Giving Negative Restaurant Feedback

[Chris Amirault]

I just had to delete a few posts that were making personal comments. We've kept this thread up and running in the hopes that people can discuss the concept of giving negative restaurant feedback without attacks on others. Please keep it civil.

[K8memphis]

I have little sympathy for those who self-censor. They have only themselves to blame for any sort of integrity problem. People should say what they think. Anything else is an excuse.

Oh no, a restaurateur is going to respond to my posts online and attempt to "micromanage" the discussion. I better just roll over and play dead, and only ever say nice things about that person's restaurant. If any member of the eGullet Society is thinking that way, please, think again: you're doing a disservice to yourself, the community, the public and, yes, even the restaurant business.

←

I get your point and I agree to a point but that's a very broad brush stroke.

There's just more to it than that. It's not just our meal and our experience in that restaurant. It's their light bill and mortgage payment, it's the baby's milk money. It's their livelihood and the livelihoods of every employee, plus the linen guy, the tomato farmer, you get the drift. Yeah for sure dang straight everything outghta be top notch first class, no less so than when I'm dining there. But we need to not ignore the fact that this is a permanent and powerful tool we are weilding, whichever way we turn it.

There's no loss of integrity to be careful and tactful and even tasty in what we say and serve up here for all to partake. Roll over dead, no. Sugar coat, no. Trash talk, no. Somewhere in the middle, yeah, with much respect. If service or food was poor, get the manager. "People should say what they think" is too easy. That's what I think.

Edited April 1, 2006 by K8memphis (log)

[alanamoana]

i think that if one has a negative experience at a restaurant, the first thing they should do is address it with the restaurant. if that means speaking to a manager on that visit or writing a letter the next day, one should do something. this gives the restaurant the opportunity to deal with the problem on their side and also a chance to invite you back in the attempt to win you back into the fold...so to speak.

if, after your effort has been made and the restaurant has done nothing to address the complaint, then i feel it is more than fair to post your opinion on a web-site/discussion board. of course, keeping in mind civility and common sense.

i feel that too often (it has been pointed out on some threads) people make either a harsh or a glowing post after ONE experience at a restaurant. it has been said that restaurant critics are required to make at least two or more often three trips to a restaurant before they can write their review, so how can we judge after only one experience?! well, we're human, and when we spend our hard earned cash somewhere, we do have some minimum standards...these of course are set by the individual.

i don't think that people should be afraid to post what they think, if they do it in an intelligent manner.

rather rambling, but hope you got the drift...

[Pan]

I have a few replies to the comments I'm reading:

(1) winegeek, you're an industry professional, so as far as I'm concerned, you get a free pass to engage in the professional courtesy of exercising discretion about who in your small world you prefer not to cross. In a similar manner, I would refrain from posting dirt about musician friends of mine (at least by name or identifiable reference) on a music discussion site. But I have to add that I have expressed very frank and open (sometimes really harsh) criticisms of some very famous musicians, so I hardly have a blanket policy of silence about my views on what is right and wrong in my profession, and I would think that anyone who feels strongly about right and wrong in relation to their profession would feel impelled to speak up at times.

(2) As somewhat of a corollary to that: To reiterate, I am a diner. Once I pay my bill and leave the doors of a restaurant, I owe the staff, management, and ownership of that establishment nothing. I am under no obligation whatsoever to approach anyone associated with the restaurant before posting my unvarnished report on my experience there. The role of diner is the same as the role of customer. The rules of that role are lawful and proper behavior while in the establishment and complete payment for services rendered. Period. Well, one other thing, I suppose: A customer can libel or slander a restaurant only at his/her own potential risk. And of course, libel is completely prohibited on these boards. But that's it. Again: I owe the restaurant and its personnel nothing. And furthermore, if the place sucks, I want it to close, because I don't believe in rewarding incompetent work just because the employees are supporting themselves or their families. That's not my concern. If you want good reports on your establishment, do a good job.

