Grimes - too much power over NYC restaurants?

[Felonius]

The thread on William Grimes' review of "Mix" (Alain Ducasse's new NYC restaurant) brought this question to mind.

Grimes' unflattering review of ADNY no doubt did a fair amount of damage to that restaurant's business. Prior threads on this board have speculated whether or not Ducasse made changes at ADNY in response to Grimes' criticism - eliminating choices of fine pens and cutlery for example. If I remember correctly, there were other harsh reviews of ADNY at the time in the Post and elsewhere, but I suspect that Grimes exerts the most influence through his lofty post at the Times. I would guess that the content of a review from Grimes can nearly make or break a fledgling restaurant in New York. Comments overheard while recently dining at Mix indicate that Ducasse has already made changes in response to Grimes' recent review.

Should the New York Times allow one critic/reporter to have so much airtime and influence? The role of any food critic is by nature quite subjective, so why not use more of a panel approach with multiple reviewers? For example, Wine Spectator magazine follows strict guidelines for the tasting and rating sessions which support its wine buying guide. Here are some excerpts from Wine Spectator regarding these guidelines:

"Wines are always tasted blind, in flights organized by varietal, appellation or region...Each tasting begins with a wine previously rated, which is tasted non-blind as a reference point. Other already-rated wines are inserted into the blind tasting to ensure consistency....Price is not taken into account. We retaste all wines that score 70 points or less....Scores of outstanding or better are routinely confirmed by another editor."

I'm not suggesting that wine tasting methodology is applicable to restaurant reviews per se (now do I get my two points Fat Guy?). What is pertinent here is the effort taken by the Wine Spectator's editors to bring some balance and objectivity to their reviews. These editors know they hold a great deal of power over wine producers. An outstanding rating of a new or obscure wine in the Spectator can drive huge demand swings in the marketplace and double or triple a wine's retail price. So, at least these editors are trying to approach this power with some level of objectivity and respect. In contrast, there are wine reviews by single editors such as Robert Parker, in which one person's opinions exert tremendous pressure on the marketplace (some wine critics have suggested that producers may deliberately alter wines in hopes of courting Parker's preferences/tastes).

On the other hand, I find that reviews from a single trusted source can often be the most focused and useful. For example, I came to this board after reading many of Steven Shaw's reviews. Over time, I found that my taste generally agreed with his, and I had a much greater probability of following his leads to new and satisfying dining experiences than I did from following the reviews in the New York Times or Zagats. I suppose Zagats tries to bring some measure of objectivity to the review process, but I personally find their reviews to be of little use.

So are New Yorkers well served by Grimes and the New York Times?

Of course I think the answer to the dilemma is eGullet.

Edited October 25, 2003 by Felonius (log)

[Bux]

I would be hard put to defend any statement that even hints that Zagat "tries to bring some measure of objectivity to the review process," but that's another story, or at least another thread and one already started.

Should the New York Times allow one critic/reporter to have so much airtime and influence?

That's a more interesting question. Traditionally it has. I believe it was Craig Clairborne who brought so much influence to the NY Times reviews. Perhaps it would have happened anyway as New Yorkers became more restaurant conscious. Other reviewers seem to have inherited the respect Clairborne brought to the position. To varying degrees they've maintained it, but even that may have as much to do with inertia and people's need to have some authority to look towards, that the quality of the revews. With Grimes, the Times has introduced a reviewer who's come from outside the food world to a great extent. In fact he's gone on record denigrating chefs and indicating he finds eating out a chore. He's the first reviewer who honestly came to writing restaurant reviews with no enthusiasm for dining out. I've found so much fault with his approach that I don't read his reviews as religiously as one might expect a restaurant obsessed New Yorker to do and when I read them, I take them with a grain of salt, knowing they're not written for me.

[Felonius]

What is Grimes' background? Why would the New York times choose someone without a food background who fines dining out a "chore"? A deliberate attempt to take an "average joe on the street" look at dining out perhaps? It's a crime if he doesn't particularly enjoy dining out. What wouldn't any number of egulleteers give for that job and expense account!

[Holly Moore]

The fault lies not in Grimes but rather in the those who follow his or any other critic's reviews. Grimes has no power save the power that his readers give him.

[Felonius]

The fault lies not in Grimes but rather in the those who follow his or any other critic's reviews.  Grimes has no power save the power that his readers give him.

True enough. However, the fact remains that a large number of people do use and will continue to use his recommendations as a factor when deciding which new restaurants to try. It follows that he holds quite a bit of influence on the business environment for fledgling restaurants and the New York City food economy in general. Given the size of this market, it's a position of considerable responsibility.

[Fat Guy]

Grimes has no power save the power that his readers give him.

