Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[oakapple]

What aspect of self-promotion is it that we're supposed to be disgusted by?

←

I don't recall a restaurant review where a photo of the critic in a glamourous pose (here) was larger than a photo of the restaurant she was reviewing. It sets up a situation where the critic herself is the story.

Then, there's this:

What she will do is bring her big appetite (don't let her hors d'oeuvres-size figure fool you) and bigger curiosity about food to the table.... Freeman has traveled extensively and taken classes and private lessons with chefs to boost her food knowledge and considers restaurants her informal classrooms.

I especially liked: "I've felt like the 'Dear Abby' of food for years." This is someone who didn't have a blog two years ago. Edited August 21, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

What aspect of self-promotion is it that we're supposed to be disgusted by?

←

I don't recall a restaurant review where a photo of the critic in a glamourous pose (here) was larger than a photo of the restaurant she was reviewing. It sets up a situation where the critic herself is the story.

There are two stories today: one about the restaurant and one about her. It's her first review. The paper has a legitimate purpose in introducing her. It's news. We're talking about it here, right? It's also not "self promotion" when the newspaper does it. In addition, she's pretty. I like the photo. As for the relative sizes of the photos, I haven't seen the paper. Online they scale everything to the same width so portraits always appear larger than landscapes. Personally, though, I couldn't care less about the photo of the restaurant. Whereas the photo of the critic is interesting to me.

Then, there's this:

What she will do is bring her big appetite (don't let her hors d'oeuvres-size figure fool you) and bigger curiosity about food to the table.... Freeman has traveled extensively and taken classes and private lessons with chefs to boost her food knowledge and considers restaurants her informal classrooms.

I especially liked: "I've felt like the 'Dear Abby' of food for years." This is someone who didn't have a blog two years ago.

←

She said she feels like the Dear Abby of food because lots of strangers ask her questions about food. Big deal.

[oakapple]

There are two stories today: one about the restaurant and one about her. It's her first review. The paper has a legitimate purpose in introducing her. It's news. We're talking about it here, right? It's also not "self promotion" when the newspaper does it. In addition, she's pretty. I like the photo. As for the relative sizes of the photos, I haven't seen the paper.

I did see the paper, and they give the photo quite a bit of space, which is understandable: she is indeed very pretty.

I assume that she had something to do with the way it was promoted. She sat for the photo shoot, after all. The idea that she's "a different kind of critic" is no doubt coming from her. Somehow, I don't imagine the Daily News dreaming that up.

Some of her views on criticism are legitimate. Although I happen to think that critic anonymity has value, there are enough people with the opposite viewpoint to put her in good company. But that type of intro for a new critic is unusual.

Then, there's this:

I especially liked: "I've felt like the 'Dear Abby' of food for years." This is someone who didn't have a blog two years ago.

←

She said she feels like the Dear Abby of food because lots of strangers ask her questions about food. Big deal.

←

It's the "for years" part, not the "Dear Abby" part, that I noticed, given that she hasn't been at this for all that long. I have no doubt that she does indeed get a lot of requests. Heck, I get them, and my blog has about 1/100th the traffic she gets. Edited August 21, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

In addition, she's pretty. I like the photo.

let's face it. the only reason that anyone pays any attention to her is that.

if her photos weren't replete throughout the web and on her PR newsfeed (sorry, "blog") she wouldn't have a following and she wouldn't have gotten this job.

I find it tawdry.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Fat Guy]

I think there's enough room for all of us to feel like the Dear Abby of food.

[Nathan]

I'm still getting over the "an ambitious Jew from Maryland"...

[docsconz]

I just saw this.  that's amusing.

here's my proof:

http://www.restaurantgirl.com

I need say no more.

her notoriety rests on one thing only...and it has nothing to do with food.

←

Her views on anonymity are exactly the same as Steven Shaw's. Now, I'll grant you there's a difference: Shaw wouldn't allow himself to be photographed in a sexy dress.