(3) But I owe eGullet Society members something. If my posts have any worth at all, it's because you can trust my honesty and integrity. You get no bullshit from me, and the restaurants I push get kudos from me only because they fulfill me as a diner.

But if some of you -- especially non-industry people occupying the role of diner -- feel OK about engaging in mere advertising instead of balanced reporting, I'd like to ask you whether it's possible that there's something wrong with shortchanging us of your frank opinions, and whether you owe us that in your role of member. Let's remember that this is not ePublicRelations, whose mission statement is to ensure the immediate and indefinitely continuing profitability of establishments regardless of quality. Note that I'm not thinking of anyone in particular when posting this, but if the shoe fits, wear it, or better yet, take it off and mend your ways.

As for the review, I have not read it in full, and nothing I've posted should be construed as having expressed or implied a view about the review. Sorry about that. However, I don't think this thread is actually about that review.

[Zucchini Mama]

I just want to be clear that I stand by everything I've written on eGullet, especially about Rare.

I do not choose my words so that I'm not invited to a chef's birthday.

Pan, I don't tell my friends about mediocre meals I've eaten unless they ask my oppinion about one place in particular. Most of my friends are not foodies and their eyes tend to glaze over when I talk too much about food anyway.

Like I said, I post and read on eGullet to unwind. Perhaps I do a disservice to myself not to post every evil thought that lurks behind the closed curtains of my laboratory. In my real life, I Lori have a dark side, yes it's true. If I revealed my dark side on eGullet, I would be booted off before you could say tuna melt sandwich with a side order of cole slaw, ma'am!

So keep on the sunny side, always on the sunny side. Or not. It's your choice. We can agree to disagree, and if you're in town I may still invite you to my birthday. But you'd better hurry, 'cause it's tonight!

I've got a cake to ice.

[Ducky]

I think Pan has it largely right.

It makes little sense to sugarcoat in a forum such as this. What is the point in that? And everyone ought to be a little more robust and not constantly get their knickers in a twist about every little critcism. That said, we owe it to each other to try to be fair and truthful in our comments.

I too take no particular view of the Rare review. It does seem to me though that the more a restauranteur chooses to play to an on-line community such as this in the manner that the owners of Rare have chosen to do - the more they should gird their loins for commentary of all kinds.

EGullet is and should remain a broad church that encourages a diversity of views - not sycophancy. The mantra is "eat chew discuss" - not "eat chew brown-nose".

[*Deborah*]

I must inquire, what are the three that you think are representative of national?

←

The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, and the National Post are the 3 national newspapers. As I said upthread, there are 3.

←

Toronto being neither the centre of the universe nor the capital of the nation, I dispute the claim that the Toronto Star is a national newspaper.

[TheFoodTutor]

But if some of you -- especially non-industry people occupying the role of diner -- feel OK about engaging in mere advertising instead of balanced reporting, I'd like to ask you whether it's possible that there's something wrong with shortchanging us of your frank opinions, and whether you owe us that in your role of member.

There is a another way of looking at this particular aspect of the discussion (only posting the positive, and not posting blah or negative reviews) and that is that basically all press is good press. Having worked in journalism, and having written and read a lot of material on the internet, I really believe this to be true. If I go to a restaurant and have a bad experience, and then do a write-up on the internet, I can guarantee you that someone, or perhaps several someones, will go to that restaurant, simply because I've refreshed their memories of that spot in their minds, or perhaps they will remember that they read the review, but forget whether it was positive or negative, or perhaps that particular person knows my persona on the internet, and thinks I'm a gigantic load of horse-puckey, so he wants to evaluate that restaurant for himself.

Seriously, you're probably not doing a restaurant any favors by holding back negative comments, but I do agree that it is always nice to try to speak with management about any real problems that are happening, while you are still in the restaurant. A comment like, "My server is a really nice person, and she seems very enthusiastic, but I wish she could have given me better advice on the wine list," would be very, very helpful to a manager in improving overall operations. And if something is seriously wrong, you could give feedback and have some or all of your check comped, in exchange for your trouble. As part of my restaurant background (I am an industry person, but I also write a lot about restaurant where I dine), I've always believed in "100% table touches," which means that the floor manager should actually visit each table once, just to make a final quality check, and that is a great time to get information about how the restaurant is running.

