Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[oakapple]

Lee appears to be getting favorable reviews...I think that's enough to provoke a re-review...as with EMP.

←

Bruni upgraded Eleven Madison Park 23 months after his first review. He said:

I gave Eleven Madison two stars in February 2005, and while I normally wouldn't review a restaurant again so soon, Mr. Humm's food -- not the new table settings, not the tweaked lighting -- made me do it. I can't have beef tenderloin in a bordelaise sauce this dense with marrow -- this druggy -- and stay mum. I can't cut into such impeccably roasted duck -- glazed smartly, but not too sweetly, with lavender and honey -- and shut up about it. That would be a dereliction of duty. It would be just plain mean.

That sets the benchmark for the level of enthusiasm required for a re-review two years later. And Bruni has seldom been that enthusiastic. I would add that Daniel Humm was at EMP for about a year before Bruni reviewed him.

Bruni reviewed Gilt just fourteen months ago, and Christopher Lee's new menu has been in place only since October. It is safe to assume that, even if Bruni's enthusiasm for Lee at Gilt equals his enthusiasm for Humm at EMP, it will be a while before we see a re-review.

My guess, given Bruni's track record, is that he will not have the same enthusiasm for Lee. When Daniel Humm arrived at EMP, the favorable reaction from the foodie community was overwhelming and almost instantaneous. In contrast, there is not yet even one eGullet review of the dining room at Gilt under Chef Lee. (So far, there's one review of the bar menu, and that's it.)

Adam Platt reviews Gilt in this week's New York, but he awards the same number of stars he did before. On top of all that, Bruni is often hostile to the "pricey, old-world kind of restaurant" (Platt's description), which is precisely what Gilt is.

For all of those reasons, I think it's unlikely that Bruni will think Lee is serving three-star food. Don't hold your breath for that re-review.

Edited April 17, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[oakapple]

This came in the Mercat thread, but I'm replying here as it is more of a meta-reviewing topic, and not about any one restaurant:

I think its a little rude of RG [Restaurant Girl] to review a restaurant on its first night.  Personally, I think there should be a moritorium on reviewing any new restaurant for at least 3 weeks after they open.

←

Three weeks, phooey. Three months or better yet a year.

←

As soon as a restaurant throws open its doors and starts charging money, I think it is fair game for critical commentary. But I think we need to distinguish eReviews (bloggers, eGullet, Chowhound, Mouthfuls,....) and traditional print reviews.

The reality is that no eReview, on its own, has much influence. No eReviewer is important enough to move the market. An unfavorable eReview therefore has little practical consequence. It will soon be superseded by many others. If the problems are merely opening jitters, this will become readily apparent as more positive eReviews come along.

Anyhow, instant eReviews are here to stay, whether you like them or not. These days, the first eReviews often appear literally within hours of a restaurant's opening. That's just the way it is, and knowledgeable restauranteurs are adjusting to it, as they must.

Traditional print reviews are another story. They tend to have much longer staying power than eReviews, are much more widely read, and have much more economic impact on the restaurant. Also, most newspapers and magazines will review a restaurant only once. Re-reviews, if granted at all, are usually years apart. The traditional print media should therefore give restaurants time to settle in. The more responsible critics in fact do this, although lately I've seen reviews on Bloomberg after a restaurant was just a week or two old. This is a practice that should be deplored.

Frank Bruni is usually the last of the major critics to weigh in — normally after around three months, but don't count on it. Gordon Ramsay at The London opened on November 16, and Frank Bruni panned it on January 31st, eleven weeks later. One must assume that at least some of his five or six visits were paid during the opening month, when the restaurant was just finding its legs.

Anyone who thinks critics are going to wait a year is kidding themselves. If they get three months, they're still getting a much more generous cushion than is granted Broadway plays — a medium for which, I believe, the print medium is far more influential than it is for restaurants.

Edited April 23, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

I think there are a few things worth noting about online versus print reviews. The first is that the print reviews are almost all online too.

We know that the New York Times online gets many more visits than the paper has print readers, so it's probably safe to assume that many more people read Frank Bruni's reviews online than in print. Perhaps not an accurate sample, but I bet it's safe to say that 90% or more of the people reading along here rarely or never read Frank Bruni's reviews in print. From the perspective of archives, of course, it's online all the way -- nobody is pulling up old print reviews from the Times, except insofar as they hang in restaurants' windows (alongside printouts of other reviews, online reviews included).