She's employing a star system with a plus-one bias above the Times. She defines one star as "disappointing," while the Times defines it as "good." She defines two stars as "a safe bet," while the Times is "very good."

Gemma comes from the same people as The Waverly Inn. Frank Bruni gave one star to Waverly, Freeman gives two to Gemma, so they're tracking about equally, after accounting for the plus-one bias. She doesn't only say good things. Indeed, given the text, 1½ stars ("hit or miss" by her definition) might have been more appropriate. But there's been plenty written about Bruni's star inflation, so she's in good company there.

Of course, the writing isn't as good as Bruni's, but we expected that.

←

I'm talking about the site as a whole. yes, she famously announced a few months ago that she would start making negative comments where they were warranted....the "reviews" before that are quite "interesting".

so, what about the PR regurgitation directly on the site? Shaw doesn't do that.

btw, Gemma does not "come from the same people as the Waverly Inn". Graydon Carter is the driving force behind the WI and the reason for its "A-list crowd". some of the same people who partnered on the WI are behind Gemma...but its association with the WI is pure PR (and that won't work on the "friends of Graydon" that created the WI's buzz). neither is the chef of the WI...John DeLucie..involved. Gemma is really by the same people as the Maritime Hotel. Carter is the only name that matters for the WI...and he is not involved in Gemma...despite the press releases (which artfully imply it while carefully not directly saying that he is)....which have been swallowed wholesale by various bloggers.

←

Just to be clear in case anyone assumed Nathan was referring to Freeman as one of the bloggers that "swallowed" the association "wholesale", this is how she described it in her review:

Owners Sean MacPherson and Eric Goode have seamlessly bridged the gap between two of their brainchildren: the elitist Waverly Inn, with its unlisted phone number and long-lingering "preview menu," and the people-pleasing approachability of La Bottega's Italian plates.

No where does she make the association between Carter and Gemma. Her association was with people who are involved in the ownership of both places.

Her review seemed ok. I have not been following her to be able to have any sense of her palate and how it compares to mine, which is what I really look for in a restaurant critic.

[Nathan]

I just saw this.  that's amusing.

here's my proof:

http://www.restaurantgirl.com

I need say no more.

her notoriety rests on one thing only...and it has nothing to do with food.

←

Her views on anonymity are exactly the same as Steven Shaw's. Now, I'll grant you there's a difference: Shaw wouldn't allow himself to be photographed in a sexy dress.

She's employing a star system with a plus-one bias above the Times. She defines one star as "disappointing," while the Times defines it as "good." She defines two stars as "a safe bet," while the Times is "very good."

Gemma comes from the same people as The Waverly Inn. Frank Bruni gave one star to Waverly, Freeman gives two to Gemma, so they're tracking about equally, after accounting for the plus-one bias. She doesn't only say good things. Indeed, given the text, 1½ stars ("hit or miss" by her definition) might have been more appropriate. But there's been plenty written about Bruni's star inflation, so she's in good company there.

Of course, the writing isn't as good as Bruni's, but we expected that.

←

I'm talking about the site as a whole. yes, she famously announced a few months ago that she would start making negative comments where they were warranted....the "reviews" before that are quite "interesting".

so, what about the PR regurgitation directly on the site? Shaw doesn't do that.

btw, Gemma does not "come from the same people as the Waverly Inn". Graydon Carter is the driving force behind the WI and the reason for its "A-list crowd". some of the same people who partnered on the WI are behind Gemma...but its association with the WI is pure PR (and that won't work on the "friends of Graydon" that created the WI's buzz). neither is the chef of the WI...John DeLucie..involved. Gemma is really by the same people as the Maritime Hotel. Carter is the only name that matters for the WI...and he is not involved in Gemma...despite the press releases (which artfully imply it while carefully not directly saying that he is)....which have been swallowed wholesale by various bloggers.

