Chefs do Paid Promos

[menton1]

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.

←

Couldn't you also say that if a reviewer loves a place and you then hate it, you won't go back there? I think the key here is the lost word: Integrity. Sure, money is the great temptation, and I have no idea that I would not react the same way if I were in their shoes and offered a tidy sum...

That being said, I propose this disclaimer at the beginning of Ming Tsai's PBS show: "The producers are obliged to announce that Mr Tsai has been paid half a million dollars this past year by the Contessa Frozen Shrimp Company. However, if it wasn't a good product, he wouldn't endorse it!"

And for David Burke: "Please be advised that Mr. Burke is a paid advisor to the American beef lobby."

[Pan]

Before shows on the Public Broadcasting System here in the US, there are announcements stating who funded the show. What would be the harm in having such statements regarding frozen shrimp, beef, etc. precede the shows we're discussing? ("This show was brought to you by ADM, frozen shrimp, the beef industry, and viewers like you.") Just as viewers are never told just how much ADM "contributed" to have their ad shown at the beginning of a show, we needn't be told how much the beef industry contributed, but it escapes me what the harm would be in announcing them as sponsors. That is, unless the stations and networks showing the food shows would require direct funding from the beef industry for such a mention...

[PassionateChefsDie]

Before shows on the Public Broadcasting System here in the US, there are announcements stating who funded the show. What would be the harm in having such statements regarding frozen shrimp, beef, etc. precede the shows we're discussing? ("This show was brought to you by ADM, frozen shrimp, the beef industry, and viewers like you.") Just as viewers are never told just how much ADM "contributed" to have their ad shown at the beginning of a show, we needn't be told how much the beef industry contributed, but it escapes me what the harm would be in announcing them as sponsors. That is, unless the stations and networks showing the food shows would require direct funding from the beef industry for such a mention...

←

Hi on a slightly different but related subject we had a chef in Britain who regretted selling his name to a branded restaurant until he gave back his stars! But with the philosophy of Bocuse whats wrong with chefs taking what they are owned, they put in the hours. As for endorsement are you all tring to tell me that you believe them? all i got to say is Gordon Ramsay in promoting bramley apples not only used another type of apple but said who'd know and this was filmed. Do we believe that all these stars promoting youth regeneration are actually using it(Natalie Imbruglia really needs it), adverts and endorsements are for people who cant or wont research there own subjects/products do we believe that these chefs are going to give out there suppliers who sometimes exlusively supply to them, off course! not any chef worth his salt knows we are only as good as our product. If your going to follow endorsements and adverts you may miss the best because more often than not endorsements and adverts are for the commercial world and restaurants of calibre dont fall into this it's about Ingredients the best of the best and generally as a rule once you get too big the standard falls(Louis Roederer, Champagne house knows this, buy a new house dont dilute the winning formula)

just my veiw, let them reap there rewards but it doesn't always work for the chef, let them take the gamble, most respected Chefs have a minimum time to spend time endorsing products, they're in the kitchen refining and finishing dishes

Perfection cant be reached, but it can be strived for

[Toliver]

The article didn't quite get the Bayless brouhaha right:

Just two years ago, when Chicago chef Rick Bayless accepted $300,000 to appear in a Burger King commercial, he was widely criticized by his peers for working with a mass-market food company -- and he eventually donated the money to charity...

They didn't mention why Bayless shilling for BK was such a big deal which was really the crux of the whole issue.

The article also neglected to mention the Jamie Oliver-Heinz Baked Beans incident which is a prime example of a chef "selling out" (the money went to fund scholarships for his "15" students...but he still sold out).

[PassionateChefsDie]

The article didn't quite get the Bayless brouhaha right:

Just two years ago, when Chicago chef Rick Bayless accepted $300,000 to appear in a Burger King commercial, he was widely criticized by his peers for working with a mass-market food company -- and he eventually donated the money to charity...

They didn't mention why Bayless shilling for BK was such a big deal which was really the crux of the whole issue.

The article also neglected to mention the Jamie Oliver-Heinz Baked Beans incident which is a prime example of a chef "selling out" (the money went to fund scholarships for his "15" students...but he still sold out).

