It sounds like that situation referred to boils down to:

Restaurant says we have fixed menu or we have a la carte.
Patron wanted a hybrid of the two.
Restaurant didn't want to do it.
Patron insisted.
Restaurant did their version of a hybrid.
Patron was unhappy with results.

Am I missing something? Was the patron unhappiness supposed to be a surprise?

Forget about any particular situation that has alrweady been discussed and let's approach this generically. I am trying to understand what wouid motivate a consumer to be in favor of a policy that is anti-consumer? Yet there are consumers all over the Internet who take anti-consumer positions, It just doesn't make any sense.

I was at Father's Office in LA and they refuse to make changes to the dishes on their menu. One of the people I was dining with was allergic to tomatoes, and she asked the restaurant if they could remove the tomatoes from her salad. The answer was no, we don't make any changes, and they told her to order something else instead. So she ordered a different salad, one she really wasn't interested in eating, but it was already late in the day and we weren't about to leave. When they brought her salad to her table, she thought it was dry and she asked for extra dressing. She was told no, we think it has the perfect amount of dressing on it. So she had to sit there, unhappy with what she ordered as well as how it tasted. Now I happen to think that is an abominable policy. But I am certain there are people here who will take the restaurant's side (the anti-consumer side) in the discussion. And while I have no interest in arguing the right and wrong of it, I find it fascinating when I hear people argue in favor of something that isn't in their best interests and I am trying to understand what would motivate them to do that?

and how different is this from us?

and the comment by the one fellow (Perlow?) that if people disagreed with him, he wanted them dead

his former colleague Steven Shaw [brags] that he made $400,000 as a lawyer and only pays for his meals at three or four places

.

Boy, I sure hope those are differences, because I don't want to be those jackholes.

I am trying to understand what wouid motivate a consumer to be in favor of a policy that is anti-consumer? Yet there are consumers all over the Internet who take anti-consumer positions, It just doesn't make any sense.

It's really very simple.

You don't know as much as the chef about tonight's meal. You may think you do, but you don't. (If you really do, don't eat there, they're incompetent.) And if you ask the chef to screw his dish up to your backseat-driver preferences, you're less likely to be happy, not more. (I observed exactly this happen with a Hollywood star in Napa once.) So the chef is protecting you as a consumer... from yourself.

I won't bite on whether most chefs know more than I do but let me deal with the heart of your premise. When I go to a restaurant that serves blue cheese on their hamburgers, and I tell them I am allergic to blue cheese, and they tell me to order the burger and wipe the blue cheese off, which doesn't alleviate the problem, are you saying the restaurant is protecting me from myself? And what if I plain don't like blue cheese. Are you really saying I should be unhappy with my meal? Why would anyone want to be unhappy with their meal and prefer to take the restaurant's side in that argument. Isn't it a restaurant's job to provide their customers with great service? After all they are in the hospitality business.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:I won't bite on whether most chefs know more than I do.......

And here I was thinking, after watching you on Bourdain, maybe he isn't such a dick after all.....................

Steve Plotnicki wrote:I won't bite on whether most chefs know more than I do but let me deal with the heart of your premise. When I go to a restaurant that serves blue cheese on their hamburgers, and I tell them I am allergic to blue cheese, and they tell me to order the burger and wipe the blue cheese off, which doesn't alleviate the problem, are you saying the restaurant is protecting me from myself? And what if I plain don't like blue cheese. Are you really saying I should be unhappy with my meal? Why would anyone want to be unhappy with their meal and prefer to take the restaurant's side in that argument. Isn't it a restaurant's job to provide their customers with great service? After all they are in the hospitality business.

I wish to know of the all blue cheese burger restaurant of which you speak. Is it only the burgers with blue cheese or. perhaps could it be every item on the menu??? True heaven if that be the case. Because otherwise you'd be able to order something else, right?

Regards,

Bluedreaulicious

When I go to a restaurant that serves blue cheese on their hamburgers, and I tell them I am allergic to blue cheese, and they tell me to order the burger and wipe the blue cheese off, which doesn't alleviate the problem, are you saying the restaurant is protecting me from myself?

But that's not remotely what we're talking about. 97% of the time, a blue cheese burger is either one burger choice among many, or one cheese choice on a burger you're expected to customize. That's all perfectly normal and expected.

But you want to mess with the makeup of composed dishes, substituting chocolate sprinkles for truffle shavings, and I believe that to be a bad idea. But you know, you're the one trying it, assess the failure rate for yourself. If this worked so fantastically all the time, would we be discussing it?

And here I was thinking, after watching you on Bourdain, maybe he isn't such a dick after all.....................

