Chefs running scared of websites

[silverbrow]

This article from today's Guardian reports that London's chefs are worried about the impact that www.london-eating.co.uk is having on their business.

Slightly strangely, the article goes on to detail how few chefs are concerned, or is it merely a case of them feigning indifference?

Edited August 24, 2005 by silverbrow (log)

[Carrot Top]

This was an interesting comment from that article:

. . . For some, though, nothing can replace the expertise of the professional restaurant critic. Egon Ronay has been reviewing restaurants since 1957. He is astounded to hear that ordinary restaurant-goers are posting reviews on the web. "It is of no greater use than someone venturing an opinion as you wait in the queue at the supermarket," he declares. "Or somebody saying that they had a very good dinner, while you are both sitting in the doctor's surgery.". . .

Seems that paragraph alone could warrant a thread solely on its own merit.

[silverbrow]

I agree, thought the same thing. It seems that he has a very superior view of himself as a critic. The concept that the average paying customer's views are not worth anything is bizarre. Afterall, aren't the reviews supposed to be read by the average paying customer who on the basis of said review decides whether to eat there or not?

[Carrot Top]

Mmm. But I can see what he said from his viewpoint, too.

Agreed that the satisfaction of the customer is the final analysis of whether a restaurant will do well. . .as in every business. The buck stops there.

But again, someone that has taken the time to learn the ways of many sorts of restaurants as a professional and who has their own reputation at stake when they write a "review" is going to have to consider the entire experience a lot more carefully than someone that just went out for a meal and who is writing of how they experienced that one particular meal.

Both ways are useful in terms of analysis. But finally, the decision must be made by the potential customer whether they will make their determination of whether to spend their money and time somewhere based on the "man in the street" reports or on the professional reviewer's reports. To each his own.

Egon. . .having survived since 1957 as a restaurant reviewer, seems to be doing something right in his own way. So the ego does not bother me.

[mrbigjas]

the opinions of random people reviewing restaurants on websites IS like 'someone venturing an opinion as you wait in the queue in the supermarket.' the questions then become: do you know that person waiting in the queue with you? have they ventured opinions to you before that you've found to be trustworthy?

[jvictor930]

This is affecting the hospitality industry as a whole. Frankly though, any yahoo can post comments based upon anything they want. There are websites like tripadvisor.com and others who could convey the opinions of folks who are motivated by less than, shall we say, noble purposes. Are we to assume that all restaurant owners are going to not bash the competition with postings? It could, and has, happenned.

[PDC]

I have my own personal Golden Rule Of Using Critics (applies to any critic - music, art, food, whatever): If you're using a critic as a guide for spending your money, the critic has no value unless his/her taste is the same as your own. In short, you should look at the critic's opinions of things you've tried already and see how the critic's likes/dislikes match your own.

Of course, for educational purposes it pays to read all sorts of criticism.

Edited August 24, 2005 by PDC (log)

[FabulousFoodBabe]

This is affecting the hospitality industry as a whole.  Frankly though, any yahoo can post comments based upon anything they want.  There are websites like tripadvisor.com and others who could convey the opinions of folks who are motivated by less than, shall we say, noble purposes.  Are we to assume that all restaurant owners are going to not bash the competition with postings?  It could, and has, happenned.

←

I've seen and heard restaurant dishes described as being prepared in a certain way, or containing certain ingredients, that I know is incorrect. But still, these are "experts" and I really wish people would keep their opinions in perspective. Reviews -- in the print, online, or the grocery store -- are just one person's opinion.

[slkinsey]

I think it very much depends on which web site you're talking about. Some sites seem to let just about anyone post their opinions on a restaurant (or book or movie or whatever). No one has to join or register, the "reviwers" are largely anonymous, and you tend to get lots of relatively unqualified raves or pans. This, in my opinion, does amount to taking opinions from the person next to you in line. This is the case with london-eating.co.uk.

But, not all internet food sites are alike.

This is a big reason why we have always had registration, have encouraged people to disclose their real names, and have frowned upon/acted to prevent multiple registrations. By spending time reading these forums, people can begin to form an picture of what they think of other members' writing, opinions, expertise, etc. For example, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that Fat Guy and Bux have more fine dining experience than I have. As a result, they may be able to offer opinions on certain aspects of certain restaurants from a more informed basis than I can. Or they may be able to suplement opinions and statements I may offer with information of their own during the course of discussion. This is among the reasons we like to have single-thread discussions about a given restaurant. Readers can see the history of member responses to a restaurant, can ask questions, and can read a multiplicity of opinions from many different perspectives. My opinion is that a reader can gain much more information about a restaurant from a good eG Forums discussion thread than from a 1,000 review in a newspaper -- especially given the fact that so many reviews are complete drek these days, from Bruni's "60% scene/40% food" reviews to the "bad boy reviewers"of the UK.