←

I wouldn't class Jamie as a Great Chef, his mum was a tv producer for a show that was being filmed where he worked it about who you know not what you know

Perfection cant be reached, but it can be strived for

[Daniel Rogov]

I agree that there is no sin whatever in a chef endorsing a product, even if the product is not one that he/she truly cares for. Chefs (and keep in mind please that no-one respects fine chefs more than I) are not doing a public service. They are selling their wares and the quality of their wares - that is to say - the food they set before us- is the only thing for which they should be judged. There are, of course many factors involved in determining the quality of any dish but whether the chef has sex with horses, promotes the sale of sports shoes or frozen shrimp is something that we may judge but not as it reflects on his product.

The critic is in a completely different category. Although the restaurant or wine critic can be on friendly, even warm terms, with chefs, restaurateurs or winemakers as the case may be, he cannot be friends with them except in very rare exceptions. Nor, under any circumstances whatever, can critics accept payment of any kind from any segment of the food/wine industries. The moment they have done that they have or should have lost every ounce of their credibility.

Chefs have no need whatever to make full disclosure... they are selling a product and it is that and that alone that is put out for us to judge. Critics on the other hand must make full disclosure for what they are selling is their credibility and once they compromise that they become, for lack of a better word, whores.

Edited April 26, 2005 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[CtznCane]

This all seems like such a non-issue. Clearly everyone has bills and a need for at least a certain amount of money. Face the facts. If someone offers you enough money, regardless of the field, we would only have 2 questions. Where do we go and when do we show up. As to the quality of the product, that will all come to light.

The funniest part here, in my opinion, is over the frozen shrimp. Hell, just about all the shrimp we buy (if not all) has previously been frozen so what is the big deal? The only shrimp comment I'll make is that I will not buy shrimp from Thailand unless the seller can attest to whether they are harvested in an ecologically sound way. Since almost no fish market knows that answer, I may as well say I just don't buy Thai shrimp.

[menton1]

The funniest part here, in my opinion, is over the frozen shrimp.  Hell, just about all the shrimp we buy (if not all) has previously been frozen so what is the big deal?  The only shrimp comment I'll make is that I will not buy shrimp from Thailand unless the seller can attest to whether they are harvested in an ecologically sound way.  Since almost no fish market knows that answer, I may as well say I just don't buy Thai shrimp.

←

Gee whiz, I did not start this topic to discuss the virtues or drawbacks of frozen shrimp! What I feel IS important is that a seemingly objective celebrity is being paid by a NON impartial sponsor. I want to know that. I don't want to read about it in the WSJ. I want the show to put out a statement telling me that the celebrity has been paid and by whom. Then and only then can I decide how much weight to give the celebrity's statements. If I feel that his reputation is such that he would never endorse a bad product, at least I have ALL the information. I will not be convinced that these unrevealed sponsorships are not SMARMY!

[docsconz]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I guess I don't really see the import here. If a chef endorses inferior products whether the endorsement is made plain or exists in the background, that chef's reputation will suffer (e.g. Rocco diSpirito). If the products are not inferior, what difference does it make?

[Genny]

Tiger Woods endorses Cadillac, Nike, and goodness knows what else. Michael Schumacher drives for Morlboro. Does he actually smoke Marlboros? Does it make him a hyppocrite for not? Does Shaq actually use the Icy Hot bands? (Do they even fit him or does the company make a special Shaq-Daddy size?) And, Mario Batagli pushes Glad Cling Wrap (good product by the way, my own endorsement ). Why would we hold chefs to a different standard?

The interesting thing I found about this discussion is that these chefs are not making their financial comp information known and that is supposed to somehow compromise the product they are selling to their fans. Well... does Chef Tsai's menu say: "Grilled Contessa Shrimp with kamfir lime sauce"? We know the brand name only because we are reading about it from an outside source. Otherwise, we know he likes frozen shrimp and (gasps!) I can buy frozen shrimp (from a choice of labels) at my local grocery store. And yes there is disclosure on the programming, that is what all the "sponsored by" credits are. Why are we holding this against him? If the person endorsing the product believes in it and uses it, who are we to judge them? Hell, for $500K, I'd tell you the brand name of everything in my kitchen!

