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

[SobaAddict70]

Isn't he reopening at a different location?

[Holly Moore]

If a restaurant doesn't want to be listed, all the more reason to list em. They ordained that when they opened as a restaurant as opposed to a private club. Maybe an aside warning the reader that new faces aren't encouraged, in fact discouraged by the restaurant, but list em.

[cakewalk]

I may as well say it was Shopsin's.

And now the focus changes, doesn't it?

I wonder if the owner approved of that website? I imagine he must have. Does he not realize the web reaches so many more people than any guidebook?

[Lesley C]

I would think if someone specifically asked not to be listed, it probably means they don't respect the guide or the opinions of the guide's author.

[Fat Guy]

It was more along the lines of:

"Hi, may I please speak to the owner."

"That's me."

"I'm working on a guidebook . . ."

"We don't want to be in your guidebook. (Click.)"

[cakewalk]

Sounds like a natural continuation of the Trillin article.

[Deacon]

"We don't want to be in your guidebook. (Click.)"

Ill-mannered and impolite communications from people you're actually doing a favor for don't deserve consideration. Besides, they weren't even savvy enough to find out who you were and who you were working for before slamming the phone down in your ear.

Kill 'em with kindness: in the back of the guide, include a list of places that were "going to be included, but were deleted from the final version of the guide at the restaurant's request." If they're the only name on the list, so much the better.

Or, a transcript of your "conversation" with the owner, just as you gave it here. Serves him right.

[Lesley C]

Oh... now I really say don't put them in the guidebook!

[rozrapp]

We don't want to be in your guidebook. (Click.)

If you want to look at the semantics of his response, he didn't say, "Do NOT put my restaurant in your (g-d) guidebook!" Since he didn't directly order you to keep his place out, what the hey.... I kind of like Deacon's idea of including the complete and unabridged version of, as Deacon puts it, the "conversation."

[Fat Guy]

I'm not representing this as an accurate word-for-word transcript. I didn't make a tape. But that was the spirit of the exchange. I'm not sure the particulars matter, though, when you look at the kinds of issues that weigh in making the decision.

I am including the following marginal note in the manuscript I've edited:

"Note: This is a well-known restaurant -- the subject of a recent feature in the New Yorker magazine, and with a Web site -- but in fact-checking the owner requested not to be listed in the book. In my opinion the author and publisher's obligation to the reader to provide high-quality information outweighs whatever consideration his request deserves, if any. Your call."

[Suzanne F]

Okay: I was going to use a very powerful but extremely disturbing metaphor for this, but I don't want to get beat up that badly. So instead:

What if you are at a gathering with strangers who might, if you wished to let them, further your business. But for your own good reasons, you do not wish it. So when they ask for your card so that they can put some of their colleagues in touch with you, you decline. (Maybe you think they're sleazy; maybe you don't want to increase your business at this time because you are making major changes and want to be sure they work before you let the world know; maybe you want to know a lot more about them before you'll trust them with your personal/business information; maybe you just don't want to, period, because you're in a bad mood.) How would you feel if they then went around telling people, "I wanted to let you know about 'FatGuy.com, ' but he was rude to me." Is that not being vindictive (it is to me.) Or if they sneaked around and dug out your information anyway and passed it on? In both cases, you might then start getting what you considered crank calls?

The only other (relatively polite) metaphor I can use is: getting hit on in a bar. The masher thinks s/he is doing you a great favor by offering him/herself as a partner; you, however, think otherwise. I'm assuming even you men can relate to that.

You are not doing anyone a "favor" if you are doing something they don't want done.

Edit:

I'm sorry it took me so long to get my post on; Fat Guy, I think you are TOTALLY WRONG.

[Wilfrid]

I'm puzzled, Suzanne. Reviewing seems to be more on point. Should a restaurant - or a play, or a band, or a TV show - be entitled to say to a journalist "Don't review me"?

[Holly Moore]

Aha, I'm thinking. Reverse psychology.

Wish I had thought of it back in my restaurateuring days. Would have had one line of writers wanting to write about my place and a second line wanting to write about why I didn't want my place to be written about.

