I've got to say that I completely agree with kafein. The clear implication here is that you were the one in the wrong; after all, you were the one who didn't understand. And the only way you will be recompensed for your error is to return and spend yet additional money. This is, of course, the owner's choice. But it's not likely to make me want to return.

On the other hand, I have to confess that I'm a little uncomfortable seeing an e-mail quoted without knowing if the sender approved or knew of the publication. I have no problem with the gist being disclosed, but quoting an excerpt like that without her knowledge (and I admit I have no way of knowing whether she's aware of the posting or not) strikes me as unfair as well.

She certainly doesn't seem concerned about the false advertising. Even if the servers are well-rehearsed, you shouldn't have to hear from one that the actual deal isn't as the promotion claims. This just isn't right.

Also: "Time sometimes escapes!"? Please. "This didn't matter much to me until now."

Gypsy Boy wrote:I have to confess that I'm a little uncomfortable seeing an e-mail quoted without knowing if the sender approved or knew of the publication.

I don't think Feast's owner has an expectation of privacy with respect to the email.

I don't know why a business owner has any less expectation of privacy than the rest of us. She believes--so far as we know--that she is dealing with a customer one-on-one. Unless there is something to suggest that this is anything less than a purely private transaction, she has the right to privacy, just like the rest of us. That she is a business owner addressing a business issue doesn't mean she gives up her right to privacy.

However, this is getting off topic. That's just my two cents. More to the point, I think, is that anyplace that places the blame--even if only implicitly--on the customer and then offers to "fix" the problem by requiring the customer to return isn't going to see me as a customer.

GypsyBoy - Hypothetically, if she had sent a letter personally addressed to leek stating the same thing, and leek forwarded copies of this letter to friends and posted it on the internet (as people often do on sites pertaining to consumer complaints), then I still don't think there is anything legally wrong with that or that she has some expectation of privacy. It's certainly better, IMHO, than leek paraphrasing the communication and having it transmitted that way. But, from the way I look at it, the email is analogous to the letter.

In fact, I think she should be glad that leek posted the text from the email, as a lot of consumers file or publicly lodge complaints about a business, yet don't bother referring to any follow-up or attempt (if Debbie Sharpe's response can be characterized as such), by the business to rectify the problem. Here, her response was set forth word-for-word as far as I can tell, and that consumers could negatively interpret that response is, in my opinion, her problem.

But, I'm sure intelligent minds could disagree on this point.

I'm not defending her, since I think her tone in her email was fairly accusatory, but what do you all think she should have done instead of issuing a gift certificate for the difference?

It sounds like most of you want cash. I think if Leek had been able to file her complaint in person that might be feasible. The check would have been there, so she could have just knocked the $11 off the bill.

But I'd be very surprised if any restaurant simply refunded the money in a case like this. I certainly think if you had a similar complaint at an LEYE restaurant they'd give you a gift certificate, also.

The best response I could think would be "we're sorry for the confusion, we'll try to make sure our policy is clear in the future. Here's a gift certificate for twice the difference, and we hope you come back to see us again."

This was handled quite poorly I must say. I mean, are you kidding me?

A letter with an "I'm sorry you didn't understand our policy you moron and here's an eleven buck gift certificate so you can come back and spend another hundred dollars with us."

Give me a break. Could the response have been worse? Certainly. And the owner should get some minimal points for responding and at least offering something. But it's not close to enough and I'd throw the gift certificate in the circular file and not visit Feast again. I certainly won't - there are plenty of other places to experience in this great City.

A true apology, a gift certificate for the full bottle of wine $45; and a pleasent welcome back along with maybe a nice unannoucned comped dessert or two at the end of the next meal would have been the right way to handle this and would have lured me back again.

The email received by leek is leek's property. As such, it is leek's to do with what he or she pleases. I personally believe that I am more accurately informed about the entire matter now because the restaurant's response was posted in its entirety. Thank you.

Ms. Sharpe had several days to address the situation and came back with, I believe, the same thing most restaurant owners would have come back with. I doubt that it'd be enough to persuade me to return but I, as others have posted, don't care for the language or tone of the response.

