Monday Morning Agitator

The Case Against Anonymity When Reviewing Restaurants

An issue came up last week in a review of the OA Fine Dining survey. A writer named Julia Thiel reviewed the guide for the Chicago Reader. In her review, Thiel, criticized my practice of not dining anonymously saying;

"According to the New York Sun, Plotnicki makes no attempt to dine anonymously--his goal, he says, is to "elicit the best possible meal that a restaurant has to offer and in that context anonymity actually hurts instead of helps." Of course it does. That's the point--if you're reviewing a restaurant, you should try to have the experience most diners are likely to have. Even if the quality of food and service are likely to vary from customer to customer, seeking preferential treatment is pretty sure to skew a review. Or a restaurant guide."

Later that day, a second review from a Chicago writer appeared, this time by Michael Nagrant who was writing for Hungrymag.com. Nagrant amplified that same theme, going as far as calling me a shill, and he even went as far as saying that you couldn't trust the way I tabulate the results of my survey because of my relationships with various chefs. Fortunately Josh Ozersky took them both to task in a short piece he wrote in response to Thiel's and Nagrant's posts on New York Magazine's Grub Street. Go Josh! Not only does New York City have better restaurants than Chicago (as determined by the OAD survey,) it appears it has better journalists!

But seriously, I'm sure both Thiel and Nagrant are nice enough people and meant no harm to anyone. And Nagrant was nice enough to post my response to him as a comment on his blog. But they both failed to grasp what is a significant distinction between the situation they are describing, where a journalist receives an atypical meal that is not generally available to the public, and what I do which is to search for the atypical meal that is generally available to the public, providing one knows how to ask for it. 

Back in the old days, when people knew a lot less about food and when a big night out meant eating a rack of veal with a fancy sauce at Chez Ordinaire which was run by some guy named Claude or Marcello, there was a concern that if a restaurant owner knew that a reviewer was in the house, he would run out replace his $4 a pound veal with $5 a pound veal in order to get a better write up. I always found that claim amusing as where on earth would you find $5 a pound veal at 9:30 at night? But in these times, when the competition between restaurants is so fierce, and where the purveyor of the ingredients is often printed right on the menu, and when critics are able to taste the difference between beef that is sourced from Niman Ranch as opposed to Brandt Ranch (at least they are supposed to be able to tell the difference,) why are we still concerned about a chef playing a shell game with their ingredients? I once discussed the topic with Tom Colicchio who told me, "What can I do if I know a reviewer is in the house, serve him a center cut veal chop rather than one of the ends?"

The truth is, the chefs and restaurant owners all know what the reviewers look like anyway. But even if they didn't, do we really think that chefs are dishonest? I know a lot of chefs and I can't think of a single one who would pull that type of stunt even if they could. I mean if there are culprits here, it certainly isn't food writers who are merely trying to convey information to diners. But I guess maybe Thiel and Nagrant really believe that chef's will cheat given the chance. Or maybe they already know some dishonest chefs. If that is the case, it's time to name names. Or maybe Thiel and Nagrant, and other food journalists, are blindly following a rule that is antiquated and doesn't make sense in a contemporary context. Isn't it time that the food press re-examined this silly practice?

Comments

[Wait]

While I agree with you regarding the food being likely equal, the service level that a recognized critic receives may be different from the common customers.

[fulminating]

i think it's more likely that the head chef or maitre'd would scream 'VIP' and make sure that the dish is perfectly cooked and seasoned. let's be honest, a restaurant kitchen is a hectic place that puts enormous pressure on its staff--when you know you're cooking for a VIP you're going to make absolutely sure that the dish is as perfect as you can make it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

That's correct. But one has to take a look at what causes that to be the case which is something I hope to get into in a future post.

[KT]

Another point to consider is that restaurant reviewers are kidding themselves if they think they are totally anonymous. There was an article in Gourmet magazine recently where a chef spilled the goods on what goes on in a restaurant kitchen when they think a reviewer is in house (and the lengths they go to look out for reviewers - faxing around descriptions and alias lists and even knowing the type of credit card they use).

I think it's almost worse if they think they are going incognito and they aren't, because then they may fail to take that into account when evaluating service, etc.

I say that food critics should focus on their knowledge and expertise of food and their writing skills. The internet provides plenty of opportunities for the anonymous "common man" diner to register their opinions of the food and service they received, which I think is a far scarier prospect for a restaurateur than the idea of a food critic sneaking in on the sly.

[Andy Lynes]

Here's a great example from the UK of how well the identity of reviewers (and in this case guide inspectors) are guarded from the restaurant industry http://www.thestaffcanteen.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=306

[Michael]

I think the larger point is feeling empowered as a diner to walk into a restaurant and through a dialogue with waitstaff, bar staff, sommelier, even chef, to elicit the best the restaurant has to offer. And that approach -- which I believe diners should take more -- is antithetical to the anonymous approach. I like Steve's posts because he teaches by example how to eat out better. You don't get that from the anonymous reviewer.

[wjb]

The article in Gourmet referred to by KT was by Dan Barber, who went on at length about the cartwheels they turned in the very early days of Blue Hill to make sure "F Holozubiac," who they were sure was Bruni, got the "perfect" meal, from seating to service to ingredients to execution. Of course, it turned out that Holozubiac was not Bruni, but it was revealing about the many, many ways that meals can differ depending on the perceived identity of the diner. It is not just $4 a pound veal vs. $5 a pound veal. But even on that one point, we know that some cuts are choicer and larger than others. What it comes down to is whether you are trying to get a "representative" meal that is the same as what the reader will get, or whether you are trying to give the the chef the opportunity to show you what his or her best work is, and evaluate that. They are two valid but different approaches.

[MC Slim JB]

With industry experience of my own to cite (waiter, bartender, host), I am certain that restaurants do go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that a known reviewer gets as perfect as possible a meal. (That doesn't go for food bloggers or self-professed posters to Chowhound). That doesn't mean the chef runs out to get better veal, but it does mean the critic gets the choicest cuts, the biggest berries (see Riechl in "Garlic adn Sapphires"), the most perfect plating, the best service. As a reviewer, you may think the resulting experience is wonderful and write it up as such; then one of your readers comes in off the street and gets the non-critic experience, and thinks you're an idiot for raving about the place.

That's the rationale I use in trying to maintain my anonymity in my occasional work as a freelance reviewer (I have a day job unrelated to the industry). I have no illusions about whether my anonymity will eventually be compromised, but in the meantime, I do believe there's value in not plastering my photo everywhere like that idiot Restaurant Girl in the NY Post (who is appalling for other reasons than her flagrant self-promotion). I still think it's worth attempting to avoid special "reviewer" treament.