Bspar wrote:Gonzo said what I was trying to say, but typing faster then my brain could think.

I meant to say I felt like the Duck was a dish that was included in the Paris menu this is getting absurd.

Anyone notice that Tickets for the Office can be Purchased now?

I noticed last week and had to laugh. I was interested in Thursday night cocktails at the Office. But, for two people I have to pre-pay $385.00 for four cocktails each and some paired food...no thanks.

$385 - that's insane.

No thanks.

Siun wrote:$385 - that's insane.

No thanks.

Do factor in that choice of flat or sparkling water is included in the $385.

I thought sparkling was an upcharge?

shaking head ...

First press review I've seen: http://www.timeout.com/chicago/restaura ... ch-cuisine

Hopped Up wrote:First press review I've seen: http://www.timeout.com/chicago/restaura ... ch-cuisine

"Review" = ate the menu once. And reviewed it even though they totally know she is and that she's a huge fan.

And for some reason she gives it a positive review even after admitting the set courses are meh.

Not sure if it was intended or not, but you have to hand it to the cats at Next; if every menu is cause for a review, they'll always be in the dining out pages, and that enthusiasm will apparently sustain itself. When's the last time Mike Sula reviewed Next, I wonder.

Vettel's "review"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertain ... tml#page=1

"We should just start calling the Trib Next reviews, Phil Takes a Four Star Holiday."- Nagrant on Twitter
https://twitter.com/MichaelNagrant/stat ... 8314726401

But yeah.

mgmcewen wrote:Vettel's "review"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertain ... tml#page=1

"We should just start calling the Trib Next reviews, Phil Takes a Four Star Holiday."- Nagrant on Twitter
https://twitter.com/MichaelNagrant/stat ... 8314726401

That's funny, but I reckon Vettel's gushing isn't intrinsically worse or less informative than the specious allusions and conceits Nagrant frequently employs.

The guinea hen is macabre.

I'd already forgotten what Next is doing for menus #2 and #3 this year, so I went back to the original announcement. Couldn't help but noticing that the announced price for supplements was $15 to $75. We already know that the duck supplement is $126 (albeit for two, but still...). So what's the actual price range for supplemental dishes?

chgoeditor wrote:I'd already forgotten what Next is doing for menus #2 and #3 this year, so I went back to the original announcement. Couldn't help but noticing that the announced price for supplements was $15 to $75. We already know that the duck supplement is $126 (albeit for two, but still...). So what's the actual price range for supplemental dishes?

Post #45 has a link to a copy of the supplements (with pricing). Will be interesting if Next runs with the ideas of supplements and incorporates this into the Tapas themed menu next.

Gonzo70 wrote:

chgoeditor wrote:I'd already forgotten what Next is doing for menus #2 and #3 this year, so I went back to the original announcement. Couldn't help but noticing that the announced price for supplements was $15 to $75. We already know that the duck supplement is $126 (albeit for two, but still...). So what's the actual price range for supplemental dishes?

Post #45 has a link to a copy of the supplements (with pricing). Will be interesting if Next runs with the ideas of supplements and incorporates this into the Tapas themed menu next.

I hope the Kitchen Table is getting at least some of these supplements for the price being paid (people have asked on FB if that's the case, but no answers that I've seen). One result of the price increases over time is that those tables for 6 are going empty fairly often (where they previously seemed to be in highest demand). But at $410 with drinks (incl tax/service) for this menu, it's seems less likely to find a group that large to take the plunge.

Hopped Up wrote:

Gonzo70 wrote:

chgoeditor wrote:I'd already forgotten what Next is doing for menus #2 and #3 this year, so I went back to the original announcement. Couldn't help but noticing that the announced price for supplements was $15 to $75. We already know that the duck supplement is $126 (albeit for two, but still...). So what's the actual price range for supplemental dishes?

Post #45 has a link to a copy of the supplements (with pricing). Will be interesting if Next runs with the ideas of supplements and incorporates this into the Tapas themed menu next.

I hope the Kitchen Table is getting at least some of these supplements for the price being paid (people have asked on FB if that's the case, but no answers that I've seen). One result of the price increases over time is that those tables for 6 are going empty fairly often (where they previously seemed to be in highest demand). But at $410 with drinks (incl tax/service) for this menu, it's seems less likely to find a group that large to take the plunge.

