Customers Refusing Your Restaurant

[Meredith380]

Working in fine dining in New Jersey (where they are currently attempting to establish laws banning foie gras production and sales, don't get me started), I was shocked to receive a call from a guest attempting to cancel her reservation but wanting to speak to a manager the other day.

I took the call and she claimed that I should know, and should share with the chef and owners that she would be canceling her reservation after reading the menu online because we served foie gras. I stayed silent. She then asked me if I knew how the ducks were fed, and I responded that of course I did. She then told me how "it would soon be illegal to serve foie" and her "conscious wouldn't allow her to dine in places that serve it" and did I realize "places like yours will be stopped soon". I went slightly out of bounds when I said I realized the laws that were attempting to be passed, hoped for the sake of dining they would not be, bit my tounge and refrained from asking what she thought about the veal, lamb or hell even chicken that we served and ended the call without sympathy.

I was somewhat dumbfounded and then laughed it off. Honestly, I haven't even tried foie gras (it honestly freaks me out, organ meat just bugs me) but I certainly believe in the right of choice. I also think this woman will have a hell of a time trying to find a fine dining, 3 star NY Times meal in my state in an establishment that does not have foie on the menu.

Has anyone else experienced this... uneducated stubborness? (that's the nicest way I can think of wording it).

[srhcb]

I suspect this is an organized effort by a fringe group, and that the caller never really intended to dine in your restautant.

SB (with a grain of salt)

[Kent Wang]

Guerrilla tactics.

[BryanZ]

If this thread picks up steam I give it but a few days until the eventual flamefests and locking.

So with all due respect, she has every right to call and speak her mind. And to call her uneducated is a bit of a stretch. She at least knows what foie is and its production process, which is much more than the vast majority of the dining public. What I think of her viewpoint, however, goes without saying.

[Meredith380]

If this thread picks up steam I give it but a few days until the eventual flamefests and locking.

So with all due respect, she has every right to call and speak her mind.  And to call her uneducated is a bit of a stretch.  She at least knows what foie is and its production process, which is much more than the vast majority of the dining public.  What I think of her viewpoint, however, goes without saying.

←

Good point Bryan. I guess I figured to label her as being uneducated simply because my working in the establishment should be a green light to my knowing how foie is produced and the controversy surrounding it. She asked to speak to a manager, and I am one, so to question me seemed...okay, more so leading than uneducated.

And I agree she was goading, however she did have a reservation, made weeks prior (thanks to computers, I can tell this much-- I can also note her aversion to animals that are fed....)

And you're right she does have every right to speak her mind. But lecturing me was pretty pointless.

[KatieLoeb]

Like any consumer, this woman has the right to choose not to dine in your restaurant because the menu isn't to her taste.

Lecturing you and implying that you (the restaurant) were some sort of evil force that needed to be stopped was out of bounds and completely uncalled for. You would have been entirely within the bounds of decorum to politely end the call and hang up.

[CalumC]

There are few more awkward issues in culinary society, and it is a bleeding awkward situation. My few encounters with foie gras have been good, but theres always a little something in the back of your mind, that you know how it was produced.

As for your case, she had every right to cancel, if shes creeped out by it, fair enough. Bit far for her to start guilt tripping you though.

[srhcb]

And you're right she does have every right to speak her mind. But lecturing me was pretty pointless.

←

That's about the gist of it.

And, may I say, you handled the matter with great aplomb.

However, I will not be surprised to see this happening more and more frequently, coincidentally, in states or municipalities considering restricting sales.

It's the sort of trick they teach at politcal activist training seminars to make their political positions appear to have a greater following than they actually do.

SB

[DTBarton]

I agree that the woman has a right to express her opinion just as the restauranteur has the right to take it into consideration or not.

This situation is hugely superior to the idiotic notion of local governments dictating to food providers (private enterprises) what they can and can't serve or use in cooking their products.

