Chefs do Paid Promos

[menton1]

Friday's Wall Street Journal featured an article by Kelly Crow about an alarming ever-increasing trend by celebrity chefs that impugns their impartiality and puts quite a cloud both on their restaurants and their media shows.

These celebrities have sold out their opinions by taking money and then "recommending" their sponsor's wares. Ming Tsai, that personable fellow of "Ming's Quest" PBS fame and the Blue Ginger restaurant in suburban Boston, is one of the offenders. Ming has a deal and gets big bucks from a frozen shrimp company. In return, he has 2 or 3 entrees on his restaurant menu with frozen shrimp, and also does a couple of sequences on the show with the shrimp. When questioned by a reviewer recently, Mr. Tsai said that "frozen shrimp is far superior to fresh".

David Burke of Burke and Donatella takes $5K from the beef lobby every time he features beef on his TV spot on Fox News. Some of the other people on this ever-growing list include Rick Bayless (chipotle sauce), Charlie Trotter (Fiji water), and Charlie Palmer (caviar).

The article also mentions how Julia Child had been approached by scores of companies seeking her paid endorsement, and she had always refused. Alas, Julia is gone, and so it seems is celebrity-chef integrity.

Shame on all of these people, they are all successful, and you would think that they don't need this money, and also shame on PBS for continuing to give these paid spokespeople a TV outlet.

I hopefully have found a link to this article that won't require a subscription:The Sponsored Chef WSJ Article

Edited April 24, 2005 by menton1 (log)

[Steve Klc]

The only thing I find alarming is that there are, apparently, some people who have never seen a chef featured in an ad before nor heard of a "chef endorsement." Some chefs do, some chefs don't, most are not ever asked. Have you ever opened a Food Arts magazine and looked at any ads in there? Been going on a long time--I opened a Food Arts from way, way back--1990--just for the hell of it and in short order found a big 2 page ad for Plugra butter featuring David Burke, and another one featuring Jeremiah Tower in an ad for, no suprise, Food Arts itself. Yes, that doesn't make it right nor does it mean chefs should somehow escape all scrutiny--but the scrutiny has to be realistic and not naive. It's a personal choice whenever a chef is approached about an opportunity and frankly, one of the ways you get ahead in this business--a business which is very competitive, constantly changing--is by leveraging all sorts of opportunities, demos, appearances, ads, charity gigs, Beard dinners, those are ways you extend your brand and extend your sphere of influence and get more people into your restaurants, one way of many ways that you become more nationally significant. Some chefs are content to stand in their kitchen, cook every single dish, day after day. That works for them and my wish is they can make a nice living on their own terms and that they tap in to an audience which sustains them. Others have more grand dreams and aspirations--are more entrepreneurial, more motivated, more motivational, more talented or talented in different ways, more...significant...perhaps, who are we to limit them?

How is this news to anyone?

Of course chefs endorse products, most of the time we do it week in and week out when we order ingredients--when I choose "Total" yogurt from Greece for use in a dessert, I'm endorsing it. When I choose Skotidakis goat milk yogurt from Canada for use in another dessert, I'm endorsing it. When I choose any number of products from any number of suppliers I'm endorsing them--and I think in order to criticize my choices you have to begin by eating my desserts. Whether I have a sponsorship deal in place compensating me somehow for, say, the chocolate I choose, or for using a particular product in a demo is, frankly, irrelevant: the only promise I'm making to you as a diner or to anyone is that I'm going to serve you a delicious dessert. Begin and end there--is the dish delicious?--before you get alarmed.

Shame on all of these people, they are all successful, and you would think that they don't need this money

How much do you think chefs make? How profitable do you think running a restaurant actually is? How many hard years (and 80 hour work weeks) do you think even the most successful of these supposed celebrity chefs had to put in BEFORE any of these opportunities came their way? Do you think it is easy to stay in business, pay your employees and vendors on time? I also wasn't aware we had put a cap or income ceiling on chefs, in any event. Cooking isn't socialized medicine. Not that we could define or agree on some appropriate level, or limit, of "success" for them anyway. We'd have a hard enough time defining what it means simply to be called "chef:"

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=57505

These celebrities have sold out their opinions by taking money and then "recommending" their sponsor's wares

