Guide Michelin comes to NY

[Bux]

Can they sell to visitors looking for restaurant recommendations at the unstarred levels, but in proximity to their hotel for instance?

If so, they'd better locate a bunch of them in Midtown, n'est-ce pas?

There are many hotels and many places to eat in midtown. At any price point they are not all equal. Many travelers would consider trusting Michelin's recommendations. I don't necessarily feel uncomfortable when I book a room at a hotel in Europe that's not in the guide, but I do feel comforted when I know my hotel is recommended by Michelin. That's the inherent point about the guide at the less than ultimate level of hotel or restaurant. It's not necessarily a list of all the acceptable choices, but all of its recommendations should be acceptable. I suspect the market of visitors from Europe, where the guide has an enviable reputation in spite of recent developments, as well as visitors from Asia and South American who are familiar with the Michellin brand endorsement as a result of having used it in Europe, is sufficient to warrant consideration of publishing a guide to New York. The time may have come and the strength of the euro may have contributed to this decision, although obviously the consideration began some time ago when the dollar was stronger.

[Pan]

Bux, I also have found Guide Michelin useful in Europe, especially France. My comment wasn't a criticism of Michelin but an observation about where most tourists stay in Manhattan.

[Pan]

Relais et Chateaux however is not a rating, per se, but an association of inns and restaurants. Membership is selective, but it is also by fee. Inclusion in the group is not really a rating as much as it is a guarantee that the member holds to certain standards. It started in France, but is an international organization with member restaurants and inns on just about every continent save Antarctica.

Seems like that might present an opening for some enterprising soul at McMurdo Sound.

[Explorer]

Although somebody else mentioned that this conversation is on the realm of hypothetical observations, as a benefit, it has probably offered some quick (and free) research to Michelin planners that are involved in this project. Therefore we can't assume that Michelin isn't aware of the particular segmentation and idiocyncracies of the NY scene, but I am sure that they are doing their research accordingly.

One other thing I would say is that for some, Michelin guides become addictive. It's almost a culture. What they don't say and "how" they say it is part of the interpretation that an experienced reader goes through. Although the "length" of reviews is short and comparable to Zagat's in terms of # of words, the Michelin reviews use very carefully chosen words and readers extract a lot more value from the same number of words.

There is however another challenge I see for them. The nature of the restaurant business in the US is generally more volatile than the slower-to-change Paris scene for e.g.. I mean that restaurants, owners and chefs will go through more changes, more often, making the risk of being outdated more prevalent. I have heard more than one French person say to me that what they don't understand about the US is that star-chefs are made overnight after one success,-- say for a year or a few months; whereas in France, you have to be out-there at that level for 5 years in a row before they start to give you credit. The example was given to me about NY specifically where overnight success is looked at with suspicion. (I am not saying that either extreme is right, ie NY is too lax to grant credit vs. Paris who is very tough) So it would be interesting to see how Michelin "translates" their standards across the border- and I know that at the risk of repeating what others have said, this has been a theme of this converation, that I was belated to enter.

On the Relais et Chateaux analogy, the consistency part that Bux mentioned about Relais Gourmands is very true, and that's what I was inferring.

[marcus]

There is however another challenge I see for them. The nature of the restaurant business in the US is generally more volatile than the slower-to-change Paris scene

They have a numberof challenges in adapting to the NY scene. During the period of expansion of the Red Guide out of France in the late 80s early 90s, there were articles in the press that Michelin had considered a Red Guide for NY and decided not to do it because the NY restaurants were too inconsistant, not just changing rapidly over months, but just day to day delivery of meals. They felt that their readers would not have the same levelof assurance as to the anticipated quality of following the guides recommendations that Michelin stars would give them in Europe, and probably correctly so. At this point, they have probably concluded that they need to accept the risk, and they are also not quite as rigorous as they used to be, themselves.

[Explorer]

decided not to do it because the NY restaurants were too inconsistant, not just changing rapidly over months, but just day to day delivery of meals.

Bingo.

As to the reason behind this observation, it might be in the realm of a separate discussion. I believe it is rooted in the differences between restaurant staff composition and availability; whereas the US pool is more or less transient, France has professional affiliations that are taken seriously, therefore they can operate a restaurant like a clock, whereas it is more challenging to do so here. (there are few exceptions of course).