Ultimately, yes. But this skips over the question of how readers decide whether or not to give power to a critic. I think it goes without saying that 99% of readers are not going to have the experience or expertise to make independent judgments regarding Grimes's capabilities as a reviewer per se (two points). At best they can tell that he writes well, and surely he's a better writer than most.

Rather, the way readers decide to give power to Grimes is by transference: the imprimatur of The New York Times -- the world's pre-eminent newspaper -- is upon him, and people trust the New York Times to pick the best people for the job.

Whether or not Grimes was the best person for the job depends on how you define the job. I think one big issue for the Times editors was that they wanted to get the grade-inflation of the Reichl era under control, and Grimes was clearly someone who could do that. I think they also felt they didn't want to go outside the paper for a reviewer, because they wanted someone they already knew and trusted. Grimes has been a good choice in those regards. He got the stars pretty much in order, adjusting Chanterelle to where it needed to be, etc. He has also been a team player and has integrated well into the section, whereas Reichl always seemed like an outsider who just sort of happened to have half a page in the paper every week (which is essentially what she was).

I don't think the enthusiasm-and-enjoyment standard comes into play much at the Times, either. I think they're more interested in professionalism and independence than they are in enthusiasm. I get the feeling Reichl had too much enthusiasm for their tastes.

As for the question of power, I see no problem with it per se (four points). Indeed, in the hands of a brilliant critic with the right motives and ideas, that power can be used to champion excellence and improve the enterprise of dining. Problems start to arise, however, when the power is used badly, either on account of a lack of capability or, worse, corruption. I would certainly never accuse Grimes of that.

[robert brown]

Then the solution must be for the Times to give Grimes' job to Fat Guy. It would fit my hypothesis, which goes as follows: I bet that the large majority of influential restaurant critics are drawn from the ranks of the publications they work for. Some of us can remember the well-known remark by Clay Felker during the start-up of New York Magazine in the late 1960s: " Let's give the restaurant job to Gael". Also you have Walter Wells at the International Herald Tribune giving the restaurant job to his wife and the NYT tapping their cultural reporter Grimes for the restaurant job there. To get back to my hypothesis, it is that the best food writers start out as dedicated culinary amateurs even if they are professional writers in other areas. Take R.W. Apple and Calvin Trillin. Practicing law seems to be significant as well. Look at Steingarten and Fat Guy. As for Felonius's query, whoever reviews restaurants for the Times inherits the influence that goes with the job. Look at the power of the drama critics there, which is even more of a "make or break" situation.

[Fat Guy]

By the way, one thing I should add is that I hardly accept it as a given that the Times has so much power over restaurants. Let me break that down into three issues. First, I think it's clear that the Times only has power over restaurants that are frequented by the New York Times audience. So, for example, the Times review of Tuscan Steak didn't make the slightest dent in that restaurant's business, as far as I could tell. Whereas, the Times had tremendous influence over ADNY's audience. I assume the Times will have substantially less relevance to the Mix audience. Second, the Times has power only as part of a larger equation that includes the chef/restaurant in question as well as the other top-tier reviewers and information sources. So, for example, Grimes didn't have much influence on Daniel's bottom line when he gave it a three-star review, because Daniel probably carries more weight with the dining public than Grimes does. And that would be true, right or wrong -- in other words even if Daniel deserved two stars, it's not likely that Grimes could have made a difference. With ADNY, I don't think Grimes standing alone could have wrecked the place. He was actually far less critical than the overall media tide. It think his review was so powerful because it represented a final affirmation of the negativity that people were already incorporating into their thinking: they were saying, well, everybody is slamming the place, but let's wait and see if the Times confirms or denies that. Third, restaurants themselves often give power to the Times that they don't have to give. Marika didn't have to fire its chef. That was Marika's choice. But it certainly made Grimes look powerful. Likewise, when restaurateurs accede to Grimes's demands in order to get the extra star a year down the road, they make a choice. A bad choice. And for that I blame them, not Grimes or the Times.

[Felonius]

MORE POWER TO THE FAT GUY NATION!

destroy the evil "Zagatization"

[Suzanne F]

The fault lies not in Grimes but rather in the those who follow his or any other critic's reviews.  Grimes has no power save the power that his readers give him.

Amen, brother.

[herbacidal]

I think it may be too specific.

IMHO, Grimes has as much power over NYC restaurants as Laban has over Philly restaurants.

More generally, the food critic of the largest daily in a given metro area has an overly large amount of influence over the tastes of consumers in that given area. This is at least true in the US. Cannot say about elsewhere.

Now there are specific NY characteristics on top of that help elevate the NYT food critic to another level of influence beyond food critics in any other market, among them having said influence over the largest US media market and sharing a metro area influence with the base for much of the food media, but that has more to do with the critic's long-term influence and career development through cookbooks, etc.

