Blogger gets comped at Le Cirque

[markabauman]

Compare to Ruth Reichl's relating of her two Le Cirque experiences, one in disguise, the other as identified as herself.

[oakapple]

I must admit I'm not quite as honorable as Pan or Sneakeater. If someone wants to offer me a comp, I'll take it. That is no guarantee of a positive review, however.

[Pan]

I must admit I'm not quite as honorable as Pan or Sneakeater. If someone wants to offer me a comp, I'll take it. That is no guarantee of a positive review, however.

←

Don't get me wrong, Marc; I will accept a comp gratefully (and reflect it in the tip) if it's given to me when I'm at the restaurant, but I won't announce myself in order to get a comp, simply because someone at the restaurant saw a positive report from me online. If I did, I'm not sure I'd be dishonorable. It smacks too much of a payoff to me, but I know that their gratitude and desire to acknowledge it through a comp the next time I come are sincere, so I really don't have a problem with it. It's all a question of one's comfort zone, I guess.

[Sneakeater]

Once again Pan speaks for me as well.

[philadining]

I've rarely run into the situation: despite often whipping out a bulky digital SLR to shoot photos, somehow nobody ever seems to notice me or make a connection to any posts I might make on public forums (which is fine with me.) I've never been contacted about posts I've made, good or bad, and I don't think I'd accept an offer of a comp either as a thank-you or as an attempt to prove that they can do better. But that's just me.

That said, there is a place in Philly called snackbar where I've found that I can't be incognito. It's a small restaurant, and I'd met the chef through a mutual friend previous to the restaurant's opening. Between that meeting, and later dining at the restaurant with that friend, it was obvious to them that it was me making the posts on eG. As a result, I've received a few comps there, but not free stuff just as a favor or thank-you, instead the kitchen tends to send out new dishes they're experimenting with, with what seems to be a sincere interest in getting feedback on them. I've never just had something I ordered taken off the bill, and I've always paid for my meals there, I've merely received a few extra dishes I did not order. I get the sense that they sometimes do that for other diners who are not writing about them.

Doest this treatment make me view this place more favorably? Probably, but I've still been critical, and those times, I hope it's been taken in the spirit it was intended: as a constructive suggestion for possible improvements. They haven't "punished" me for publicly declaring that my pork belly was too fatty, or whatever, nor do they lavish free stuff on me all the time. I try to be upfront in the write-ups when the kitchen sent stuff out to us, and I also sincerely try to remain objective about all of it. I don't think I'd be doing them any favors by declaring that everything is fantastic if it isn't, and I don't get the sense that's what they expect. My posts in public forums are for the public, and I try to keep that in mind.

I might be getting slightly better treatment than others around me, given that the kitchen knows that photos and descriptions of my plates are likely to end up on the internet. But at the same time, it's a small enough place that I can plainly see that others are getting plates that look exactly the same as mine, and are being served with similar attention, etc. So I can pretty confidently say that my experience is pretty close to anyone's.

I think there are good reasons for journalists to try to remain unidentified, and to refuse to accept comps, but in this tangled world we live in today, where chefs and restaurant owners are interacting with reviewers in new and unexpected ways, especially here on eGullet, some of the old paradigms fall apart. In the absence of anonymity, full-disclosure is the next best thing. I'd be troubled to discover that a blogger or forum-poster was a personal friend of the chef or owner, or was receiving comps on some or all of his meal because of his status as someone reviewing the place, if it was not disclosed. But being known to the restaurant or receiving a comp doesn't invalidate everything one might have to say, it just places it in a different context, and the reader can take those circumstances into account.

"Serious" journalists can have just as many biases, preconceptions and agendas as an indie blogger does, I say we all just try to be upfront about what they are.

[Holly Moore]

Comps either bias a writer or give the perception of bias.

[oakapple]

Comps either bias a writer or give the perception of bias.

←

Any reputable mainstream media outlet does not permit its critics to accept comps.

As a lowly blogger, it happens to me only rarely. When it does, I mention it in the review, and readers can decide for themselves what effect it may have had on my judgment.

Edited January 22, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Sneakeater]

I agree that (to the extent this is a matter of any moment at all) if you disclose it you can't really be criticized.

[Holly Moore]

It depends on the intent of the blog. Some blogs are written as a lark - fun for the writer and not looking to be taken all that seriously. Others are written to be newsworthy, to impact the reader's perception.

In the case of the former, there is no problem with comps. However, when a blog writer aspires to reviewer status, comps are as much of an issue for the blog as for a more established form of media.