In addition, the traditional print reviewers, whose reviews appear online, are slowly becoming bloggers themselves. Frank Bruni, of course, writes for the Diner's Journal blog and often gives impressions of restaurants there.

As a pure statistical matter, it's likely that the New York Times main review of the week is read by more people than any review by any blogger or other online writer. The same is probably true of New York Magazine's main review. However, such is not necessarily the case with all the print reviewers. How many people do you think are reading the review in the New York Sun, New York Observer, etc.? At that level, the numbers probably start to get a lot closer to the better-trafficked online sources.

Moreover, the niche sources online, it is safe to surmise, reach a much more highly targeted audience. While Frank Bruni's reviews are widely read, only a small percentage of that audience is likely ever to dine at the restaurant being reviewed. Those who self-select as audiences for food blogs and other online food sources are, it stands to reason, much more likely to dine out at the restaurants under review. For all we know, they're ten, fifty or a hundred times more likely.

Finally, don't underestimate the psychological aspect of the belief that print is so influential. Restaurateurs and die-hards really obsess over Frank Bruni's reviews, which creates the illusion of outsize impact. It's not clear that the general restaurant-going public cares nearly as much. Restaurants that fire chefs in response to print reviews may very well be participating in a fantasy rather than responding to any objective reality. That's probably why many times, when restaurants ignore the reviews, they do just fine.

[oakapple]

I concur in FG's points.

"Traditional print" was just a label, by the way. I realize that Frank Bruni has more online readers than print readers at this point. But if you google-search a restaurant's name, his review will turn up months or years later. Someone looking for views on the restaurant is probably a lot more likely to click-through to the Times than to other online sources.

Restaurants that fire chefs in response to print reviews may very well be participating in a fantasy rather than responding to any objective reality. That's probably why many times, when restaurants ignore the reviews, they do just fine.

←

It's hard to tell what influence the print reviews have. It was certainly widely noticed that both chefs left Varietal within a week of Bruni's review. But Varietal was already in trouble long before that. I visited twice on Saturday evenings, and it wasn't more than half full on either occasion. The Bruni review more-or-less confirmed what the market had already decided without his help.

At the other extreme, I doubt that Freeman's fired anyone after Bruni goose-egged them, because the restaurant was doing well. Sure, a rave from the Times would have been a feather in their cap, but it didn't really matter.

Edited April 23, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[ned]

Frank Bruni is usually the last of the major critics to weigh in — normally after around three months, but don't count on it. Gordon Ramsay at The London opened on November 16, and Frank Bruni panned it on January 31st, eleven weeks later. One must assume that at least some of his five or six visits were paid during the opening month, when the restaurant was just finding its legs.

Anyone who thinks critics are going to wait a year is kidding themselves. If they get three months, they're still getting a much more generous cushion than is granted Broadway plays — a medium for which, I believe, the print medium is far more influential than it is for restaurants.

←

I'd like a good restaurant to succeed. If there is criticism, I'd like it to be of the food when the restaurant is in its stride. Three months is cutting it close. There are so many restaurants in NYC many of which warrant re-reviewing, many of which are years old and haven't been reviewed. Given, as is often pointed out here, that the NYT has only 52 slots a year, it seems wasteful and even a touch malevolent to devote a review to an effort in its infancy.

I agree that it's not likely that the critics will wait as long as a year before reviewing. Doesn't stop me from wanting them to.

[slkinsey]

Doesn't a lot of this come down to disparities in prestige between professional restaurant critics and amateur restaurant critics (and among professional critics, disparities in prestige between the publications)? Because when we say "online review" what we are also saying is "amateur avocational reviewer" (there is, I think, a difference between a true "online review" and a printed review that is mirrored online).

Fair or not, by and large blogs are not considered as prestigious and authoritative as newspapers and magazines -- largely because blogs are amateur (or extremly small potatoes professional) and newspapers and magazines are professional. I suppose it might be possible for an amateur online restaurant critic to create a strong enough reputation for his reviews to "matter" more and have more influence than those written by professionals and appearing in newspapers -- but I am not aware of any right now. This seems unlikely to change. I suppose the best an amateur online critic can hope for right now is to compete with the critic for something like the "Upper East Side Post Crescent."

It does seems likely that, at some point in the future, an exclusively web-based "newspaper," "magazine," etc. with a hired restaurant critic may come to compete with the newspaper reviewers for prestige. I know this is a little ridiculous, since an online amateur restaurant reviewer could get hired by the Times and immediately go from "very little influence" to "great deal of influence" -- but it does seem to be the way things are today.