←

Just to be clear in case anyone assumed Nathan was referring to Freeman as one of the bloggers that "swallowed" the association "wholesale", this is how she described it in her review:

Owners Sean MacPherson and Eric Goode have seamlessly bridged the gap between two of their brainchildren: the elitist Waverly Inn, with its unlisted phone number and long-lingering "preview menu," and the people-pleasing approachability of La Bottega's Italian plates.

No where does she make the association between Carter and Gemma. Her association was with people who are involved in the ownership of both places.

Her review seemed ok. I have not been following her to be able to have any sense of her palate and how it compares to mine, which is what I really look for in a restaurant critic.

←

I just got around to reading it. I do think that her description leaves something to be desired. (Bruni would never call the WI their "brainchild"...and would make it clear that they were the silent partners with Carter while Gemma was their own thing...reread his WI review if you don't believe me...he's perfectly clear on why that restaurant has buzz)...)

but, yeah, it's various other bloggers that have bought it completely (see references to "Waverly Inn 2.0" etc.)

[Jesikka]

I think there's enough room for all of us to feel like the Dear Abby of food.

←

Really? I've always fancied myself more of an Ann Landers of food, but I guess I'm quirky like that.

[Nathan]

more on RG here:

http://gawker.com/news/danyelle-freeman/

my view of her as an industry shill isn't exactly an uncommon one it seems....and gawker is a heck of a lot more wired into that sort of thing than anyone here.

[Fat Guy]

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue based on the Gawker reference, Nathan. What is Gawker "more wired into" "than anyone here"? And what's the support for the contention that she's an "industry shill"? Is it simply that she's not anonymous? If so, Bruni is an industry shill too, as is every other major critic in history, because anonymity at that level is a myth. No matter how many photos of Restaurant Girl appear in the paper, she will likely be recognized less often than Bruni, especially at the top restaurants where the managers are oriented towards spotting him. So she's certainly right when she says, "It's a bit passe and naive to believe that the most important kitchens in New York City can't identify food critics." Gawker can't actually find anything wrong with her review, either.

[oakapple]

more on RG here:

http://gawker.com/news/danyelle-freeman/

my view of her as an industry shill isn't exactly an uncommon one it seems....and gawker is a heck of a lot more wired into that sort of thing than anyone here.

←

Gawker is more wired than the two of us put together, but he isn't using any special connections or insights to reach the conclusion he reaches. He even admits that RG's maiden review isn't all that badly written.

Gawker's main concern is anonymity. But Steven Shaw has been saying for years that critic anonymity is bullshit, and the reasons he gives are rather similar to RG's. Shaw has never convinced me, but if RG is adopting his position, I can't categorically reject it as unreasonable.

I do agree that the "launch" of Danyelle Freeman as a reviewing industry for the Daily News was pompous and vain, but presumably FG is correct that, whatever one may think of it, it's a one-time thing. Maybe it was just an excuse to show that sexy photo.

For a more favorable view of Freeman as a critic, check out Gael Greene here.

[Fat Guy]

I should point out this is not "my" view but, rather, one shared by any number of food media people, some of whom write about it and some of whom support it by their actions. The first person who ever made the argument to me was Thomas Matthews of Wine Spectator, and he has made the argument in writing as well, both before and after me. Once he laid out the points to me over lunch sometime in the 1990s and I saw that his logic was compelling, I shifted my own thinking on the matter. As well, there have been several critics -- David Rosengarten, Alan Richman, Bob Lape -- who have had histories as television personalities. That's going to happen more, not less, as it is now 2007, when anybody who has anything to say on a subject needs to be fluent across all media. Indeed, at least one of the photos that restaurants have of Frank Bruni is from his television appearance on PBS. You can still see it any day on the PBS website here if you scroll down a bit.

[oakapple]

Restaurant Girl says that she is going to reserve under assumed names, and that she won't announce herself at the restaurant. If she lives up to that, then she's doing pretty much what Frank Bruni does. Bruni's photo isn't in the paper every week, but as FG notes, there are enough photos of him already floating around.