Not that it matters, (it doesn't) but how do you know the chefs weren't using these products all along--and the manufacturers or marketers finally realized that maybe other chefs or the public would be interested in what the sponsored chef had to say? A few years ago Charlie Trotter endorsed a new chocolate on the market from Hawaii--the very first chocolate "grown" in the US--it was a shitty flat flaccid chocolate as far as I was concerned--but I didn't begrudge them from approaching Trotter and featuring him in a national ad promoting the fact the he was using that chocolate. I couldn't care less if he got paid or if he just negotiated a better pricing deal. We as fellow chefs (and you as consumers) still have to taste the chocolate on our own and make up our own mind. You think Trotter has some obligation to be impartial about the chocolate he uses? Do you think he has some responsibility to "disclose" whatever arrangement he made with this chocolate company? If so, why? That's but one linkage Ms. Crow failed to persuade in her superficial piece. Some public trust being violated? Diners being duped by false assumptions? No, the only thing Trotter had to do to fulfill his end of the bargain was put out a great tasting dessert with the product.

Friday's Wall Street Journal featured an article...about an alarming ever-increasing trend by celebrity chefs that impugns their impartiality and puts quite a cloud both on their restaurants and their media shows.

Since when are chefs supposed to be impartial? I'm very opinionated about what I do and why I do it, I'm very partial, yet as a chef I've never met a customer who has pulled me aside and thanked me for being impartial. What they thank me for is doing a great cake or a great dessert, ending their meal well, for never having tasted something so good. And I think you over-value the case the article makes--I don't think Ms. Crow made the case that this was "alarming" nor "ever-increasing" nor that sponsored chefs impartiality was impugned nor that there was a cloud over their restaurants because of this. I think what she demonstrated--for the few readers who naively had never imagined that chefs, like the leaders in any given field or profession, would not also enter into all sorts of agreements, arrangements, contracts, consulting gigs, etc.--that chefs, too, can be multifaceted professionals who stretch their bounds and refuse to be conveniently boxed in, just like any influential leader in any profession refuses to be so bound. The (unintentional) upside of this article is that the definition of a chef has been expanded for those people, that being a chef can be a little more complicated than the simplistic romantic notion of getting up in the morning and standing at the stove of your restaurant cooking all day.

By the way, I've been a "sponsored chef" several times over according to the weak criteria of this article. I'm not currently sponsored at the moment, in the past for one year I agreed to use Chocolates El Rey exclusively, and I received compensation for promoting it, I travelled around the country giving demonstrations to other pastry chefs on how to use it, how to create with it, developed recipes for its use and my not-so-handsome mug and one of my desserts appeared in a national full page ad in a magazine. I got a ton of free product that I otherwise would have had to pay for and improved my chocolate skills and knowledge in ways that my peers weren't able to. The problem with this is, exactly, what? It's not like I was the host of "World Chocolate News" on the BBC reporting on ALL chocolate companies, nor did I write the "Chocolate Consumer Watch" column for Chocolate Consumer Reports. After that agreement ended, and a few years later, another chocolate manufacturer hired me, sent me to France to train inside their elite factory, paid me to develop recipes and go to NYC and give demonstrations with their chocolate at FCI--the French Culinary Institute. This compromises my 1) skill 2) talent 3) judgement or 4) ethics how?

That said, have you tasted Ming's frozen shrimp? Maybe those shrimp are damn good, I don't know, and I'll withold judgement until I do. I've read lots of other pros report that flash-frozen just-caught fish way out at sea is often superior to the supposedly fresh fish you'll encounter at a typical supermarket--which means, yes, the fish you'll find at Costco in the frozen aisle just might likely taste better than what you could buy fresh. If I'm dining at his restaurant, the first and main thing I'd care about is whether his shrimp dish tasted good. If it didn't, then I'd probe a little deeper.

Have you ever eaten at Tru, Rick Tramonto's restaurant in Chicago? If you had, you wouldn't blink twice about him developing that citrus dust product because he's a great chef and his restaurant is superb. How do you think he is impugned, how is there a cloud over his restaurant in any way? Rick and Gale Gand and Rich Melman are amazing talents--who wouldn't want to take them on for product development or consulting? These pros are supposed to be "impartial" about why they do what they do and how they do it? Rather, when I dine at Tru I want Rick to be totally partial, to give me what he wants to give me. Same with Gale, last time I visited with her she was developing a few desserts which used Splenda. I don't expect she'd serve a dessert in Tru which had Splenda in it, but if she did, I bet it would taste great! And I'm damn grateful for the opportunity to experience them at their "partial" best. Why is that? Trust. I have trust in them--so this is a non-issue for me--and for those chefs or products I do not know--I have trust in my own palate to be able to tell when I'm getting something less than what it could or should be.