[JohnL]

The foie gras discussion has been thriving here for a while.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that the side for banning it has a leg (or a wing) to stand on.

Basically, their argument is wrong--it is based upon emotion not fact and the impetus for their argument is rooted in a larger effort that they are concealing.

The response to these people is to present a simple case based upon reason, and facts to the public.

I wish people would stop trying to present their argument for foie gras by attempting to deflect the criticism. Noting that the ban proponents should really be looking at veal and chicken and...

believe me the people who are behind this effort will get to veal and chicken and lamb. I suggest everyone actually read what PETA is all about. This issue is far larger than just protecting ducks or geese.

Anyone who calls a restaurant and raises this issue should be told very politely, they are appreciative of the person's concerns but the restaurant is aware of all the facts and serves foie gras because knowing the facts, they can, in good conscience serve it.

[markk]

Anyone who calls a restaurant and raises this issue should be told very politely, they are appreciative of the person's concerns but the restaurant is aware of all the facts and serves foie gras because knowing the facts, they can, in good conscience serve it.

←

Bravo! What a brilliant suggestion.

[Andrew Fenton]

Anyone who calls a restaurant and raises this issue should be told very politely, they are appreciative of the person's concerns but the restaurant is aware of all the facts and serves foie gras because knowing the facts, they can, in good conscience serve it.

I'm going to disagree with this for a couple of reasons.

First, because when it comes to an emotional subject like foie gras, one person's "facts" are another person's ideology.

But more importantly, even a polite version of this statement runs the risk of turning into an argument. It's not worth it to argue with a stranger over the phone. This is doubly true for an employee: it's not your place to argue about this kind of restaurant policy, let alone about issues of culinary ethics. If the caller wants to discuss this, take their number and tell the manager or owner to call them back. (Or, more likely, not call them back.)

But the best response is to just say, "we're sorry that you won't be eating with us" and hang up.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Andrew Fenton (log)

[JanMcBaker]

And I agree she was goading, however she did have a reservation, made weeks prior (thanks to computers, I can tell this much-- I can also note her aversion to animals that are fed....)

←

I guess I'm with the conspiracy theorists.... I'm wondering why, if she was so concerned about what she might find on a given menu, didn't she check out the menu before she made a reservation?

[markk]

Well, I think that if the woman is giving a morals lecture and canceling her reservation because of a food they serve, that there's something more going on there, like she's an activist.

So I think that John's brilliant one sentence reply should be given, and then of course if there's an argument, the restaurant could say, "I've canceled your reservation, thanks for calling, goodbye".

As far as checking out the menu online after a reservation has been made, I could see where that could legitmately happen in other cases (though I don't think this was one of them).

As far as the effectiveness of the phone calls, even if there's an employee or manager taking the calls who doesn't know about foie gras, and who gets convinced by the caller that it's a bad thing, I'm not sure what they're supposed to do. Tell the restaurant they're going to quit unless they stop serving it? I don't think at this point that any chef is going to be talked out of serving foie gras if he's serving it now.

And having said that, now I'm thinking that the employee's reply might even include "That's your choice, madame; I hope you don't intend to legislate away our other customers' freedom of choice. Anyway, I've cancelled your reservation, and thanks for letting us know. (Enjoy the veal or chicken wherever you do wind up dining!)"

[Andrew Fenton]

And having said that, now I'm thinking that the employee's reply might even include "That's your choice, madame; I hope you don't intend to legislate away our other customers' freedom of choice.  Anyway, I've cancelled your reservation, and thanks for letting us know.  (Enjoy the veal or chicken wherever you do wind up dining!)"

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

As I see it, it is NEVER appropriate for an employee in a service industry to lecture-- especially lecture passive-aggressively-- a potential customer. Ever. Even if they aren't dining with you that time, even if they will probably never come back. It's tacky, it's not your job, and it runs the risk of biting you in the ass.

