July 2004 issue of the Vancouver Magazine

[maxmillan]

There is an interesting editorial by someone who is tired of the same restaurants getting the top nods. I can understand Lumiere, C, Bin, etc. I think they are all great. With the many good Chinese restaurants in BC, why is Pink Pearl always in these issues?

Just my rant

[jamiemaw]

Maxmillan,

Thanks for your question.

The answer is: Because they bought the ad—the section of Vancouver that you refer to is called “Vancouver’s Finest”. It’s an annual advertising supplement that allows local restaurants to display their menus (and wine lists) and tell their story without having a surly food critic in the way. It is not editorial, however.

That being said, this month’s editorial, “Where the Bites Are”, in addition to including 60 restaurants to take summer visitors to, also has a section called “Ten Under the Radar”. In it, we ask the question if Parkside, “considering value for money and overall ambience . . . isn’t the best bet for a night out right now.” We also feature Shiru-Bay, Fiction Wine Bar, Fiddlehead Joe’s, Chambar (not open yet, but a preamble), Ellie (thanks Keith!), Coast, Yuji’s and a few others we thought would be of interest.

Hope you enjoy, and I’m glad to clear up the misunderstanding.

Best,

Jamie Maw

Food Editor

Vancouver magazine

[DameD]

Jamie,

I thought it was amusing seeing Yaohan Centre Food Court in the Van Mag this month, esp. as the egulleters were discussing it not that long ago. Are we egulleters doing the research for Vancouver Magazine.. he he

[Daddy-A]

I'm always a little suspect of magazine reviews because of the advertorial aspect. This is by no means directed at Van Mag or anyone specifically, but having been involved with both sides of the print advertising industry (and a former SFU/lefty/Adbusters cinic ) I'm admittedly scheptical.

a section called “Ten Under the Radar”. In it, we ask the question if Parkside, “considering value for money and overall ambience . . . isn’t the best bet for a night out right now.”

I guess this where Coop comes in with the "toldya-so" grin Parkside certainly falls into my top ten, although with the exposure it's been getting here I question the "under-the radar" label.

We also feature Shiru-Bay, Fiction Wine Bar, Fiddlehead Joe’s, Chambar (not open yet, but a preamble), Ellie (thanks Keith!), Coast, Yuji’s and a few others we thought would be of interest.

Damn! I guess I have to blow my magazine budget again this month!

DA

[Keith Talent]

To clarify, it was a letter to the editor, rather than an editorial. Although from my perspective the points made were superficially valid, my tiny insight into the review procedures at Vanmag discredit pretty much everything the letter writer has to say. I agree, it's boring to have Lumiere as the Restaurant of the Year, but honestly if you eat out much in Vancouver, you'll have to concur with their assesment. Anyway, cheers to the editors for publishing the letter, and allowing Jamie to respond.

And James Barber was considerably more lucid than usual writing on flank steak this month, what gives?

And regarding Parkside being under the radar, well, it is. Ask anyone about it who isn't a serious devotee of eating in Vancouver about it and you'll get the same blank stare you get from a White Spot waitress when you ask where the balance of your parties meals are. It seems more popular than it is to us, because of the exposure it gets here.

And Daddy, you can save your magazine budget by getting Vanmag free by moving into a more desireable postal code. Somewhere between Granville and Oak on Matthews Ave. should do the trick. Or you could do like I do and subscribe, it's an inconsequential sum. Deny yourself half a bi-weekly session sticking fives into thongs at Bradi's and you'll be fine.

[jamiemaw]

Daddy-A,

As someone who shares your impressive magazine addiction (how ‘bout that Kim Campbell National Geographic edition?!), I also share your feelings about advertorial. I chaired the Jack Webster Foundation for Journalism for several years--advertorial was a frequent topic of debate. Foundation directors drawn from business (advertising, communications et al) argued that it allowed, almost in a spirit of public advocacy, a company to tell its story, unfettered and unfiltered. The journalists on the board predictably argued the reverse, however, that the reason journalists are paid the medium bucks is to provide those checks and balances.

Of course publications of all rank and reputation run extensive advertorial, variously titling it "Special Promotions Feature" or "Exclusive Advertising Supplement". I've seen them recently in The New Yorker, The Sunday New York Times Magazine and elsewhere. I hear them each morning on CKNW when the sports reporter switches from his morning rant on Joe Pao Pao to endorsing a muffler shop. But still, it's usually pretty transparent as to what it is. Although, that being said, Maxmillan, writing in the middle of the night, clearly mistook ours for editorial.

I can tell what's in it for me as a reporter though. More space. Every ad page that's sold allows us the opportunity to say more editorially. And as one of the people who write the words that prevent the ads from bumping into each other, that's important. What I can also tell you though is that I don't know who writes the copy for our advertorial, and I don’t know (until you do) which restaurants are going to be featured. But I do know that those restaurant owners view it as a legitimate opportunity to explain their menus and wine lists, unfiltered and unfettered by noxious chaps like me, and illustrate signature dishes in a large and lucid format, rifleshot to their target demographic.

Need this guilty secret of the publishing industry diminish the editorial credibility of its host periodical? Is it viral journalism, the Avian flu of reporting? Very simply put, I think that it must be clearly identified as what it is so that those consumers who choose not to engage in directed discourse with advertisers may skip ahead to finish their exciting story.

Ironically, the last time advertorial was called into question in this section, it was from a person masquerading behind a fake name. Unlike advertorial, however, there was not a shred of honesty to her posting-persona. Since being busted, she has aquired a new religion though, and posts no more derogatory remarks about her journalistic competitors. In fact, she posts no more at all--and quite rightly so.

*

When you've spent your hard-earned $5, you'll see that we qualify Parkside's nomination for "Under the Radar", stating that we reviewed it (some time ago), but that we think in terms of food, value and ambience, it might just be the best place to take summer visitors right now. For some people (not reading this website, for instance) we think that, yes, given these factors it may still be under-recognized. We have sent many parties there (recommendations are part of the job) and have received positive remarks (in some cases, highly positive, even rapturous, like Coop’s) about the food, the value, the décor, the wine list, the patio and the service.

Best,

Jamie

[jamiemaw]

DameD

I thought it was amusing seeing Yaohan Centre Food Court in the Van Mag this month, esp. as the egulleteers were discussing it not that long ago. Are we egulleteers doing the research for Vancouver Magazine . . . he he

I guess I'm DameD if I do or DameD if I don't.

Jamie

[DameD]

I guess I'm DameD if I do or DameD if I don't.

Jamie

you make me laugh Jamie!

[maxmillan]

Oops, pardon my error. It IS a letter someone wrote in to the Vancouver Magazine and NOT an editorial.

Thanks for the clarification. This magazine was sitting at my work's lunchroom and everyone who read it thought it was, indeed, a popularity vote for best restaurant. I will have to clarify it to them as well.

[Jerry_A]

So, does the fact that the menu at Parkside now includes entrees above $20 (up to $27 I believe) diminish the feeling of value? The lamb rack at $19.50 was pretty damn satisfying, would it be the same at $23? It's purely a psychological difference I'm sure, but one of the great ways to sell this place to others who were skeptical was the whole 20 under 20 thing.

[jamiemaw]

Not for me. I actually told Andrey (having only just published a laudatory article on the 20 under $20 thing) that I was glad he raised his prices slightly--because it means they have a better chance of survival.

Jamie

[Jerry_A]

I was glad he raised his prices slightly--because it means they have a better chance of survival.

Agreed.