If a restaurant doesn't want to be in a guidebook

[Fat Guy]

I'm editing the restaurant section of a guidebook and in fact-checking one of the establishments I was told by the owner that he doesn't want his place to be listed.

List, or don't list?

[LaNiña]

Any idea what his reasons are?

[Lesley C]

Never happened to me when I did my book, but I say don't list.

It's free publicity for him and if he really doesn't want it, too bad.

[Jinmyo]

If it's a good place that people deserve to be able to find in the guide, fuggim, list 'em.

If not, don't.

[Fat Guy]

Any idea what his reasons are?

No.

[Bux]

I think it's probably more dependent on the nature of the guide. Will it hurt the guide's credibility not to have the place listed? My inclination is to let him have his privacy, if that's what he wants, but your first obligation is to the consumer who will pay the big bucks for your research. I believe MIchelin will not list a restaurant at its request.

[Steve Klc]

Have you considered adding a disclaimer in the back of the book that "so and so" restaurant requested not to be listed? List them by name and do not include their phone number and address. Otherwise, it speaks to your awareness and attention to detail--i.e. some reviewer or reader might say "he forgot to include so and so."

[rich]

Steven - This could be part of the "competition" thread. Since restaurants are public, there's no reason to exclude it based on his comment alone.

If the listing is important to the editorial integrity of the guide (such as the comprehensive guide to restaurants on 8th Street), then I would list with no more than name, address, phone # and cuisine type.

If it isn't, I would exclude it.

[Jaymes]

In my opinion, Bux is right that you were asked to write an informative section in a credible guidebook and you owe your first loyalty to the guidebook people, especially if they are paying you for your best efforts, and to the people who pay money for the book.

I buy a lot of guidebooks and always peruse them to be sure they have included places I know to be good. If these places are left out, I select another book. And when I buy a guidebook and later visit the area and discover noteworthy spots that everyone tells me should have been in my book, that author looses considerable credibility with me.

So, it seems to me that you owe loyalty to the people for whom you accepted the obligation to do your best on their behalf; then the to people who buy the book in good faith after seeing your name and assuming you did do your best.

I don't really see that you owe any loyalty to the restaurant owner at all.

And, if I were the guidebook publisher and you left out several restaurants (even at owners' requests) that should be included in that category, I might think long and hard before asking you to do another book for me; and instead, look toward an author that will give me his first loyalty and the best of his knowledge and skill.

[Fat Guy]

To clarify: I didn't write this; I'm editing it. But other than that, yes, I see the argument. I tried to ask the question in a neutral manner, but I'd need to hear an incredibly persuasive argument for not listing in order to delete the entry.

[Wilfrid]

Yeah, Marco Pierre White used to do this in the UK - when he could afford to. Extremely annoying for the reader, who would thumb back and forth through the book, wondering why he couldn't find an MPW restaurant. List!

[Jaymes]

Imagine this... you're a neophyte getting ready to visit the California wine country for the first time, although you have received a few recommendations and have read about the area for years.

So now you're standing in Barnes & Noble trying to select one guidebook amongst several. You pick up one that looks pretty good but there is no mention of the French Laundry.

What would you think?

I'd think, "This book can't be any good. They don't even know about the French Laundry. I wonder what else they've left out."

[Robert Schonfeld]

If this guidebook is anything but an advertising-driven rote list, then it should be included. From a journalistic standpoint, the restaurant has no say in the matter.

[Suzanne F]

The restaurant's owner does not wish to be listed; what more persuasion do you need to delete the listing? If it's such a moral/legal question for you, shouldn't you ask the publishers how they want you to handle it? After all, it is they who will have to deal with any lawsuits that might arise.

While a restaurant may be a public accommodation and subject to laws as such, that does not give anyone else the right to use its name in a manner unwanted by its ownership.

And including a "disclaimer" stating that the owner did not wish to be listed is vindictive, not helpful -- while still going against the owner's wishes.

[GordonCooks]

Imagine this...  you're a neophyte getting ready to visit the California wine country for the first time, although you have received a few recommendations and have read about the area for years.  

So now you're standing in Barnes & Noble trying to select one guidebook amongst several.  You pick up one that looks pretty good but there is no mention of the French Laundry.

What would you think?

I'd think, "This book can't be any good.  They don't even know about the French Laundry.  I wonder what else they've left out."

How 'bout

Imagine this...You own a lovely little bistro that the locals love and patronize regularly. Sophisticated culinarians come from miles for your seasonal offerings - How could you get some obnoxious out-of-towners with 3 screaming kids to dine here ? If your place is good - the right people will come via word of mouth and mediums like this very message board.