I have only partaken in the Kitchen Table (KT) once. It was for the Sicily menu and was a lot of fun. At that time there were definitely extra courses; a pasta course not served in the main dining room, a cheese board, possibly a third dish. Between the wonderful view, enhanced service and extras it was definitely worth the premium price. Since that time though some menus have not received any extras - just the view and possibly enhanced service. Worth a bit extra, but not the full amount of the up-charge. Seems to be no consistency now; whether or not extra courses are served complimentary at the KT may very well depend on who is dining there.

I'll put aside my Vettel issues (complete lack of anonymity and transparency in my opinion, along with a lack of credibility when you repeatedly return to the same restaurant, usually without any criticism, while forsaking others that dramatically change menus frequently).

But frankly, I think the criticism of the add-ons is a bit much. If the criticism is that the main menu is either not worth the value or not good or adequate enough, I get it. If the complaint is that the set menu is not a sufficient amount of food and no one in their right mind would order only that menu, I would understand that criticism too.

But who cares about the extras? You're not being forced to add the extras if you deem the regular menu sufficient. I think it's smart of them to attempt to appeal to people of different means. There are plenty of people who probably wanted to try Next who never did because of sticker shock. Now they can go. Others are willing to pay a lot more (says past dining history at Next) and could add the supplements and not worry about the price. How is that different than the umpteen restaurants that offer caviar or white truffle supplements? How about exorbitantly expensive shellfish platters at otherwise affordable restaurants?

Many restaurants offer menus with varying different prices. Many tasting menu restaurants offer dramatically different levels of pricing. I realize many people have strong negative feelings towards Next, but I think those opinions may also be clouding judgment on the supplement issue. I see absolutely no issue with the offering of costly supplements (other than the potential concerns I already noted above).

I disagree. The problem IMHO is that the standard "included" menu seems somewhat boring to me compared to many of the supplement dishes (at least on paper - I have not personally dined at Next for the Bistro menu and there is about a 50/50 chance whether or not I eventually will). There is not a single "included" dish that I am excited about whereas a few supplements seem very intriguing - yet would well more than double the price. I do not think the base menu price for this is cheap - it is one thing if tickets were $50, but at current prices I do not think I should have to settle for missing out on the exciting dishes unless I pay Alinea like prices. I am fine with an occasional supplement here and there (i.e. white truffles during the truffle season), but IMHO Next Bistro is just a scheme to make the meal seem like it is discounted versus previous menus, but in actuality is among the more expensive.

Gonzo70 wrote:I disagree. The problem IMHO is that the standard "included" menu seems somewhat boring to me compared to many of the supplement dishes (at least on paper - I have not personally dined at Next for the Bistro menu and there is about a 50/50 chance whether or not I eventually will). There is not a single "included" dish that I am excited about whereas a few supplements seem very intriguing - yet would well more than double the price. I do not think the base menu price for this is cheap - it is one thing if tickets were $50, but at current prices I do not think I should have to settle for missing out on the exciting dishes unless I pay Alinea like prices. I am fine with an occasional supplement here and there (i.e. white truffles during the truffle season), but IMHO Next Bistro is just a scheme to make the meal seem like it is discounted versus previous menus, but in actuality is among the more expensive.

But you're not disagreeing with me:

BR wrote:If the criticism is that the main menu is either not worth the value or not good or adequate enough, I get it. If the complaint is that the set menu is not a sufficient amount of food and no one in their right mind would order only that menu, I would understand that criticism too.

You're saying that you don't believe the main menu is adequate, and that criticism I understand.

Don't forget that they are also promoting this menu as the return of the duck press without mentioning the high upcharge to actually get the duck dish.

This still shocks me.

BR wrote:I think the criticism of the add-ons is a bit much. If the criticism is that the main menu is either not worth the value or not good or adequate enough, I get it. If the complaint is that the set menu is not a sufficient amount of food and no one in their right mind would order only that menu, I would understand that criticism too.

But who cares about the extras? You're not being forced to add the extras if you deem the regular menu sufficient. I think it's smart of them to attempt to appeal to people of different means. There are plenty of people who probably wanted to try Next who never did because of sticker shock. Now they can go. Others are willing to pay a lot more.