Chef Robet McGrath has "Dr. Pepper braised short ribs" on his menu. Is this a problem if Dr. Pepper is paying him to use the product? Is it OK if they don't pay him? Frankly, I don't care either way, I've had the short ribs and they are to die for. Whether or not there is a product endorsement is beside the point. Why is it my business what he makes and how he makes it? I'm not the federal government.

If you were offered $100 to tell your friends about your favorite brand of coffee that you already use and tell them about, you'd be a fool to turn it down! Capitalism isn't all bad, you know.

Sorry, I just don't understand what the outrage is here.

[russ parsons]

this discussion really has been interesting. what fascinates me the most is what seems to me to be an underlying assumption that chefs--and therefore restaurants--should be held to some sort of ethical standard that goes beyond the job they do (make food that tastes good). i do think the word "celebrity" is a key. it's almost like the "rock-star-ization" of chefs has led to this ... we respect chefs' culinary abilities and therefore we expect that we should respect them in all ways. but for every bono, there's a jessica simpson, and for every alice waters there's somebody with bucks in their eyes (and, of course, in both examples, there's a huge gray area in between).

[menton1]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I guess I don't really see the import here. If a chef endorses inferior products whether the endorsement is made plain or exists in the background, that chef's reputation will suffer (e.g. Rocco diSpirito). If the products are not inferior, what difference does it make?

←

We ARE beating a dead horse-- it seems that both sides of this argument are hunkering down--- but my story is that DISCLOSURE is the American way, it is the way of a democracy. The argument that reputation suffers for poor endorsements doesn't hold water, in my mind. A newspaper columnist could then write several pieces extolling the virtues of a product. Then a WSJ-type reporter does an expose. You would be outraged!! IMHO it's analogous. It's like these sponsors quietly slipping the celebrity an envelope. It's sneaky and wrong.

Let these chefs get all the endorsements they can fit into their wallet, God bless them-- I just want to know about it before he makes his pronouncements!!!

[chefzadi]

I take back what I said earlier, if Grey Poupon or French's Mustard approached me for a paid endorsement I would do it, then donate all the money to charity and send my tax return to Menton as proof.

but my story is that DISCLOSURE is the American way

It's the American way for corporations to insert product placements almost everywhere. Yes the horse is dead on both sides of the argument, but one side seems to be in the clear minority. Just don't buy the stuff.

[David Lebovitz]

As someone who writes cookbooks and does cooking demonstrations, companies will often give me free products, samples, or even in some cases, appliances. Good friends of mine own a chocolate company. I love their chocolate and so I recommend it (as well as others). Another chocolate company sent me a big case of their chocolate, which I didn't like, so I don't recommend it.

To bottom line to me is that if I like a product, I'll recommend it.

If not, I don't.

A pastry chef I know calls for specific brands in his books, most are obvious placements since a chef of his caliber would not use those products. I've been approached by companies wanting me to use their products in my books. I only will call for a specific product if there is nothing else like it, or it is particularly appropriate for a recipe, items such as ScharffenBerger cocoa nibs or Boyajian Lemon Oil. I like both products and each companies 'mission' seems to be similar to mine; to produce healthy, pure products that improve the flavor and quality of baked goods. My editor wouldn't let me use a specific product that was obviously for commercial reasons. If a company that I liked and/or used their products asked me to do some promotional work for them, I'd be happy to do it. I've done promotional work for companies that don't compensate me (except with products) and that's fine, since I believe in their products and want to support them. It's not always about the money.

I guess what it boils down to is: what are we in this for?

I have no problem with people going commercial and making money. That's their decision. If someone wants to recommend melting Snickers Bars in their chocolate cakes, that's fine. (Um, actually, that sounds kinda good...come to think of it.)

So they get a show on Food Network and travel to at all the food and wine festivals. That's great. There's so few opportunities to make money in this business, if you can do it and feel happy with yourself and what you're doing, that's terrific. I just could not publish a recipe with ingredients that I was not proud of, or that I wouldn't normally use, with my name on it. That's not why I do what I do.

