Dealing with problems at restaurants

[Steve Plotnicki]

Andy - Normally I would agree with you. And I am very skeptical of naming names on eGullet. Notice, I didn't post my story about La Palapa until now, refraining for exactly the same reason as you voiced. But what makes drrevenue's story different is the source of the complaint is inedible food. That the reason the food was poor happens to be one that has taken the story out on the tangent of owner responsibility to customers doesn't change the fact that the breakdown here was in the kitchen.

I think the issue of whether a chef/owner of a restaurant should forewarn steady customers (or maybe even all customers) that on a certain night, the quality of the meal that has made them regulars is a valid topic. I've certainly have eaten my fair share of meals in good places that were poor. And in many instances they were probably the result of the chef gone fishing. If the kitchen is not going to be at a form that is going to make customer's happy, should you disclose it to them in advance? When I go to the theater and the star of the show isn't present and the understudy is performing, they tell me before I go into the theater and I can get my money back.

But my gut about what happened here is different than Robert B.'s. The source of Hans's non-responsiveness has to be his misjudgement. It was his choice not to call and forewarn him. I don't think he was trying to trick anyone. I just think he made a judgement call that it would be alright and it turned out badly. Now he's being defensive about his decision which he might not have done if the communique had been less heated and accusatory. That's not passing judgement ondrrevenue who has every reason to be heated about it. But the more I hear of the story the more I think it's about people talking past each other and digging their heels in based on emotions than logicaly thinking though what occurred. That's why I think that Han's would apologize given the chance too. But that's not going to happen while people have their backs up.

[Tonyfinch]

But what makes drrevenue's story different is the source of the complaint is inedible food.

I disagree. The complaint is not about the food at all. Nor was the food "terrible" ( out of three dishes one was "good" and the other "fair")

The complaint(s) is 1) The chef/"friend" didn't ring to warn he wouldn't be there.

2) He didn't contact of his own volition afterwards

3) When he did contact he expressed HIS disappointment with his friend.

This seems to have whipped Drrevenue into a frenzy of outrage despite the fact that,on complaint,the restaurant waived the whole bill. This is an act of apology.It is not incumbent upon a restaurant to phone up every customer and personally apologise if they have already expressed contrition by waiving the bill. Drrevenue's moan is that he hasn't been treated with due deference,. Well is he a customer or a friend? Some people can maybe be both. It seems that he can't.

[glenn]

I think the issue of whether a chef/owner of a restaurant should forewarn steady customers (or maybe even all customers) that on a certain night, the quality of the meal that has made them regulars is a valid topic.

lol.... I can see instructing our reservationists to say, "you're taking your life in your own hands if you come on Thursdays as it's the chef's night off and we have our cleaner working the line".

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony - Your 10,000% wrong. Drrevenue and his wife left because the food wasn't up to the standards they expected from the place. If the food was *DELICIOUS* they wouldn't have walked out and they wouldn't have complained. The only reason it got to the stage of why they didn't forewarn them was because *THEY LEFT BECAUSE THE FOOD WAS NO GOOD.*

Look I just said this in the other thread. If I book at a famous chef's restaurant and he isn't going to be there, and the lack of his presence is going to materially affect the quality of my meal, I would gladly book elsewhere. I don't see what is wrong with that position. And I don't see what is wrong with asking a restaurant to disclose that to you in advance so you get to make an informed decision.

[cabrales]

Below are subjective thoughts:

(1) It appears that the maitre d' and dining room team member in question were responsible professionals. As such, they would have updated the chef/owner on your dissatisfaction. However, the absence of contact from the chef prior to your messaging him may not be dispositive of his not feeling sorry or wanting to "make things right". Perhaps he intended to prepare a special meal or comp you the next time you visited the restaurant, thinking that you would revisit. Thus, if I were in drrevenue's shoes, I would consider the absence of proactive contact from the chef to be a negative factor, but not a heavily-weighted one.