[Suzanne F]

But Herb, as far as I can tell, Grimes has 2 books under his belt: one on cocktails, and one on the chicken that showed up in his backyard. Not much in the way of career development, eh? Amanda Hesser's books are much more to the point. (Not that I'm trying to compare the two of them, or that I love or hate either; just thought it's interesting.)

[Fat Guy]

I wouldn't expect most restaurant reviewers to be cookbook authors. Those are traditionally two separate areas of food writing and very few people have the level of interest or range to cross over and write in both the dining and cooking areas. It's a personal aspiration for me to be able to write well in both areas, so I can tell you from personal experience that it's extremely difficult to find the time to do both -- I think it would be flat-out impossible to do both while writing two reviews a week for the New York Times.

Despite the obvious perks, Grimes has a very challenging job and there are very few people in the world of food journalism who could do that job as well as he does it. Which won't stop me from saying I wish he'd do it better.

[pjs]

But Herb, as far as I can tell, Grimes has 2 books under his belt: one on cocktails, and one on the chicken that showed up in his backyard.  Not much in the way of career development, eh?  Amanda Hesser's books are much more to the point.  (Not that I'm trying to compare the two of them, or that I love or hate either; just thought it's interesting.)

Suzanne,

Grimes wrote a book about the chicken?

The story was marginally entertaining when it first appeared in the paper. But a book?

PJ

[Fat Guy]

Yes, he expanded the article series into a book called My Fine Feathered Friend.

[herbacidal]

But Herb, as far as I can tell, Grimes has 2 books under his belt: one on cocktails, and one on the chicken that showed up in his backyard.  Not much in the way of career development, eh?  Amanda Hesser's books are much more to the point.  (Not that I'm trying to compare the two of them, or that I love or hate either; just thought it's interesting.)

but his being the NYT food critic helped them sell more copies, if I'm not mistaken.

as far as career development, i meant it gives NYT food critics a larger selling base when they decide to write books.

in his case, he wrote his cocktail book before, so that is less so. but i would guarantee that's a reason for the re-release of the cocktail book, which i would expect to sell more copies than the first time around.

now responding to FG's post:

i can't speak to the ability of restaurant reviewers to be cookbook authors. i would say some can and some can't.

but even if they can't, just lending their name to one and collaborating even a miniscule percentage would help boost sales of it.

i wasn't really thinking about him writing any books while doing the reviews. i was thinking more about his writing the books after he left that post.

did claiborne write his book(s?) after his time at NYT or during?

Edited October 26, 2003 by herbacidal (log)

[alanamoana]

IMHO, Grimes has as much power over NYC restaurants as Laban has over Philly restaurants.

More generally, the food critic of the largest daily in a given metro area has an overly large amount of influence over the tastes of consumers in that given area.  This is at least true in the US.  Cannot say about elsewhere.

this is definitely true. michael bauer in san francisco has his fair share of detractors in the restaurant industry because it is generally felt that he has too much power of the success or failure of new restaurants.

it seems that almost every restaurant in san francisco will have a roasted beet and goat cheese salad on the menu at any given time because they know that michael bauer likes them. when any restaurant has to cater to the taste of an individual, they're ignoring their real audience and that is how a critic can gain power over their readers. dictating good taste (what the critic believes to be good taste, or their own particular taste).

however, as it seems that is a "problem" in more than one city, i would hope that communities like eGullet can dispell some of this power. as we're the consumers that are making the decisions and we can discuss the reviews with other, more objective, individuals...we can take some of that power away.

[Fat Guy]

Were I to set some goals for how eGullet would interact with the major-media restaurant reviewers on the influence front, I probably wouldn't include lessening their power per se (two points) as one of those goals. I think the primary goal here should be accountability. Because we do have a very potent collection of knowledge here, we can speak loudly when a reviewer obviously slips up, gets lazy, starts to pursue an inappropriate agenda, fails to act independently or ethically, etc. That doesn't actually lessen a reviewer's power. Rather, a reviewer who is accountable to those who know and love the subject matter will ultimately have more power because that accountability will reinforce the cycle of respect and influence. That's part of why it's important for eGullet to engage in hard-hitting media criticism: ultimately, it benefits everyone.

[Fat Guy]

michael bauer in san francisco has his fair share of detractors in the restaurant industry because it is generally felt that he has too much power of the success or failure of new restaurants.