What happens when moderators join the dark side?

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Intern ... y_disorder

Mike G wrote:But you want to mess with the makeup of composed dishes, substituting chocolate sprinkles for truffle shavings, and I believe that to be a bad idea. But you know, you're the one trying it, assess the failure rate for yourself. If this worked so fantastically all the time, would we be discussing it?

Where did I say I wanted to do that? I actually complained about the reverse in the article I wrote. I asked for the dishes the way they were composed on ala carte menu, and the chef insisted on adding sprinkles to them, over my objections.

You know there is no restaurant in the world that is more entitled to dictate what their customers should eat than El Bulli. But before they begin serving your meal, they go out of their way to ask every table if there are any allergies or dislikes. They specifically ask people if they will eat raw oysters, and this year they had hare brains on the menu along with a hare chop. They offered every single diner the opportunity to opt out of those ingredients, and if you did opt out they prepared a different dish. And if you were allergic to an ingredient, they removed it from the dish and Ferran Adria wasn't worried that his dish was ruined. Now I happen to believe that all restaurant shoulds act the way. But some people think that restaurant's are entitled to act otherwise and I am a bit puzzled as to why people are so quick to accept treatment that is worse than what they are entitled to based on how much money they are paying for a meal?

So, how's it working out?

Forget about any particular situation that has alrweady been discussed and let's approach this generically. I am trying to understand what wouid motivate a consumer to be in favor of a policy that is anti-consumer? Yet there are consumers all over the Internet who take anti-consumer positions, It just doesn't make any sense.

It's not really an anti-consumer position, it's more of a position against you and consumers like you. You make yourself out as the poster child for customer's rights, "I want it my way, otherwise I'll take my dining dollars somewhere else and that's what I deserve if I"m going to spend $125 in your restaurant." As a consumer you have every right to spend your dollars where you would like and how you would like, I'm not questioning that. The issue lies in that you run a web-site where you then bash a restaurant for not bending to your every whim. I'm not completely convinced that you don't just completely baffle the servers, management, and line cooks with your requests. The one scenario where you called the chef a schmuck, case in point, I couldn't even follow what you and your wife wanted and I read it twice.

People here at LTH seem to understand a different theory on customer service (it's actually just common sense which most of us here seem to have). The customer isn't always right. The customer is right as long as his/her request isn't detrimental to the business or the way the business serves their other customers. Good customer service is a balancing act to make as many possible people happy while maximizing your revenue. Some common sense that some of your rants don't seem to grasp.

21 and counting. Sorry kennyz.

And I still want to know the location of the all-blue-cheese-hamburger restaurant.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:But some people think that restaurant's are entitled to act otherwise and I am a bit puzzled as to why people are so quick to accept treatment that is worse than what they are ***entitled*** to based on how much money they are paying for a meal?

My emphasis (in case you weren't sure).

This may be the crux of the issue, Steve. Some people believe they're entitled to have their food the way they want it when they go to restaurants. Some people accept that not every restaurant is going to do everything the way they want, and rather than rant and rail about it and stamp their feet about what they do or don't deserve, they simply decide whether or not they want to go and move on.

Not to oversimplify, if somebody doesn't run their business in a manner you're prepared to accept, you can reach two conclusions:

1) I'm not going there anymore.
2) That person is an asshole.

And, in my experience, the conclusion you reach usually depends on how accustomed you are to always getting your way.

I'm not saying I disagree that this ridiculous mythological bleu cheeseburger restaurant should be more accommodating. I'm suggesting that this notion that you're either pro-chef or pro-consumer is a ridiculously polarized way of viewing what should be a simple situation with a simple lesson: you don't always get what you want, and if you insist upon getting what you want, don't be surprised if you're disappointed with the results.

pizano345 wrote:The customer isn't always right. The customer is right as long as his/her request isn't detrimental to the business or the way the business serves their other customers. Good customer service is a balancing act to make as many possible people happy while maximizing your revenue. Some common sense that some of your rants don't seem to grasp.

That'a a nonsensical argument. Asking a restautant to hold the blue cheese because you are allergic, or asking a restaurant to cook for you, or asking a restaurant that offers you a foie gras dish to actually serve it to you after you order it, is hardly detrminental to the restaurant. But aside from that gross mischaracterization, there are two things wrong with your post. The first is, who cares if it is detrimental to the restaurant? I'm not paying my money to make them happy, I pay it to make me happy. Second, the reality of the situation is actually the reverse of what you just said. Restaurants take advantage of their customers because most people are too insecure to ask for what they are entitled to and as a result, it makes the dining experience worse for the rest of us.