If the owner or manager wants to lecture somebody, fine. He or she is in a better position to do so-- though it's still tacky.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Andrew Fenton (log)

[JohnL]

Anyone who calls a restaurant and raises this issue should be told very politely, they are appreciative of the person's concerns but the restaurant is aware of all the facts and serves foie gras because knowing the facts, they can, in good conscience serve it.

I'm going to disagree with this for a couple of reasons.

First, because when it comes to an emotional subject like foie gras, one person's "facts" are another person's ideology.

But more importantly, even a polite version of this statement runs the risk of turning into an argument. It's not worth it to argue with a stranger over the phone. This is doubly true for an employee: it's not your place to argue about this kind of restaurant policy, let alone about issues of culinary ethics. If the caller wants to discuss this, take their number and tell the manager or owner to call them back. (Or, more likely, not call them back.)

But the best response is to just say, "we're sorry that you won't be eating with us" and hang up.

←

"one persons facts are another person's ideology"

Sorry, facts are facts.

People are entitled to whatever ideology they want to hold. These are two different things.

The point is, the PETA folks have no facts to support their argument (I have seen none at least) therefore this "ideology" is false. (that does not mean people can not hold to it--it does mean that enacting laws based upon it is in effect, forcing it upon those that do not hold it.)

If the women had called and simply said I am canceling my reservation because you serve foie gras and I am against this. Or words to that effect then fine, simply thank her for calling and hang up.

However, this woman engaged the restaurant further and I believe it is well within the restaurant's right to simply and politely inform her that they are not just blindly serving products to an unsuspecting (or unenlightened) public. This was her implication.

IMOP we need to stop this ridiculous concept of political correctness and concern about "offending" people and stand up when we are in the right.

I am all for the "customer is always right" as a policy. However this woman made it clear she was not a customer and would not be. The restaurant could have coddled her by taking the position that when it was illegal to serve foie gras, they would of course, obey the law and would be happy to see her again! or worse--they could have accommodated her and told her they would take it off the menu then and there and would look forward to seeing her at the reserved time.

Talk about ideology!

[Andrew Fenton]

"one persons facts are another person's ideology"

Sorry, facts are facts.

I stand by my statement. I've seen enough foie gras debates on this website to know that while each side believes that their case is based on cold, steely logic, in reality that case is often as much about emotions, a priori assumptions, or political biases. If that weren't the case, then there wouldn't be disagreement among the many educated, intelligent folks who make up the eGullet membership. But that's not relevant to this thread, and I'll let it lie.

If the women had called and simply said I am canceling my reservation because you serve foie gras and I am against this. Or words to that effect then fine, simply thank her for calling and hang up.

However, this woman engaged the restaurant further and I believe it is well within the restaurant's right to simply and politely inform her that they are not just blindly serving products to an unsuspecting (or unenlightened) public. This was her implication.

IMOP we need to stop this ridiculous concept of political correctness and concern about "offending" people and stand up when we are in the right.

No. There are plenty of times and places when it's appropriate to stand up for your beliefs, even if you piss people off. At work, in a service industry? That's not one of them. It's about being classy. And picking fights with customers isn't classy.

The appropriate thing to do would be to let the person rant, hang up politely, and go rant on eGullet.

[DTBarton]

I agree with the notion that facts are facts. However, I agree with Andrew about the notions of people with ingrained beliefs. Folks who are activists for their cause actually take on their beliefs, whatever they may be, as a secular religious faith of sorts. Therefore, if you try to disagree, even when facts and logic are on your side, you can't win because not only are you disagreeing, you're questioning their faith. And that makes you, to the activist believer, not only wrong, but a heretic as well.

It's a fight that can't be won, like arguing that the sky is purple.

[Daniel]

Before I eat at a restaurant, I find out who the owner of the restaurant voted for, what religion they are, and how they treat there mothers..

[JohnL]

"one persons facts are another person's ideology"

Sorry, facts are facts.