I assume when the public sees an ad, they know that the person is compensated for it. I also assume (and maybe I'm naive in thinking) that Charlie Trotter really does enjoy Fuji water and in spite of getting paid to promote it, he actually does like the product and is happy to lend his mug to their ads.

David Lebovitz

[docsconz]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I guess I don't really see the import here. If a chef endorses inferior products whether the endorsement is made plain or exists in the background, that chef's reputation will suffer (e.g. Rocco diSpirito). If the products are not inferior, what difference does it make?

←

We ARE beating a dead horse-- it seems that both sides of this argument are hunkering down--- but my story is that DISCLOSURE is the American way, it is the way of a democracy. The argument that reputation suffers for poor endorsements doesn't hold water, in my mind. A newspaper columnist could then write several pieces extolling the virtues of a product. Then a WSJ-type reporter does an expose. You would be outraged!! IMHO it's analogous. It's like these sponsors quietly slipping the celebrity an envelope. It's sneaky and wrong.

Let these chefs get all the endorsements they can fit into their wallet, God bless them-- I just want to know about it before he makes his pronouncements!!!

←

You are still equating this with a newspaper columnist who writes an article extolliing something or belittling something else but not relating associated financial arrangements and therefore potential bias. If this is presented as "news" or "reporting" without disclosure that would likely present a major ethical issue because that writer is responsible for being as objective as possible. There is a journalistic code of ethics. If the piece is presented clearly as "opinion" then the ethical obligation is IMO much less, however, that writer's ultimate reputation depends on the quality of that opinion. Pure schillers tend to get seen through pretty quickly. A chef promoting a product doesn't really have the same responsibility IMO as a journalist who is beholden to a specific ethical standard, but once again will be seen through pretty quickly for obvious schilling.

We may just have to agree to disagree.

[Miami Danny]

People understand that running a restaurant is a tough business. And I don't care if the money comes in the front door, or the back door; whatever it takes to realize your success. Chefs, for whatever reasons, are very public figures, and encourage their squeaky clean images with "fresh, local, seasonal ingredients", etc., and they are remunerated (those that succeed) accordingly. Therefore, they are held to higher standards than your average nameless craftsman. The mere fact that they are approached to endorse or use a certain product isn't shocking or troubling, but an indication of their success. They should be proud of these associations and disclose them. I don't think they have anything to hide, do they? Is there a difference between saying, "I love Contessa shrimp and use them in all my shrimp dishes", and "I love Contessa shrimp and use them in all my shrimp dishes and they're paying me $500K for using them"? If a better shrimp came along tomorrow, would Ming jettison Contessa and the $500K? That is the question that remains unanswered here.

[chefzadi]

They should be proud of these associations and disclose them. I don't think they have anything to hide, do they? Is there a difference between saying, "I love Contessa shrimp and use them in all my shrimp dishes", and "I love Contessa shrimp and use them in all my shrimp dishes and they're paying me $500K for using them"? If a better shrimp came along tomorrow, would Ming jettison Contessa and the $500K? That is the question that remains unanswered here.

Doesn't Ming Tsai have a kitchenware line in Wal Mart or Kmart? He has his customer/audience base. I somehow don't think that this customer base would want Tsai to recommend something that wasn't readily available to them. The average mass market consumer would probably say, "Keep the money Ming." And many probably like it when a "fancy" chef tells them what they make with what they have is okay.

Look at how popular Rachel Ray is she makes alot of people feel good for reasons that mostly escape me. But I suspect that it has to do with her accessibility. I've seen like one show of hers and she says things like "I didn't go to chef school and look what I can do. Yummo!" And maybe the viewer at home responds, "If she can do it I can too! Yummo!"

Which leads me to...

A pastry chef I know calls for specific brands in his books, most are obvious placements since a chef of his caliber would not use those products.

I don't have a problem with this. I know certain kinds of ingredients or levels of quality are not accessible to the home cook. I've read some painful posts here of homecooks trying to replicate something a chef with 30-60 staff members does and shopping for hard to find ingredients...

[robyn]

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.....