[RobinsonCuisine]

Michelin is a nationally recognized brand name of long standing (albeit primarily for automotive products and a cuddly mascot) and will not suffer any sort of backlash for being French based.

Among the culinary crowd, Guide Michelin is internationally known and will be courted by the NY restaurant industry tooth and nail. Michelin stars will hold the same, and, depending on how unimpeachable the credibility of the reviewers, perhaps more sway/prestige than the NYTimes. With few exceptions, top chefs are French trained (and those who aren't have a French trained second in command) and will covet a Michelin star like a starlet an Oscar.

Its true that the volativity of the NY restaurant scene will make it hard for the Guide to keep up to date, but as it stands the lower end guides which are published more frequently (Zagat, Time Out) are nearly 25-40% incorrect by time they hit the stands. Even the on-line sites have trouble keeping true.

I think it will be a welcome addition to the city and hope it will raise the bar for culinary criticism.

[jogoode]

Welcome, RobinsonCuisine!

How do you think the Michelin ratings will translate to restaurants in New York? Will the three and two-star NY places only be those that follow the high-end French model? As Fat Guy has mentioned in other threads, New York has only a couple of restaurants that replicate the three-star French experience, not just in quality of food and level of cuisine but also in that they offer the sort of leisurely, luxury dining experience where a table is yours for the entire night. ADNY and Masa are the only ones of this kind since Per Se has started doing multiple seatings. Does this mean these will be the only restaurants eligible for three stars (if Masa would be eligible at all, because it differs so from the French-model in other ways)? If so, it seems the guide will not have nearly the same relevance in NY as it does in France.

[marcus]

I don't believe that the relevance of the French Michelin guide depends only on its 27 3 star restaurants of which 10 are in Paris. There are many areas of France that have only a few one star restaurants or perhaps a single 2 star. Even being directed to one and two star restaurants has value, and the same will be true for NY. It will still represent a view of the best available, which is what people are really looking for from a guide. My own view is that they will create 3 star restaurants for NY, even if they have to lower or change their standards.

[Bux]

I don't believe that the relevance of the French Michelin guide depends only on its 27 3 star restaurants of which 10 are in Paris.  There are many areas of France that have only a few one star restaurants or perhaps a single 2 star.  Even being directed to one and two star restaurants has value, and the same will be true for NY.  It will still represent a view of the best available, which is what people are really looking for from a guide.  My own view is that they will create 3 star restaurants for NY, even if they have to lower or change their standards.

Perhaps I haven't stressed that enough, but much of my reliance on the Michelin guides in France and elsewhere in Europe including the UK, is on finding an unstarred place to eat. One doesn't need a Michelin guide to find the restaurants featured in every guide and magazine article. It some cases it represents the best at each price point or each area, but what's important is that it represents a reasonable choice in each neighborhood at the listed price.

If you come to NY and you've never heard of Daniel, le Bernardin or Jean Georges, you probably aren't interested in that sort of restaurant, but at the price point at which most tourists eat you'll find an endless supply of restaurants. Some of these are excellent and only a cut below the top places, while others, not much less expensive are patently unrewarding. Zagat reviews are unreliable because a very good restaurant may get a "2" from a Zagat participant who loves ADNY, a much less rewarding restaurant may get a "3" from someone whose favorite restaurant is Olive Garden. That there may not be any overlap between the restaurants these two types frequent, the numbers may be unrelated on any scale.

• Madrid has one 2 star restaurant, and six 1 star places. There are no 3 star restaurants in Madrid.
  
• Ditto for Rome
  
• Barcelona, a hot bed of new cuisine, has no multi-starred restaurants at all and seven 1 star restaurants.
  
• Milan has two 2 star restaurants and two 1 star restaurants.
  
• Brussels has a 3 star restaurant, a 2 star restaurant and four 1 star restaurants.
  
• Say what you will about British food, the London has three 2 star restaurants and twelve 1 star restaurants
  

I don't believe they will create three star restaurants by lowering the standard, with the possible exception of allowing for a shorter meal and even turning tables. They seem to have no trouble publishing guides that are short on three stars and in no hurry to make France appear to be anything but the capital of haute cuisine.

[jogoode]

I don't believe that the relevance of the French Michelin guide depends only on its 27 3 star restaurants of which 10 are in Paris.  There are many areas of France that have only a few one star restaurants or perhaps a single 2 star.  Even being directed to one and two star restaurants has value, and the same will be true for NY.  It will still represent a view of the best available, which is what people are really looking for from a guide.  My own view is that they will create 3 star restaurants for NY, even if they have to lower or change their standards.

