, but I sometimes think that "nice" restaurants think that putting prices or a menu on a website has a cheapening effect, or something. Witness that the Jean Georges website has menus/prices for JoJo, Vong, etc. but not for JG.

[rozrapp]

Your question was hardly clutter and I thank you for posting that information for the rest of us. I thought your $150 was too high and very safe. On the other hand, my wife always tells me I'm living in the past when I remember prices. $118 for 7 courses seems a good buy for a place of JG's caliber.

I'm really disappointed when I find a restaurant's web site that offers out of date information or lots of fancy web tricks in lieu of information. I'm disappointed a lot. The trend on the web seems to be away from communication. This is a topic for the rebirth of another thread.

This probably isn't the place to discuss it, but I sometimes think that "nice" restaurants think that putting prices or a menu on a website has a cheapening effect, or something. Witness that the Jean Georges website has menus/prices for JoJo, Vong, etc. but not for JG.

Well, I guess Daniel Boulud wouldn't agree that providing prices has a cheapening effect because his web site provides that information for all his restaurants. He even includes supplementary charges on his Daniel menu.

I'm with Bux. And this is something that eGulleteer VivreManger has complained about. A restaurant web site can have all the bells and whistles imaginable. But if it doesn't provide important information, i.e., up-to-date menus and prices, then, for me, it's worse than useless.

Edited July 31, 2003 by rozrapp (log)

[Bux]

Your question was hardly clutter and I thank you for posting that information for the rest of us. I thought your $150 was too high and very safe. On the other hand, my wife always tells me I'm living in the past when I remember prices. $118 for 7 courses seems a good buy for a place of JG's caliber.

I'm really disappointed when I find a restaurant's web site that offers out of date information or lots of fancy web tricks in lieu of information. I'm disappointed a lot. The trend on the web seems to be away from communication. This is a topic for the rebirth of another thread.

This probably isn't the place to discuss it, but I sometimes think that "nice" restaurants think that putting prices or a menu on a website has a cheapening effect, or something. Witness that the Jean Georges website has menus/prices for JoJo, Vong, etc. but not for JG.

Well, I guess Daniel Boulud wouldn't agree that providing prices has a cheapening effect because his web site provides that information for all his restaurants. He even includes supplementary charges on his Daniel menu.

I'm with Bux. And this is something that eGulleteer VivreManger has complained about. A restaurant web site can have all the bells and whistles imaginable. But if it doesn't provide important information, i.e., up-to-date menus and prices, then, for me, it's worse than useless.

First, I've moved the last two posts and this is now the place to discuss this.

What cheapens the JG web site is reading outdated information like this which is currently on JG's site.

Didier Virot, the Chef de Cuisine at Jean Georges, is the chef’s right hand. The Lorraine - raised chef was trained by Michel Bras in France and he also worked at La Cote Basque in New York City before becomingthe Chef de Cuisine at Vongerichten’s Jo Jo.

In 2001 Didier Virot opened his own restaurant called "Virot." It didn't last long and he now has Aix on the upper west side, but you wouldn't know that from reading the JG web site. I wonder how many of those prices listed for dishes at his other restaurants are valid.

If a web site doesn't provide important information, it's worse than useless. Just as bad, or maybe worse, is when the information is there, but you can't find it. Perhaps the ultimate perversion is the message that tells you your browser isn't good enough to read my web site. The web site must dazzle you at all cost. If you're not willing to download the proper browser -- the one that shows off the designers talents in the best light, well then, you're not going to find out what's on the menu. There are web sites that are no longer about communication and ones that are not about the restaurant, but the web designer.

[Explorer]

A powerful restaurant web site doesn't have to be with bells and whistles (read java & shockwave in techie language).

Actually, the more factual it is, and the less hype it contains, the more effective it becomes. It's not a brochure- it should be a fact sheet, unless it's a tourist spot.

Updated menus with prices, wine list, chef/owner's bio, relevant reviews and summary of purpsose/cuisine/setting.

The key thing is that it has to reflect accuratetly what the restaurant is/is not- in real-life. Over-selling or under-selling is the worst mistake that can be done.

[tommy]

Actually, the more factual it is, and the less hype it contains, the more effective it becomes. It's not a brochure- it should be a fact sheet, unless it's a tourist spot.

i don't see why it can't be both. it seems to me that it needs to be easy to read/navigate, and contain accurate information. whether that information is presented with java or shockwave doesn't matter to me. pretty pictures are pleasing to the eye, and convey information themselves.

these are some broad generalizations here. howeer, i think we can all agree that it should have accurate information. the rest is simply a matter of taste. and the experts aren't here any longer.