←

Just for the record - it's Hubert Keller who does the California raisin thing - not Thomas Keller.

Also just for the record - I agree 100% (well maybe 99% ) with Steve Klc.

And when it comes to other celebrity endorsements - what comes to mind is tennis players endorsing tennis racquets or golfers endorsing golf equipment. Yes - player X may play with a Prince racquet or player Y may play with Callaway clubs. But they're not like any tennis racquets or golf clubs you'll ever get your hands on. Even if they start out that way at the beginning - by the time the tops of the racquets are loaded with lead tape - or the clubs are bent this way and that - like I said - they're a totally different animal. I'm sure these food/cooking products are at least ok - if not a whole lot better. When they're used/transformed by expert chefs - well - you get the picture. If I could cook with the same shrimp Ming Tsai uses - whose cooking do you think you'd like better ? Robyn

[Tonyy13]

Just for the record - it's Hubert Keller who does the California raisin thing - not Thomas Keller.

I don't want to split hairs, but I just opened my last issue of food arts, and it has an add with TK, although HK does endorse as well. Trotter is a raisin guy too.....

[speidec]

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).

Actually, Tony, I remember those shrimp were from Sysco!

[Pan]

[...]

The interesting thing I found about this discussion is that these chefs are not making their financial comp information known and that is supposed to somehow compromise the product they are selling to their fans.  Well... does Chef Tsai's menu say: "Grilled Contessa Shrimp with kamfir lime sauce"?  We know the brand name only because we are reading about it from an outside source.  Otherwise, we know he likes frozen shrimp and (gasps!) I can buy frozen shrimp (from a choice of labels) at my local grocery store.  And yes there is disclosure on the programming, that is what all the "sponsored by" credits are.[...]

←

If it's noted either before or/and after the show that, say, Contessa Shrimp was a sponsor, then I don't see any grounds for any complaint. No-one is obligated to disclose during a sponsored program how much they were paid by an endorser.

[Steve Klc]

http://www.calraisins.org/recipes/chefs/

[Michael Ruhlman]

I was in ny monday for the cooking show premiere party, had lunch with Ming and mentioned the article. He was infuriated by it, noting quotes used out of context, duplicitous tactics on the part of the reporter (fawning in order to conceal her motives), and unbalanced use of info to support her point. Maybe Ming's just being sensitive--we were working our way through the excellent rose section of casa mono's great wine list (and awesome food), and ming was kind of unintelligible by the end, but having now worked with the guy and understanding the nature of his work, both at his restaurant and in TV, can vouch for his integrity.

What I find most disturbing about the article is the laziness of the reporting and the habit of writers' coming up with a premise (in this case our beloved celeb chefs are duping us) and then pursuing info to support the premise, regardless of the more nuanced and difficult answers. It's an incomplete and biased view of a broader phenomenon and therefore harmful to readers, harmful to the chefs and their businesses, and harmful to readers who want the whole picture. I love the journal's writing and reporting but this is emblematic of the mediocrity so common in journalism today.

[hjshorter]

What I find most disturbing about the article is the laziness of the reporting and the habit of writers' coming up with a premise (in this case our beloved celeb chefs are duping us) and then pursuing info to support the premise, regardless of the more nuanced and difficult answers.  It's an incomplete and biased view of a broader phenomenon and therefore harmful to readers, harmful to the chefs and their businesses, and harmful to readers who want the whole picture.  I love the journal's writing and reporting but this is emblematic of the mediocrity so common in journalism today.

←

Ming is not the only victim of lazy reporting. See this post for Jose Andres' correction.

[Miami Danny]

I love the journal's writing and reporting but this is emblematic of the mediocrity so common in journalism today.

←

So now it's the journalist's fault? Top chefs are taking money/products to put someone's food on their menus and sometimes NOT telling their customers, and that's not news? This was a timely story that got to a lot of people who were shocked that their beloved chefs were doing this. That is news. And I'm sure from now on, chef's will be revealing their sponsorship deals, which is a good thing. Many people were probably unaware of these deals, even if they are public knowledge. Personally, I doubt anything nefarious is going on, but it's good to have it out in the open.