If it were me in leek's shoes, it wouldn't be the $11 that was the issue. It was the principle of the incident; being drawn into a place by a given special, not being informed of the specifics and not having the issue squarely addressed by the owner after the fact.

Ms. Sharpe's reply all but confirms that the "qualifier" about the reserve list is only distributed to customers verbally. In my mind, that's a poor choice which can only lead to eventual misunderstandings. It requires that every server do their job perfectly; not a very realistic expectation because even the very best occasionally err. The details should be in print, period. Anything less than that makes me feel as if accurately conveying the details of the promotion is less important to the house than drawing in customers.

But above all else, the current mode puts the owner's unwritten policy in the hands (or mouths as it were) of its servers. That's truly unfortunate because this is a case where the owner should take full responsibility; both for the policy and the way it is communicated to customers.

=R=

edit: typo(s)

I once had a bad experience at Wildfire-Lincolnshire (LEYE) on a Mother's Day. I didn't want to "create a scene" at the restaurant, so I sent off an E-mail later in the day.

The next morning, the general manager called my wife at her place of business--He cross referenced our name with the phone number that my wife used when making the reservation.

To make a short story longer, he apologized profusely and sent us a gift certificate to more than cover the cost of my entree and he insisted that we call HIM personally the next time we wanted a reservation. We did, and lo and behold--in addition to the gift certificate, he comped our drinks and appetizer.

That is how a class operation operates!

Paul Barman wrote:I've been to Feast for the Monday-Tuesday wine I can't be certain, but I am relatively sure that the reserve page of the wine list is marked to indicate the discount will only be 25% as well.

I'd be very interested to know if this is true. If so, it still sounds like the system is messed up. If you think you are getting the complete information from the server, you're not that likely to scrutinize the menu for qualifications IMO.

If it's not on there, it sounds even more like a bad system. They should be straightening the system out rather than telling customers they are stupid for not getting it. (That's about what she did in that email, IMO.)

I am also disappointed by Debbie's response as I was the one to jump to her defense in the first place. Poor choice of wording, and poor choice to have to the specials details handled verbally.

Hi

I didn't notice the policy on the reserve wine list. That doesn't mean it wasn't there. Next time someone is there, can you take a peek for me?

I wrote back thanking her for her concern and suggested that she put the note that reserve bottles are only 25% off on both her orange sign and on the web site. I also said that her policy wasn't unreasonable, but that it was poorly communicated.

I don't think I wanted cash, or a comp, or whatever. I did want an acknowledgement that the policy was poorly communicated and that they would recitfy that.

Oh well. And I don't think I'll boycott the place. I do enjoy it. I'm just disappointed, that's all.

Lee

I work, literally, across the street. I'll try to remember to swing by today to ask to see the wine list.

What Vermillion did for me (see my earlier post) went above and beyond what could reasonably be expected of any restaurant. But what it told me is that they were very serious about not losing my business and that they really felt bad about what happened. And I had been embarrassed because I was the one in my group who made the reservation and we showed up to find the restaurant closed.

Here, the $11 dispute is such a trivial amount -- such that it is obvious that this is not at all about money for the customer, but about feeling tricked and nickeled and dimed. I don't know what the reserve list says, but if the 50% offer did not apply to the reserve list, why would the website not contain that detail . . . why not have an asterik or mention the 25%.

There are probably a hundred ways that Feast could have handled this situation better -- an apologetic phone call and a promise to fix the mistake and refund the money, an invitation to enjoy a dinner for 2 on the house, etc. Anyone who has been in business knows that word spreads -- good and bad. I'm sure we've all gone to restaurants where we think the food is better than it really is because the people who manage and work at the restaurant have made us feel like family over the years, rather than strangers whose faces appear as only dollar signs. It looks to me that Feast only saw the dollar signs.

gleam wrote:It sounds like most of you want cash. I think if Leek had been able to file her complaint in person that might be feasible. The check would have been there, so she could have just knocked the $11 off the bill.

But I'd be very surprised if any restaurant simply refunded the money in a case like this. I certainly think if you had a similar complaint at an LEYE restaurant they'd give you a gift certificate, also.

