Restaurant Magazine

[Conor]

I've just received my latest copy of Restaurant Magazine, the editor of which is a regular contributer on this forum so i hope he can give some input to this point, but this time instead of the normal interesting article or 3 i didn't bother going past the front cover.

On the front cover of this issue there is a photo of 20 industry figures in celebration of the 100th issue. Out of these 20 people, one is a restaurant owner, Mourad Mazouz, one is a owner/manager, Eric Garnier and the rest, all 18 of them, are chefs.

Now forgive me if i'm wrong but a "restaurant" is not just about a kitchen is it? We suffer in this country from a massive lack of people entering the service industry. Surely it is the responsibility of magazines such as Restaurant to promote all aspects of the Restaurant industry from the kitchen all the way through the front of house.

Maybe i'm being a little sensitive here, but i believe until we buck the trend of the celebrity chef and focus on the whole experience of dining out, our service industry will continue to suffer and our next generation will have no interest to take on that challenge.

Magazines such as Restaurant Magazine, Caterer and Hotelkeeper, and all the others must really help us promote restaurant managers, sommeliers, waiters and all the other team playes that contribute to the restaurant experience.

[alexw]

I have been in this industry for around 18 years now and am totally with you on the fact that it is not a kitchen alone that makes a restaurant, however you only go to a restaurant to eat and not just to be served, this is not intended to take anything away from the fantastic front of house teams that do exist, just merely stating a fact.

For many years I read the Caterer every week and only in the last year have I jumped ship to Restaurant magazine, "why's that", because I am a chef and the caterer over the last 18 months has grown in it's published diversity and good on it, it just so happens that really all I want to read about is food, so we had to go our separate ways. I do get it on occasion but only when it is having a food heavy issue.

Restaurant magazine however (to which I subscribe) has stuck with it's scene and I seem to recall over the last few months articles and covers dedicated to Robin Hutson (more group busness than service but not at all kitchen) and the ledbury front of house to name but two, so whilst probably the magazine is a little food heavy (I still subscribe, which will cease if they go the same way as the caterer) I find there is quite a lot of room devoted in the magazine beyond the kitchen.

I do also totally agree that front of house teams could do with a lift to promote a higher status, therfore encouraging more good people into the fold, and would welcome any move to help promote this.

Alex.

I've just received my latest copy of Restaurant Magazine, the editor of which is a regular contributer on this forum so i hope he can give some input to this point, but this time instead of the normal interesting article or 3 i didn't bother going past the front cover.

On the front cover of this issue there is a photo of 20 industry figures in celebration of the 100th issue. Out of these 20 people, one is a restaurant owner, Mourad Mazouz, one is a owner/manager, Eric Garnier and the rest, all 18 of them, are chefs.

Now forgive me if i'm wrong but a "restaurant" is not just about a kitchen is it? We suffer in this country from a massive lack of people entering the service industry. Surely it is the responsibility of magazines such as Restaurant to promote all aspects of the Restaurant industry from the kitchen all the way through the front of house.

Maybe i'm being a little sensitive here, but i believe until we buck the trend of the celebrity chef and focus on the whole experience of dining out, our service industry will continue to suffer and our next generation will have no interest to take on that challenge.

Magazines such as Restaurant Magazine, Caterer and Hotelkeeper, and all the others must really help us promote restaurant managers, sommeliers, waiters and all the other team playes that contribute to the restaurant experience.

←

[Paula Jonvik]

One hundred years ago in London, you would have had to look pretty hard to find the name of any chef in any print (with the exception of Escoffier that is).

The Maitre d' was the public figure head and enjoyed a much greater degree of notability than today. Yeah, what happened?

I think that the public has grown lazy and disrespectful. I think that, for the most part, people have decided not to enter into the 'dance' that is fine dining. Dining out, especially at the high end, requires a mutual respect and a certain degree roll playing that most people are not interested in participating in, in my humble opinion. People arrive, want to be fed, and leave. They want value for money. They are not interested in the 'experience' of dining.