Of course, that doesn't always happen, and things fall through the cracks, and some restaurants really are very, very bad places to eat. And in that case, you can always stretch your literary genius by writing the most creative, scathing review you can conjure. Tales of horrifying service, disgusting food and hideous decor make up some of the most entertaining restaurant reviews I've ever read.

[K8memphis]

... To reiterate, I am a diner. Once I pay my bill and leave the doors of a restaurant, I owe the staff, management, and ownership of that establishment nothing. I am under no obligation whatsoever to approach anyone associated with the restaurant before posting my unvarnished report on my experience there. The role of diner is the same as the role of customer. The rules of that role are lawful and proper behavior while in the establishment and complete payment for services rendered. Period. Well, one other thing, I suppose: A customer can libel or slander a restaurant only at his/her own potential risk. And of course, libel is completely prohibited on these boards. But that's it. Again: I owe the restaurant and its personnel nothing. And furthermore, if the place sucks, I want it to close, because I don't believe in rewarding incompetent work just because the employees are supporting themselves or their families. That's not my concern. If you want good reports on your establishment, do a good job.

←

I am a happy capitalist. I agree with most of what you write. "...I owe the restaurant and its personnel nothing..." You have invested in that establishment, they have invested in you. If your experience was below expectation, it makes more sense to inform them than to inform us but of course there's no obligation for you to do so. It seems fair to do that though before we wax eloquent elsewhere.

And then when we come together as a cyber food force to be reckoned with here on egullet, we need to be discreet in our negative reports because it's recorded permanently and is so much bigger than any one person or place. We would all want bad establishments to close but that is not any part of my personal mission statement, to help it (the closure) be accomplished. Certainly not a goal of egullet's.

If in each of our professions at any given moment we were observed and our work was measured and judged, put up for scrutiny and this information was posted for all to see, our bosses, our friends, our everybody--might this affect our next raise, our standing in the community, our interaction with co-workers, etc. This might affect a great many things.

There's a privilege and power in the medium thus the irrefutable and tremendous responsibility.

[ingridsf]

I really do agree with Pan and Fatguy. Candor and civility are important standards for all communication, spoken and written. If someone posted a negative review, I'd wait to see if someone else responded with a vigorously positive one. That's a pretty common occurance. Boulevard and Zuni are two frequently contested restaurants in SF, for example, that each have their loyalists and their not-so-loyalists.

So, who would I believe? Well, if the actual posts don't clarify the situation, I might check out the members who are making the strongest statements. One of the tools of this site is that you can check out a member's past posts. If you were to read some of mine, you would see that I make stupid jokes, that I like bacon, dislike Wal-Mart, prefer small Cal-French restaurants,and watch way too much tv. You would then have some context for my boosterism for a particular restaurant. If you saw that I was NEVER cranky/critical, that would also tell you something.

Anyway, I hope members are not self-censoring. That just makes the positive reviews difficult to believe.

[Fat Guy]

I think there's some confusion here between food criticism and personal consumer complaints. Personal consumer complaints have little to do with criticism -- the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art (in our case food and dining experiences) or literature (per Merriam-Webster).

A personal consumer complaint should, certainly in the first instance, be handled between the consumer and the business. Except in the most extreme cases, it's poor form to come online with a consumer complaint that one has made no attempt to resolve. Often, the resolution of a complaint has a happy ending -- I've had situations where the way a restaurant handled a mistake gave me a more positive impression of the restaurant than I'd had before. Only after all the standard remedies have been exhausted should someone go public with a complaint. Even then, the eGullet Society is not an organization dedicated to resolving consumer complaints.