Any possibility Shopsin is really Trillin?

[Bouland]

Some restaurant owners subscribe to the adage "All publicity is good" whereas others believe that "No news is good news." Unlike newspaper reviews that tend to go with the day's garbage, guide books stay around for years. I've talked with chefs who have horror stories of patrons coming to their restaurants with out-of-date guide books in hand wondering why the prices had increased or the signature dishes listed in the book were no longer on the menu.

[macrosan]

Interesting discussion for two reasons.

First, I think I'm the only one here who doesn't know Shopsin's from the Burger King at Victoria Station.

Second, because I can actually see both sides of the argument (yeah, this is still the same me)

Seems to me that FatGuy can't check the facts of the entry becuz the man won't talk to him, so the publisher is taking a risk with his guide if he publishes the entry.

Some entry has to be made for the reasons of the guide's credibility already discussed. An entry without detail, explaining why there is no detail, might create legal problems unless FatGuy gets written confirmation from the owner that he won't talk. Seems to me he won't do that.

Good luck, FG.

[Suzanne F]

Wilfrid: Yes. In case you don't remember the theatrical producer David Merrick: he put on generally wonderful shows (ever hear of Hello, Dolly? Travesties? Marat/Sade? ). But he did not want them reviewed until he felt they were ready to be reviewed. He banned reviewers from his theaters, he switched performance dates and times, he was "guilty" of all sorts of chicanery to prevent reviews at an inappropriate point in the shows' lifecycle. Great press was made of this: MERRICK BANS CRITICS. But it did not change how good or bad the shows were and it did not change the reviews when they ultimately came -- except for the, yes, vindictiveness of those critics who felt abused.

This is an age-old battle between the press and those about whom they want to write. Think of papparazzi: do you really believe they have the right to barge into peoples' faces just to get their picture? I don't, but I guess some here do.

I suppose that because I am not a member of the press, and do not derive any income from writing or reviewing, I am on the side of the subjects. I can see how it could be the opposite for those who DO make their living that way. I just wish they could understand other viewpoints.

To everyone else since Wilfrid: actually, the statement is "I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell my name right." Well, not everyone subscribes to that sentiment.

[Wilfrid]

I'm definitely on the other side of the fence, having worked as a journalist. If I had heard from an author or a musician that they didn't want me to review their book or record, I am afraid I would have just laughed and carried on. Absolutely never happened, of course. I think someone saying that a show is not yet ready, and asking critics to wait, is slightly different than someone asking not to be reviewed at all. Writing reviews is, in addition to a job, a service to the reader, not to the restaurateur, author, or whomever. Seems to me to be even more the case with guides.

Paparazzi - again, a tendentious example. Do I think a news photographer is entitled to take pictures of a news event in a public place, without seeking permission. Of course, just as a news reporter is entitled to report a story without asking permission.

[Fat Guy]

Macrosan, there is no legal risk here. I was able to do all the fact checking I needed to do by looking at the Web site. In fact, most of my fact-checking for this particular effort is accomplished as soon as the restaurant answers the phone.

Suzanne F, I appreciate your respect for the restaurateur's wishes. I do not consider them to be irrelevant in all cases, simply outweighed by other factors in this case. I note also that the establishment in question is listed on the New York Times cityguide site (nytoday.com), on CitySearch.com, on DigitalCity.com, has been the recent subject of a feature in the New Yorker magazine, and has a Web site. The analogies you're giving seem to focus on invasion of privacy; I don't see that here.

[Steve Klc]