Edited August 1, 2003 by tommy (log)

[guajolote]

Just as bad, or maybe worse, is when the information is there, but you can't find it.

Brings new meaning to the term Mystery Meat Navigation. If I were designing a restaurant web site, I would put the menu on the home page. I bet most people who look at a restaurants web site just want to see the menu.

No prices annoy me too.

Edited August 1, 2003 by guajolote (log)

[nightscotsman]

"More than three-quarters of potential customers felt that restaurants were not taking full advantage of the internet"

This is not the lease bit surprising given that at least 95% of businesses in general aren't taking "full advantage" of the internet. Just give me the information I want, help me find it quickly, then get the hell out of the way. God save us from pointless Flash crap. Goddamn masturbating designers ::grumble grumble::

Bitter? Who me?

[tommy]

Just give me the information I want, help me find it quickly, then get the hell out of the way. God save us from pointless Flash crap. Goddamn masturbating designers ::grumble grumble::

YEAH!! I'M WITH YOU!!! i HATE spending countless minutes on the internet.

[Bux]

Would someone care to nominate a restaurant web site they think is particualrly successful or unsuccessful? We could them discuss its merits and faults. It would be interesting to discover where we all agree or disagree and it might prove to be a fruitful excericise.

[zilla369]

Would someone care to nominate a restaurant web site they think is particualrly successful or unsuccessful? We could them discuss its merits and faults. It would be interesting to discover where we all agree or disagree and it might prove to be a fruitful excericise.

I would!

Chez Panisse

Menus are updated weekly, man. Graphics are clear and uncluttered. A class act, all the way. I live about a thousand miles away and have never eaten there, and i still visit the website every week.

[Bux]

Chez Panisse

A very nice site. Everything that's on the site is very easy to find. The site is all one level deep, which makes it an easy site on which to find your way around, but there are some hyper text links for short cuts anyway. It's a small site, so the menu at the bottom of each page also functions as a site map. This is an inherent advantage of small sites, but you'd be surprised at how many designers don't take advantage of inherent benefits.

It's a lightweight site that doesn't bother with animation or depend heavily on graphics. "Lightweight" is not meant to be a derogatory term here. I have DSL, but my guess is that this site will load quickly for those using antique browsers on a dial-up connection, which means just about universal view-ability and quick access to information. It's a handsome site, if the kind you could bring home to mother perhaps. If you've never heard of Chez Panisse, it might not get you excited about going there, but few people have never heard of Chez Panisse. That shouldn't be a problem and besides, I think that's Alice's style. I might like to see some information about the kitchen.

The menus are recent. The fixed restaurant menu is posted for the current week. The a la carte cafe menu is two days old and I assume relatively indicative of today's offerings and certainly of today's prices. The Special Events page is a bit confusing. Most the events are annually recurring days, but two special weeks honoring Italian white truffles and Zinfandel are shown with 2002 dates that are at least seven months stale. It would have been easy to update that page.

I would love to see some information on each cookbook. The titles are in blue indicating a link, but they are only a rollover that makes the cover appear as an image. A recipe or two would have been nice, but these are less faults than they are latent opportunities to expand the site. Overall, it's probably an excellent model for any restaurant to use as a guide.

[I. Reilly]

Wow. Really attractive site. I love Alice...

[ballast_regime]

I think it's interesting that even the best restaurant websites still pale in comparison to some of the worst Fortune 500 company websites. The bar will slowly be raised, but not very far. Customers do rely too much on word-of-mouth recommendations. Even posting current menus wouldn't do too much to boost sales. Some studies have shown that visual information is one of the most important elements of menu-design in chain restaurants. I'm surprised high-end restaurants don't take advantage of this fact, and post high-resolution pics of their food.

IML

b/r

[tommy]

Some studies have shown that visual information is one of the most important elements of menu-design in chain restaurants.  I'm surprised high-end restaurants don't take advantage of this fact, and post high-resolution pics of their food.

i would venture to say that that is a different market.

but yes, there probably isn't anything wrong with flattering food photography for a high-end restaurant.

[rozrapp]

Speaking of high end restaurants....

Restaurant Nicholas

A web site that's easy to navigate, provides all necessary information, and is always current. By the way, the food is fabulous!

[Bux]

Restaurant Nicholas

I think this is a good example of how a few photographs can help whet your appetite to dine in the restaurant.

I'd be curious to know if permission was granted for reprinting those reviews, or if anyone even asked. The NY Times review has a graphic that says it from their premium archive. That's a pay service. There appear to be links to help and search, but they don't work.