Perhaps I haven't stressed that enough, but much of my reliance on the Michelin guides in France and elsewhere in Europe including the UK, is on finding an unstarred place to eat...

I'm not that familiar with the Guide, just with the star-concept. Thanks to both of you for that information.

But the idea that they might alter the significance of their ratings in order to make them applicable in another city/country makes them less relevant to me. Since the Guide has been around for so long and is familiar to so many, comparison of ratings between countries is inevitable even if it is not the Guide's intention. This will result in a confusing rating system with a lot of backlash if the new standards for the ratings aren't explained.

I was going to argue that there are already so many sources of restaurant information that Michelin ratings would represent just another sticker to put on restaurant windows, but if it can commit to providing a more agressively vigilant system of reviewing that can comment on the consistency of a restaurant over time, then I welcome it. Compared to the Times' effort -- though I do hold their newer ratings in high regard -- this wouldn't take much.

[Explorer]

I agree with what Bux and Marcus are implying- namely that Michelin would not change their "system" for NY. I don't see why NY would be treated differently than Madrid, London or Rome. It's up to NY to rise-up to Michelin's standards, and not the other way around.

Since this thread has been beating to death the star-system, please be reminded that the Red book includes many non-starred restaurants according to another tier of classification, and this is where I think that the Michelin guide could be useful on top of singling out the few 1-2-3 star restaurants that will emerge.

[paulbrussel]

Michelin has never had to compete head-on with serious reviews that actually explain their reasoning and with an entrenched establishment of reviewers, nor has it ever had to enter a market already controlled by Zagat.

Well, I think there is a major competition going on between Michelin (which has been attacked seriously in the past few months) and GaultMillau which explains much more why a restaurant gets its high ratings.

Besides, there are several other serious guides in France, like Champérard.

[paulbrussel]

I thought Michelin had a standard set of languages for all regions. French, Italian, English, German, Spanish, Japanese, or something like that. No?

The introduction in all guides is in different languages. The national guides are in the national language. Benelux guides are bilingual: French and Dutch.

Only the overall guide "Main cities of Europe" is in English only.

[winemike]

Since this thread has been beating to death the star-system, please be reminded that the Red book includes many non-starred restaurants according to another tier of classification, and this is where I think that the Michelin guide could be useful on top of singling out the few 1-2-3 star restaurants that will emerge.

Absolutely right. And it joins Bux's point. The Michelin guide is a traveller's guide.

It has its place in my car. I don't buy it because I want to see who's got the stars, I buy it because I want to know where is a nice place to eat when I'm not in a region I know and I just happen to be there for lunch or dinner.

[oakapple]

We've had plenty of debate over whether Michelin's New York guide will succeed. Since they've already made the decision, the debate is academic till the guide actually comes out. But there is one area where - if they're reading - Michelin perhaps could use some advice.

Fat Guy and Marcus are at opposite ends of the will-it-succeed argument, but they agree on one thing. FG wrote:

My guess is that it will be a total flop, primarily because the Michelin system is ill-suited to a polyglot dining culture.

...and Marcus wrote:

The key point where I agree with Fat Guy is that Michelin has never adapted well to a polyglot dining culture.  That is their challenge in developing this guide.  The fact that it will not be published until 2006 indicates that they recognize this problem and want to take some time to work it out.

Now, it's possible that Michelin thinks their reviewing system is just fine, thank you, and intends to review New York the same way it reviews every other place.

But if Marcus is right that Michelin intends to adapt its system to New York's "polyglot dining culture," how do you think they should go about that, without diluting the Michelin brand?

[Explorer]

I don't see why the current format of the Red book wouldn't adapt to NY's polyglot environment.

For those not able to look at a Red book in front of them, the Paris section most likely ressembles what the NY section might look like. Beyond the 1-2-3 star rankings, there are sections that categorize restaurants according to ethnic, type of establishment (bistrot, brasseries, etc.), by the type of food (une andouillette, un cassoulet, un coq au vin, etc..), after-theatre, by arrondissement (aka upper east side, west side, etc. here), by under 40 Euros, open air, special rooms, etc...and there are more.