Stating one has been comped does not make the comp acceptable. It is akin to a politician saying that superbox tickets for a Raven's game doesn't influence his opinion. A comp may not blatantly influence a senator's or a writer's experience, but it can make a writer, perhaps even subconsciously, prone to give the restaurant the benefit of the doubt and uneasy to write anything harshly negative.

All reviews should be taken with a few grains of salt. Comped reviews merit a couple of tablespoonfuls.

[Sneakeater]

It's just self-serving for the blogger to say that the comps don't affect his judgment. All he can and should say is that he got one. It's up to the reader to draw his own conclusions.

I agree with you that if a blogger wants to be taken truly seriously as a critic, he ought to adopt a no-comp policy. But if he doesn't do so, I don't think there's much harm done (except possibly to his own credibility), as long as he discloses each comp.

I think you have to bear two things in mind. First, unlike professional critics, bloggers don't get paid for reviewing restaurants. Second, unlike professional critics, bloggers pay for their restaurant meals out of their own pockets.

Edited January 22, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

Stating one has been comped does not make the comp acceptable.  It is akin to a politician saying that superbox tickets for a Raven's game doesn't influence his opinion.

←

The usual complaint about the politician is that 99.9% of the people aren't in a position to know that he received the superbox tickets. His biases, in other words, are concealed.

The blogger who writes about his meal at Le Cirque, and tells you it's comped, is laying it all out on the table. As noted earlier in this thread, the blogger who was comped at Le Cirque wrote a rather negative review anyway.

[Sneakeater]

Indeed, I'd also say that, when you think about it, paying for a meal out of your own pocket renders your judgment almost as suspect as when you accept a comp. I know that I, myself, really strain to like meals I pay a lot for. Why not? When I pay hundreds of dollars for a meal, I'd much rather be happy with it than unhappy. I think you can only expect a truly disinterested evaluation from someone who has no financial stake.

(To be painfully clear and avoid any possible misunderstanding, I'm not arguing that getting comped remediates this. When you get comped, you STILL have a personal financial stake -- and you're grateful to the restaurant. I'm talking about having someone ELSE pay for your meal -- to my mind, the only way to isure disintersted criticism.)

Edited January 22, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[gingersweetiepie]

Second, unlike professional critics, bloggers pay for their restaurant meals out of their own pockets.

←

As they should! The point of a review is to inform the reader whether or not they should shell out their hard earned money on a dining experience at X restaurant, no? It's hard to make that judgements when you didn't have to part with your dough.

Accepting comps is, for the most part, is extremely tacky. I find it hilarious when people disclose their egullet handles to chefs while dining out, then come home to praise the extra dishes and attentive service they received. The food and service might merit praise - true- but let's be real... there's no other motive behind revealing your identity except to receive special treatment.

As for reflecting comps in a tip, I do the same as well but with full knowledge that it really doesn't even make sense. Allowing your server and busboy to reap the rewards of a line cook's work, all as a result of sacrifice to food cost, is absurd.

[Fat Guy]

Comps either bias a writer or give the perception of bias.

←

Any reputable mainstream media outlet does not permit its critics to accept comps.

←

We've covered this ground so many times, it's surprising to me that you'd persist in making such an absolute statement. The New York Times, for example, allows most of its critics to accept comps: the theater critic, opera critic, etc., all get their admissions comped, as do the sports writers. Pretty much the only critics at the New York Times who aren't routinely comped are the food critics and travel writers(though other writers for the dining section and the paper in general are routinely comped meals, as is evident from attending various press previews where you can usually spot one or two Times writers along with many other "reputable" journalists mixed in among the disreputable riffraff). In addition, it's primarily the small subset of newspaper restaurant reviewers who operate under a no-comps policy. In the larger world of "reputable" food journalism, writers take comps all the time. You can be sure that most every restaurant-related article in the mainstream, reputable glossy food magazines, for example, is the result of numerous comps. The point being, no-comps policies are the exception not the norm. Moreover, it's rarely disclosed in mainstream media. Bloggers who accept comps and disclose those comps are actually adhering to a higher standard than most of the reputable mainstream outlets.

[Sneakeater]

Allowing your server and busboy to reap the rewards of a line cook's work, all as a result of sacrifice to food cost, is absurd.

←

That isn't the point, though. The point is that it's just as much work for the busboy to bring you a dish you weren't charged for as one you were charged for.

[oakapple]

Comps either bias a writer or give the perception of bias.

