LAZ wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:The email received by leek is leek's property. As such, it is leek's to do with what he or she pleases.

Actually, no. The content is protected by copyright, the same as a letter on paper. If you get a letter, you can show it to whoever you want, but republishing it violates the writer's copyright, whether or not the writer is likely to take action over it. (I am not a lawyer, but I do pay attention to copyright law.)

I think you are incorrect. We deal with this frequently at the eGS and what I wrote above comes directly from our General Counsel.

Either way, we're splitting hairs and drifting further off topic.

=R=

The post containing the original email from Ms. Sharpe has been edited.

However, LEYE still has quite of stable of restaurants that have withstood the test of time. Debra Sharpe has one- Feast. The jury is still out on the lasting effect of Half and Half and The Goddess and the Grocer.

Cru cafe and winebar at 888 n. wabash is also a debbie sharpe restaurant.


to be fair, most of debbie's places have not 'gone out of business'. they have been re-concepted. big difference.

elakin wrote:
to be fair, most of debbie's places have not 'gone out of business'. they have been re-concepted. big difference.

Perhaps a distinction without a difference. I don't think any business owner will take something that's profitable and re-concept it just for fun. Isn't re-concepting a nice way of saying that the original concept wasn't working business-wise? In any case, she's had several different businesses open at once (not re-concepted) during the time I lived in Bucktown - there was ConFusion on Damen, Feast in the current Las Palmas space at North, and Tanzy further east on North. ConFusion sort of peetered out in popularity before it was perhaps "re-concepted" (or did it go out of business? I wonder what its business documents reflect) into Commune. Either way, I walked by ConFusion enough every day on the way home to know that, for a long time, there were a lot of empty tables before it morphed into Commune, a more casual restaurant in the same space. For whatever reason, that also didn't seem to catch on either, so Commune was nixed and the true workhorse of the stable, Feast, was moved into the Commune space. And sometime around this time period, Tanzy closed up, period (Trattoria Dinotto, a restaurant not owned by Debbie Sharpe took up space there after Tanzy was shuttered). Therefore, in a relatively short amount of time, Debbie Sharpe went from 3 restaurants to one. I'm not trying to attack her, or state that she's a bad business woman, but I disagree that you can classify that as solely re-concepting, even if there was a meaningful distinction, IMHO, between "re-concepting" and closing down.

ok. whatever you say.

i think there's more to the story than you're aware of, but you seem to have made up your mind. so be it.

If there's more to the story than aschie30 is aware of, tell us what it is, elakin. If you would.

oh.....well, ok.

it's pretty much common knowledge that debbie sharpe owns a catering company called eat your hearts out. this company caters huge, months (and sometimes years)-long rock tours. for instance, she is currently catering the rolling stones' world tour.

so, based on this info, it's safe to say that debbie is not your average restaurateur. sure, the restaurants are businesses, but i don't believe that they live and die, open and close based on their 'success' in the way that most restaurants do.

in addition, debbie owns a lot of real estate in the bucktown/wicker area, including most of the buildings in which her restaurants are housed. feast and goddess are in her buildings, and she still owns the building where feast used to be on north avenue. there's a mexican place in there now.

now, that being said, she obviously wouldn't reconcept if a restaurant was just kicking ass, but i think it's simply erroneous to make assumptions when you're talking about a situation that's as unique as this one.

there are lots of reasons why someone in her position might choose to scale back the number of restaurants she's operating, or to reconcept certain ventures. lack of business is only one of many possible explanations.

elakin wrote:...There are lots of reasons why someone in her position might choose to scale back the number of restaurants she's operating, or to reconcept certain ventures. lack of business is only one of many possible explanations.

I get your point, elakin. Thanks for the elaboration.

What's especially useful about this info is that it helps explain Debbie Sharpe's response to the complaint. One might infer that a restaurateur who has bigger irons in the fire--real estate, catering, etc.--would be exactly the kind who would be unsatisfactorily responsive to a valid complaint, while a restaurateur whose main business was restaurants would respond more appropriately.

One might infer that a restaurateur who has bigger irons in the fire--real estate, catering, etc.--would be exactly the kind who would be unsatisfactorily responsive to a valid complaint, while a restaurateur whose main business was restaurants would respond more appropriately.

The very thought that "[having] bigger irons in the fire" excuses a business owner from responding appropriately gives me shivers. I don't think anyone can be excused from responding appropriately, no matter how large or small their business is, unless 1) they don't need the business (eg French Laundry -- but even they respond);2) they don't want the business (eg firing unprofitable customers); and/or 3) they don't know the law of ten (you tell ten friends, and so on, and so on). I'm sure there are other reasons to be unresponsive, but none of them are acceptable.

i think the post you quoted was more an attempt to *explain* the unsatisfactory fix of the wine snafu, more than an attempt to *excuse* it.