[Nathan]

Gawker is very wired into PR and publishing.

Gawker asserts that RG has a history of deliberately attempting to garner comps (I'm told that's true by people with personal knowledge as well...)

(Gawker is a bunch of people by the way)

Gael says that RG is wrong on anonymity. of course she is.

we know for a fact that Bruni is not recognized most of the time.

(bizarrely enough...although Bruni might be more recognized at 3 and 4 star restaurants...well, not anymore)...I daresay that RG is probably more recognized at the lower levels. (it doesn't hurt that she's introduced herself to half the chefs in NY).

[Nathan]

Restaurant Girl says that she is going to reserve under assumed names, and that she won't announce herself at the restaurant. If she lives up to that, then she's doing pretty much what Frank Bruni does. Bruni's photo isn't in the paper every week, but as FG notes, there are enough photos of him already floating around.

←

I haven't seen any that were recent or reflected his weight loss.

[Fat Guy]

we know for a fact that Bruni is not recognized most of the time.

←

Let's assume for the sake of argument that he's recognized half the time. Where does that leave us?

Either it's true that restaurants can make better food for recognized critics, or restaurants can't make better food for recognized critics. If the former is true, and if Bruni is recognized half the time, half of all restaurants have an unfair advantage and get better reviews than they deserve. Whereas, if a critic is recognized 100% of the time, then every restaurant competes on an equal basis in that regard.

Then again, maybe critics can recognize when they've been spotted and adjust their impressions accordingly. If so, anonymity achieves nothing.

But maybe critics who think they have or haven't been spotted can be wrong, because restaurants can be clever with their counter-spy action, and can give better food and service without letting on that they've spotted the critic. Again, there the best solution -- since it's impossible to achieve anonymity in 100% of cases -- is to forget about the charade of anonymity.

[Nathan]

here's why I disagree:

we know that restaurants with active three or four star pretensions keep an eye out for Bruni. especially ones that just opened. we know that they still sometimes miss him (the Russian Tea Room, Bouley). otherwise he would never have poor service at that level.

but most of the restaurants he reviews are not 3 and 4 star restaurants...or even restaurants with credible claims for that (and even at the the 3 and 4 star level I think they'll probably often miss him on rereviews...was CB really expecting him?).

they're not catching him. ok, so the ones with a lot of buzz might still keep an eye out (Freeman's for example...and we know they still missed at least one of his visits...)...but based upon his service eviscerations...we know that they often don't.

why does it matter? because when a restaurant recognized Bruni they do the following:

A. put the best service team on his table.

B. notify the chef.

C. make two dishes of everything his table orders and prioritize them over everything else (while still pacing them so it's not obvious)

D. taste both of the dishes at the pass...and send out the better executed one.

so, yeah...it matters. even if it's as much as 50% of the time.

[Fat Guy]

Non-responsive.

[Fat Guy]

In addition, the most compelling testimony I've seen on the factual issue of how often the Times critic is anonymous comes from Eric Asimov, posted in eG Forums here:

Let's be honest -- whoever is the main critic in this day of surveillance cameras, caller ID and such can't expect to be anonymous. Maybe 25 percent of the time at best.

[Nathan]

ok.

yes, restaurants that recognize a critic garner an unfair advantage. the reviewer can adjust somewhat for being recognized....but only so much.

it doesn't follow that Bruni is recognized at the same restaurant everytime. once he's recognized...he's probably always recognized at that restaurant after that (also probably a good reason for someone to only be a Times reviewer for so long)....or at least until after the review comes out. but that doesn't mean they caught his first visit or two. (why do I think this is often behind Bruni's reporting inconsistency on the same dish from one visit to another?)

so...part of a review might be skewed...but not all of it. do I think three or four star reviews (especially of new restaurants) should be read with this in mind? sure.

below that level? not so much. and any time he reports a service or waiting (or heating--for a dish) issue...that makes a review more valuable in my book.

it's not all or nothing. and never being anonymous wouldn't help. why? cause if the reservation is made under the name "Frank Bruni"...restaurants with extra resources are privileged (bring in extra staff!!!) while no reservations restaurants are screwed. and if he still uses fake names but is easily recognized...a la Danyelle Freeman...there will still be the non-buzz (Rosanjin) or mom-and-pop operation that won't notice him or her. so they won't be on an even playing field.

in sum, I think the playing field is more even with anonymity than without.