The best response I could think would be "we're sorry for the confusion, we'll try to make sure our policy is clear in the future. Here's a gift certificate for twice the difference, and we hope you come back to see us again."

Well, actually, no. In the first place, I don't think that LEYE is the standard (and, yes, I realize that you weren't suggesting that, across the board). However, I don't think a refund is either unreasonable or out of the question. The last time I had a complaint--and it was solely about attentiveness and quality of service--goes back about two years in LA at a very high end restaurant called the Water Grill. I posted on LA Chowhound, trying to be as fair-minded as possible. Lo and behold, the general manager there happened to see my query (I was sounding out the local community on their experience before I acted in haste). Before I knew it, I received a profuse apology via e-mail, a partial refund (he looked up my check and found the charge card and asked permission to issue a credit), and asked to personally contact him before we returned. All before I even had a chance to make my case.

That's one way to handle it. Another perfectly valid approach might be: "How can we address this in a way that will please you? We'd like to have you come back and we're concerned to help however we can." As leek's response makes clear, different people want different things.

Different complaints call for different reactions. Different customers want or expect different treatment. What's wrong with asking how the management can help?

What a horrible response from owner. I feel insulted and it didn't even happen to me.

Basically the owner is saying that leek is at worst a liar, and at best so stupid she can't understand a simple discount policy.

Notice that the owner does not address the issue of the 25% discount not being on the menu, the signage, nor the website. She also assumes that the server didn't omit the part about the reduced discount, just that she "was not clear enough." Yes, and perhaps she lapsed in to Swahili or Urdu during the part about the reserve discount.

Then her arrogance kicks in full speed with the obnoxious statement "However, I am always one to keep the peace and would not like to lose you as a customer..." Translation: You're at fault but that stupid bit about the customer always being right means I have to give in to you anyway.

The pièce de résistance is the lousy $11 gift certificate (not a refund mind you - and come to think of it, didn't leek pay tax and tip on that 25% too?) This means, unless she stops in for just dessert or an appetizer, leek will spend even more money at Feast just to get the $11 that is rightfully hers. Would it have killed the owner to at least double the difference? I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that she's priced her bottles at least 50% over retail and even higher over her wholesale prices. This means even with the gift certificate Debbie still makes what Sam's or Binny's would make on the wine. What a sacrifice.

Given the circumstances, she might have comped leek for the wine if she is in fact really concerned about keeping her as a customer, something I now seriously doubt. The fact she waited five days to send a two minute reply to her message speaks volumes about that.

If it were me, the gift certificate would go right where it belongs - in to the trash bin.

You know - I work in the office of a pretty nice restaurant, and i've worked in the office of MANY restaurants in chicago, as well as other cities. Personally I think the response that leek got from not just the management, but the OWNER falls short.

Never never never when we've received a letter of complaint do we imply that the customer was at fault. we always state something like..."while we strive to provide our guests with highest quality of food and service, it seems that on the occasion of your visit we didn't meet these standards. we have addressed the issue..." etc - and at most places i've worked, we've been sincere in that quote. no place can be perfect every time - and every manager is aware that their servers have off days. we always ask the customer to consider giving our restaurant a second chance and enclose a gift certificate for no less than $25 or more depending on the situation, and ask them to contact one of the managers personally to set up their next reservation. of course we also research the situation to be sure a fast one isn't being pulled on us, but in most instances we are aware on the day of the occurance of the discrepancy.

We also reply in a very timely manner.

Personally I would be insulted by this response and i'd give that measley certificate to someone i didn't necessarily care for.

I like Feast ok enough - the tuna neopolitan is awesome, but i've never had superior service there, when i've dealt with any of the management on occasions not related to a complaint, they've been lukewarm in their personalities at best. It's definately not a place i go to more than once a year (i usually go only when someone else insists), and especially now i'm not inclined to visit there agan.

leesh

leek wrote:Hi

I didn't notice the policy on the reserve wine list. That doesn't mean it wasn't there. Next time someone is there, can you take a peek for me?

I swung by today, and, at least today, the policy was at the bottom of the page with the reserve wine list. The orange sign out front, however, said "all wines" were 50% off.