That any of these guys or gals might have a side deal means very little to me. The "integrity" is in the end product.

Oh, I work for one of the chefs mentioned in this article, Jose Andres. One of his restaurants is Mexican-inspired, another Latin-inspired, we use avocados, a lot of avocados, and since Jose is one of the best chefs in the country (Beard Best Chef Mid-Atlantic (pre-scandal), Bon Appetit magazine Chef of the Year) more than a few people just might be interested in how he uses avocados and why. He's done a little "dim sum" dumpling of avocado inside a paper thin slice of jicama, he's been doing some variation of it for years. He and his creative team come up with interesting avocado dishes all the time. Maybe you've had guacamole before, this is different, it's really good. Before you lose a wink's sleep over any deal he may have arranged, taste his avocado dishes. When you're done smiling, when you're done saying for the third time to your dining companion, "mmm, this is really good, how come I've never had anything like this before," you won't be thinking about clouds, integrity, or shame, at least as far as Jose is concerned. You'll be wondering how you might be able to do something with avocados at home, which is just perhaps why he was approached in the first place. Win-win.

Give the same benefit of the doubt to every other chef until you've tasted first hand.

Edited May 2, 2005 by Steve Klc (log)

[fifi]

. . . . .

Ming has a deal and gets big bucks from a frozen shrimp company.  In return, he has 2 or 3 entrees on his restaurant menu with frozen shrimp, and also does a couple of sequences on the show with the shrimp.  When questioned by a reviewer recently, Mr. Tsai said that "frozen shrimp is far superior to fresh". 

. . . . .

←

Endorsement or not, Ming Tsai is absolutely correct. I was a "trained shrimp nose" for FDA in the late 70s. Flash freezing or Instant Quick Freezing (IQF) was just coming into its own. Unless you are next to where the shrimp boats dock (I am), shrimp are in season (not today), and they return to port every day (Gulf shrimpers don't) you really want the IQF product.

BTW . . . I am in Steve's camp on this one. More power to 'em. I'll judge a chef's cooking and creativity on the end result. I still adore Bayless's restaurants.

[chefzadi]

That said, have you tasted Ming's frozen shrimp? Maybe those shrimp are damn good, I don't know, and I'll withold judgement until I do. I've read lots of other pros report that flash-frozen just-caught fish way out at sea is often superior to the supposedly fresh fish you'll encounter at a typical supermarket--which means, yes, the fish you'll find at Costco in the frozen aisle just might likely taste better than what you could buy fresh. If I'm dining at his restaurant, the first and main thing I'd care about is whether his shrimp dish tasted good. If it didn't, then I'd probe a little deeper.

Flash frozen is even served at top sushi restaurants.

[menton1]

Steve, you have made several good points, but I have to hold to some of my original views; first of all, these people we are talking about are not just "chefs", but are ones at the top income level of the trade. I also know that even Donald Trump does ads, though.

The real point here is that they are not "coming clean" about their endorsements. And I think that's the whole point of the WSJ article as well. Even here on the Eg boards, we don't mind self-promotion, as long as it is clearly shown that self-promotion is what you are doing, and that you are not claiming to be an impartial outsider. These people are not volunteering the fact that they have been paid by these sponsors-- this is a crucial piece of information for the public to have. Maybe frozen shrimp IS better than fresh (although I doubt it!) but I sure as heck want to know that the guy expressing that opinion is being paid half a million bucks by a frozen shrimp company!!

And using your so-called objective Fox cooking spot to cook a beef dish so that the beef lobby can slip you five grand is also quite smarmy, IMHO. So I still say SHAME on them.

[Tonyy13]

That said, have you tasted Ming's frozen shrimp? Maybe those shrimp are damn good, I don't know

Contessa shrimp are the best shrimp on the market. I was the one in charge of ordering the shrimp for a Food and Wine top ten best new chef recently (sometime in the past five years... do some digging in my profile, and you can easily figure out which one...), and I specifically was told to order Contessa, it is agian, far superior to any shrimp on the market, fresh or frozn, and both the raw AND the pre-cooked types are incredible( "oh no he didn't"... yes I did).