Rather, the eGullet Society is a culinary arts society, and everybody here is a member of that culinary arts society whose mission is to increase awareness and knowledge of the arts of cooking, eating and drinking as well as the literature of food and drink. In short, we are dedicated to culinary excellence. And one of the most important ways we get from here to there is through open and honest criticism. Not criticism as in "The restaurant lost my coat and wouldn't pay for it," but criticism as in discussions of the quality of food, the chef's approach and the other things that really matter. Yes, service is important too, and bad service should be called out, especially when it can be ascertained to be part of a pattern as opposed to a glitch. But there's a point at which that discussion dead ends, whereas the culinary arts discussion is infinite. There, if you're self-censoring and holding back, you're just trading expediency for excellence.

[Pan]

There is a another way of looking at this particular aspect of the discussion (only posting the positive, and not posting blah or negative reviews) and that is that basically all press is good press. Having worked in journalism, and having written and read a lot of material on the internet, I really believe this to be true. If I go to a restaurant and have a bad experience, and then do a write-up on the internet, I can guarantee you that someone, or perhaps several someones, will go to that restaurant, simply because I've refreshed their memories of that spot in their minds, or perhaps they will remember that they read the review, but forget whether it was positive or negative[...]

←

That's a really good point. Since I don't have web access when I'm walking the streets, it has happened that I've passed a place that I remembered reading about in the forums, but I couldn't remember at that time whether the reports were positive or negative.

I should also mention that I often don't mention mediocre meals -- but that's precisely because I don't think there's a high likelihood that other members would seek out those particular establishments or have high expectations if they ended up in them.

[Fat Guy]

If I posted about every meal I had, not only would I forever cement my position as the eGullet Society's most boring participant, but also I'd have a lot more than my current puny 18,000 or so post count. No, I don't think eGullet Society members or even executive directors have sworn a blood oath to post about every bite of food they eat. In general, I'll post when I have something to contribute. If it's a question of starting a topic about a restaurant that isn't currently under discussion, my threshold is that I'll comment about it if I think the restaurant is really good, really bad or really newsworthy. If it's a restaurant that's under discussion, I may or may not add to the topic. If there are already 100 positive comments and I agree, I'm only going to pile on if I'm suffering from insomnia and am trying to avoid finishing my manuscript. If there are 100 positive comments and I think the place sucked, you'll be hearing from me. And if the restaurant happens to be owned by a friend, or a friend is the publicist, or the owner or chef is an eGullet Society member, or they gave me extra desserts and sucked up to me while I was there, but it also happens to suck, too bad. One less birthday party for me to attend.

[Daddy-A]

One less birthday party for me to attend.

Must suck to be you. I NEVER get invited to parties Must be all those negative reviews ...

A.

[TheFoodTutor]

If in each of our professions at any given moment we were observed and our work was measured and judged, put up for scrutiny and this information was posted for all to see, our bosses, our friends, our everybody--might this affect our next raise, our standing in the community, our interaction with co-workers, etc. This might affect a great many things.

This is a great comment, and it's very poignant to me, personally. Many workers come to their jobs, on any given day, hung-over, depressed, tired, ill, filled with personal baggage, and not all of them are subject to the sorts of reviews that people in service work receive. On any given Saturday or Sunday lunch, I might end up waiting on a restaurant reviewer, an internet critic, a manager from another one of our restaurants, or even the dreaded "secret shopper" - people whom restaurants hire to evaluate every aspect of how food is being served - and I might be caught making a mistake.

But I am aware of this, so even when I'm feeling blue or bitter, I know that I must make my best effort to do what I am supposed to do, every single time, and I give a genuine smile to everyone. That is my job, and when I no longer want to do it, I'll know that it's time for me to quit. I have chosen this, with complete knowledge of everything that comes with it.

One of the tools of this site is that you can check out a member's past posts. 

I love that aspect of this site, by the way. If I see someone writing a number of things that apply to my personal food preferences, or my life, I can look at everything they've written here, and gain a history of their interests in food and/or restaurants. It's an excellent way of interpreting where a person is coming from, in my opinion, and I'm very glad you pointed it out. Thanks.

