"Make Them Pay"

[tommy]

I'm hardly worried about any restaurants adopting this policy.  Or at least not of their staying in business very long if they do.  The sense of entitlement in a misinformed public is a very real concern, however.

doesn't the public, overall, have a sense of entitlement already?

if anyone reads that article, who didn't previously know, they *should* learn that there's a right time and a wrong time to refuse a bottle. to that end, i see no harm in the article and the wacky idea that every restaurant should have a wine expert on hand to test every bottle. clearly that can't work, and won't.

Edited August 18, 2004 by tommy (log)

[mnebergall]

This is from the VA ABC Website:

Happy Hour and Related

Promotions: [3 VAC 5-50-160.B]

(1) Happy Hour is not allowed

between 9 p.m. and 2 a.m. of

the following day.

(2) You cannot advertise Happy

Hour in the media or on the

exterior of the premises.

(3) You cannot increase the

amount of alcoholic beverage

in a drink without charging a

higher price.

(4) You cannot sell two or more

drinks for one price (no 2-for-1

specials.)

(5) You cannot sell pitchers of

mixed beverages.

(6) You cannot give away drinks.

(7) You cannot sell unlimited

drinks for one price, such as

“all you can drink for $10.”

Do not give away alcoholic beverages

to customers or other

persons in connection with the

operation of your business. This

does not apply to gifts to personal

friends, wine and beer tastings,

hospitality rooms, or some

types of conventions.

[3 VAC 5-70-100]

Q. One of your regular customers comes into your restaurant with a group of his friends. As a friendly gesture, you

tell your waitress to take a round of drinks over to their table and tell them that the drinks are “on the house.”

Is this allowed under ABC law?

A. No. You are not allowed to give away drinks for free to customers in connection with your business. This

example clearly does not fall under the “personal friend” category, and therefore is a violation.

[3 VAC 5-70-100]

[KatieLoeb]

Wow - they really have legislated away a very valuable Marketing and Customer Relations tool. How bizarre that they didn't see it that way.

I guess I should consider myself fortunate that I live in PA. We even have keys that specify "Promotional Food", "Promotional Alcohol", "Unhappy Food", "Unhappy Alcohol" set up in our POS system to categorize the comps on the sales reports so we can track why items are being comped.

[Mabelline]

Thank you for warning me that they aren't any fun in VA.

[Andrew Fenton]

My hunch is that the state laws are all over the map on this issue with the Bible belt having more restrictive rules and the liberal northerners having less restrictive rules.

Hee! You've never been to Pennsylvania, have you?

[mnebergall]

Wow - they really have legislated away a very valuable Marketing and Customer Relations tool. How bizarre that they didn't see it that way.

I guess I should consider myself fortunate that I live in PA. We even have keys that specify "Promotional Food", "Promotional Alcohol", "Unhappy Food", "Unhappy Alcohol" set up in our POS system to categorize the comps on the sales reports so we can track why items are being comped.

There are other ways of handling the "marketing and customer relationis" issues without resorting to complimentary alcohol. A complimentary appetizer or desert comes to mind.

The point is, the free bottle of wine advocated by the Post columnist would seem to violate Virginia ABC laws and my hunch a number of other states' laws as well.

[mnebergall]

Thank you for warning me that they aren't any fun in VA.

Nah, its just those fuddy duddies down state. We in "Northern" Virginia (not an oxymoron) are a pretty fun bunch.

[mnebergall]

My hunch is that the state laws are all over the map on this issue with the Bible belt having more restrictive rules and the liberal northerners having less restrictive rules.

Hee! You've never been to Pennsylvania, have you?

ABC policies can be inconsistent even within a state. I recall passing through PA one time and wanted to take a case of Rolling Rock back home with me. I had to go out of my way to find a place that would sell me a case.

[KatieLoeb]

My hunch is that the state laws are all over the map on this issue with the Bible belt having more restrictive rules and the liberal northerners having less restrictive rules.

Hee! You've never been to Pennsylvania, have you?

ABC policies can be inconsistent even within a state. I recall passing through PA one time and wanted to take a case of Rolling Rock back home with me. I had to go out of my way to find a place that would sell me a case.