I am a chef, a young one, a poor one, and I would like to think a somewhat talented one. The fact of the matter is that I buy name brand stuff becuase a lot of times it is better quality, and if that company was to approach me to endorse their superior product, I would have absolutly no problem with that. Trotter is the "worst" of them all, he endorses lots of stuff, Mac knives, boos cutting boards, Valrhona chocolate, all kinds of stuff, and I dare someone out there to tell me that one product that he endorses sucks... go on... do it, I bet you can't. Thomas Keller endorses raisins for cripes sakes, not to mention Mac knives as well (hmmm...let's see.... Trotter AND Keller endorse their product, it Must be crap!! ). Rick Bayless (Burger King), now he might have some re-thinking to do, he's still a badass chef, but not most of these guys....they are on the track that is fine. I'm with Chef Klc, he should know, he is one of the top chef's in the country, in the same boat as Keller and Trotter.....

Edited because when I am worked up about a subject, my fingers type faster than my backspace button can be pushed.....

Edited April 25, 2005 by Tonyy13 (log)

[menton1]

Tony, you are missing the point. I was not discussing frozen vs fresh shrimp; the point is, is that these people are paid spokespersons, and they act like impartial objective observers. Something like a restaurant reviewer being paid a stipend by a restaurant owner!!

[malcolmjolley]

There are worse sins in the world. We all have to pay our bills, and I'm pretty reluctant to start casting the first stones.

It's true, though, that a lot of devoted fine diners look to the gastronomic world as a refuge from marketing and overt consumerism. Any chef who goes into one of these deals ought to be wary of losing this trust. If the product in question is good enough to satisfy the chef and his/her customers, then it's fair to say no harm done. But of all the chefs mentioned in the WSJ article, Julia Child comes out looking the most trustworthy, and the next time we her old partner Jacques Pepin reaches for a can, won't some of us wonder how much was paid?

It may be worth revisiting the thread about Jamie Oliver's troubles with Heinz from earlier this year, especially Bourdain's posts: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=60363.

[Holly Moore]

Naive perhaps, but I've got to assume that, if a chef accepts money for recommending a product, it is a good product and one to which he is willing to attach his name and reputation. I can't see a chef harming his reputation by promoting a mediocre product. In such a case I'm not concerned if a chef does not asterisk any product mention with a statement that he is a paid endorser.

However, when that endorsement is part of the news, even on a network as fair and balanced as Fox, I do have a problem. It's the same as the Bush administration paying a jounalist to take a particular slant to a news issue. But if David Burke's appearance was a cooking segment on something like Fox's chatty morning equivalent of the Today Show, no big deal.

[chefzadi]

I couldn't endorse an inferior product. My students and audience wouldn't let me get away with it. I did a lecture at a gourmet food store once on French ingredients. The store didn't carry Maille mustard which I think is the best in the world. They carried a different French brand which I had to discuss as part the "French pantry." Immediately hands were raised, questions were asked, "Do you think that brand is the best? Is that what you would use?" Of course I told them that I use Maille and the store manager didn't have a problem with that. Even with a non-paid endorsement I would lose my credibility if I suggested a mediocre product. If it were a paid endorsement and the product were not what I consider to be superior, my reputation would be shot to hell.

As far as dislosures are concerned. I don't quite understand. Should I announce how I make a living? If the product is good and I believe in it, what's the problem? I'm asked all the time about ingredients. I give my opinions for free. If a company such as Maille approached me I wouldn't have a problem with it. If Grey Poupon came to me with a bigger check I might be tempted, but I couldn't do it because anyone who knows anything about French mustard knows that Maille is the best and I would be exposed as a hack.

Whether I'm paid or not my opinion of a product is not going to change. By the way it's only food and I'm just a cook. I'm not a doctor being wooed and seduced by pharmaceutical company's to prescribe certain drugs.

[menton1]

Sorry, wrong mouse click...

Edited April 25, 2005 by menton1 (log)

[David Lebovitz]

There are some good points being brought up here. I personally would never endorse a product that I didn't use or like. If giving a demonstration, if asked about the quality of something or why I use it (or not) I'm always very honest.

Most endorsers are not doing anything dangerous (although suggesting people eat fast-food is dubious, in my opinion.) Rick Bayless' rebuttal was that Burger King was trying to something good, and healthy, and he was supporting their efforts. Still, I wonder if that was his original intention.