[Abra]

I am so ambivalent about this, and will freely admit it.

If I love a place, I'll certainly post that. If I hate it, I'll post that too.

It's the middle ground that's more difficult. For example, there's a restaurant owned by an eG member that's getting lots of great reviews. I went there, and thought it was fine. Good. Not better than that. Now, do I need to warn you all that I personally don't think it's fabulous? When lots of my fellow members love it? If I'm in the minority, and my opinion could hurt the place, and I don't think anyone will be harmed by going there, but I myself have no plan to return because I was just underwhelmed, am I cheating the world out of my opinion if I just hold my tongue? Everyone can't like everything, and if my dining experience was not truly egregious in some way, isn't there a place for judicious silence?

[*Deborah*]

I am so ambivalent about this, and will freely admit it.

If I love a place, I'll certainly post that.  If I hate it, I'll post that too.

It's the middle ground that's more difficult.  For example, there's a restaurant owned by an eG member that's getting lots of great reviews.  I went there, and thought it was fine.  Good.  Not better than that.  Now, do I need to warn you all that I personally don't think it's fabulous?  When lots of my fellow members love it?  If I'm in the minority, and my opinion could hurt the place, and I don't think anyone will be harmed by going there, but I myself have no plan to return because I was just underwhelmed, am I cheating the world out of my opinion if I just hold my tongue?  Everyone can't like everything, and if my dining experience was not truly egregious in some way, isn't there a place for judicious silence?

←

I think so, Abra. Especially if it's based on one visit, and especially if it's an aspect that revolves around personal taste--I didn't like something all that much, as opposed to my chicken was still bloody and underdone, for example. Sometimes you aren't really in the mood to go through a whole write-up of a dinner, either, and make the explanations and comments that will make it clear that you don't hate a place or think it's bad, you just weren't all that crazy about it. If you don't have anything really positive or negative to say, then certainly silence is a valid option, IMO.

[nwyles]

I am so ambivalent about this, and will freely admit it.

If I love a place, I'll certainly post that.  If I hate it, I'll post that too.

It's the middle ground that's more difficult.  For example, there's a restaurant owned by an eG member that's getting lots of great reviews.  I went there, and thought it was fine.  Good.  Not better than that.  Now, do I need to warn you all that I personally don't think it's fabulous?  When lots of my fellow members love it?  If I'm in the minority, and my opinion could hurt the place, and I don't think anyone will be harmed by going there, but I myself have no plan to return because I was just underwhelmed, am I cheating the world out of my opinion if I just hold my tongue?  Everyone can't like everything, and if my dining experience was not truly egregious in some way, isn't there a place for judicious silence?

←

Hey, I resemble that remark too.

I am feeling slightly suicidal.

[Abra]

Neil, if I had a single negative thing to say about your restaurant (and I don't) I'd say it right out, because I know you can take it as well as dish it out. But not every restaurant occupies such a secure niche as yours, not all chefs are as experienced as you are, not all menus have settled into their rightful niche, and I see no point in publicly dashing the hopes and dreams of a well-meaning and hard-working staff, just because I had higher expectations than they were able to meet at the moment I was in their establishment. I just can't take myself that seriously.

[nwyles]

Thanks for that. I can put my shoe laces back in now. It was touch and go for a minute there.

[ingridsf]

...I see no point in publicly dashing the hopes and dreams of a well-meaning and hard-working staff, just because I had higher expectations than they were able to meet at the moment I was in their establishment.  I just can't take myself that seriously.

←

I guess I'm mean because I do see the point. It helps your fellow consumers. That's not a license to baselessly trash someone's business. By all means, tell the restaurant first what the problem was and give them a chance to make it right. Include information in your post about what they did well. Because as odd as it may sound, I think I would be taking myself too seriously if I thought my honest criticism alone could cause so much mayhem.

Edited April 2, 2006 by ingridsf (log)

[fud]

There is a another way of looking at this particular aspect of the discussion (only posting the positive, and not posting blah or negative reviews) and that is that basically all press is good press.