[Tess]

the opinions of random people reviewing restaurants on websites IS like 'someone venturing an opinion as you wait in the queue in the supermarket.'  the questions then become: do you know that person waiting in the queue with you?  have they ventured opinions to you before that you've found to be trustworthy?

←

Also, hopefully, cues within the text will give you some idea of how valuable a review is-- whether it's by a professional or by Joe Blow on a website. If you can read carefully, you can get an idea of where the reviewer may be betraying him or herself. It often seems pretty obvious when a review has been written to grind a personal axe or just because the person wants to her him/herself speak.

Admittedly, not everyone can be bothered to read carefully.

[fifi]

What an odd article. I suppose that goes to show that the perception of this new medium still has some growing to do. I don't see the internet discussion sites as any different than the guy in the market check out line. There is probably as much or more individual consumer opinion reported word of mouth as on any site.

I have my own internal definitions. To me, a reviewer is a professional. Me, I am just reporting on my experience. That doesn't mean I always have any more respect for the professional reviewer than I do one of my non-professional foodie friends. Sometimes less. For instance, I read the "bad boy" reviewers for entertainment, not advice. Actually, for myself and most of my friends, the reviews provide information but rarely will they determine my buying decision. I will make up my own mind. Oh . . . One exception . . . If a reviewer comments that the place is "lively" meaning loud, I am not going there.

Credibility and sincerity is pretty easy to pick up on whether in idle conversation, on a web site, or even in the professional writing. That gets back to what Sam said.

[Megan Blocker]

What about the definitive non-professional reviewers' forum - Zagat's? In NYC, at least, it's definitely a tool people use when deciding where to eat. It could be argued that peoples' feedback is tempered by being part of a mass response, and by being consolidated to the point where comments completely lose their original context. However, I would venture to say that this guide is far more influential on a day-to-day basis in the lives of average New Yorkers deciding where to dine than, say, the NY Times reviews.

[Pan]

I trust a restaurant recommendation from my brother a hell of a lot more than one from any food critic, because I'm almost guaranteed to like anyplace my brother says is great. Our taste doesn't coincide in everything, but in food, it's very similar.

I also have done very well with recommendations from some eGullet Society members, but it's of course worth remembering that there is some overlap between professional restaurant critics and eGullet members.

[Carrot Top]

To get a recommendation from one's brother, (or a warning that the place will not suit) is one thing. . .and that seems agreeable to me.

One knows one's brother very well, probably, therefore the information can be taken, assessed, and understood.

To get a bit of gossip or advice from the person in the supermarket line is okay too. It is one opinion from one member of the human race. And one opinion from one member from the human race on any given subject that they are familiar with in undefined various amounts is worth whatever value one wants to personally place on it. In these cases, one has to take a leap of faith in serendipity though, and that is okay too.

But neither one's brother nor the guy in the supermarket is setting themselves up in any formal sense in the mass media that reaches untold numbers of people, as an expert.

There is something different going on the moment one decides that their opinion is worth enough to the world to post it on an internet site. It involves a bit of assurance on the part of the person posting that they are "right" about what they think and it involves a bit of ego in thinking that they should have the right to approach the subject of discussing something that involves a subject that likely they may not be professionally intimate with.

There are also no formal controls set in this venue as there would be in a reviewer's writing, which would involve the media being somewhat responsible for the veracity of what is written.

Assuredly there is good food reviewing going on in the media of internet.

There have been people who have set out to do this in a way that would reach a professional level that would assure their reliability to those who read them, and their veracity in terms of who it is that they are as a person (i.e. not just someone being careless with what really does end up to be public opinion on someone elses business. . .a restaurant. . .that has some sort of reputation and some amount of employees to support.)

What bothered me yesterday in posting was two things. The title of the thread which seemed rather presumptous. Chefs need to do one thing. Run their restaurant well. Or that is how it should be. To think that they need take the time to respond to websites is rather disturbing to me. If a customer has an unhappy experience, it would seem right that that customer deal with it at the time.