←

Any reputable mainstream media outlet does not permit its critics to accept comps.

←

We've covered this ground so many times, it's surprising to me that you'd persist in making such an absolute statement. The New York Times, for example, allows most of its critics to accept comps: the theater critic, opera critic, etc., all get their admissions comped, as do the sports writers.

I took it as a given that we're referring to restaurant critics here. I stand corrected on the other points, though.

[Sneakeater]

Second, unlike professional critics, bloggers pay for their restaurant meals out of their own pockets.

←

As they should! The point of a review is to inform the reader whether or not they should shell out their hard earned money on a dining experience at X restaurant, no? It's hard to make that judgements when you didn't have to part with your dough.

←

I think you and I have radically different ideas of what constitutes criticism.

It's interesting. In the Bruni thread, there was some discussion recently of the role cost should play in evaluating a restaurant. Some people, like you, say it's a primary factor (and it certainly seems to be so for Frank Bruni, even though he doesn't personally pay for his meals). But I hold with those who say it's at most secondary.

When I say "evaluating", I'm talking about a real critical evaluation -- not a consumer recommendation.

[gingersweetiepie]

Allowing your server and busboy to reap the rewards of a line cook's work, all as a result of sacrifice to food cost, is absurd.

←

That isn't the point, though. The point is that it's just as much work for the busboy to bring you a dish you weren't charged for as one you were charged for.

←

I'm sure people in the service industry will kick up a fuss to hear this, but it took more out of the food cost, or the time it took for the cook to prepare the dish, or the time it took for the dishwasher to clean that dish, than for the 10 seconds it took to bring and clear the dish the table. Plus, my judgement is based on a consensus of servers who informed me that the the additional tip should be just about the price of that comped dish, in which case... what's the point?

[Holly Moore]

Comps either bias a writer or give the perception of bias.

←

Any reputable mainstream media outlet does not permit its critics to accept comps.

←

We've covered this ground so many times, it's surprising to me that you'd persist in making such an absolute statement. The New York Times, for example, allows most of its critics to accept comps: the theater critic, opera critic, etc., all get their admissions comped, as do the sports writers. Pretty much the only critics at the New York Times who aren't routinely comped are the food critics and travel writers(though other writers for the dining section and the paper in general are routinely comped meals, as is evident from attending various press previews where you can usually spot one or two Times writers along with many other "reputable" journalists mixed in among the disreputable riffraff). In addition, it's primarily the small subset of newspaper restaurant reviewers who operate under a no-comps policy. In the larger world of "reputable" food journalism, writers take comps all the time. You can be sure that most every restaurant-related article in the mainstream, reputable glossy food magazines, for example, is the result of numerous comps. The point being, no-comps policies are the exception not the norm. Moreover, it's rarely disclosed in mainstream media. Bloggers who accept comps and disclose those comps are actually adhering to a higher standard than most of the reputable mainstream outlets.

←

Not sure who is surprising you with thier persistance - but in the quotation cited I am speaking to perception, not practice.

To the point of perception, one wonders why glossy food publications do not aknowledge that "most of their restaurant related articles are the results of numerous comps." If a writer was foolish enough to add, "Thanks to all the restuarants mentioned in my article for the free meals and for chipping in on my hotel and air costs," what are the odds such a sentence would be edited out?

Edited January 22, 2007 by Holly Moore (log)

[Sneakeater]

Shit . . . I just tip the amount of additional tip I'd give if I were charged for the comped dish.

[Nathan]

"Shit . . . I just tip the amount of additional tip I'd give if I were charged for the comped dish."

yeah, they do claim that...I guess you still save the percentage of tip and tax that you would have paid if you had paid full price.

of course, it really doesn't make sense if you weren't ordering the dish anyway.

they claim the same thing with buy-backs in bars too.

my own policy at a restaurant where I'm comped food is to up the tip from 20% to 25-35% (depending upon the generosity of the comp) and for a comped drink to tip an extra $3-10$ (depending upon what the drink was).

I know this probably doesn't meet the the desired industry standard but I don't think it's actually out of line. (considering taxes, I don't think us regular folk are necessarily as well-heeled as in-the-biz types sometimes think)

Edited January 23, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[oakapple]

Plus, my judgement is based on a consensus of servers who informed me that the the additional tip should be just about the price of that comped dish, in which case... what's the point?

←

I'd like to see any serious basis for this, other than servers would like it to be so.

Virtually any guide I've ever seen suggests that you should tip on the generous side (25-30%) of what the tip would have been had you paid for the dish. That puts the server in a better position than she would have otherwise been.