That's because we have State Liquor Stores for wine and alcohol and Beer Distributors for beer and malt beverages. No one stop shopping here in PA. It's really inconvenient. Probably why most people that are close enough to NJ or DE choose to shop there instead.

[Mabelline]

Thank your good spirits you never hit Texas while the old Blue Laws were in effect. Talk about Southern Baptist fear of reprisals! Sunday: everyone make sure they bought enough juice to make it till 6 pm Sunday, and no liquor. By the way, you could buy baby formula, but not pacifiers or diapers. GO FIGURE.

[mnebergall]

Thank your good spirits you never hit Texas while the old Blue Laws were in effect. Talk about Southern Baptist fear of reprisals! Sunday: everyone make sure they bought enough juice to make it till 6 pm Sunday, and no liquor. By the way, you could buy baby formula, but not pacifiers or diapers. GO FIGURE.

Sunday blue laws were not confied to Texas. We had them in Missouri where I grew up. However, when I turned 18, I could sneak across the state line into Kansas and buy 3.2% beer and go to the 3.2 bars where all they served was 3.2% beer. Kansas had even weirder ABC laws. No mixed drinks except in a private club, but the definition of private club wa subject to very liberal interpretation. Another weird Kansas ABC story involved the Kansas attorney general trying to stop airplanes flying across the state from serving drinks to passengers.

[KatieLoeb]

Thank your good spirits you never hit Texas while the old Blue Laws were in effect. Talk about Southern Baptist fear of reprisals! Sunday: everyone make sure they bought enough juice to make it till 6 pm Sunday, and no liquor. By the way, you could buy baby formula, but not pacifiers or diapers. GO FIGURE.

Sunday blue laws were not confied to Texas. We had them in Missouri where I grew up. However, when I turned 18, I could sneak across the state line into Kansas and buy 3.2% beer and go to the 3.2 bars where all they served was 3.2% beer. Kansas had even weirder ABC laws. No mixed drinks except in a private club, but the definition of private club wa subject to very liberal interpretation. Another weird Kansas ABC story involved the Kansas attorney general trying to stop airplanes flying across the state from serving drinks to passengers.

Why is 3.2% beer like making love in a canoe?

Because they're both f*@king close to water.

[Mabelline]

Never heard that!! But ever so true!!

[Bux]

... we have a system that's the result of many years of wine service in restaurants and is in line with what's been done for centuries in other countries where wine with meals is an even longer tradition.

But restaurant wine pricing is distressingly high in the United States - you can often find a decent bottle of wine in a European bistro for $10-15, or a half-bottle for $5-8. The unfortunate truth is that domestic wines in the United States are generally not worth what they're sold for, and the multi-tiered import system makes imported wines almost as expensive.

I'm finding the bar raised all the time on both sides of the Atlantic. Sometimes I think the cheapest carafe in France simply tastes better because of where I am, but I wonder if it's the bargain it seems to be. In Spain, the prices are far gentler. There are middle class restaurants where the list tops out at $25-30 and it's decent stuff. You can go to a bar and have a glass of wine for a couple of bucks. There are mitigating factors. The glasses are small. There's a vicious circle here. The portion must be big enough to justify the price and the price goes up as the serving gets larger. The other factor is that the retail prices in Spain are so much lower than they are here, or even in France. That $30 bottle of wine in a restaurant goes for $30 a bottle retail in NY.

I agree that they distribution system here hardly helps and it's made worse by local laws. We don't have those local bottlings that go from the winemaker, who has no advertising expenses, directly to the bistro. Still I think my point rests on the fact that you won't find a European bistro which will offer you free wine if your first one is corked and that the restaurant owner suffers as much from the distribution system as the diner. I recall a scene from my youth when a friend living in Rome took us to a restaurant. I don't know that he knew a thing about wine, but he rejected the first bottle. It was taken away without a word, only to reappear on the table as we finished dinner. The waiter said something to the effect that since we were paying for the wine, we might as well drink it. Hardly typical, but it doesn't support the idea that the concept proposed would fly anywhere.