[Fat Guy]

an online amateur restaurant reviewer could get hired by the Times and immediately go from "very little influence" to "great deal of influence"

←

I think you've highlighted the absurdity of the distinction with that example. I agree that people make the distinction on a widespread basis, but it's certainly also the case that the average blogger comes to the table with more restaurant and dining knowledge than Frank Bruni had when he got that job (though of course he is a better writer than most bloggers).

There are, also, plenty of educated gourmets who consider the online sources to be more useful than the New York Times. Not a majority, but a growing number no doubt. I know lots of folks who never make a dining decision based on what Frank Bruni says -- they read him for amusement and/or irritation, not because they rely on him -- however they can be convinced to go somewhere or stay away based on the online commentary. Which raises the issue of the singularity of online commentary. Usually, people's opinions aren't swayed by the word of any one online source, but rather by online sources as a group. That reflects a change, I think, in the way a lot of people process information these days.

[Nathan]

well...a significant credibility difference that comes to mind between professional reviewers and many bloggers....is simply that newspapers pay for the meals...and generally make an attempt at anonymous dining.

a fair amount of food bloggers have shown themselves to being amenable to being bought off (even if not consciously so)....this is pretty understandable since they don't have expense accounts but it does alter their credibility.

(I think amateurs in any field have a reputation as often being easy to buy off or co-opt...even if it's just a matter of developing too cozy relationships with people within the field they're ostensibly covering.)

[Fat Guy]

Actually there's a range of practices in evidence in both "professional" and "amateur" media. It's true that Frank Bruni pays for his meals (but is rarely anonymous) but plenty of magazine writers who cover dining accept comps and are always recognized; likewise, plenty of bloggers and other people posting online have never had a comped meal and are never recognized.

[slkinsey]

an online amateur restaurant reviewer could get hired by the Times and immediately go from "very little influence" to "great deal of influence"

I think you've highlighted the absurdity of the distinction with that example. I agree that people make the distinction on a widespread basis, but it's certainly also the case that the average blogger comes to the table with more restaurant and dining knowledge than Frank Bruni had when he got that job (though of course he is a better writer than most bloggers).

It's also true that, most likely as of 6 months after he took the NYT job, Bruni had acquired infinitely more restaurant and dining experience than most any amateur blogger out there. This is the real advantage of being a reviewer for a publication like the NY Times. You will be going to 10+ theater performance a week, or eating 10+ restaurant meals a week. The amateur gourmet or opera lover rarely has the time and/or resources to pursue that kind of schedule in addition to maintaining a day job, and those who do are often... well... to put it kindly, a little unbalanced, which has an additional effect on credibility and reputation. It's actually easier for someone like, e.g., an amateur opera reviewer -- he can amass expertise over a few decades of less-frequent attendance, and this knowledge retains currency because La bohème is the same now as it was in 1896 and operatic performance traditions have experienced far less change over the last 30 years compared to culinary trends.

It is a little bit absurd, of course. But for the time being it's the way it is. I wonder if it might come to be the case that more and more people will make restaurant reservations online via web sites like OpenTable until that becomes the dominant paradigm. If those sites were to include amateur reviews similar to the reviews Amazon has for its products, the totality of amateur reviewing could take primary importance.

[Nathan]

I believe that it's industry practice for newspaper restaurant reviewers to not receive comps and to attempt anonymity (this is the standard practice at every newspaper that I'm aware of (not just NY))...indeed, there have been a couple mini-scandals where small-city restaurant reviewers were caught taking comps...

as for bloggers, let's just say that several of the most well-known food bloggers in NY have no problem accepting comps (they also seem to almost never meet a restaurant they don't like...and when they do it immediately lends itself to the accusation that maybe they're really just panning the restaurant for not treating them)

[Nathan]

If those sites were to include amateur reviews similar to the reviews Amazon has for its products, the totality of amateur reviewing could take primary importance.

←

that's a scary prospect considering the current state of customer reviews on citysearch, yelp, menupages and nymetro. generally speaking, the positive reviews are written by restaurant shills (I know for a fact that a number of restaurants have their partners and employees write weekly reviews on these sites of their own restaurant -- eater also covers this extensively) and the negative reviews are written by idiots. (part of the problem is that people are most motivated to write something when they had a bad experience)

Edited April 23, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[slkinsey]

The anonymity thing is pretty much bullshit, as has been endlessly rehashed in these forums. There's no way that any single-city, weekly reviewer isn't recognized at 90% of the places he or she reviews.