Silvano Giraldin is quoted as having said- "The problem is that the British do not make a distinction between "servants' and 'service', as there is a huge difference."

Perhaps what is needed in London is a NEW magazine... dealing strictly with Front of House. So many people think that FOH is only about serving food. That is a shame. Others feel that the FOH is something that is unecessary to their dining experience. Again, a shame.

Front of House requires knowledge about so many different topics, from full on public relations and dealing with the interviewing, hiring, training and honing of personnel; all aspects of business such as accounting, banking, and all money oriented sides, et ectera; the cost, proper selection, storage, pairing and service of wine, and knowledge of stemware, and its care and maintenance; linens and everything about their production, storage, use and proper care... Just for a start.

Let's give these FOH folks the respect and coverage they truly deserve!

Is there a website that is dedicated solely to FOH? I have never come across that one!

Sincerely,

Paula Jonvik

Seattle

[Andy Lynes]

Hopefully "Smokin Joe" will respond here himself, but I know that the guy is seriously under the cosh at the moment. I can tell you as a minor contributor to Restaurant and someone who is not authorised to speak on behalf of the publication that recently appointed editor Joe Warwick is keen to get more ingredient based content in the magazine on a regular basis (hence the recent piece on oysters among others) and that in my opinion the mag has taken a noticable upward turn since he has taken over the reigns. Sucking up to an employer? Maybe, but I've also done exactly the opposite to his face recently so its swings and roundabouts.

The Ledbury cover story was a great piece of writing by Hilary Armstrong whose work I admire, and it's a bit of shame that Helena Hell spoilt the story a bit by leaving the restaurant a few weeks ago. There is usually if not always at least one page dedicated to front of house and restaurateurs are often featured in the magazine.

Restaurant manager Conor says that "it is the responsibility of magazines such as Restaurant to promote all aspects of the restaurant industry from the kitchen all the way through the front of house." and I would argue that Restaurant does just that, although the ratio of back of house to front of house content could possibly be evened up a bit.

[jayrayner]

Surely it is the responsibility of magazines such as Restaurant to promote all aspects of the Restaurant industry from the kitchen all the way through the front of house.

←

Nope. Magazines are not a public service. They have no 'responsibility' to anyone in the way you define it. Their job is to find a readership, keep publishing and produce enough revenue to make that viable.

Whether you want to be a part of that readership is an entirely different matter.

[alexw]

having just got back home from a hellish week, (menu change and all that) have just opened my restaurant magazine and stopped at the front cover and one question immediately pops to mind.

Aren't most (not all I agree) the chefs who grace the cover, the actual owners of the restaurants? and therefore worthy of this recognition. because as we are all aware one person does not a business make (well Shaun Hill had a pretty good stab at it but no-one complained when he got the limelight over who served his food) and anyone worth their sodium chloride knows that all great teams have figureheads and that is the name you wish to grace your CV as you progress through the industry.

[Dirk Wheelan]

Nope. Magazines are not a public service. They have no 'responsibility' to anyone in the way you define it. Their job is to find a readership, keep publishing and produce enough revenue to make that viable.

Whether you want to be a part of that readership is an entirely different matter.

←

I'm glad you're so sure of what a magazine is supposed to be. Still, when the publishers launched Restaurant Magazine they took certain editorial decisions that were not based on circulation figures, but on ideas of what their magazine should be like. Just because their concept found a readership doesn't mean that their formula must remain immutable for all time if ways to improve are encountered.

Anyway, I don't think that RM would lose anything by building up the role of F.O.H., if anything, they stand to gain readers. My own opinion is that RM could be much more influential if they so desired, by concentrating on new talent, and not dedicating so much space to celebrities who don't actually cook anything; a bit more king-making and a bit less king-fellating. The latter being best left to the nationals who do it so much better.