I might support the argument that wine markups are too high and that wine drinkers subsidize those who don't drink. Guys who drink cocktails get hit just as hard, as do those who order bottled water. Coffee is another good example, especially as it's not often really good. I'd love to see restaurants lower the prices on wine and sell better wine for the price, but is it in their advantage to make less per bottle if the restaurant is always packed? You will see wine specials more often in restaurants that need business. It's supply and demand. One way in which the consumer is his own worst enemy is that most of them compare menu prices when selecting restaurants, but not wine lists. I wonder how many sophisticated diners will say that "restaurant X is about twenty dollars less than Y, but I know we can save at least than much on the wine at Y."

I'm not really defending wine pricing. I'm just saying that the Post journalist picked a peculiar and unreasonable way in which to make a case for the consumer. It'll hurt the less knowledgeable consumer and help those intent on scamming the restaurant and it'll raise prices. He can deny that, but he's not made a convincing argument.

[Bux]

By the way, the distribution system seems like a good target for a consumer friendly journalist.

[sdelgato]

Ben Giliberti is the most out of touch, misinformed hack wine writer this sorry sob has ever come across. I think he should give up wine writing and switch to something more along his grip on reality like children's books. I did notice however he didn't include my email wondering about the true meaning of tastevinage...

Edited August 19, 2004 by sdelgato (log)

[DonRocks]

I dropped in on two, shall we say, Very Well Known wine personalities yesterday, and both of them said that Mr. Giliberti is a good person and a nice guy. If people here are going to criticize, it's imperative to criticize the work itself, and not the person behind it.

With that in mind, the antenna coming from these two people are long and far-reaching, and there is apparently near-universal condemnation of both pieces, the second one having hurt the cause made by the first, resulting in a sort of "he still doesn't get it" reaction.

[Mark Sommelier]

I dropped in on two, shall we say, Very Well Known wine personalities yesterday, and both of them said that Mr. Giliberti is a good person and a nice guy. If people here are going to criticize, it's imperative to criticize the work itself, and not the person behind it.

With that in mind, the antenna coming from these two people are long and far-reaching, and there is apparently near-universal condemnation of both pieces, the second one having hurt the cause made by the first, resulting in a sort of "he still doesn't get it" reaction.

I've known Ben for 20 years and will state categorically that he is a good person and a nice guy.

[JPW]

IMHO - Ben is just digging himself a deeper hole with this continuation piece.

Maybe I just don't get his point.

Ben, are you out there? Care to discuss?

[DCMark]

IMHO - Ben is just digging himself a deeper hole with this continuation piece.

Maybe I just don't get his point.

Ben, are you out there? Care to discuss?

Yeah after being called in idiot and having his journalistic credentials questioned he is going to post here?

[mnebergall]

Perhaps Don Rocks could work his magic and diffuse this whole situation by doing a Q/A on another thread. After all the name calling on the da sto thread, things kind of settled down in a respectable conversation on the Clark Q & A.

[tommy]

Yeah after being called in idiot and having his journalistic credentials questioned he is going to post here?

i've been called worse and i still post.

Edited August 19, 2004 by tommy (log)

[DonRocks]

I got permission to reprint a couple of interesting pieces regarding Make Them Pay, and I include them here for your reading pleasure.

These must be taken in proper context: they are part of an ongoing discussion that occurred in a private forum, and are not intended to be standalone pieces. Still, I thought they stood alone well enough to share them here (with the authors' explicit permission).

The first is from Mark DeVere, Master of Wine. To put that title into context, there are currently only 242 Masters of Wine in the world, and Mark is the North American Education Director for the organization (The Institute of Masters of Wine), as well as a current employee of Robert Mondavi. He stressed to me, however, that these thoughts are his, and his alone, and are in no way affiliated with either The Institute of Masters of Wine or Robert Mondavi.

While not wanting to seem adversarial, and especially not wanting to pick a battle, I do find this touches an intriguing 'philosophical' issue. His provocative suggestion that restaurants should also pay for a replacement bottle is clearly meant to be provocative, and seems to have succeeded, but I'll lay that aside. What I find more intriguing is the issue of who is responsible for the quality of the products sold and consumed in a fine-dining establishment.

