Blogger gets comped at Le Cirque

[oakapple]

A few months ago, blogger Amateur Gourmet posted an entry called "Only A Jerk Would Eat At Le Cirque." It told of a dismal meal he and his family had at the venerable restaurant.

A few weeks after he posted the review, his family received a handwritten note from Sirio Maccioni with an autographed copy of his book, inviting them to return and "experience Le Cirque as it should be." They did indeed return, received the royal treatment, and were comped the meal — all because he blogged about his experience.

In a new post called "The Power of Food Blogging," the same blogger writes about his second visit. (The food, he notes, was "less than dazzling," even though they were treated well.)

He also quotes Frank Bruni on the importance of blogging:

I think restaurant reviews on food blogs have an impact, because a curious, hesitant consumer who’s Internet-savvy—and these days, who isn't?—can plug in a restaurant's name and toggle between a dozen reviews on a dozen different sites without necessarily knowing much about the sites or seeking them out per se. The aggregate impression of a restaurant that this person gets, built from these reviews, has to have an impact. How could it not?

(This also confirms my view that Bruni's own reviews are less important than the Times reviews used to be, in part because there are so many other information sources available.)

Regina Schrambling suggests that every restauranteur should either be reading all the bloggers, or paying someone to do it for them. Dan Barber of Blue Hill says he does this, viewing blog posts as "a more sophisticated version of a comment card."

For what it's worth, I've twice been contacted by a restaurant after I'd blogged about them. In both cases it was just to say thanks, since the reviews were favorable. I haven't yet been offered a complimentary meal, though. One of them offered to buy me a drink the next time I come in, but I didn't actually bother to take advantage of it.

Edited January 19, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Noodlebot]

I once called a restaurant for a problem (it was a birthday dinner and they'd written the wrong name in chocolate on the dessert plate). Meanwhile, I also wrote a review on chowhound. When the manager returned my call, he mentioned seeing the chowhound review (under an assumed name--he pieced it together himself). In the end, he offered me an unsolicited $100 gift certificate to the restaurant and discussed my problems with some of the dishes I'd eaten on my first visit.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Noodlebot (log)

[Kent Wang]

Some of the contact from restaurant staff can be just a friendly gesture but anything gift more than a $100 value is tantamount to bribery, and I'm not sure bloggers are as ethically stalwart as professional writers. Professional writers have not only their reputations but their paychecks at stake. Most bloggers don't get paid anything and may be tempted to view the bribe as righteous payment for their years of hard work.

[oakapple]

Some of the contact from restaurant staff can be just a friendly gesture but anything gift more than a $100 value is tantamount to bribery, and I'm not sure bloggers are as ethically stalwart as professional writers. Professional writers have not only their reputations but their paychecks at stake. Most bloggers don't get paid anything and may be tempted to view the bribe as righteous payment for their years of hard work.

←

And the "bribe" in this case didn't really work. When you read the latest post, and its thorough explanation of the circumstances behind the meal, are you much more favorably disposed towards Le Cirque than you were before? The inescapable fact is that he had to have a terrible experience, and blog about it, before the Maccionis paid any attention to him. And in the return visit, he still wasn't impressed by the food.

[Nathan]

I remember this. The thing is, it was his own fault (well his parents) that he received poor treatment on his first visit.

His mother acted like a rube, they were seated in outer Siberia, didn't ask to be moved, and then they received good service!

As for the larger point...ask Little Owl if the Times review still makes a difference...sure, the easy access to other sources of information mitigates the Times' effect somewhat...

[oakapple]

As for the larger point...ask Little Owl if the Times review still makes a difference...sure, the easy access to other sources of information mitigates the Times' effect somewhat...

←

I am not suggesting the Times review lacks relevance. Clearly it is relevant, especially for a restaurant like The Little Owl that most readers probably hadn't heard of until Frank Bruni spotlighted it.

I am merely suggesting (and clearly, Bruni himself is too) that the printed review no longer has the all-encompassing importance that it once did.

[Nathan]

we agree

[Sneakeater]

I don't want to stir up disagreement (especially because I agree that NTY reviews still have importance, albeit not the primary importance they once did), but I just want to note as a fact for the record that it was impossible to get into Little Owl even before Bruni reviewed it. The word was out. I think Little Owl could be a poster boy for the power of the net as an information-spreading medium.

[Nathan]

it got worse.

[JohnL]

I am not a fan of blogs (of any subject).

The Amateur Gourmet is an almost too perfect example of why.

I read the Le Cirque review as well as several others.

The stuff is IMOP noxious.

The writer comes off, to me, as obnoxious.

This is obviously a kid with some writing talent--he can turn a phrase.

But as with most blogs the opinions are self indulgent unprofessional (that's the point of a blog after all) cry for attention.