And it bothered me that there was some assumption that chefs SHOULD be "running scared" of their customers.

No. They should not. They should (and usually do) take a great number of hours during the day to try to make those customers happy.

Food, however, is a thing in which everyone is an expert in ways. At least they are to their own selves. But to assume that what they think is right for the world, is wrong. It is hubris.

Is the act of formal criticism to be accepted in any given field based on the fact that someone thinks it so? Or should there be some sort of proof of the pudding asked for in the critic. . .just as the critic is demanding proof of the pudding in the thing he is discussing?

Has the world become one big grocery store line where everyone has equal voice and demands equal respect for that voice, whether the voice comes from an idiot or from a savant? Perhaps.

And that scenario, makes me want to leave the grocery store line and go home. For it seems rather loopy. To put it mildly.

It is also somewhat disturbing how very popular the food thing is just as a cultural phenomena. People pick it up and bandy it about seemingly to give themselves an aura of "classiness". Everyone wants to talk about chefs and restaurants, everyone wants a piece of it. It seems sometimes as if they want to eat the chef, the restaurant, and vicariously the life of running a restaurant as much or more than they want to eat the food itself.

It is all so fascinating.

Yes, it is.

But first of all, to the restauranteurs, it is a business that they must run every day. They are not there to entertain the crowds. Or they should not be for if they are the focus has changed to move away from the food. They are there to do the best job possible. And that job should not involve answering to every Tom Dick or Jerry that thinks he has the right and the power to affect their business from behind the curtain of the blank internet screen.

Put yourself, in your own business, in the shoes of these chefs. How many hours a day could you effectively spend "answering to" whoever wanting to post an opinion on the internet? How many hours a day could you do so and survive. . .either business-wise or emotionally? Would you want to?

There seems to be a turning-upside down of the Golden Rule here. And although I am not religious, it is distasteful to me.

Particularly when the people doing the upturning seem to have nothing to lose on their sides. . plus an assured attitude that they are the experts. . ."just because".

Edited August 25, 2005 by Carrot Top (log)

[Susan in FL]

One thing that is different between internet discussion sites and the guy in the market check out line is that it's written, it's in black and white, it's "on record" -- however you want to refer to it -- and that might cause more concern to restaurant chefs or management.

Much like PDC's points, when I read reviews of anything, I give more value to the critic whose tastes are similar to my own. I'm especially like that when reading wine reviews and ratings.

Pan, I trust a restaurant recommendation from my brother a hell of a lot more than one from any food critic, too!

Nevertheless, I do read every restaurant review I can get my hands on or get on my computer screen, amateur and professional, for educational purposes. Then if I'm going to pick a place to eat, I take it all into consideration... what I've read and what I've heard.

In our area, there has been an increase in write-ups and reviews about restaurants and bars lately. Here, it is a good thing. I'm hoping it will improve the local dining places.

[Mottmott]

Smart chefs use websites such as eG. We're their best customers, we care about the food we eat and are eager to share our opinions with our eFriends who also care. And as our observations are usually posted in the context of discussions, the point of view of the reviewer becomes obvious, usually.

At eG we all want good restaurants to succeed. We want to eat there. Why should chefs be afraid of that? Even our complaints can benefit them.

[Susan in FL]

Well put!

[robb]

I think Megan Blockers comment about Zagat is very relevant here. Zagat is purely about popular opinion rather than professional critique. I've seen a good Zagat rating in a mediocre restaurant drive a lot of business.

I also can look at this like the way I view film criticism. There are some critics I agree with and some I don't. If a critic I often agree with recommends something I might be more inclined to see that film than I would otherwise. At the same time, there are many film critics for a single film. But unless you are in a huge market like NYC or London, you're likely to only have one or two opinions on a restuarant.

[Tess]

At eG we all want good restaurants to succeed.  We want to eat there. Why should chefs be afraid of that? Even our complaints can benefit them.

←

I feel as if that's true about eGullet. A site like the one referenced in the original post, though-- I can see why restaurateurs get nervous. They assign an average score in several categories based on the reviews. This encourages certain kinds of bad behavior, with people writing reviews largely so they can drive the scores up or down. It happens all the time on Amazon and makes my friends who have books out tear their hair.

[Carrot Top]

Smart chefs use websites such as eG. We're their best customers, we care about the food we eat and are eager to share our opinions with our eFriends who also care. And as our observations are usually posted in the context of discussions, the point of view of the reviewer becomes obvious, usually.