I don't find the objection to power per se (two points) to be all that compelling. Power that is earned and used properly shouldn't upset anyone. We're not talking about government here, where preventing concentration of power is an important systemic precondition to the functioning of the republic. A powerful restaurant critic like Craig Claiborne is an asset to every party that deserves to be helped: he helps the industry by promoting quality, he helps any restaurant that's smart enough to listen to expert criticism, he helps consumers by educating them -- in short, as a champion of excellence, he serves a higher purpose than just telling people where to eat dinner. Problems arise when a powerful critic becomes corrupt, highly idiosyncratic, cranky, out of touch, etc. But I don't see that as a problem with power per se (four points). There are plenty of powerless critics who are corrupt and stupid. You need both power plus those other flaws before you really have problems. Of course, one could say that by preventing too much power from falling into one critic's hands we solve the problem. And that's true. But then you don't get all those benefits a great critic can offer. And there are ways of creating accountability and integrity without limiting power per se (six points). You can, for example, make sure there's a skilled, experienced, professional editorial team to which the critic reports. You can have strong ethical guidelines and a mechanism to enforce them. And, above all else, you can make sure you hire the right critic.

[Fat Guy]

i can't speak to the ability of restaurant reviewers to be cookbook authors.  i would say some can and some can't. 

but even if they can't, just lending their name to one and collaborating even a miniscule percentage would help boost sales of it.

Let me go on record as saying that the odds of William Grimes ever writing a cookbook are roughly equivalent to the odds that he will be tapped to lead the Klingon Empire.

did claiborne write his book(s?) after his time at NYT or during?

Claiborne was the food editor at the Times beginning in, I believe, the late 1950s. I'm pretty sure he held the position for something like 30 years. I'm not sure which of those years were also spent writing restaurant reviews -- not all of them, I think. And I believe he published numerous books both during and after his time as Times food editor.

[herbacidal]

i can't speak to the ability of restaurant reviewers to be cookbook authors.  i would say some can and some can't. 

but even if they can't, just lending their name to one and collaborating even a miniscule percentage would help boost sales of it.

Let me go on record as saying that the odds of William Grimes ever writing a cookbook are roughly equivalent to the odds that he will be tapped to lead the Klingon Empire.

well hey, if grimes can't be tapped to lead the High Council, maybe he'll be

zsha zshouk.

it's fine if he doesn't write a cookbook. if he chooses to write some other food or drink related book, it'll still sell.

[Fat Guy]

No doubt, if William Grimes could sell a certain number of copies of a book in a vacuum, he will likely sell more copies of that book by virtue of being or having been the New York Times restaurant reviewer. But that's no guarantee of selling a significant number of books. The entire weight of the New York Times restaurant reviewing staff, not to mention the New York Times itself, gets put behind The New York Times Guide to New York City Restaurants. Right on the cover, there are William Grimes and Eric Asimov listed as co-authors, and the words "New York Times" writ large. Yet this book can barely muster up its Amazon.com sales ranking of 85,959. Grimes's book about the chicken is down at 117,521. And the cocktail book is at 92,906.

Zagat's sales ranking for the New York survey is 479. Paula Wolfert's new cookbook is at 2,748.

My wife's book on shopping for furniture in North Carolina is 3,685. Even her three older titles -- every single one of them -- are outranking all of Grimes's books. And since I know her sales figures, which are moderate-though-not-insignificant, I can tell you that to have rankings as low as they do, Grimes's books must be selling very few copies.

[bergerka]

I don't find the objection to power per se (two points) to be all that compelling. Power that is earned and used properly shouldn't upset anyone. We're not talking about government here, where preventing concentration of power is an important systemic precondition to the functioning of the republic. A powerful restaurant critic like Craig Claiborne is an asset to every party that deserves to be helped: he helps the industry by promoting quality, he helps any restaurant that's smart enough to listen to expert criticism, he helps consumers by educating them -- in short, as a champion of excellence, he serves a higher purpose than just telling people where to eat dinner. Problems arise when a powerful critic becomes corrupt, highly idiosyncratic, cranky, out of touch, etc. But I don't see that as a problem with power per se (four points). There are plenty of powerless critics who are corrupt and stupid. You need both power plus those other flaws before you really have problems. Of course, one could say that by preventing too much power from falling into one critic's hands we solve the problem. And that's true. But then you don't get all those benefits a great critic can offer. And there are ways of creating accountability and integrity without limiting power per se (six points). You can, for example, make sure there's a skilled, experienced, professional editorial team to which the critic reports. You can have strong ethical guidelines and a mechanism to enforce them. And, above all else, you can make sure you hire the right critic.

Slightly OT, but FG--the "per se" points thing isn't going to count if you're the only one who's going to use it. It's sort of like the Yankees winning because they can outspend all the other teams.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

K, who is enjoying this discussion wholeheartedly.

[Fat Guy]

Not sure if you noticed, but the Yankees lost. And I have at least one other person playing, so it's only a matter of time before participation spreads like wildfire!

[bergerka]

Not sure if you noticed, but the Yankees lost.    And I have at least one other person playing, so it's only a matter of time before participation spreads like wildfire!

I noticed. I did a little happy dance, actually--while looking around furtively to make sure no Yankees fans were watching...they can legally shoot you for that in NYC, or so I understand.

K