I absolutely agree with this and I'm also fascinated by how much of this thread is devoted to people complaining about how Next operates. Given how often the ticket concept at Next is compared to tickets to a show or on a plane, I think the optional add-ons make total sense. When airlines or concert/theater promoters advertise, they typically focus on the starting price for tickets. Everyone can get to their destination/see the show for a certain amount of money. However, if people want to be pampered on a plane/board first/have better seats/attend a backstage VIP meet and greet, they have the option of paying extra for those opportunities. At Next, people who want to experience the restaurant can now do so at a lower price and presumably they still get a full meal out of the deal, the equivalent of seeing the show or getting to one's destination. But for those who want to make the choice to pay more for additional benefits, that option exists. The fact that some people get a fancier/better/more elaborate meal by paying more money shouldn't diminish anyone else's experience any more than the presence of people in first class affects the flying experience of people in coach.

And quite frankly, given how easily seats have been available to Next in recent months, lowering the price of admission makes sense to me. As BR noted above, the lower price expands the pool of potential diners at Next.

All that said, where the optional add-ons make less sense to me is that they seem to undercut some of the purported mission of Next - the notion that knowing costs ahead of time ultimately saves diners money. The add-ons add an element of food spoilage risk that doesn't exist when everything is known well before the night's service begins. Presumably this risk has been passed onto the consumer via basic ticket pricing. Whether that's worth the added flexibility and lower get-in-the-door pricing is something the market will ultimately determine.

Why are some people falling for the myth that this menu is less expensive? While it is a bit cheaper than last years' menus, it is MORE expensive than Next's early menus and you receive LESS. This menu has the fewest number of courses and not only was Paris cheaper, it had more courses and more luxurious food included in the ticket price (i.e the pressed duck that now runs well over $200 extra when factoring in tax, tip and that it replaces a course you already paid for). Next used to be one of my very favorite restaurants and it is sad to see what once was not only a wonderful meal, but a good value become the worst value in fine dining in Chicago. Next is losing popularity and if they stick with this new gimmick of ticket prices only including a basic experience that trend will continue.

MarlaCollins'Husband wrote:

BR wrote:And quite frankly, given how easily seats have been available to Next in recent months, lowering the price of admission makes sense to me. As BR noted above, the lower price expands the pool of potential diners at Next.

If that is the desired outcome, it would appear as if they're failing. There are 12 available tables tomorrow night, 7 on Saturday, 16 on Sunday, and 56 in total for next Wednesday-Sunday.

After reading Phil Vettel's review today, I saw the evil genius of the "upcharge for substitutions" policy. You paid for your $120 meal ticket weeks (or certainly at least days) ago. That's ancient history by the time of your dinner! Forgotten! Non-existent! You'll never see that money again! So when someone offers you a variation for $13, you don't remember back to the original $120 and say, "Wait, so now my meal is $133?" You reply, "$13? Hell yes, I spend more than that for cab fare!" Even when they say, "Would the two of you like to share the duck instead for $120?," you don't respond, "OMG, now our dinners are $180 apiece!," you respond, "Sure, let's live it up, what's $120 for the two of us?"

Psychology--ain't it grand?

Especially if you've already had something to drink.

That's the best analysis of buyer behavior I've seen in a long time.

MarlaCollins'Husband wrote:

BR wrote:I think the criticism of the add-ons is a bit much. If the criticism is that the main menu is either not worth the value or not good or adequate enough, I get it. If the complaint is that the set menu is not a sufficient amount of food and no one in their right mind would order only that menu, I would understand that criticism too.

But who cares about the extras? You're not being forced to add the extras if you deem the regular menu sufficient. I think it's smart of them to attempt to appeal to people of different means. There are plenty of people who probably wanted to try Next who never did because of sticker shock. Now they can go. Others are willing to pay a lot more.

I absolutely agree with this and I'm also fascinated by how much of this thread is devoted to people complaining about how Next operates. Given how often the ticket concept at Next is compared to tickets to a show or on a plane, I think the optional add-ons make total sense. When airlines or concert/theater promoters advertise, they typically focus on the starting price for tickets. Everyone can get to their destination/see the show for a certain amount of money. However, if people want to be pampered on a plane/board first/have better seats/attend a backstage VIP meet and greet, they have the option of paying extra for those opportunities. At Next, people who want to experience the restaurant can now do so at a lower price and presumably they still get a full meal out of the deal, the equivalent of seeing the show or getting to one's destination. But for those who want to make the choice to pay more for additional benefits, that option exists. The fact that some people get a fancier/better/more elaborate meal by paying more money shouldn't diminish anyone else's experience any more than the presence of people in first class affects the flying experience of people in coach.