Exactly right, elakin. I'm not sure what about what I wrote could possibly be interpreted as an excuse. (If that was Queijo's meaning.)

no that was not my meaning.

the key to what I wrote was this:

but none of [the excuses/explanations] are acceptable

not intended to criticize anything either of you have written, simply riffing on the idea that in some cases it may be acceptable to ignore/respond with cloaked contempt to a complaint.

Sure, elakin, I get your point. Thanks for explaining.

if you really feel like they are purposely lying to people.. I would call the City of Chicago Department of Consumer Services. They heavily regulate things like this in Chicago. (If you don't know how to contact them, I think you can call 311 and file a formal complaint over the phone..) .. Maybe you can do it on their web site, too.

Okay, let's slow this train down a second before it runs away completely.

The restaurateur did try to make amends, however imperfectly in some folks' minds. The one person it actually happened to seems to have moved on. Let's stop contemplating legal avenues and examining the owner's business practices and model, and, in the words of a certain web site, keep it focused on the chow. Or at least flashlight-focused on our own actual experiences.

LTH,

In addition to LTHForum Great Neighborhood Restaurant Program and the LTH Logo lines, I think we should institute another contest. Introducing the Wild Supposition of the Week award. This week's it's a tie between this thread and the Taste of Heaven thread. Winning posters are awarded a $15 gift certificate to Romano's Macaroni Grill.

The Wild Supposition of the Week Award would be followed closely by the Sweeping Generalization of the Month contest. Prize yet to be determined.

Thanks for playing,

Enjoy,
Gary

G Wiv wrote: Winning posters are awarded a $15 gift certificate to Romano's Macaroni Grill.

Would the winner be able to use the gift certificate for any wine on the menu, or just the table wine?

Chris N

aschie30 wrote:
I don't think any business owner will take something that's profitable and re-concept it just for fun.

Given that, please explain Coke vs. New Coke. Never did understand that one and, as far as I know, Coke was quite profitable.

Kman wrote:Given that, please explain Coke vs. New Coke. Never did understand that one and, as far as I know, Coke was quite profitable.

That, I think as is pretty well documented, wasn't profit-driven as much as corporate-ego driven. Pepsi was running commercials - "The Pepsi Challenge" - showing Coke drinkers prefering Pepsi in blind tests. So they changed the Coke formula in such a way that it would beat Pepsi in blind tests. They might have gotten away with it had they not shouted from the rooftops that Coke had a new recipe. Of course, they totally ignored Coke's heritage, and the rest is history. But that change wasn't profit-driven specifically; they assumed they'd retain their old users and gain some of the (relatively few) Pepsi users that'd been siphoned off by the Pepsi ad campaign.

I doubt that any of that story applies to Debbie Sharpe.

Kman wrote:Given that, please explain Coke vs. New Coke. Never did understand that one and, as far as I know, Coke was quite profitable.

It is my understanding Coke was loosing market share to Pepsi, which is what triggered Coke II. People were found to prefer the sweeter Pepsi over the less-sweet Coke. Remember around that time, Pepsi conducted those challenges at almost every public event? Try a blind tasting of Pepsi and Coke side-by-side and choose your favorite? It was Pepsi more often than not.

I was in Europe when I learned Coke's original formula was going to be retired. I never focussed on Coke so much in my life than when I thought it might be gone forever. Who knows? Maybe that was the plan from the get go to re-establish Coke at the top of the heap.

Regards,

Hah! I beat Cathy2's similar response by about 60 seconds ...

G Wiv wrote:LTH,

In addition to LTHForum Great Neighborhood Restaurant Program and the LTH Logo lines, I think we should institute another contest. Introducing the Wild Supposition of the Week award.

I've been afraid to repost in this thread because I'll be smacked down and made to feel like an idiot for expressing a simple opinion. But I ask one question and one question only, and I mean this with all due respect and no intent of being provacative. This is an honest question, and I really do want to hear the opinion of others, because I myself run my own business, and I don't think I'd be able to get away with certain things:

Just answer me this: Why is it permissible for someone to advertise something in the manner of the OP? I don't want to be a pedantic literalist, but I don't see any other reading for the sign. I'm not saying the tactic is evil, but it is pretty sneaky and if I pulled that kind of stunt I'd expect people to be rightfully pissed at me.

I want to know what the other perspective on this is. That's all. But, hey, if you feel like I'm beating a dead horse, go ahead and pull the plug.