[oakapple]

Accepting comps is, for the most part, is extremely tacky.

I haven't yet had the pleasure of knowing in advance that I would be comped. A few times, food has arrived unbidden, "compliments of the kitchen." I had done nothing to suggest I was a blogger, or that a review was forthcoming. Are you suggesting I should send the food back in such circumstances?

[gingersweetiepie]

Accepting comps is, for the most part, is extremely tacky.

I haven't yet had the pleasure of knowing in advance that I would be comped. A few times, food has arrived unbidden, "compliments of the kitchen." I had done nothing to suggest I was a blogger, or that a review was forthcoming. Are you suggesting I should send the food back in such circumstances?

←

Absolutely not.

There's a difference between sitting down to a meal, being recognized as a regular, friend or maybe a chef, and then being sent a few extra dishes. There are times when kitchens send out extra dishes to anonymous people for a number of reasons: they know that the timing on the courses are slow, a random act of kindness, etc... In this case the comp is a wonderful gesture to give and receive.

Introducing yourself as a blogger or message board regular and announcing your handle is a different story. If the motive is to befriend a chef you've heard great things about, why not introduce yourself after the bill is settled? Otherwise it's just a wink and a nudge. Even worse, breaking out a camera *with a flash* (gauche) and notepad (even more gauche) and then accepting free food is, like I said, tacky.

And to reiterate, if then going home to spread a high-praising word-of-mouth review about the fabulous service isn't biased, I don't know what is.

Of course, this isn't a personal attack. And just to make things clear, not all comps are bad. In reference to the original topic, I just think what the Amateur Gourmet did - rip on a place, receive an apology, and accept a free meal ungraciously - was tacky. (Word of the day!)

First of all, if Le Cirque was that awful to begin with, why go back? Next, if upon accepting a free meal, you didn't like the food, why not just leave it at that? Why rip it a new one all over again, especially after reveling in the star treatment? I'm all for honesty and I hate pussyfooting when it comes to writing but this was just a tad obnoxious. I'm not a Bruni acolyte, but to ask yourself WWBD?, I don't think he'd be bothered to issue two zero star reviews for the same restaurant in the same year.

Edited January 23, 2007 by gingersweetiepie (log)

[JohnL]

Accepting comps is, for the most part, is extremely tacky.

I haven't yet had the pleasure of knowing in advance that I would be comped. A few times, food has arrived unbidden, "compliments of the kitchen." I had done nothing to suggest I was a blogger, or that a review was forthcoming. Are you suggesting I should send the food back in such circumstances?

←

Absolutely not.

There's a difference between sitting down to a meal, being recognized as a regular, friend or maybe a chef, and then being sent a few extra dishes. There are times when kitchens send out extra dishes to anonymous people for a number of reasons: they know that the timing on the courses are slow, a random act of kindness, etc... In this case the comp is a wonderful gesture to give and receive.

Introducing yourself as a blogger or message board regular and announcing your handle is a different story. If the motive is to befriend a chef you've heard great things about, why not introduce yourself after the bill is settled? Otherwise it's just a wink and a nudge. Even worse, breaking out a camera *with a flash* (gauche) and notepad (even more gauche) and then accepting free food is, like I said, tacky.

And to reiterate, if then going home to spread a high-praising word-of-mouth review about the fabulous service isn't biased, I don't know what is.

Of course, this isn't a personal attack. And just to make things clear, not all comps are bad. In reference to the original topic, I just think what the Amateur Gourmet did - rip on a place, receive an apology, and accept a free meal ungraciously - was tacky. (Word of the day!)

First of all, if Le Cirque was that awful to begin with, why go back? Next, if upon accepting a free meal, you didn't like the food, why not just leave it at that? Why rip it a new one all over again, especially after reveling in the star treatment? I'm all for honesty and I hate pussyfooting when it comes to writing but this was just a tad obnoxious. I'm not a Bruni acolyte, but to ask yourself WWBD?, I don't think he'd be bothered to issue two zero star reviews for the same restaurant in the same year.

←

I thought a blog is an on line diary. Highly personal impressions and thoughts etc.

Here we have a discussion about a blog as though the writer was a professional restaurant critic.

Clearly this is an "amateur" who is playing restaurant critic and food writer.

Ethics? Credibility?

No one asks these things of a diary or a diarist.

As a personal diary, Amateur Gourmet's blog is one thing but why are we discussing it as though the blogger were writing serious restaurant criticism?

Why would anyone take it as such?