[PassionateChefsDie]

Nope. Magazines are not a public service. They have no 'responsibility' to anyone in the way you define it. Their job is to find a readership, keep publishing and produce enough revenue to make that viable.

Whether you want to be a part of that readership is an entirely different matter.

←

I'm glad you're so sure of what a magazine is supposed to be. Still, when the publishers launched Restaurant Magazine they took certain editorial decisions that were not based on circulation figures, but on ideas of what their magazine should be like. Just because their concept found a readership doesn't mean that their formula must remain immutable for all time if ways to improve are encountered.

Anyway, I don't think that RM would lose anything by building up the role of F.O.H., if anything, they stand to gain readers. My own opinion is that RM could be much more influential if they so desired, by concentrating on new talent, and not dedicating so much space to celebrities who don't actually cook anything; a bit more king-making and a bit less king-fellating. The latter being best left to the nationals who do it so much better.

←

Well Said I've compared this industry more to the Music than any other. There's plenty of good chefs out there but without the right PR campaign or finance to release press releases every week, will go un-heard.

[Dirk Wheelan]

Well Said I've compared this industry more to the Music than any other. There's plenty of good chefs out there but without the right PR campaign or finance to release press releases every week, will go un-heard.

←

The problem is, according to Jay, that this is not as 'viable' as the latest tomfoolery of Gordon, Jamie and Heston.

Sad.

[PassionateChefsDie]

Dont they realise that the people that buy there magazine firstly probably know who there peers are secondly have probably visited there establishments. As a chef I certainly dont buy trade magazines to read about my peers.

I wrote an article regarding the power of peers for here, yet I dont think it will see the light of day, I pointed out its our peers that dictate who the next generation of peers will be. And yet they still contradict each other 2 peers having contrasting and opposing views.

I've worked with 2 chefs and both should of acquired Michelin stars one place being told that if he had 1/3 increase in staff FOH & BOH, or that he was a bistro down the road he'd of got it. The second one was a 2 man team(Never get that one) where I saw 1 food inspector from another guide not like it. Yet as the Big Wig knew it he came back and reviewed it. This highlighted the power of media and an inspectors personal taste more than anything else, just because he was more traditional than the rest, the first inspector would of down graded him.

[Ian]

Hi,

I think we should give Restaurant Magazine a break - it is unlikely to ever meet our individual expectations fully. I could criticise the same feature, for example, for the lack of Chinese restaurant proprietors... the Chinese area is really, really interesting now and there are certainly a few people that could have been included.

A year ago I met with Chris Maillard to discuss improving the magazine's Chinese restaurant coverage. We discussed and agreed several articles. A week or so later when I delivered the first piece, I was told that Chris was on leave. It then became apparent that he'd left. I then delivered a longer piece which made the cover for Chinese new year. There was some confusion over delivery - it seems the new editor Ella Johnston had forgotten the agreed delivery date and lost my mobile number - but the piece was received well, provoking correspondence from several readers.

After that, I was supposed to have lunch with Ella to discuss the other pieces I'd originally been asked to do - plus other ideas provoked by her assertion in the magazine that Chinese coverage would continue to expand. Sadly we never met - I have about 30 emails postponing the meeting.

I dropped Joe an email when he was announced as the new editor. Hopefully he'll have the time to respond soon - at the moment he still seems to be writing most of the magazine.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the magazine has gone through a period of upheaval. With Joe, who has been with the magazine for a while, there is hopefully the opportunity for it to get back on a firmer footing. In criticising the magazine, let's be constructive - who are the people behind these restaurants that should have been included, for example? How else could the magazine adequately cover proprietors and front of house staff without sending the readership to sleep?

--

Ian Fenn

Chopstix Media

http://www.chopstixmedia.com/

[magnolia]

Surely it is the responsibility of magazines such as Restaurant to promote all aspects of the Restaurant industry from the kitchen all the way through the front of house.

←

Nope. Magazines are not a public service. They have no 'responsibility' to anyone in the way you define it. Their job is to find a readership, keep publishing and produce enough revenue to make that viable.