Think about the tourists "like those" who give tourists "like us" a bad name.

Does the French Laundry have a child's menu ?

Don't List

[Jaymes]

Imagine this...  you're a neophyte getting ready to visit the California wine country for the first time, although you have received a few recommendations and have read about the area for years.  

So now you're standing in Barnes & Noble trying to select one guidebook amongst several.  You pick up one that looks pretty good but there is no mention of the French Laundry.

What would you think?

I'd think, "This book can't be any good.  They don't even know about the French Laundry.  I wonder what else they've left out."

How 'bout

Imagine this...You own a lovely little bistro that the locals love and patronize regularly. Sophisticated culinarians come from miles for your seasonal offerings - How could you get some obnoxious out-of-towners with 3 screaming kids to dine here ? If your place is good - the right people will come via word of mouth and mediums like this very message board.

Think about the tourists "like those" who give tourists "like us" a bad name.

I absolutely agree with you. Without question. I have no doubts that the owner of the restaurant has good and legitimate reasons for wishing to be excluded. As a patron of the bistro, I would also wish it to be excluded. And if I were a food writer who loves the place, again, I would wish it to remain my little secret.

This is a quandary that food, travel writers always face. But I contend that regardless as to how valid is the desire of the restaurant owners/clientele/food critic/travel writer, once you accept an assignment to cover a body of information, your loyalty shifts. Or it certainly should. You now owe your first loyalty to the entity to whom you pledged it. And you should do your absolute best, which is why they hired you.

If you do not wish to unearth and publicize these little treasures, you should not take that particular assignment.

And also, trends are fickle. You might overwhelm the little bistro for a time but eventually, the fashionable crowd might well be searching out new little bistros to inundate.

But I think that accepting an assignment, and then doing less than your best, is dishonest.

[Bux]

I'd need to hear an incredibly persuasive argument for not listing in order to delete the entry.

Any indication that the owner is a member of a family reputed to settle their arguments out of court?

[Jaymes]

Imagine this...You own a lovely little bistro that the locals love and patronize regularly. Sophisticated culinarians come from miles for your seasonal offerings - How could you get some obnoxious out-of-towners with 3 screaming kids to dine here ? If your place is good - the right people will come via word of mouth and mediums like this very message board.

Think about the tourists "like those" who give tourists "like us" a bad name.

I want to add that this is nothing compared to the dilemma that travel writers face when getting ready to "out" for example a fine, secluded unknown beach, or still-authentic undiscovered Mexican fishing village, or atmospheric and affordable small B&B hard by Victoria Station.

It actually HURTS.

But if you don't want to do your best.... it's easy. Don't accept that particular assignment.

[Jinmyo]

I'd need to hear an incredibly persuasive argument for not listing in order to delete the entry.

Any indication that the owner is a member of a family reputed to settle their arguments out of court?

[Fat Guy]

it is they who will have to deal with any lawsuits that might arise.

I can't think of the basis for such a lawsuit.

[Jaymes]

it is they who will have to deal with any lawsuits that might arise.

I can't think of the basis for such a lawsuit.

On the other hand (although it's obviously not applicable in this case), if I were a guidebook publisher and had hired a well-known food critic, paid him big bucks commensurate with his name, and comissioned him to write a book for me entitled, "The Best Kept Secrets of Seafood Diners in Maine" and I discovered that he had intentionally left out three or four of his very favorites....

THAT might be a basis for a lawsuit.

[Steve Klc]

Some of you have approached this with the perspective that a restaurant has a say in how it will be "covered" and that a restaurant has the right to ask to be excluded or not covered, in other words. I don't believe it has this right to decline to be mentioned--for whatever reason--either to keep a nice place secret or to keep a lousy review from seeing the light of day.

And disclosing publicly that certain establishments "did not respond" to a questionnaire or "declined" to participate or did not return phone calls, etc., is not vindictive--in fact it happens every day in every section of every newspaper in the country. It's called fairness and disclosure--and in this case the author, editor, publisher, restaurant and reader would all be served with an editor's note stating "x" restaurant asked not to be included--should said editor wish to include one. When you are a public entity you can't opt out of coverage--even if that coverage is a mention in a guidebook or a list.

However, I'd have no problem including them anyway--without an editor's note--despite their objection.

[southern girl]

I agree with Steve Klc...

Here's an odd thought...is it possible the owner doesn't think the establishment in question will still be around when the guide comes out?

[Fat Guy]

I may as well say it was Shopsin's.

[Wilfrid]

Knock me down with a feather.