And quite frankly, given how easily seats have been available to Next in recent months, lowering the price of admission makes sense to me. As BR noted above, the lower price expands the pool of potential diners at Next.

All that said, where the optional add-ons make less sense to me is that they seem to undercut some of the purported mission of Next - the notion that knowing costs ahead of time ultimately saves diners money. The add-ons add an element of food spoilage risk that doesn't exist when everything is known well before the night's service begins. Presumably this risk has been passed onto the consumer via basic ticket pricing. Whether that's worth the added flexibility and lower get-in-the-door pricing is something the market will ultimately determine.

I think the problem is that the Next concept is completely disjointed right now. The idea of pre-purchasing meals made a lot of sense when demand was high enough to make tickets difficult to get. It made a lot of sense to pre-buy, for example, the El Bulli meal because that was really the only way to get the ticket. And, if you bought the ticket and ended up having a conflict, it was not difficult to recoup what you paid by selling the ticket.

The subscription model no longer makes sense from a consumer point of view now that demand for tickets has fallen so sharply. I do want to try all three menus this year, and I would have continued my subscription this year if I thought that I could easily unload my tickets if a schedule conflict arose. But now that tickets are often going for less than face value, buying a subscription represents a significant risk of loss.

Next has to take some of the blame for that falling demand. Demand was extremely high at the outset, in part, because of the quality to price ratio. Prices went up the second year, but demand remained high, I think, in large part thanks to the El Bulli menu. No menu since has matched the price of that first year, or the uniqueness of the El Bulli menu, and there has been more than one menu that has not lived up to the expectations created by the price point (Vegan comes to mind). Plus, Next did not do a very good job of expressing appreciation to those of us who had purchased season tickets year after year.

I still think the concept of Next is a great one, and the kitchen has put out some of the most unique and memorable dishes I've ever had. I'll be going to Bistro based on what I've read so far, and I hope the later two menus are just as strong. I do hope they can fix the business model and push demand back to a place where it makes sense again to join up as a season ticket holder.

Too funny; WGN news did a segment on Vettel's review on Next Bistro and at end the anchor commented "You can't get in there."

Gonzo70 wrote:Too funny; WGN news did a segment on Vettel's review on Next Bistro and at end the anchor commented "You can't get in there."

I went recently and was interested to see that there were 3 or 4 four-top tables set up and occupied by only 2 diners so they might finally be adjusting to the excess supply of four-tops. And interesting to see how the crowd has changed since their inception - seemed like more tourists and older couples. It would be interesting to know how many locals are going since the season ticket model would seem to be designed with them in mind (but they didn't sell out of season tickets this year, so I guess that's my answer).

Bistro dinner was mostly tasty, but not worth $250 pp. Skate wing was a highlight. But cassoulet as a $69 add-on (after tax/service, on top of what was already paid in the ticket price for the lamb entree) was a lousy value. It was very soupy with undercooked onions and celery and made me want to go back to Maude's for their version of the dish. Dessert was uninspired (I had a blood orange tart) and given the options of French bistro desserts, a real disappointment. Dinner took two hours in total for those planning (although the duck course would obviously add some time - was told we should come back for that, but at $167 on top of the ticket price, that won't be happening and just reminds me of the expectations created by the Paris menu).

BTW - if you absolutely, positively, have to have your own porthole, now you can:
https://secure.ultracart.com/catalog/CRDET/AVPH.html

zoid wrote:BTW - if you absolutely, positively, have to have your own porthole, now you can:
https://secure.ultracart.com/catalog/CRDET/AVPH.html

They had these on kickstarter a couple years ago.

Are others having experience consistent with Hopped Up, that Bistro only lasts two hours? This would be much shorter than previous incarnations; we're just trying to plan our evening. Thanks!

Like many others over the years, my Next Bistro tickets are coming up next Thursday, February 26th at 9:00pm and I have a conflict that evening. Please shoot me a message if interested in purchasing tickets from me at the Kitchen Table (seats 6). Thanks and my apologies if I should have filed this in a different forum.

annak wrote:Are others having experience consistent with Hopped Up, that Bistro only lasts two hours? This would be much shorter than previous incarnations; we're just trying to plan our evening. Thanks!

I'm also looking for additional feedback on this menu. Has anyone else on this forum been there recently? Thanks.