Whether you want to be a part of that readership is an entirely different matter.

←

And with this in mind, I seem to recall the initial purpose of Restaurant Magazine was to funnel business toward the company's hospitality recruitment business...

[jayrayner]

Well Said I've compared this industry more to the Music than any other. There's plenty of good chefs out there but without the right PR campaign or finance to release press releases every week, will go un-heard.

←

The problem is, according to Jay, that this is not as 'viable' as the latest tomfoolery of Gordon, Jamie and Heston.

Sad.

←

I said nothing of the sort. I was merely countering Conor's assertion that the magazine has a 'responsibility' to do a certain thing. You can, of course, criticise a business for the way it conducts itself and argue that it could do its thing much better. I make a good living out of that. But claiming they have a responsibility to do so is just cobblers. Believe me: I get constant emails from readers who say restaurants have a responsibility to serve dishes appropriate to vegetarians/ vegans, coeliacs whatever. And, in the same way, I explain they have no responsibility to them at all. They are businesses with a responsibility only to themselves.

Incidentally, you can be certain that every single decision RM took when it launched was absed on circulation figures. That's how magazine and newspaper publishing works.

Edited October 23, 2005 by jayrayner (log)

[Dirk Wheelan]

The problem is, according to Jay, that this is not as 'viable' as the latest tomfoolery of Gordon, Jamie and Heston.

Sad.

←

I said nothing of the sort.

←

It's true, you didn't. I just inferred it from your modeling of the magazine trade. Nevertheless, even though you didn't say it, I'm sure you wouldn't deny the truth of it.

Incidentally, you can be certain that every single decision RM took when it launched was absed on circulation figures. That's how magazine and newspaper publishing works.

No doubt RM was looking for a formula that would ensure satisfactory circulation figures, but the point is that there were no figures for RM until it was launched and hence nothing pre-launch could have been based on this figure. This means that at some stage in its development someone sat down and decided what the magazine should be, and making 'good' decisions, such as Conor suggests, and hitting circulation targets are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I do, however, agree that RM has no 'responsibility' as such, but in order to survive it must maintain some credibility, and part of that credibility comes with serving its readership responsibly.

[camp_dick]

I dropped Joe an email when he was announced as the new editor. Hopefully he'll have the time to respond soon - at the moment he still seems to be writing most of the magazine... Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the magazine has gone through a period of upheaval. With Joe, who has been with the magazine for a while, there is hopefully the opportunity for it to get back on a firmer footing.

←

Isn't the point that you're trying to make that you are ready, willing and available for hire?

[Ian]

Isn't the point that you're trying to make that you are ready, willing and available for hire?

←

Oh no, if that was the point, I would've made it much better! BTW, Would you like to be my agent? :-)

All the best,

--

Ian

[Conor]

Maybe to say that RM has a responsibilty is a bit much, i do understand they are only interested in selling magazines. However, the magazine is "for the professional and the passionate".

Professional and passionate what? Chef? or Restauranteur's and those with an interest in restaurants. If that is the case, it is not delivering.

[Andy Lynes]

I've spoken to Joe Warwick today who has been following this thread. He feels that it would be more appropriate for Restaurant magazine readers to write in or e mail the magazine directly and for him to then write his response on the letters page rather than post here which I think is reasonable enough. We then have the opportunity to debate his reply here.

Regarding the most recent front page, he did say that there were a great many more people invited than were able to make it on the day, including a number of restaurateurs.

[Andy Lynes]

My own opinion is that RM could be much more influential if they so desired, by concentrating on new talent, and not dedicating so much space to celebrities who don't actually cook anything; a bit more king-making and a bit less king-fellating.

←

I occassionally contribute to The Trolley section at the front of the magazine and my brief is to interview chefs outside London who are generally less well know figures. As a result It mostly turns out that they still spend all their time cooking. By definition they are not going to be cover stars now, but could be in the future.