(2) Sometimes the written language is an imperfect mode of communications. Some chefs are less articulate than others. Perhaps the chef meant "I am disappointed at the restaurant for your response". Or perhaps, as clear from the actual words used by the chef, he intended to convey disappointment in you as clients. One route not yet explored would be to call the maitre d' and seek additional information. Perhaps, if drrevenue wanted to convey his unhappiness to the chef, he could do so through the maitre d'. Even if drrevenue did not want to visit the restaurant again in the foreseeable future, he could gather information that would assist him in reaching closure on this episode. Even when a diner can contact a chef directly with comfort, the maitre d' can provide perspective and assist a diner considerably. Why not tap the history of interactions with the maitre d'?

(3) Whether boycotting a restaurant is the best route is for drrevenue to subjectively decide. While I appreciate his considerable experience dining at the best establishments in France, the US and elsewhere, there must have been some commendable qualities about this restaurant (including geographic proximity, even the friendship aspects) that prompted him to have been a loyal customer in the past. drrevenue liked the food, leaving aside this particular night. He might choose not to visit again in the foseeable future, but might want to consider whether there are costs to him and his wife (even if limited, given the wide range of alternatives available) as well as loss of his pastronage to the restaurant.

(4) That the chef decided not to ask drrevenue not to dine on the night in question is not necessarily a very negative factor. The chef might have, incorrectly in hindsight, believed that his kitchen (even depleted as it was) was capable of handling drrevenue's meal concurrently with the larger group's needs. For example, the kitchen might have had many components of the larger group's meals in a form that made them easy to finish off.

(5) While I appreciate the circumstances show a lack of consideration on the part of the chef for drrevenue, it is also the case that drrevenuehad one very bad dish. Even under the best of conditions, a kitchen can provide a bad dish once in a while. I recognize the declining quality of the three dishes and the trend aspects. However, just as some dishes can subjectively please more than others, so too dishes can be affected by unanticipated factors and be ruined despite the best of intentions.

I do not mean to convey lack of empathy/sympathy with drrevenue's described experience, because that is far from accurate. Customers like him are surely nuggets to be valued. However, perhaps a call could be placed to the maitre d' to gather additional information?

[Tonyfinch]

Steve. They might have left the restaurant initially because of the food but that is not what Drrevenue is complaining about now. It is what he sees as subsequent innapprpriate treatment by the chef/friend that has got him all steamed up.

Also the food in a restaurant is not either "delicious" or "inedible".There are degrees in between . Drrevenue admits to being served one bad dish.Unfortunate maybe,but hardly a reason to blow a gasket,especially since the whole bill was waived.

[stefanyb]

At the beginning of this thread I felt that drrevenue was 100% correct in his assessment of the situation. If you all recall, he did not immediately name the restaurant either.

As posts accumulated on this thread it became more and more apparent that he is the kind of person who feels entitled, based on his financial standing and feelings of self-importance, to experience the world in a special, protected way. Well drrevenue wake up and smell the rancid coffee.

Are you his friend? Are you his "gold nugget"? Are you his business associate? Make up your mind. Bad things happen to rich, food-savvy people, my friend. No one died becuase of this bad meal or bad treatment. Get over yourself.

[Rachel Perlow]

Point of confusion: Was the 200 people event on or off premises?

I agree with the theory that drrevenue seems to think that he is entitled to both special treatment as a friend and regular treatment as a customer.

Further, anyone who makes personal attacks on one of the site's founders, who obviously has not done any research on that person, when they themselves are a brand new member of the site (wasn't the first post in this thread drrevenue's very first post ever?), does not deserve my respect nor the attention of so many prominent members of this forum.

On another note:

When I go to the theater and the star of the show isn't present and the understudy is performing, they tell me before I go into the theater and I can get my money back.

You can? Please elaborate. I thought Broadway tickets were non-refundable.

[Jaymes]

I think this thread should be renamed:

"When Egos Collide!"

[lizziee]

To expand this from a specific example to a broader base issue, how should a chef/owner respond to complaints from a regular customer? Should those complaints be handled in a different way from the every-once-in-a-while client? Might it be possible that a regular customer feels an obligation to not only praise a chef/owner for excellent food, but also let him know when things do not live up to his reputation? How should a chef/owner handle criticism? Does it make a difference who is doing the criticism? Would it be better,in the long run, to say nothing to the chef/owner and then, by word-of-mouth tell all your friends about your lousy experience?

[Basildog]

To be fair Jaymes..we have only heard from one ego

[Jaymes]

To be fair Jaymes..we have only heard from one ego

Ah yes.... we are only getting ONE ego's side of the story....