"Adapting"- I don't think will be the problem. They need the time to review, classify and categorize all these restaurants, hence the 2006 timeframe.

A strategy or approach was probably already developed prior to the announcement. In typical French fashion, deep analysis precedes any action.

[Bux]

I think Explorer has started the reply to oakapple. The way Michelin handles it's Paris section is far more complex than the way the rest of France is handled, but there always been some diversity in Michelin's focus beyond the star scale. There are the Bib Gourmand recommendations for restaurants offering good meals at moderate prices and the "two coin" symbol for those offering acceptable food below an even lower price ceiling. Restaurants that are especially agreeable are noted in red and the level of comfort or luxury is noted in the number of crossed forks and spoons.

Explorer mentions some of the special listings. There is also a list devoted to restaurants open on the weekend (which is not common in Paris). The most interesting of all the special columns of lists in the Paris section is the one I first saw last year. This is for restaurants with Nouveau Concepts. If nothing else, this is an indication that Michelin is willing to accept and include restaurants that don't fit the traditional mold. It may also be that the decision to produce a New York guide is being made with the realization that Paris is becoming, if not as polyglot as New York, a place where people can eat in all sorts of new styles, even if they have to order in French. There are a lot of trendy new restaurants that just don't fit the traditional French dining pattern. Casual dining, a la tapas bar, is also making a breakthrough in Paris. These are things Michelin will have to deal with at home, they may as well tackle it in NY.

While the Paris section breaks with the rest of the France guide, all of La Guia Roja for Spain breaks with the French pattern by listing tapas bars all over Spain. Restaurants in all locations are listed in order of comfort and then within each comfort group, by quality. A one star restaurant with five forks and spoons will be listed ahead of a three star restaurant with four forks and spoons. Tapas bars are listed after the simplest one fork and spoon restaurant.

Michelin's format is not so rigid as to need to dilute it's brand to adapt to local conditions, nor has it shown any interest in lowering it's standards to raise the number of multi-starred entries to appeal to local diners. If anything, it appears to be unjustly slow to recognize accomplished restaurants in Spain. I will concede one point however, In London, where the dining scene may more closely resemble New York than Paris or Madrid, I've read a far amount of grumbling and criticism of Michelin as a less than useful all around restaurant guide.

My guess would be that they'd have a working in-house edition for 2005 that would probably not be complete and which would probably be top secret, but we can all start looking suspiciously at neighboring tables and wondering that that's the Michelin inspector, and no one is going to have his picture pinned up in the kitchen as will the new NY Times critic.

[Explorer]

A couple of items on this discussion:

1- James Chatto food writer for Toronto Life writes in the last issue that he heard a rumor that Michelin is prepping a Toronto guide as well. According to his estimate (and I agree), the city would be lucky if one or 2 restaurants got 1-star. He also pondered whether and how the Eurocentric style of dining rating would apply here.

2- If you want to get a feel for the Michelin Guide without forking out 35 Euros, you can try their English web site ViaMichelin and you get a good feel for what the Red Book does, and how a NY section might get integrated.

Finally, I am willing to add to the speculation that I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with an all-encompassing North American version., instead of just a NY section.

[Fat Guy]

There's a good article by David Shaw (no relation) in today's LA Times, which includes much speculation about the workability of a US Michelin guide. He doesn't seem to be aware of the forthcoming New York guide, though -- I wonder what that means.

http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo...-headlines-food

[Steve Klc]

That means the Pulitzer-prize winning columnist doesn't read eGullet as much as his multiple Beard Award-winning columnist colleague does.

[oakapple]

There's a good article by David Shaw (no relation) in today's LA Times, which includes much speculation about the workability of a US Michelin guide.

Because the U.S. is so vast, I don't really think a nationwide guide - by Michelin or anybody - is particularly useful. France, with a land mass about the size of Texas, can reasonably be considered as a single restaurant market. The U.S. cannot. This is essentially the conclusion Shaw reaches.

On the other hand, there clearly is a market for NYC-specific restaurant guides, given that Zagat and others have continued to offer them. Whether Michelin can sell enough guides to justify the expense remains to be seen, but presumably they've thought it out. I suspect their target market will be international visitors.

[Bux]

That means the Pulitzer-prize winning columnist doesn't read eGullet

You took the words right out of my mouth. At least we can't assume he gets his stories here.