When I worked at Chez Panisse, many years ago Alice Waters did an AT+T commercial with Wolfgang Puck and was criticized for selling-out (uh...who doesn't use a phone company?) Similarly Emeril was roundly criticized for his sitcom, but if anyone in the world was offered their own sitcom on NBC, I'm sure they would take it in a second.

Steve brings up a good point; there are few opportunities to make decent money in this business (although I hope he is well-paid, since the desserts I had at the restaurant in Arlington, VA last year were outstanding.)

Although I prefer fine-quality chocolate I don't have any problems with Hershey's and the like ( I love M & M's for example). It's not like these products are full of chemicals. However, a magazine I once wrote for substituted non-dairy non-fat whipped topping in one of my recipes, which is not something I approve of and I was upset that people would think I use, ever.

For me, I will only recommend products that I personally use, and like, regardless of whether or not anyone is paying me to do so. And I tell them products I don't like as well.

Edited April 25, 2005 by David Lebovitz (log)

[menton1]

It's quite noble that the prevailing opinion is that a chef would not accept $500k from a product he didn't like; However, the basic rules of objectivity require DISCLOSURE of the stipend.

No matter how much a restaurant reviewer could protest that he would NEVER say good things about a restaurant he did not like, his reputation is on the line, etc, if it became public knowledge that he was on a restaurant's payroll and then he subsequently gave a favorable review, there would certainly be a hue and cry. Nobody would say "It's only a restaurant".

It is incumbent on the chefs and their producers that at the very least a statement be made revealing to the public their financial arrangements with their endorsees!!

[docsconz]

I don't believe disclosure is really necessary. The proof is in the pudding. If the food is good it doesn't matter whether the chef is being supported by anyone. If it is good and the promotion helps keep the price down it is even better. Where I would have a problem is if a chef is being paid to promote something he or she doesn't use. For example, if Chefzadi preferred Maille mustard, but accepted payment to promote a competing brand that he would not and did not use and misled the public to that effect, that IMO would be an egregious ethical problem. I believe that is why Chef Bayless encountereed so much flack about the Burger King endorsement. But if a chef feels like endorsing a product that he or she is comfortable with and has no problem using, what do I care so long as I enjoy the results?

[docsconz]

It's quite noble that the prevailing opinion is that a chef would not accept $500k from a product he didn't like; However, the basic rules of objectivity require DISCLOSURE of the stipend.

No matter how much a restaurant reviewer could protest that he would NEVER say good things about a restaurant he did not like, his reputation is on the line, etc, if it became public knowledge that he was on a restaurant's payroll and then he subsequently gave a favorable review, there would certainly be a hue and cry. Nobody would say "It's only a restaurant". 

It is incumbent on the chefs and their producers that at the very least a statement be made revealing to the public their financial arrangements with their endorsees!!

←

These examples are really apples and oranges. The relationship of a reviewer to a restaurant is very different than a restauranteur/chef to its providers. It would only be dishonest and reproachable if the chef lied or deliberately misled the public to make a buck. If they are making a buck by doing something they really endorse, so what?

[menton1]

I don't believe disclosure is really necessary. 

But doc, how would you feel about the restaurant reviewer situation I've described above-- it's OK for him to be on a restaurant's payroll?

It is impossible for the public to discern how to assess an "opinion" if they don't know that the person expressing his/her opinion has been paid by their endorsee. With that knowledge, only then can we "let the chips fall where they may".

[docsconz]

Whether I'm paid or not my opinion of a product is not going to change. By the way it's only food and I'm just a cook. I'm not a doctor being wooed and seduced by pharmaceutical company's to prescribe certain drugs.

←

Actually the practices are not substantially different. If a doctor feels that a particular medication is worthwhile and would prescribe it anyway is that really different than a chef being paid to promote a product that he would use anyway. The problem is that people are not always honest. If a doctor is influenced to prescribe a particular medication because he or she received a perk to do so and not because it was the right medication to prescribe for a particular situation, that is questionable. If a chef endorses something that he or she doesn't or wouldn't use, that is also questionable. If the medication is prescribed even though it is the wrong medication or solely because of financial arrangements that is at best unethical and at worst malpractice and/or illegal.

[chefzadi]

Whether I'm paid or not my opinion of a product is not going to change. By the way it's only food and I'm just a cook. I'm not a doctor being wooed and seduced by pharmaceutical company's to prescribe certain drugs.