"And I don't tend to go to restaurants where caveat emptor applies."

It sounds to me that this statement is in principle in agreement with Mr. Giliberti's initial premise that the seller, not the buyer, should be the guarantor of quality of the product being sold. In restaurants this is the case for food and service, but definitely not the normal situation for wine.

In almost every restaurant in the world where wine is served, 'caveat emptor' is the norm. 'Caveat emptor', defined as the "principle in commerce that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase", is the standard operating procedure in most restaurants. Hence that annoying little ritual of pouring a small sample of the wine for the guest to smell and taste before serving it. The implication is that the customer is expected to be able to tell from one initial smell and taste whether that bottle is representative of the wine he has selected from the list, or whether it has one of several potential faults that could detract from its beauty or obfuscate its true character.

Everyone reading this here has a good chance of assessing the quality of the purchase on the first sniff and sip. However, in my opinion a large number of people buying wine in a restaurant are not able to adequately assess whether they are indeed getting a good and typical bottle, or a faulty one. The result of this is that many otherwise respectable restaurants sell bad bottles of wine to their guests, and often at high prices. Would it not be more appropriate if part of what you paid for in a good restaurant was a guarantee of optimal flavours in both food and wine? Is this not part of the service that should be offered when paying, say, $200 for a bottle that would only be $100 in a wine store?

I know a few things about wine, but even I often find myself in situations where I'm not sure whether to send a bottle back. Is that level of oxidation or 'tiredness' normal for a wine of this age or is this a dodgy bottle, is that level of Brett spoilage ubiquitous in this wine or is this a bad bottle? Is this what old-vine aligoté made with no SO2 is meant to taste like or is this just an oxidised bottle? One of the problems with TCA is that one very quickly becomes temporarily de-sensitised to it. So if a first sniff suggests TCA, immediately-subsequent sniffs can sometimes seem alright, leading one to accept the bottle, only to have the TCA smell return each time you pick up the glass again.

I would say that caveat emptor still applies to a lesser extent in restaurants where the sommelier does check the wine. It is still often customary to pour a taste for the guest even after the sommelier has checked it, so the procedure still talks to the principle. Furthermore, I have had several experiences recently where the sommelier has had the courtesy to 'check' the wine, but still gone on to pour a faulty bottle. As an emptor I was glad of the caveat in this case.

However, at least these restaurants that routinely have the sommelier check the wine before or instead of the guest, have recognised that as the seller of the product they have some responsibility for the quality of the product. This would be consistent with the suggestion "don't tend to go to restaurants where caveat emptor applies'. It is also consistent with Mr. Giliberti's central premise in this article that "The risk of assessing the soundness of a wine should fall first on the restaurant, before the wine ever hits your glass".

I'm certainly no apologist for the WSJ, but I enjoyed having my thoughts provoked by this article.

Mark

The second is from the inimitable John Gilman, a wine professional for many years and former sommelier at both Gotham Bar and Grill and Picholine in New York City.

I find that much of this discussion of "protecting the diner" (or more

accurately the wine buyer) in  a restaurant is intriguing, but I find it

very hard to take the same principles and apply them to other mercantile

venues outside of the scope of wine in the arena of fine dining.