But sounds to me like the main problem here was not the clashing of tastes at the restaurant; but rather, the clashing of egos afterwards ....his vs. the chef/owner's.

[Robert Schonfeld]

I think the FG is right in taking the unpopular position that right and wrong exist independently of the customer.

But perhaps more importantly in the real world, restaurants depend on repeat business for success, so it is less a question of right and wrong than it is of keeping the regular customer happy.

Unless I missed it, no one mentioned the brilliant axiom of Danny Meyer: "Write a great last chapter".

In my opinion, the smart thing for the owner to have done would have been to ask his regular customer, in his own way, "What do I have to do to make this right?" or "Let me make this up to you" or some such.

If the aggrieved customer (speaking in general terms now, not specifically about this incident) insists, pursuant to such a reasonable approach, to prosecute a vindictive agenda, then what he needs is an analyst, not satisfaction from the owner.

[mikeczyz]

i don't like the fact that when someone tells drrevenue he might be wrong and might consider giving the restaurant a second chance, he starts to vent. did he post expecting us to all be on his side so as to make himself feel better?

mike

[tommy]

clearly this is a personal issue. and it comes as no surprise.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Rachel - I'm, 99.999% sure. If they advertised that X was performing and he can't make it, they will let you trade the tickets in for another date. A friend of mine did it recently when she got to the theater but I can't vouch for it being the case at every theater.

I wish we all weren't so obsessed with drrevenue's being pissed off about not being told by the reataurant that the chef(s) weren't going to be on hand. He obviously feels that he has a personal enough relationship with Hans to be afforded that type of treatment. And I don't really see any basis for his being criticized for expecting special treatment. It sounds like he is entitled to it. But why is nobody responding to the grievence on the merits? Is it okay to show up at a dinner at an expensive restaurant and to have it be an inferior experience, only to find out afterwards that the chef(s) weren't on hand? Couldn't they have told you that ahead of time? Especially if they know you and they know you are going to be unhappy with an inferior meal. Isn't that the type of good service a restaurant should afford its regular clientele?

[Stone]

I wouldn't be surprised if our good Dr. Revenue is a hoax.

I do a small bit of playing on other forum sites -- usually movies. And there are always a bunch of jerks who rant and rave and FLARE instead of engaging in interesting debate. They generally ruin the purpose of the site. I think Dr. Revenue is egullet's version. Even when the debates over Sea Bass and subjectivity got testy, it was always friendly.

Dr. Revenue -- customers are not gold nuggets. The saying that the customer is always right does not mean that every restaurant owner in the world must kiss your, mine, or anyone else's ass. Every person with a job has someone to whom they're accountable. I have clients and bosses. Food writers have editors and their public. Even Bill Gates has clients that he needs. But do we have to bend over every time one of them acts childish?

You claim this man was your personal friend. But when he didn't respond to your first email in the way you wanted, you sent this friend a scathing and insulting email. I have spent 7 years as an associate at large law firms. I've seen and received similar screeds from partners. They are not acceptable in the workplace, and they are much less acceptable between purported friends.

And then, when this friend didn't kowtow to your arrogant claim that, although your relationship was one of friendship, you are your friend's golden nugget, always right and your friend must kiss your ass at all time, you started this thread. I commend you for not naming names at the outset, but what type of friend would place this fight in the general public?

When I was about 21 years old I learned the obvious lesson that the cute bartender wasn't flirting with me because she wanted to sleep with me. To paraphrase Bubba -- "It's the tips, stupid." Maybe the owner had a different understanding of what your "friendship" was. Or maybe he thought you two actually had a friendship and he was dissapointed to realize that what he thought was a friendship was actually your power trip to get your butt-kissed by a restaurantuer. Did anyone think that maybe the owner doesn't want this guy back?

I try not to read too much into your choice of screen name.

[Steve Plotnicki]

David - He's not a hoax. A number of us know him personally. Well sort of.

[Rachel Perlow]

He's a brand new poster. How do you all know you know him personally? I assume this means that one or another of the people saying they know him were the ones that told him about egullet. Thanks alot.