←

Actually the practices are not substantially different. If a doctor feels that a particular medication is worthwhile and would prescribe it anyway is that really different than a chef being paid to promote a product that he would use anyway. The problem is that people are not always honest. If a doctor is influenced to prescribe a particular medication because he or she received a perk to do so and not because it was the right medication to prescribe for a particular situation, that is questionable. If a chef endorses something that he or she doesn't or wouldn't use, that is also questionable. If the medication is prescribed even though it is the wrong medication or solely because of financial arrangements that is at best unethical and at worst malpractice and/or illegal.

←

I see what you're saying. And I don't disagree with it. Although the consequences of endorsing an 'incorrect' product are on a hugely different scale. Which was my point.

[docsconz]

I don't believe disclosure is really necessary. 

But doc, how would you feel about the restaurant reviewer situation I've described above-- it's OK for him to be on a restaurant's payroll?

It is impossible for the public to discern how to assess an "opinion" if they don't know that the person expressing his/her opinion has been paid by their endorsee. With that knowledge, only then can we "let the chips fall where they may".

←

I think I answered that in another post. It is a different situation. A reviewer on the payroll of the restaurant that he or she is reviewing is not likely to be objective. That this is likely to color a review is high. It ultimately might or might not make a difference in the legitimacy of the review, but clearly a reader should know this because it might make a difference. If the chef's food is still good, it doesn't really matter if he or she is sponsored or not or if that sponsorship is public knowledge.

[chefzadi]

I don't believe disclosure is really necessary. 

But doc, how would you feel about the restaurant reviewer situation I've described above-- it's OK for him to be on a restaurant's payroll?

It is impossible for the public to discern how to assess an "opinion" if they don't know that the person expressing his/her opinion has been paid by their endorsee. With that knowledge, only then can we "let the chips fall where they may".

←

The public can discern how to assess an opinion based on the reputation of the chef. An endorsement is only as good as a chef's word is perceived to be within niche markets/audience base.

Sandra Lee could endorse French's mustard to her audience base. I can't even look at a bottle of the stuff without laughing. If I endorsed it I would be laughed at. That's how the chips fall.

If you don't believe that I wouldn't endorse a product I didn't like or use to begin with how will your opinion of my opinion change if you know that I was paid to endorse a product that I've already said I would endorse whether or not I was paid to do it? It seems you've already made up your mind about endorsements in general. I don't think endorsement deals should be kept secret. I don't agree that a disclosure is necessary for the consumer to make a decision.

(I'm only using 'I' and "you" to make it easier for me to make my points. I'm not taking it personally at all)

[Bux]

A few thoughts come to mind this far into the topic. One is an amusing story about Klc. He was doing a demo at the Chocolate Show in NY. He's up on stage standing under a big Kitchen Aid banner, using this really funky little blender he bought in some Asian grocery store in LA or something like that. It's the color of a Bianchi racing bike, someplace in the triangle of chartreuse, aqua, and apple green and I'm thinking to myself as I look up to him, that he has no gratitude or respect for the people who put him in high places.

Analogies are the devil's work to be sure, but I'm always trying to make them. I'm wondering how I'd feel if I owned a professional sports team. (I do this when I get bored wondering what it would be like if Michel Bras was my personal cook.) Here I am paying multimillions of dollars a year to my stars, expected them to be in the best shape and prepared to do the best job and then I find out they chose the shoes they're wearing just because someone paid them a lot of money to wear those shoes.

[Busboy]

When a customer goes to a high-end restaurant -- Trotter level, say -- he carries with him or her a couple of assumptions. Among those are that the chef, within his budget, is using the best possible ingredients to cook his meals, regardless of the blandishments of the various suppliers and salespeople marching through his kitchern. Another is that the menu is the result of the chef's (and his team's)unique genius and determination, undiluted by outside influences and consideration. I think that's what Menton1 was referring to when he used the phrase "objective" -- that the chef is making decisions based purely on what results in the best possible meal (within buget etc. considerations).

The fear is that, when an endorsement is involved, that the chef suddenly has other considerations besides taste. Chefs are human, they are also business people. To pretend that they're somehow immune to the temptations that everyone else on earth deals with is to ignore reality. If a chef's TV show has a big sponsor, the sponsor's wishes are going to be in the chef's thinking. If you have a choice between two types of chocolate, one of which can be had much more cheaply, you're going to think about that. It's not necessarily a bad thing, there are probably a dozen good reasons for chefs to cut a good sponsorship deal. But sponsors don't just give money away, they want something in return. The thought that their interests as sponsors and my interests as a diner might diverge is a troubling one.