When I was in China the street hawkers had no scruples whatsoever about promising something, then changing their story once you got into their shop. I didn't go for it, and I was angered, so I asked our tour operator why they did this clearly deceptive practice. His answer "It works."

My guess is that, if it works, it's only for one-time transactions; in a relationship-type business no one would ever get away with it.

Binko, I don't think anyone's saying that it's fair, decent, or anything else, if it's accurately reported-- but remember, Leek wasn't 100% sure of that.

Since the matter has been settled between the parties actually involved, we don't see much point in people who weren't involved going over and over the same points and speculating more and more about a restaurateur whom they don't know-- based on a second-hand interpretation of events. That wouldn't be fair to anybody, no matter what their sins. There's been enough discussion here for anybody to draw reasonable conclusions of their own; now let's move on. I hope that isn't smacking down, but it is nipping in the bud, if you can call page 3 of comments the bud.

I have refrained from chiming in with my two cents since this thread has gone on way too long. However, I had a similar experience recently which I addressed to the management via their website and it has been 10 days without a reply, other than the automated response from the web server.

Last weekend, I ran the NYC marathon and we had an early dinner on Saturday night. By nine o'clock, we were craving a sweet and since the SO had never been to Serendipity 3, I suggested we go and split a sundae, or more accurately, their famous frozen hot chocolate. We had alot of nervous energy and knew that we would not be getting to sleep anytime soon so we headed out.

When we got there, we were told that it would be an hour and a half wait. The SO suprised me with his willingness to wait that long for ice cream (which is not a character trait typical of the male gender), it was a balmy night in NYC, so we strolled around the hood and promplty returned after an hour to check with the host, as instructed. Fifteen minutes later we were seated, at about 10:30. Mind you, this is 10:30 and no food was being served anymore, just ice cream. The wait had dwindled down and there were only a few people waiting for tables. We ordered our frozen hot chocolate, to split, and were informed of the $8.00 minimum per person. I explained to the server, politely, that we were not informed of this policy when we got there at 9:15 and had we been informed then, we probably would not have waited. We explained that we were both running the marathon in the morning and just wanted a small sweet before going to bed. Niceties did not help here, as the management was rude and adamant about their policy, claiming that it was in the menu. Well there was a tiny little disclaimer in the middle of a gigantic menu, difficult to see, as we had to have the server point it out to us. No menu posted at the door, no sign outside informing the masses of this policy. No willingness to bend the rules. It wasn't about the money at all. It was really about their failure to inform potential customers of such a policy from the start, considering the exhorbitant wait times. I can understand why you have this policy during regular dinner hours when food is being served, but late night, when it was clear that we would not be clogging up a valuable table for several hours?

We simply got up and left, freeing up the table for some more stupid sheep. They don't need to bend the rules, because its obvious to them that the masses will continue to come. The ironic thing is that on their website they have a section of celebrity sightings that made the local news. One wonders how differently we would have been treated had we been someone like Melanie Griffith or John Travolta. I am also thinking of moving to New York and opening a cool ice cream joint since it is obvious that there is a dire shortage of these types of establishments.

We went to a little corner mart and picked up a pint of Haagen Daaz and promptly went to bed, but with a sour taste left behind by a venerable New York institution. I recounted the incident in an area provided on their website, and to date, have not received a reply from their "concerned management."

Just FYI - today in the mail I received a Gift Certificate for $20 good at Cru or Feast, and a letter from Ms. Sharpe with a much more solicitous tone

(quoting only sections of the note)

First and most importantly, I want to apologize for the miscommunication of our wine BYO night policy...

I can now assure that our conversation via email was taken to heart and my service staff is now aware of what is necessary to insure proper service.

she goes on to thank me for bring the experience to her attention, to ask me to accept her apologies, and the she'd like to welcome me back to enjoy a wonderful experience soon.

So we'll go back in a while (and see if they change the sign out front...

Mike G wrote:Binko, I don't think anyone's saying that it's fair, decent, or anything else, if it's accurately reported-- but remember, Leek wasn't 100% sure of that.

Since the matter has been settled between the parties actually involved, we don't see much point in people who weren't involved going over and over the same points and speculating more and more about a restaurateur whom they don't know-- based on a second-hand interpretation of events. That wouldn't be fair to anybody, no matter what their sins. There's been enough discussion here for anybody to draw reasonable conclusions of their own; now let's move on. I hope that isn't smacking down, but it is nipping in the bud, if you can call page 3 of comments the bud.

Fair enough.

leek wrote:Just FYI - today in the mail I received a Gift Certificate for $20 good at Cru or Feast, and a letter from Ms. Sharpe with a much more solicitous tone

I think that's really cool. Very glad to hear that.