Here's my thinking on the professional/print versus online/amateur difference: I don't think there's a restaurateur in this City who wouldn't vastly prefer a positive review by Bruni in the NY Times to ten raves in the eG Forums, or ten glowing writeups at someguy.blogspot.com, someotherguy.wordpress.com, yetanotherguy.typepad.com, etc. Now, this isn't to say that certain blogs or forum posts might aren't meaningful or more meaningful to certain consumers. There are certainly posters in these forums, and blogs of which I am aware, whose opinions I value far above Frank Bruni's. But I also don't consider myself a typical consumer. I also know that, as online-centric as I may be, a print review of me is much more valuable than an online one.

[Sneakeater]

the negative reviews are written by idiots.

←

I recently ran across a review of Esca on one of those websites where the poster said something to the effect of, "The menu is ridiculous. If you don't like fish, there's almost nothing to order."

[Fat Guy]

It's also true that, most likely as of 6 months after he took the NYT job, Bruni had acquired infinitely more restaurant and dining experience than most any amateur blogger out there. 

←

He does have a lot of experience by virtue of his position, but I wouldn't call the contrast infinite. It's true that the Times critic is likely to dine out 10 times a week, but the average investment banker food blogger probably dines out 5 times a week at real restaurants (and 16 times at the breakfast cart, Au Bon Pain, etc.). When you do that math, you get 6 months = 26 weeks x 10 meals a week = 260 meals. That's double the 130 meals the investment banker blogger had during that time frame. But when you've just arrived from another country and are starting from 0 (other than the meals you had as a kid at the Four Seasons), 260 meals doesn't come close to catching you up to an investment banker or lawyer who eats 5 meals a week out and has been doing so for 5 years (1,300 meals). Bruni's depth of experience doesn't start to pull away from the pack until he's 2-3 years into the game.

[slkinsey]

But we know that 1,100 of those 1,300 meals are likely to be at no more than 10 different restaurants (and likely fewer).

[oakapple]

But we know that 1,100 of those 1,300 meals are likely to be at no more than 10 different restaurants (and likely fewer).

←

There are other differences, too. Bruni orders a ton of food — much more than a party of comparable size would normally eat. He then makes a point of tasting every dish. By the time the review comes out, he's eaten his way through the whole menu. Most ordinary civilians, even if they dine out as often as Bruni, don't consider themselves professionally obligated to do that. Edited April 23, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[oakapple]

I'd like a good restaurant to succeed.  If there is criticism, I'd like it to be of the food when the restaurant is in its stride.  Three months is cutting it close.  There are so many restaurants in NYC many of which warrant re-reviewing, many of which are years old and haven't been reviewed.  Given, as is often pointed out here, that the NYT has only 52 slots a year, it seems wasteful and even a touch malevolent to devote a review to an effort in its infancy. 

←

It's not malevolent. Every art form the Times reviews, is reviewed at around the time it first appears. Whether it's dance, music, opera, or Broadway, the review comes out immediately. Restaurants, with their 2-3 month lag, could consider themselves lucky to have extra time that is granted in no other medium.

[Fat Guy]

We're not talking about the average person. We're talking about the average food blogger. That person is likely to dine around at a lot of new places, and to order with writing in mind. No, that person won't be able to keep pace with the 10-times-a-week, 6-people-per-meal (though that's not the average for Bruni), distributed pace of the Times critic. But it takes more than 6 months to establish infinitely more breadth and depth than the amateurs. It takes years. Not that it makes Bruni's reviews particularly noteworthy. Breadth and depth also trade off. The 10 places you dine at the most often, you know better than Bruni ever will, and your opinion of them is likely to be more valuable than his. I mean, you can't seriously ever care what he says about Landmarc, except from the perspective of pure curiosity.

[slkinsey]

Seriously, though, isn't the "investment banker/food blogger" guy, who eats out at a different restaurant five nights a week and then has the time to sit down at his computer writing them up for his high quality, frequently updated blog a bit of a strawman? There's what, maybe two of these guys in NYC? How about well-adjusted? With a balanced opinion and something interesting to say? Maybe I'm wrong and there are dozens of these guys. And I've certainly seen some interesting writing in blogs, but they are generally along the lines of "here's what my friends and I had the one time we went there."

Edited to add: Do we have any actual examples? Broadly experienced; psychologically well-balanced with no obvious axes to grind; deep knowledge of the NYC restaurant scene, well versed in restaurant culture and cuisine; hits all the major NYC restaurants and important openings, etc. to the tune of 5 nights a week; and writes a frequently-updated amateur food blog? I'm curious.