Suzanne--I admire your taking the side of a supposedly aggrieved parties everywhere, seeking the comfort of anonymity--but really, the subjects we're talking about here are not aggrieved parties, and are not being exposed to harsh, illegal or even unethical activities. When you make or sell a product--when you are a chef or restaurateur--or a food writer for that matter--you are in the public eye and you become an object of the consumer's eye. It's not like media figures are excepted from this. No one is forcing any of these people to do what they do. Our commenting on an Amanda Hesser article--and critiquing the job Amanda did covering her subject-- is as fair game as this guidebook "listing" this restaurant. Neither get to opt out of life--to opt out of the reality of the marketplace--since both are choosing to exist in the marketplace. This restaurant could become a private club and Trillin could control the rope line--letting all Chowhounders in and then deciding who else gets in and who doesn't. I wouldn't care less. But as long as it is a restaurant, I find your stance and argument is a little surreal. Businesses don't get to play in an ideal world by their own rules, instead they have to deal with all sorts of publically imposed constraints when they offer a product for sale or get paid for their services--like health inspections. Who wouldn't want to be able to say to the heath inspector--sorry, I don't want you to check the temperature of the creme anglaise sitting over there on the counter and shut me down? To compare this to stalking papparazzi stretches credulity as well--it's the difference between a public business and personal privacy.

We're not even talking about a review--a subjective opinion--but if we were, I wouldn't feel any differently. The answer to Wilfrid's question is no, unless you can provide a reason better than "I don't want you to." In the case of a restaurant--it's commonplace for a chef or publicist of a new restaurant to call a reviewer or critic and say "can you wait a few more weeks to come by, we're not quite ready?" but the critic isn't under any obligation to wait if the doors are open and customers are paying for goods and services.

Now Suzanne--your business card example is an interesting one--and much more complex than this guidebook example, which I'm afraid is open and shut. I'm assuming this is hypothetical but it seems your best choices--as a known professional within an industry-- would simply have been to say 1) I'm sorry but I don't have any business cards with me or 2) to give your business cards out politely and professionally, then say something like "But I'm not accepting any new clients at the moment" and then choose not to followup if you really see no benefit. That way your reasons stay your own, there could be no perception of rudeness or hurt feelings and you control the dissemination and exchange of information.

But if you have a business card--if you have a public business identity--then you are roughly in the same boat as a restaurant which has been written about, is a matter of public record, etc. You both have a public identity and can choose how you do business and who you do business with--but neither of you have the right to limit what others say about you as long as what is said is correct and legal.

[Suzanne F]

Steve K: I see nothing wrong with telling someone, "I'd rather not" when asked for a card. Just call me Bartelby, but that is far more honest than saying "I don't have any with me" in such a situation (in which it is assumed that one WOULD). My reasons still stay my own. I guess I just have a stronger will when it comes to protecting myself. (But, then, I also guess that you have never been hit on. ) Oh, and I DO see it as unethical to print something that serves no social purpose (as opposed to an expose, which SHOULD be aired) except the ego of the citer. But that's just me, ethical to a fault.

If a critic does not respect the wishes of the producer, or restaurant owner (forget publicists; they are useless parasites and anyone who listens to them is a fool), and writes a review making it clear that it was based on observations of an immature establishment, I am not much inclined to pay much attention the review, since I know it is based on incomplete data. If that circumstance is NOT made clear, and the reviewer dwells on the faults, then I believe a transgression has been committed in the name of "newsworthiness."

What we're getting into here is a possible debate between those who DO and those who WRITE ABOUT WHAT'S DONE.

And for the record, I did not, and never would, compare papparazzi to health inspectors; I would never deny a health inspector access. Not only because it is illegal, but because the health inspector SERVES A PUBLIC GOOD. A papparazzo does no such thing.

Sorry, I've got to go take my laundry out of the washer and put it into the dryer. Life goes on, for real.

[Holly Moore]

...

If a critic does not respect the wishes of the producer, or restaurant owner (forget publicists; they are useless parasites and anyone who listens to them is a fool), and writes a review making it clear that it was based on observations of an immature establishment, I am not much inclined to pay much attention the review, since I know it is based on incomplete data.  If that circumstance is NOT made clear, and the reviewer dwells on the faults, then I believe a transgression has been committed in the name of "newsworthiness."

What we're getting into here is a possible debate between those who DO and those who WRITE ABOUT WHAT'S DONE.  

The writer or critic is not there to serve the restaurant's interest nor to provide the restaurant with PR. He is, hopefully, paying his own way and owes nothing to the restaurant beyond a fair and honest recounting of his experience and his impressions.