At eG we all want good restaurants to succeed.  We want to eat there. Why should chefs be afraid of that? Even our complaints can benefit them.

←

Sigh.

You, Mottmott, yes. You, Susan, yes. And eGullet in general, yes. YOU want good restaurants to succeed. But the world is not always this same sort of pleasant and good-willed character that "you" are.

I am sure that you and "you" know this.

The original post asked about chefs running scared. Perhaps it was the wording that set me off. Perhaps it was meant to sound as I took it, perhaps not. . .but say "chefs running scared" to me. . .then detail the way in which it supposedly has happened, (the London website), and then add something like "Strangely the article goes on to say how few chefs are concerned. . .or are they feigning indifference?" and you (no, again not YOU but the other you's) are going to see one pissed-off ex-chef.

Reviews and discussions on the internet can be a tool, no doubt, to any chef who cares to look and listen. The best tool for a chef, though, is what is left on the plates at the end of service and the looks on the faces of the people who actually just experienced that meal. That is a more direct method. And in that method (which of course has been used since the beginning of time not only by chefs but by mothers looking at their children at the table) there is less room for misunderstanding or game-playing for whatever reason, and nobody saying (or we would hope not!) "Be afraid. . .be very afraid. . .for I. . .am Power."

If there is power in the ways of the internet that is in the hands of people who might not be using it in the nicest or clearest or most ethical ways that could be (and I believe this to be true just from watching human nature for many years) . .then surely it should not be glorified. . .as I felt was the case in this situation.

All these things are informational. But start using imagery of it as a weapon that "I" or any chef should be "running from" and that starts a different ball game.

Edited to add: I just looked over on the "Potato Salad; Eggs or no Eggs" thread.

A simple thing, potato salad. Yet look at the way people approach how they think it should be made. . on one. . . single. . . parameter. Eggs or no eggs.

Pleasant and entertaining conversation. But it shows the great variation in how people think things "should be made". Take this to an extreme. . .and then flip it into a different mode for the purpose of telling chefs they should "run scared"?

Think about how you would react as a chef to these conversations. What would you take back to the kitchen with you?

Would it be right to impose that you should be "running scared" from it?

( ).

And,

Edited August 25, 2005 by Carrot Top (log)

[Bux]

"Nothing can replace the expertise of the professional restaurant critic." I'm inclilned to agree. I'm also inclined to value the range of comments on the net, and there is a wide range. I suspect I'd miss the offhand comments in the supermarket line, although maybe not. I don't tend to shop much in the supermarket. There are probably fewer posers on a supermarket line though.

We seem to be discussing two not entirely separate issues here. How much attention should diners pay to what they read and how much attention should chefs pay to the same reviews, gossip and claptrap. Both may affect how I eat. If I follow the wrong advice, it's obvious I may eat poorly. If a chef follows the wrong advice and I like his food, I could be in for a let down the next time.

Failure to pay attention to one's reputation on the street, or in print, is bad business, for any business, but it doesn't mean the critics know what they are talking about and a chef has to have some confidence he's on the right path. Running scared seems no better than ignoring comments wholesale, although many chefs are going to have to dimiss a lot of criticism and move on or continue. Often the best idea is to pay lip service to the negative criticism and continue the cooking that pleases loyal clients.

I'll recycle one of my favorite stories of the four star chef whose restaurant got a three star review from a new critic flexing his muscles. In print, the chef was nothing but respecful of the criticism, saying his kitchen must try harder all the time. Meanwhile the restaurant continued to be packed with loyal customers who really didn't care what the critic or the chef had to say. The food continued to evolve, but not really any differently than it had in the years preceding the lower rating. Neither reviewers nor web sites have that great an effect on the business of an established restaurant, in terms of commerical success or failure. When they do accomplish is help put the right diners in the right restaurants. People who care a little about food are probably happy with the supermarket checkout line referrals. People who are obsessed about what and where they eat are probably pretty thorough about checking their sources in print and online.