Edited April 23, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[Nathan]

well, yeah, food bloggers aren't writing about multiple visits and having ordered the entire menu.

sometimes they order three dishes and announce "the emperor has no clothes" (the most common cliche in amateur food writing).

[oakapple]

Do we have any actual examples?  Broadly experienced; psychologically well-balanced with no obvious axes to grind; deep knowledge of the NYC restaurant scene, well versed in restaurant culture and cuisine; hits all the major NYC restaurants and important openings, etc. to the tune of 5 nights a week; and writes a frequently-updated amateur food blog?  I'm curious.

←

I can't comment on anyone's psychological well-being, axes-to-grind, or depth of knowledge. But even leaving those things out, said blogger doesn't exist.

I can also tell you that the roughly 2-3 blog reviews I write per week (all based on one visit) take a lot of time, and I couldn't imagine doing more. And there's plenty I fail to do, that a serious critic should. I don't take good notes, and my memory sometimes fails me. I don't taste other people's food. I don't focus solely, or even primarily, on places that just opened. I order what I want, usually ignoring large parts of the menu. Etc, etc, etc.

[Fat Guy]

The thing is, the professional critics don't meet those criteria, so they aren't workable standards. But if we're talking about amateurs who do a professional caliber job (which sets the bar pretty low, unfortunately), Marc's blog is a good example of a highly conscientious, true amateur (in the best Olympic sense of the word) blog. He's out there eating all the time, he has no agendas, he pays his own way and his opinions are highly informed. Approximately 100% of the time I would trust his one-visit/six-dishes analysis of a restaurant over Bruni's four-visit/forty-dishes inanity. I'd add Steve Plotnicki's blog to that list -- he may very well dine out more than Bruni. Those are just NY examples. The true amateur is sort of a dying breed these days, though. As we've discussed before, the professional/amateur distinction has been so deeply eroded as to be meaningless. How do we categorize Andrea Strong's blog, Restaurant Girl's blog, Jennifer Leuzzi's blog, etc.? I don't think they get any money for doing those blogs, so are they amateur? Most anybody who does a good amateur blog for an extended period of time will either fold it up or "go pro." I mean, "The Amateur Gourmet," will be published by Bantam/Dell in Fall 2007. Then there are all the people who are not bloggers by the formal definition but are, rather, people who post frequently on well-trafficked discussion forums. Some are "household" words around the good restaurants and many of them dine out with incredible frequency.

[Fat Guy]

sometimes they order three dishes and announce "the emperor has no clothes" (the most common cliche in amateur food writing).

←

It's an overused cliche in all writing. Do some searches on newspaper websites and see.

[slkinsey]

...Marc's blog is a good example of a highly conscientious, true amateur (in the best Olympic sense of the word) blog. He's out there eating all the time, he has no agendas, he pays his own way and his opinions are highly informed. Approximately 100% of the time I would trust his one-visit/six-dishes analysis of a restaurant over Bruni's four-visit/forty-dishes inanity.

I agree with respect to Marc's blog 100%. And yet, it sounds like Marc would agree that Bruni's word holds more weight and has more influence, and that Bruni is able to accumulate vastly more experience. More to the point, there's no restaurant in the City that would trade a single positive review from Bruni for a dozen great reviews from people like Marc. Or perhaps even more to the point, it may not be good to use Bruni as an example, since most of us agree that we don't particularly value his opinions.

I'd add Steve Plotnicki's blog to that list -- he may very well dine out more than Bruni.

Maybe he does. IMO he's the textbook example of high knowledge and expertise that's unfortunately greatly devalued by axes to grind and other factors. One thing that having a professional gig in the print media brings along with it is editorial oversight and supervision. No publication would employ a restaurant reviewer with Steve Plotnicki's intractable biases (unless, for example, they never intended to review Italian restaurants).

As we've discussed before, the professional/amateur distinction has been so deeply eroded as to be meaningless. How do we categorize Andrea Strong's blog, Restaurant Girl's blog, Jennifer Leuzzi's blog, etc.?

None of these are amateurs. The Strong Buzz, Restaurant Girl and Snack are all written as part of a strategy for developing the respective bloggers' professional writing careers. And again, I'm not saying it's "right," but I think the general perception from the public is that, for example, an article Jennifer Leuzzi has written for the Sun has more cred than one that is only published on Snack And, of course, everything on her site benefits from the cred she brings to the table by being a writer in the print media.