I stand by my statement. I've seen enough foie gras debates on this website to know that while each side believes that their case is based on cold, steely logic, in reality that case is often as much about emotions, a priori assumptions, or political biases. If that weren't the case, then there wouldn't be disagreement among the many educated, intelligent folks who make up the eGullet membership. But that's not relevant to this thread, and I'll let it lie.

If the women had called and simply said I am canceling my reservation because you serve foie gras and I am against this. Or words to that effect then fine, simply thank her for calling and hang up.

However, this woman engaged the restaurant further and I believe it is well within the restaurant's right to simply and politely inform her that they are not just blindly serving products to an unsuspecting (or unenlightened) public. This was her implication.

IMOP we need to stop this ridiculous concept of political correctness and concern about "offending" people and stand up when we are in the right.

No. There are plenty of times and places when it's appropriate to stand up for your beliefs, even if you piss people off. At work, in a service industry? That's not one of them. It's about being classy. And picking fights with customers isn't classy.

The appropriate thing to do would be to let the person rant, hang up politely, and go rant on eGullet.

←

I don't think my advice even comes remotely close to "picking a fight" it simply and politely informs the customer of the restaurant's policy regarding an obviously sensitive (to some)issue.

No debate. No insulting the customer.

There most certainly is a line in terms of customer service which when crossed demands actions that would otherwise be deemed "not classy."

---Customer pees on a hostess's leg. or uses foul language or....

Of course, the incident in question comes nowhere near these kinds of behavior and my recommended response is far from what would be called for in these instances. In fact, I believe that politely informing a person of policy is respectful and thoughtful.

but we can certainly disagree!

[Daniel]

I dont think telling this chick that the restaurant is not ignorantly serving foie gras but, is aware of the issues.. It is not arguementative to explain ones position as long as its done with civility..

Edited January 11, 2007 by Daniel (log)

[markk]

I don't think that John's proposed answer is argumentative either. Or less than "classy" as long as it's said nicely.

[Meredith380]

To me the woman was looking to provoke an opinion from me, by questioning if I know how ducks are fed in order to produce foie gras. I didn't bite, because I didn't want to debate with a guest, not to mention engage in a debate she was obviously looking for and ready to attack on. Probably was an activist.

[JohnL]

Before I eat at a restaurant, I find out who the owner of the restaurant voted for, what religion they are, and how they treat there mothers..

←

Ya know! I was just thinking about this.

Suppose the customer calls up to cancel a reservations and informs the restaurant--"I just found out your chef is gay (or black or caucasian or...) and....."

Even here--I would be polite and inform the person of the restaurant's policy to hire anyone who is qualified and serve anyone....and we are sorry you feel otherwise.

[Andrew Fenton]

I don't think my advice even comes remotely close to "picking a fight" it simply and politely informs the customer of the restaurant's policy regarding an obviously sensitive (to some)issue.

No debate. No insulting the customer.

Let me cite you:

IMOP we need to stop this ridiculous concept of political correctness and concern about "offending" people and stand up when we are in the right.

If you're serious about this, it's tantamount to picking a fight. But I'll assume that you meant it in a general context, and not in the specific case at hand.

In fact, I believe that politely informing a person of policy is respectful and thoughtful.

Of course, in the overwhelming majority of cases (and in the case that opened the thread), there isn't a policy: the restaurant serves foie gras because it tastes good, and whether or not the owner and chef have looked into the ethics of it, they haven't formulated anything like official restaurant policy, one that has been communicated to the staff. Nor should they, necessarily. But I'll repeat what I said before: in the absence of an official policy, it's not the job of the person taking reservations to formulate one. They should let the customer discuss it with a manager.

(And to be clear: none of this is meant as criticism of Meredith380, who as far as I can tell, acted with aplomb in a difficult situation.)

Edited January 11, 2007 by Andrew Fenton (log)