I thought it was strange to dwell so much on the idea of a single volume covering the US. It's not like Michelin has a single volume covering all of Europe. A brief comparison of size should have killed that idea, although I suppose a case could be made that the complete listing of restaurants qualified to be in the guide might actually result in a smaller guide for the US than for a small country like France. In truth, the French Guide doesn't claim to include all the worthwhile restaurants in France. It's only a guide to help you find a satisfactory restaurant wherever you are in France. If there are ten satisfactory restaurants in a town, they may only list three or four.

Nevertheless, I thought it was an excellent article with a few other flaws. Has a chef ever committed suicide after losing a star as he says? Surely he's not referring to Loiseau who took his life after learning that he had not lost a star.

His criticism of the usefulness of Zagat reviews stops far short of hitting the target. It's quite possible for a minor restaurant to get a higher number than far better restaurant simply because both may serve totally different markets and the scale allowed for ranking entries doesn't allow for much difference, so everyone's favorite gets a "3" no matter what. I'm confident there are no Michelin inspectors who are as totally ignorant about food at all levels as there are Zagat Survey submitters and a top vote for a mediocre restaurant never gets averaged out if the place is never frequented by knowing voters.

It's misleading to speak of Guerard in Eugénie-les-Bains as an excellent restaurant in a small town as if the town supports the restaurant. The little town surrounds the luxury resort spa and is supported by it. In fact, one could far more easily and accurately describe the French Laundry as just being a place in Yountville.

For me, the most interesting line in the article was when Shane O'Flaherty, vice president of the Mobil travel guides, was quoted as saying "We look at the overall dining experience. The culinary aspect is only part of that." From a thread about the guides on eGullet, one could easily get the impression that it was a small part of their interest and the one their inspectors are largely unqualified to judge. That makes the Mobil guides a far cry from the Michelin guides where the culinary aspect is considered the raison d'être for a restaurant's existence. It may not guarantee three stars, but there are no stars without it.

[oakapple]

Bux wrote:

For me, the most interesting line in the article was when Shane O'Flaherty, vice president of the Mobil travel guides, was quoted as saying "We look at the overall dining experience. The culinary aspect is only part of that."

I don't really have a problem with this - it depends on what they mean by "only part." Many diners quite legitimately consider non-food attributes of a restaurant, such as service, comfort, price, décor, convenience, etc. Most newspaper reviews (and not just the NYTimes) seem to consider the overall experience. Of course, a pretty space and friendly service can't overcome terrible food, but sometimes great food isn't enough by itself.

For me, the most telling line in the article was this:

AAA inspectors have "a background in the hospitality industry and go through six to eight weeks of training," including use of a "cuisines of the world training book on CD."

So that's how you become an restaurant critic?

His criticism of the usefulness of Zagat reviews stops far short of hitting the target. It's quite possible for a minor restaurant to get a higher number than far better restaurant simply because both may serve totally different markets and the scale allowed for ranking entries doesn't allow for much difference, so everyone's favorite gets a "3" no matter what.

The even more serious problem with Zagat is an unrealistic bunching of scores around 20. Because the individual voting scale is just 0-3, Zagat gets an awful lot of 2's. (The final score is the average multiplied by 10, and then rounded off.)

Here's the distribution of Zagat food ratings in New York. The first number is the rating, and the second is the number of restaurants:

0-8: none

9: 2

10: 2

11: 2

12: 4

13: 4

14: 10

15: 22

16: 48

17: 67

18: 158

19: 174

20: 228

21: 210

22: 178

23: 122

24: 83

25: 61

26: 59

27: 32

28: 9

29: none

30: none

So, almost 75% of the restaurants rated are in a bunched scrum between 18-23. And on what's nominally a 0-30 scale, 97% of them are rated 16 or higher. When Zagat asks for opinions on a 0-3 scale, they tend to get a lot of 2's. If they asked on a 0-30 scale (which is the same scale they report on), the numbers would be more spread out. Voters would score an "average" restaurant a 15, instead of scoring it a 2.

Edited May 20, 2004 by oakapple (log)

[slkinsey]

Decidedly un-Bell Curve-like, if you assume that the average ranking on a 1-to-30 scale should be a 15.

Assuming that 20 represents an "average" (i.e., C) rating, it's a very small standard deviation of maybe 2, which means that it is, in effect, a 14-to-26 scale.