Now I will make an important differentiation here--there are blogs by established professionals and there are amateur blogs. Most professional restaurant critics have a blog these days. These on line diaries by people who are perfectly nice folks are an awful result of the combined beliefs that 1--everyone's thoughts and feelings are equally important and 2--everyone (read anyone) can be famous.

As for Le Cirque, any review (by anyone) that hinges almost entirely on the angle: "how poorly we everyday folk are treated here--my dinner was ruined--we dined in Siberia--should be immediately thrown out. Enough already! Everyone should know what Le Cirque is all about--it IS a scene for the rich and famous--that's the point. If you are nobody you are unlikely to get tables reserved in the "main tent" for the rich and famous and powerful. You can probably increase your chances if you adapt the look and the attitude and muster up a tiny amount of self esteem. By the way--as difficult as this is for me--I actually can see why the rich and famous would want to be in the main tent--AWAY FROM PEOPLE LIKE AMATEUR GOURMET AND HIS PARENTS busily photographing their food!

I can imagine Amateur gourmet turning his camera on anyone rich and famous seated nearby to use in his on line diary. "OOOH LOOK HERE'S HENRY KISSINGER AND HERE'S WHAT HE WAS EATING!"

(I personally would like to see more restaurants adapt a policy or no cell phone and no photography. ( I am not rich and famous and I realize this may be unpopular here at eGullet but people photographing their food near me in any restaurant give me the willies!).

Now I would be interested in reading what the Amateur Gourmet has to say in several years--after he finishes school and gets some experience as a writer (restaurant critic as anything). Reading his and most of these types of blogs is akin to having to listen to someone practice the violin at age five (certain prodigies excepted). I prefer to wait until they appear at a venue where some sort of weeding out process has taken place and one gladly pays money to see/hear them.

These blogs are as if suddenly carnegie Hall opened their stage up to anyone with an instrument--how many music lovers would even get dressed and go even if the performances were free?

Edited January 19, 2007 by JohnL (log)

[Fat Guy]

Many restaurants offer comps all the time. Long before I ever wrote about food online or anywhere else, I had many meals comped after having a bad meal experience and following up by writing a calm, collected letter of complaint. I also received gift certificates as "compensation." I'm not sure if a blogger is any more likely to be comped in this manner than the average customer writing a letter -- indeed, the probability may be lower since the letter will almost definitely get read whereas the blog may or may not be seen by anybody in a position to do anything.

There are probably some cynical restaurants that care only about PR and not actual customer satisfaction. I suppose they might go after bloggers while ignoring regular customers.

Then there are the proactive comps, as in the same comps that regular food journalists get when a restaurant opens or is trying to promote itself. Restaurants and their publicists were comping online writers in this manner before the word blog even existed. I think they're doing less of it now, because back when there were just a few serious amateur online food writers there was no reason not to include them in the regular media comps. These days, with the proliferation of blogs, restaurants have to make more careful judgments when selecting their invitation lists. (They are often not well equipped to do this, though.)

[Sneakeater]

(I personally would like to see more restaurants adapt a policy or no cell phone and no photography. ( I am not rich and famous and I realize this may be unpopular here at eGullet but people photographing their food near me in any restaurant give me the willies!).

←

We can be unpopular together because I completely agree with you.

[Nathan]

I think there should be rules against flash photography anyway. (not that I'm walking in with my DSLR anyway..but I don't have a problem with people who do so long as they're not using flash)

[JohnL]

Many restaurants offer comps all the time. Long before I ever wrote about food online or anywhere else, I had many meals comped after having a bad meal experience and following up by writing a calm, collected letter of complaint. I also received gift certificates as "compensation." I'm not sure if a blogger is any more likely to be comped in this manner than the average customer writing a letter -- indeed, the probability may be lower since the letter will almost definitely get read whereas the blog may or may not be seen by anybody in a position to do anything.

There are probably some cynical restaurants that care only about PR and not actual customer satisfaction. I suppose they might go after bloggers while ignoring regular customers.

Then there are the proactive comps, as in the same comps that regular food journalists get when a restaurant opens or is trying to promote itself. Restaurants and their publicists were comping online writers in this manner before the word blog even existed. I think they're doing less of it now, because back when there were just a few serious amateur online food writers there was no reason not to include them in the regular media comps. These days, with the proliferation of blogs, restaurants have to make more careful judgments when selecting their invitation lists. (They are often not well equipped to do this, though.)

←

Good points!

I am curious and would love to know what you think:

The proliferation of blogs begs a question. Integrity.

This is a complex enough issue with mainstream professional criticism and writing

(witness the discussions here at eGullet) it has to be even more of a concern with

blogs.