I think the sense of "outrage" -- probably too strong a term -- is also fueled by endless reams of PR and stacks of coffee table cookbooks that present chefs as modern day saints, cooking all night over a hot stove and foraging all day for the perfect organic peach, with nothing but their customers and the perfection of their craft in mind. Chefs are marketed like indie rock bands, pure and unsoiled by thoughts of commerce or marketing. It's a ridiculous notion, but it apparently sells. Trouble is, when people find out that their idols are human, they they can react poorly.

[touaregsand]

Analogies are the devil's work to be sure, but I'm always trying to make them. I'm wondering how I'd feel if I owned a professional sports team. (I do this when I get bored wondering what it would be like if Michel Bras was my personal cook.) Here I am paying multimillions of dollars a year to my stars, expected them to be in the best shape and prepared to do the best job and then I find out they chose the shoes they're wearing just because someone paid them a lot of money to wear those shoes.

I suppose I would also be thinking that I have multi-millions on top of the multi-millions that I pay to the stars because of endorsement deals I've cut myself with all the banners strewn around the stadium.

[russ parsons]

No matter how much a restaurant reviewer could protest that he would NEVER say good things about a restaurant he did not like, his reputation is on the line, etc, if it became public knowledge that he was on a restaurant's payroll and then he subsequently gave a favorable review, there would certainly be a hue and cry. Nobody would say "It's only a restaurant". 

It is incumbent on the chefs and their producers that at the very least a statement be made revealing to the public their financial arrangements with their endorsees!!

←

what a weird argument. sorry for being so blunt, but those are two completely dissimilar situations. a customer has a right to expect a restaurant critic to deliver a fair and impartial review of a meal; all they expect from a chef is something that tastes good and won't make them sick. if the food doesn't taste good because of using bad products they're endorsing, the public will stop going to the restaurant.

[touaregsand]

When a customer goes to a high-end restaurant -- Trotter level, say --  he carries with him or her a couple of assumptions. Among those are that the chef, within his budget, is using the best possible ingredients to cook his meals, regardless of the blandishments of the various suppliers and salespeople marching through his kitchern.  Another is that the menu is the result of the chef's (and his team's)unique genius and determination, undiluted by outside influences and consideration.  I think that's what Menton1 was referring to when he used the phrase "objective" -- that the chef is making decisions based purely on what results in the best possible meal (within buget etc. considerations). 

The fear is that, when an endorsement is involved, that the chef suddenly has other considerations besides taste.  Chefs are human, they are also business people.  To pretend that they're somehow immune to the temptations that everyone else on earth deals with is to ignore reality.  If a chef's TV show has a big sponsor, the sponsor's wishes are going to be in the chef's thinking.  If you have a choice between two types of chocolate, one of which can be had much more cheaply, you're going to think about that.  It's not necessarily a bad thing, there are probably a dozen good reasons for chefs to cut a good sponsorship deal.  But sponsors don't just give money away, they want something in return.  The thought that their interests as sponsors and my interests as a diner might diverge is a troubling one.

I think the sense of "outrage" -- probably too strong a term -- is also fueled by endless reams of PR and stacks of coffee table cookbooks that present chefs as modern day saints, cooking all night over a hot stove and foraging all day for the perfect organic peach, with nothing but their customers and the perfection of their craft in mind.  Chefs are marketed like indie rock bands, pure and unsoiled by thoughts of commerce or marketing.  It's a ridiculous notion, but it apparently sells.  Trouble is, when people find out that their idols are human, they they can react poorly.

←

This really applies to a specific category of well known chef. One who has a restaurant and writes a cookbook to promote the restaurant. I can think of just a few cookbooks like this that are actually cookbooks, they are more often than not monuments to the chef erected by the chef himself. These chefs have their PR machines who create the idol from a mold. Who buys these cookbooks but idolators? They put themselves in the position of having to be 'perfect."

I'd rather listen to fingernails scratching a blackboard than hear another precious chef talk about his little organic garden, painstaking techniques, taking cuisine in whole new directions, experimenting in a garage...

I remember reading a post somewhere that questioned Bourdain's boeuf bourguignon recipe because it seemed so simple. You know what it is simple. There you go, it's a simple dish that should have a simple recipe that works.