I don't think the majority of Americans, or even my fellow New Yorkers particularly share my tastes in food, but I get messages from some people telling me they have found my recommendations useful. I consciously try to get beyond just whether I like a meal or not and I think many of us here do as much or more in that aspect. I was not that surprised to learn chefs read the site. I was suprised to learn that some knew who I was before I ever ate in their restaurant. None of them have ever indicated they were intimidated or running scared. I'd like to think they'd be disappointed if I didn't appreciate their food, just as I'd be disappointed if I learned how many people thought I was full of it when posting. I think that's the context of Mottmott's comments. You'd be surprised at how many kitchens never get the feedback they'd like to hear. Cooking is about communication and sites such as eGullet can provide the reaction to the food that is meaningful even when it's neither glowing nor panning. Chefs are among the worlds overworked professionals. It's not surprising they post so infrequently, but it's great when they do to share a recipe, technique or explain a question we have about a meal. We're not a scary place.

[LindaK]

Interesting conversation. I think it's worth distinguishing an "expert" from a "professional." One is not necessarily the other.

It makes me wonder what folks think about the professional who goes to great lengths to dine incognito. The most high profile example that I know about is from Ruth Reichl's most recent memoir, "Garlic and Sapphires : The Secret Life of a Critic in Disguise." I'll admit that I haven't read it--though I heard many a radio interview--and probably won't unless I hear a thunderous recommendation here. I certainly understand and appreciate the premise. But the lengths that I understand Reichl went to disguise herself seem extreme to me, even a little creepy. While I imagine service and other elements of a meal would be affected by the recognition of a professional critic, can a kitchen really change its fundamental quality and nature on a moment's notice? If the answer is yes, then perhaps chefs do "run scared" of whomever they know has a captive audience, print or web.

[Bux]

. . . .

It makes me wonder what folks think about the professional who goes to great lengths to dine incognito.  The most high profile example that I know about is from Ruth Reichl's most recent memoir, "Garlic and Sapphires : The Secret Life of a Critic in Disguise." . . .

←

The one review I read in the Times where she spoke about fooling the owner who was rude to her once when he didn't know her, and how nice he was when she come back in disguise, left me wondering how astute she was about everything else.

[Bux]

alibi.com V.14 No.34 | August 25 - August 31, 2005 This Week's Food (Albuquerque, NM)

Scroll to the bottom to read:

"So you guys already have a strong repeat customer base?

Yeah, we've only been open two months and we've got people who are on their 10th, 12th order. People are loving it. A guy out of Dallas reviewed us on his website, 6things.com. We're also mentioned on egullet.com and on one other Internet food forum.

I guess it's because people get take-out pizza and eat it in front of the computer.

Yeah, probably. I've actually had two or three customers come in and say, "Hey, I saw that you were on egullet!"

[Pan]

To get a recommendation from one's brother, (or a warning that the place will not suit) is one thing. . .and that seems agreeable to me.

One knows one's brother very well, probably, therefore the information can be taken, assessed, and understood.

To get a bit of gossip or advice from the person in the supermarket line is okay too. It is one opinion from one member of the human race. And one opinion from one member from the human race on any given subject that they are familiar with in undefined various amounts is worth whatever value one wants to personally place on it. In these cases, one has to take a leap of faith in serendipity though, and that is okay too.

But neither one's brother nor the guy in the supermarket is setting themselves up in any formal sense in the mass media that reaches untold numbers of people, as an expert.

There is something different going on the moment one decides that their opinion is worth enough to the world to post it on an internet site. It involves a bit of assurance on the part of the person posting that they are "right" about what they think and it involves a bit of ego in thinking that they should have the right to approach the subject of discussing something that involves a subject that likely they may not be professionally intimate with.

There are also no formal controls set in this venue as there would be in a reviewer's writing, which would involve the media being somewhat responsible for the veracity of what is written.[...]

←

I guess on the one hand, I may be less certain that such formal controls are so reliable or, even if so, do much to ensure accurate and knowledgeable criticism. Anyone who's been to a concert and when reading the review, concludes that the critic must have been at another concert or never showed up and made it all up knows what I'm talking about.

On the other hand, the real "control" on the power of a critic is the byline, as long as it includes the name of the reviewer and not just "staff" or something. And in that sense, at a responsible website like this one, where you can be reasonably confident that each individual member is posting under only one screen name, a similar control is operational. Whereupon, I can only suggest that the reader judge eGullet restaurant reports by essentially the same yardstick as reviews in newspapers and magazines: Do you like the writing? Did it transmit useful information? And over time, have you found the member's opinions reliable or unreliable?

Does anything else really count?

I also have to point out that at least some critics have had questionable credentials to prove their expertise. Consider Frank Bruni of the New York Times, for example. Yet I gave him a chance to prove himself, regardless of -- correct me if I'm wrong -- his lack of professional background in food.