His master, so to speak, is his readership. Ironically perhaps, his duty to them is also a fair, honest recounting of his experience and impressions. The only further duty is to present that information in a knowledgable and, one hopes, entertaining fashion.

As to reveiwing recently opened restaurants. Some reviewers do, announcing that fact early in the review, but believing that once a restaurant opens it is open. Others give it a month or two to get up to speed. Either approach is fair as long as the reviewer is open as to the timing.

I opened my restaurant back in the late 70's. In a very unusual move for her, Elaine Tait (the Philadelphia Inquirer's restaurant reviewer for 20 some years up until the late 1990's) reviewed us our third or fourth week of operation. Fortunately it was a very favorable review. I had no problem with her writing it so soon after we had opened. If she had found fault, of course, I would have been the first to complain that we weren't given sufficient time to shake out the bugs.

The "those who Do and those who Write" quip is as meaningless when applied to restaurant reviewers as it is when it was originally applied to teachers. Some of my best teachers were those who never worked in their chosen field just as some of the best restaurant writers of today and historically have never worked the line or the floor.

I say this as a restaurant writer who wrote a weekly column on food and restaurants for 15 years and reviewed restaurants for over 10 of those years - but also as one who also has owned his own restaurant, graduated from the leading hotel restaurant program in the country and worked just about every position in a restaurant including my first, washing dishes in a diner at age 16.

I used to argue that my background was invaluable as a restaurant reviewer because it gave me an understanding of a restaurant and, more importantly, empathy for a restaurant when things are going wrong. Now I've come to believe that my understanding and empathy sometimes got in the way. I excused lapses I should not have excused because I "understood." On occasion I'm sure that shaded my fair, honest reporting.

I'm still proud of my background and experience. I still think it contributes to my writing on food and restaurants. However, it does not make me a better reviewer. A restaurant reviewer need only be knowledgable about the dining experience from the guest's point of view - the quality of the service, the presentation, the food and it's preparation.

[Basildog]

Does this link at the bottom shed more light on the subject?

I can undertstand his position.We had a tiny mention in the Times a few years back, and the phone was hot with people who felt they "must try you, as you have been in the Times"

But the Fat Guy has a job to do..so i say.....still undecided on this one

clickerty click

and a bit more

edit links

[Steve Klc]

Suzanne--sorry I didn't address the getting hit on analogy--but here's an attempt:

You're in a bar. You get hit on and decline interest.

"Getting hit on" in this context is precisely equivalent to a restaurant getting listed in a guidebook--when you go to a bar or open a restaurant you accept the possibility--indeed, even probability--of this occurring.

Wishing it wouldn't occur is just not realistic because, well, you are in a bar.

Now if you absolutely positively don't ever want to get hit on--you don't go to a bar.

You stay in your room, hire bodyguards, etc.

And if you don't want to get reviewed or mentioned in a guidebook--you don't open a restaurant and serve food to paying customers.

Your larger point--about a frisson between those who "do" and those who "write" about those who do--is particularly interesting to me since I do both. I think the potential yin/yang between chefs and food writers, professional athletes and sportswriters, artists vs. critics vs. teachers permeates alot of what we talk about here on eGullet--I'm sorry that I just don't see how it applies in this case.

(And nothing I've written has anything to do with knowing the identity of the restaurant in question. It's just principle. For the record--I do think Shaw's "disclaimer" from a few threads back about how he plans to handle this, is spot on.)

[Suzanne F]

Of course, this would be a very different discussion of Steve S had stated at the start that the restaurant in question was Shopsin's. An establishment rather like Rao's except even less known to the general public (or even to the community here, one of the most toffee-nosed in creation). Then, everyone would have said, "Oh that Kenny, he's crazy." Which might or might not be true, but often excuses a lot of bad behavior (except to the recipients).

Disclaimer: I have never eaten there, never tried to, and am rather turned off by the descriptions and adulation I have read in The New Yorker and on Chowhound. I am not one for cults of personality, or any other cults. I'm with Groucho on this one.

[Fat Guy]

Of course, this would be a very different discussion of Steve S had stated at the start that the restaurant in question was Shopsin's.

Which is of course why I didn't!