Particularly the precept "that as the seller of the product they  (the

restaurant) have some responsibility for the quality of the product" strikes

me as philosophically inappropriate. Here we are discussing "off bottles",

but the concept of wine quality transcends corked or oxidized bottles, and

wades into the field of intrinsic value of the wine as well. Where would one

draw the line as the sommelier in choosing selections for the beverage

department- refuse to offer Budweiser because it is crappy beer and it would

be impossible to deny a claim by a patron that it was faulty? Or refuse to

offer Santa Margherita Pinot Grigio as it is not up to the quality of a

myriad of other pinot grigios, that incidently happen to sell for less

money? Is the restaurant culpable for serving the Santa Margherita when

those other options are available on the list, and the server/sommelier did

not alert  the patron to that fact? It seems to me that Mr. Gilberti's

argument is yet another attempt to absolve consumers of personal

responsibility in the act of choosing a wine- particularly those consumers

(such as Mr. Gilberti?) that have no discernable base of knowledge

concerning wine. At the heart of his argument is that although the consumer

is lacking in knowledge about wine, it is the restaurant that should bear

the weight for his or her ignorance. Now Mr. Gilberti would argue that this

only applies to wines that are off bottles, and he alerts consumers to be on

their honor system and not abuse the system of 200% replacement simply

because they do not like their selection. Of course this presumes that the

consumer can tell the difference between an "off" bottle and a wine that

simply is not to their taste- but if they already had this capability then

they would not be faced with anxiety during the "moment of truth" when the

sommelier presents the wine to them for approval. My experience as a

sommelier leads me to believe that even if the honor system was faithfully

employed, the majority of diners would be unqualified to make the

distinction between an off bottle and a bad wine. How else to explain why

Turley Zinfandels are the best-selling brand in NY restaurants?

What is fundamentally missing from Mr. Gilberti's article is the question of

who chooses the wine at the table. Again to draw upon my experience as a

sommelier, the lower the level of wine knowledge at the table, the more

likely that the sommelier's expertise will not be drawn upon to make the

selection- in fact, the sommelier is avoided at all possible costs for fear

of communicating the collective wine ignorance at the table. The fear is

that if the ignorance is exposed, then the diner will be preyed upon by the

sommelier in much the same manner as a used car salesman would take

advantage of the blind and deaf car shopper. So instead of allowing the

sommelier to recommend a wine that would perhaps work with the dishes

selected around the table and within a budget set by the diner (this is

again a very difficult thing for most diners to do, as most often the diner

does not want to seem cheap to the others at the table, but does not want to

spend more than absolutely necessary),

the uninformed diner makes a selection based on god knows what criteria

(though price is usually the base- "I wanted to choose a wine that is not

too expensive, but not the cheapest bottle on the list either") and then

hopes for the best. The issue when presented with the wine for tasting is

not so much a question of whether the wine is corked or cooked at this

point, but "my god, what have I chosen- I hope its good." As a sommelier I

had enough diners like this through each week (the vast majority on Fridays

and Saturdays- affectionately known as the Bridge and Tunnel Crowd) that I

purposely placed wines on the list that they might recognize from the corner

liquor store and remove their anxiety- Kendall-Jackson Chardonnay, the

aforementioned Santa Margherita and Louis Jadot Beaujolais. It made them

happy, relaxed and I did not have to waste my time talking to them at the

table. Alfred Portale fought me tooth and nail about putting them on the

list (they did not belong on a three-star restaurant's list in his view),

but we sold a boatload of all three on the weekends, and everyone was happy.

What I would suggest is that if Mr. Gilberti wants to place the onus for

replacement on the restaurant, then he must also give up his right to choose

the wine- he can set the price range, but then he needs to hand off his

opportunity to choose the wine if he is not willing to take responsibility

for exercising his right to make that decision. Then it is the restaurant

and the sommelier who are "on their honor", rather than the diner, and I

would suggest that the results would be on the whole significantly more

satisfying to the wine-ignorant diner- as restaurants for the most part view

themselves as in the hospitality business and will go out of their way to

make their diners pleased- so that they come back and spread the word about

the good things going on there. Certainly this presupposes a level of wine

knowledge on the part of someone on the restaurant staff- which is very

often not the case. But it is a bit more sane approach to my mind than what

Mr. Gilberti proposes.

Cheers,

Rocks.

[DCMark]

Brilliant Don!

Mr Gillman's description of choosing wine rings a few bells for me and (if they admit) many others. However, I always embrace the Somellier in these cases as he/she is my best ally. Now I have found some dud Sommelliers, especially in France, but this may be attributed to my language skills.

I would like to do a wine tasting of corked bottles, to learn what to look for. Mark, have you ever heard of this?

[KatieLoeb]

Can I just say - YAY!!!! People who really get it revealing the flawed logic that went into this argument in the first place. Hoorah!!!!