For example--the possibilities for fraudulent practices.

can bloggers be influenced by comps and worse?

We saw it with movie reviews--could a restaurant or a PR operation create a "blog"?

Blogs are perfect targets/tools for so called "Buzz " marketing efforts.

I would say that there are a number of wineries that operate blogs and there are a number of blogs by professionals who work at wineries. Most of these seem to be above board and in the open. I wonder what the situation is re: food and restaurant focused blogs.

As always caveat emptor seems good advice!

[Fat Guy]

I've long been surprised by how little corruption there seems to be in the culinary blogoshpere. It may be that the costs and benefits just don't line up well enough to encourage any serious corruption. A free meal isn't worth so much that it's going to trigger a blogger, who has invested months or years of effort into a blog, to abandon his senses and integrity. Few if any blogs are important enough to attract actual cash-in-envelope bribes. Restaurants aren't big enough to conduct the kinds of marketing campaigns that record labels do, and gourmets aren't as susceptible to those campaigns as, say, the teens who buy Hillary Duff albums. In addition, most bloggers are relatively up front about their practices -- why shouldn't they be? They're not trying to emulate what the newspaper and magazine reviewers do, with multiple anonymous (supposedly) visits and huge budgets. They're writing about meals they had, regardless of who paid, who got recognized, etc.

[oakapple]

I am curious and would love to know what you think:

The proliferation of blogs begs a question. Integrity.

This is a complex enough issue with mainstream professional criticism and writing

(witness the discussions here at eGullet) it has to be even more of a concern with

blogs.

←

On the New York forum, I don't think anyone has questioned the professional critics' integrity. Their knowledge, writing style, or dining preferences, but not their integrity.

The diffuse nature of the blogosphere probably makes it difficult to bribe a blogger, even if both restaurant and blogger are willing. A widely read blog is still just one of many. At most, a "bought" post would move the needle only very slightly, and there are probably more effective ways for a restaurant to use their marketing budget.

Edited January 19, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

I generally agree.

With that said, there are well-known food bloggers that are easily impressed by comps and being invited to openings...

[Fat Guy]

Yes but the logical point of comparison for that sort of blogger is not a newspaper of magazine restaurant critic, it's a newspaper or magazine social/gossip/trends page writer. Those people too are easily impressed by openings and such -- it's almost part of the job.

[Sneakeater]

I don't know that I see that, FG. The people I think Nathan is talking about purport to do reviews, not just "reporting".

BTW, you can see some of the same syndrome on the boards. People get too cozy with management and lose their objectivity, virtually becoming shills for places that have sucked up to them. You even sometimes see turnarounds in the midst of discussions, where it's clear that management has "gotten" to someone.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

I did have two bloggers specifically in mind, both of whom purport to write reviews. With that said, both do write a lot about buzz as well. Neither of them knows much about food....(although one more than the other -- who's readership definitely depends upon other factors).

so I think you're both right

[oakapple]

I did have two bloggers specifically in mind, both of whom purport to write reviews.  With that said, both do write a lot about buzz as well.  Neither of them knows much about food....(although one more than the other -- who's readership definitely depends upon other factors).

←

I think I can guess one of the two bloggers you are referring to. In my view, it's reasonably apparent that she is cozy with restauranteurs, and you can take that into account when you read her stuff. A web surfer who just stumbles upon her site via a google search might not realize this, but the surfer is likely to look at other links too, so one blogger isn't going to have a huge effect on public perception—whatever her loyalties may be.

So, I don't really see this as a Great Evil to be combatted. It's just a fact that some people are independent critics, and some people have varying degrees of coziness with the industry they're writing about.

[Fat Guy]

Since I have no idea who anybody is talking about (and don't understand all the beating around the bush) it's hard to comment, but I don't think it's hard for people to figure this stuff out. I mean, if you look at Oakapple's blog it's obvious that he's trying to do serious restaurant reviews/reports without getting much into the buzz scene. Meanwhile, if you look at, say, Andrea Strong's blog, it has a totally different emphasis. She's writing one thing, he's writing another thing. Big deal. People can tell. It's no greater a difference in style than the difference between the New York Times and Time Out.

[Sneakeater]

I agree it's not any kind of big deal.

[Pan]

After I posted a favorable report on a restaurant, a member of its staff contacted me to offer me some kind of freebie the next time I came. But I don't intend to take him up on the offer, nice though it is, because my praise was sincere, and I think my reports have more credibility if I come as an ordinary customer. (OK, that remark could reopen a very large can of worms - better get the fishhooks. )

[Sneakeater]

I've also been contacted after unfavorable write-ups, to have an opportunity to be shown what they can "really" do. I turn down all that stuff, for the same reason you (Pan) do.