[Fat Guy]

Do you really think Bruni is never or rarely recognized on a first visit? Where do you think restaurants get their servers and managers from? They don't breed them in incubators. They hire people who have worked at other restaurants. Lots of these people recognize Bruni, and the longer a critic is in the game the more likely this becomes. For example, most any new restaurant I go at the two-star or higher level has someone working at it who worked somewhere else where I used to be a regular or whatnot. Where do you think the entire service staff of a place like Lespinasse goes when a restaurant of that caliber closes? They go to the other top restaurants in town, or they get in on new openings. New restaurants, when they interview captains and managers, often specifically ask, "Would you recognize Frank Bruni?" and the answer is often yes.

Inconsistency in dishes and service isn't evidence that Bruni wasn't recognized. Restaurants screw up all the time, even when they recognize critics. I know several restaurant managers who, when they spot a critic, don't even tell the servers on the table, because they don't want the awkwardness, the stress, the bumbling. Well-trained servers have nothing to worry about, and hacks usually can't pull it together for a critic anyway. In kitchens, they can gather ten chefs around the pass and they can cook six of every dish -- and they can still mess up a dish. Happens all the time. Anyway, all they can do is cook an error-free example of the dish. If the concept of the dish sucks, there's nothing you can do about that.

No-reservations restaurants have phones. The critic can still call up and say when he's coming, just like the regulars do at most of those places. Not that there are very many no-reservations places reviewed -- maybe a handful a year. And the prospect of calling in extra staff is a red herring. The very few cases in which that would happen, and the even smaller number of cases where it would matter, don't amount to a hill of beans compared to a 75% recognition rate, if we take the Asimov statistic at face value. (Even if you weight that percentage to reflect lower rates of recognition on first visits, there's only so low you can get it). So yes, a restaurant that can pull together that sort of effort might have some sort of advantage -- then again a restaurant that can pull that off is probably a three- or four-star place anyway.

[Nathan]

1. oh..I think he's probably usually recognized at the three and four star level....even on the first visit.

2. that sommelier incident at RTR was proof he wasn't recognized. so is anytime that his party is kept waiting past their reservation time.

3. I specifically noted above that the longer a critic is on the job the higher the odds of recognition. thus rotation is a good thing.

4. like I said, it's the lower levels where it really makes a difference.

[Fat Guy]

2.  that sommelier incident at RTR was proof he wasn't recognized.  so is anytime that his party is kept waiting past their reservation time.

Maybe, maybe not, but in either case so what? He can still experience bad food and bad service when recognized, otherwise every restaurant that recognized him on all his visits would get a great review.

3.  I specifically noted above that the longer a critic is on the job the higher the odds of recognition.  thus rotation is a good thing.

←

That's a great way to ensure that we never have a great, experienced, authoritative critic again. Of course, in the year 2007, the anonymity farce ensures that anyway. It excludes most people who have written about food for a long time in a non-reviewing journalistic capacity. So the only people eligible for the position will be inexperienced nobodies who will learn on the job at the expense of quality.

[docsconz]

Restaurant Girl says that she is going to reserve under assumed names, and that she won't announce herself at the restaurant. If she lives up to that, then she's doing pretty much what Frank Bruni does. Bruni's photo isn't in the paper every week, but as FG notes, there are enough photos of him already floating around.

←

I haven't seen any that were recent or reflected his weight loss.

←

Just out of curiosity, how do you know of his weight loss? Funny, I would think someone eating out as often and as richly as he does would have a hard time losing weight let alone not gain weight.