Amen.

The RARE thread was top of the pile on the Vancouver/Western Canada group for the day! What person who hasn't been is not interested in what all the bellyhoo is about?

Ducky said something that rings and resonantes with the Chef of Rare. Live by the sword, die by the sword. If you're going to open up your place to an online community you get the bonuses of having a lot of your work and "stuff that happens in the back" brought out to public domain. This transparency is really cool (it takes shows like 'opening soon' to a whole new level) but it also leaves you as a restauranteure naked and exposed.

I think it's kind of cool and I hope the Rare guys/gals take this sort of thing as a super constructive experience and make use of the chance to prove the reviewer wrong. I bet she would be happy to see that happen too.

[Daniel]

I am so ambivalent about this, and will freely admit it.

If I love a place, I'll certainly post that.  If I hate it, I'll post that too.

It's the middle ground that's more difficult.  For example, there's a restaurant owned by an eG member that's getting lots of great reviews.  I went there, and thought it was fine.  Good.  Not better than that.  Now, do I need to warn you all that I personally don't think it's fabulous?  When lots of my fellow members love it?  If I'm in the minority, and my opinion could hurt the place, and I don't think anyone will be harmed by going there, but I myself have no plan to return because I was just underwhelmed, am I cheating the world out of my opinion if I just hold my tongue?  Everyone can't like everything, and if my dining experience was not truly egregious in some way, isn't there a place for judicious silence?

←

I dont know.. I think that if you posted your feelings in a way that illustrates them.. Then you are still leaving it open for people to make there own choice.. Even with a bad review as long as you give your reasons .. I.E I dont like this place because the food isnt or is too spicy.. I dont like this place because its too fancy, too saucy, too noisy..

[Fat Guy]

I think, as this is a community, it's important to view this issue from the standpoint of the community: an individual may find it more convenient or comfortable to self-censor or sugar-coat, at least in the short term. But if every individual behaved that way, the community would suffer. The community and the quality of the discussions here overall depend on an exchange of ideas and a diversity of viewpoints. In particular, divergent viewpoints stated with civility generate a positive frisson that can drive discussions forward. In the end, from that, everybody wins.

In addition, I'd like to remind everybody that if you're feeling persecuted or otherwise harassed by another member, you should report that to the eG Forums staff. We're here to help with exactly that sort of situation.

[Oyster Guy]

I thought this thread was about giving negative feedback about restaurants on this site and not another thread about Rare which has already gotten more than it's fair share of discussion in the Vancouver forum.

1. If you are going to open a place to the public, you cannot reasonably expect to please all the people all the time.

2. If you get a bad review, whether it be here or in private, you should take the opportunity to see if you could be doing this or that better and not get your nose out of joint because someone found their experience less than satisfactory. As they are paying your bills, I certainly think that they are entitled to their opinions and they should not be belittled or berated for expressing themselves.

(If you want an example on how not to handle customer complaints, see the Irish Heather DOV 2005 thread in the Vancouver forum)

3. I don't feel that anyone should have to censor themselves in order to not hurt a chef's or owner's feelings. If you don't have a thick skin in this industry, you shouldn't be in it in the first place.

Does the widdle baby wanna hug?

But I do think that you should show some class if you are going to complain about a place.

Be objective and not vindictive and don't make personal attacks on anyone.

And you should always give the place the first chance to make things right before you go spouting off about it here. If they don't address your concerns, by all means, you should feel free to warn others about spending their hard earned dollars there.

But do it with some class and without the venom of personal attacks.

As for food critics doing it, such as Ms. Gill, well, that's her job. Her writing style and content might not be to your liking and if it isn't, don't read her column.

I, myself, am not a big fan of Joanne Kates in the Globe and Mail and I don't read her reviews anymore as they are always about attitude and rarely about the actual food.

But lay off the personal attacks as it only reflects badly on your own self.

Just my 2 cents

Keep on shucking

Oyster Guy