"I swung by today, and, at least today, the policy was at the bottom of the page with the reserve wine list. The orange sign out front, however, said "all wines" were 50% off."

Definitely a bait and switch, and false advertising at worst.

I know of a guy who took his fiancee to Charlie Trotter's. They couldn't afford to order wine, and when they told their waiter that they wouldn't be ordering wine, the waiter made a face at them and was rude for the rest of the night. It ruined these people's dinner. The guy wrote to Charlie Trotter to complain, and Trotter invited them back for a FREE dinner and made the waiter apologize to them. Now THAT's class!

Of course, I'm too poor to eat at Trotter's ...

LTH,

We seem to be getting pretty fast and loose with the accusations about a situation that has been settled, amicably, between Leek and Feast.

Over the years I've had various issues with restaurants, some serious, some not so serious. As things go Feast did ok, not perfect, but ok. They responded, offered recompense, if not remorse, and the issue seems, at least to me, settled

Enjoy,
Gary

That email response is laughable. Given the trivial amount of money involved, the test all comes down to the response and phrasing -- to which she failed miserably. (At both retaining a customer and projecting any semblance of concern.)

Well it could be worse. I once complained to a golf course about some really shoddy treatment we received. The manager promised a gift certificate to compensate us for our troubles. This would have been very admirable IF HE HAD ACTUALLY EVER SENT THE CERTIFICATES.

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 agree that the unapologetic tone of the response is disappointing. However, I don't think that Friday to Wednesday is too long a time for the response. Under a week seems pretty good to me.

This is the kind of thing I would like to show to people who ask, "What are you going to do with that English degree?" I think a big part of the problem here and in a lot of business situations is insensitivity to language. I know, I just wrote the same kind of thing about A Taste of Heaven in another thread. But I'll bet the writer of that unsatifactory (to me) email really thought that was a pretty good apology and didn't even realize that what she was actually saying was, "Sorry you're too dumb to understand our rules." I see people making that kind of faux apology every day. Some of them are deliberately insulting the other person but a whole lot of them simply haven't got a clue.

I once ordered ribs at a LEYE restaurant that were so tough I found them to be inedible. I had no intention of complaining, but the server noticed that I was not eating and sent over the manager. I was embaressed as I explained my problem. The manager almost forced me to order another entree. He then comped the meal and drinks for me and my companion. Before we left, he stopped by the table again to check on us. He handed me his card and said next time I was in the neighborhood I should stop in and be comped again!

That's going so above and beyond that we never returned!

-ramon

I've had nothing but first class service and attentiveness every single time I've eaten at a LEYE restaurant - they do it right!

G Wiv wrote:LTH,

We seem to be getting pretty fast and loose with the accusations about a situation that has been settled, amicably, between Leek and Feast.

I disagree. Sticking to the facts, the orange sign out front says "All Wines 50% off." Inside, it says something different. As has been said, classic bait and switch, and a quick way to ensure I will never take my business there.

The fact the owner has not addressed this repulsive and dishonest advertising tactic speaks volumes to me about what the management thinks of the customer.

There's no playing "fast and loose," here. It's deceptive advertising, and I have absolutely no tolerence for that.

And this doesn't even take into consideration Debbie's email response.

We are now in the realm of rehashing points which have already been made more than adequately before.

Unless you have something dazzlingly original to say in this thread, let's call it a night. If the hint doesn't get taken this time, the thread will be locked.

bibi rose wrote:This is the kind of thing I would like to show to people who ask, "What are you going to do with that English degree?" I think a big part of the problem here and in a lot of business situations is insensitivity to language.

One comment toward that: Debbie Sharpe is a native of Australia, which like the U.K., uses an almost exactly dissimilar version of English than the U.S. , as well as having somewhat different manners. (Yes, I have been to Australia and I've worked extensively with Australians on some international projects.)

Edited to note that Mike's message must have gone up while I was posting mine, though -- no worries, mate -- it is a point that hasn't come up before.

Mike G wrote:We are now in the realm of rehashing points which have already been made more than adequately before.

You're the boss, but I find it helpful to see if other people agree or disagree with the point, regardless of whether the same explanations or arguments are given or not.