[Jaymes]

But why is nobody responding to the grievence on the merits? Is it okay to show up at a dinner at an expensive restaurant and to have it be an inferior experience, only to find out afterwards that the chef(s) weren't on hand? Couldn't they have told you that ahead of time? Especially if they know you and they know you are going to be unhappy with an inferior meal. Isn't that the type of good service a restaurant should afford its regular clientele?

In my opinion, no.

There should be a certain level of service at a restaurant, "celebrity" chef in place or not.

Say the chef was unavoidably delayed that evening... car accident, illness, family emergency. If their policy was to always notify everyone who might be eating there just simply because that one particular chef was in attendance, not only would it create a logistical nightmare, but would set a precedence that might even result in legal action when the "status quo" was not adhered to.

The restaurant did the right thing. "You are not happy; there will be no charge."

That should have been end of story.

 To expand this from a specific example to a broader base issue, how should a chef/owner respond to complaints from a regular customer? Should those complaints be handled in a different way from the every-once-in-a-while client? Might it be possible that a regular customer feels an obligation to not only praise a chef/owner for excellent food, but also let him know when things do not live up to his reputation? How should a chef/owner handle criticism? Does it make a difference who is doing the criticism? Would it be better,in the long run, to say nothing to the chef/owner and then, by word-of-mouth tell all your friends about your lousy experience?  

To answer your question, I do believe that particularly when one is a friend of the owner of a business where you have received unsatisfactory service, you DO owe it to your friend to tell them about it. I owned a business and often said that I wished people who were unhappy would tell me and give me an opportunity to fix it, rather than complain to the whole town before giving me a chance to make things right.

I don't believe the problem here is that Dr.R told Hans about the poor quality of the evening; I think the problem here is the manner in which he went about it.

Rather than firing off a withering email leaving nothing for Han's pride, he should have brought it to his "friend" in a more pleasant and constructive manner.

And as for the other issue: Anyone who wants to eat in a restaurant only when one particular chef is present should ask upon arrival, "Is Hans in the kitchen tonight."

If told "No," that guest can leave.

[Suzanne F]

Jaymes posted on Aug 25 2002, 11:46 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Basildog @ Aug 25 2002, 10:42 AM)

To be fair Jaymes..we have only heard from one ego  

Ah yes.... we are only getting ONE ego's side of the story....

And that's why I originally asked if we might see the FULL correspondence. Instead we got "I said, he said" followed by a lot of abuse of the well-meaning folk here. Just about the only thing lacking was that NOT EVERYTHING WAS TYPED ALL IN CAPS, since it "sounded" like screaming to me. Not to worry, Kerouac1964. I was responding metaphorically

I'm with you, Dstone001. Isn't it a bit fishy that he started this one-sided flame war just before supposedly leaving for "25 days in Europe?" Even if he's not a hoax, DRREVENUE is certainly rude and unmannerly. Good for you, Steve P., to qualify your acquaintance. In his absence, perhaps you can fill us in on why he seems to have such an axe to grind against Rockenwagner?

And Jaymes, you too are a gentleperson and a scholar.

[tommy]

David - He's not a hoax. A number of us know him personally. Well sort of.

just because you know him don't make him not a flamer.

[Stone]

David - He's not a hoax. A number of us know him personally. Well sort of.

just because you know him don't make him not a flamer.

In fact . . . .

[Steve Plotnicki]

Suzanne - I didn't qualify my acquaintance. I just tried to describe it correctly.

I'm very surprised that regardless if anyone thinks that drrevenue acted inappropriately, why they wouldn't feel "gypped" if the chef(s) were off on a night when they ate there? There is so much talk about anonymity in reviewing restaurants, and making sure you get the "typical meal," how is this any different? I understand as Jaymes eloquently put it that that isn't the standard when it comes to restaurants. And she stated a number of good reasons why. And I agree that the simplest thing to do was to have asked if Hans was in the kitchen that night. But to be fair, the reason that drrevenue didn't ask was because this had never been an issue before.

As for the ax he has to grind, I already told you that it is personal. I will never understand it given the information I have. And when things are personal they aren't rational to outsiders so I am trying to ignore that part of the story. Except that I consider drrevenue to be a friend. And I don't know Hans Rockenwagner from Hans Christian Andersen. So on a personal level he has my support.

[tommy]

the good doctor's true identity is revealed somewhere on these boards. oooo how exciting.