Dmnkly - Your point doesn't make any sense. It has nothing to do with getting up to leave and going to a different restaurant. My point is much simpler so I will state it again.

If you go to a restaurant and ask for X, and the restaurant denies you even though it is no skin off of their back to comply, I think it is fair to describe that as anti-consumer. I am trying to understand how it is ever in a consumer's interest to accept, or condone, that behavior.

and...scene.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Dmnkly - Your point doesn't make any sense. It has nothing to do with getting up to leave and going to a different restaurant. My point is much simpler so I will state it again.

Kyle: That's not being nice, Cartman. That's just acting nice.
Cartman: I don't understand the difference.
Kyle: I know.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:If you go to a restaurant and ask for X, and the restaurant denies you even though it is no skin off of their back to comply, I think it is fair to describe that as anti-consumer. I am trying to understand how it is ever in a consumer's interest to accept, or condone, that behavior.

Presuming you're correct in your assessment that it's no skin off their back, I'd agree. But much of what you would characterize as simple, unassuming requests is what many of us would characterize as being a royal PITA. That, I think, is where we differ.

Dmnkly wrote:Presuming you're correct in your assessment that it's no skin off their back, I'd agree. But much of what you would characterize as simple, unassuming requests is what many of us would characterize as being a royal PITA. That, I think, is where we differ.

Show me a request that wasn't simple.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Presuming you're correct in your assessment that it's no skin off their back, I'd agree. But much of what you would characterize as simple, unassuming requests is what many of us would characterize as being a royal PITA. That, I think, is where we differ.

Show me a request that wasn't simple.

@ L20:
Don't give us any of these dishes that you've already carefully constructed, prepped and arranged into a menu. Cook us something else.

@ Sona:
SP: Can you restructure the way you serve your food for us?
Server: No, we really don't like to do that.
SP: I'd really like you to restructure the way you serve your food for us.
Server: Okay, fine.
SP: Hey! You didn't restructure the way you serve your food for us precisely the way I wanted!

We get it, Steve. You think these are simple requests, and when you're disappointed with the results, it's the restaurant's problem, not yours. We disagree.

Don't you read my posts? None of what you just said happened. At L20 all we asked him to do was to cook for us. We didn't ask him to change a single dish, we didn't ask for anything off menu. We just asked him to decide what we were going to eat. Why isn't that simple? And if you paid attention to what we complained about, we complained that the chef told the waitress to choose our meal and we weren't informed about it. As to Sona, they had a corn soup on the menu, and they had a pork belly dish on the menu and we asked for both of them to be included in our tasting menu. Isn't that simple? But because it's called a Surprise Menu, the chef insisted on putting the pork belly INTO THE CORN SOUP OVER OUR OBJECTIONS. What we asked him to do was actually simpler than what he ended up doing. Same with L20.

You see, because you want to take the restaurant's side, you are trying to characterize what should be deemed reasonable requests as being detrimental to the restaurant. That's nonsense. That is what my entire question is about. It would seem logical for you to agree with me, If restaurant's acted in accordance with my standard, you would eat better and get better treatment at restaurants as a result. But you want to argue in favor of the restaurant, which ultimately means you end up getting worse treatment. I just don't get that.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Don't you read my posts?

This is very funny coming from the fellow whose very first post in the l2o thread was to state that he hadn't read the thread, but was going to comment anyway.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:None of what you just said happened. At L20 all we asked him to do was to cook for us. We didn't ask him to change a single dish, we didn't ask for anything off menu. We just asked him to decide what we were going to eat. Why isn't that simple? And if you paid attention to what we complained about, we complained that the chef told the waitress to choose our meal and we weren't informed about it.

You also complained that any restaurant of the caliber to which l20 aspires should know how to handle that request. Technically, I suppose it's correct that your only official complaint was that the chef told the waitress to choose your meal without informing you. Practically, your implication about how your request should have been handled was quite clear. But perhaps that was an exaggeration on my part, and I'll concede that.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:As to Sona, they had a corn soup on the menu, and they had a pork belly dish on the menu and we asked for both of them to be included in our tasting menu. Isn't that simple? But because it's called a Surprise Menu, the chef insisted on putting the pork belly INTO THE CORN SOUP OVER OUR OBJECTIONS. What we asked him to do was actually simpler than what he ended up doing.

You have made your position very clear, and you've articulated it thoroughly and completely. I disagree.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:You see, because you want to take the restaurant's side, you are trying to characterize what should be deemed reasonable requests as being detrimental to the restaurant.

Actually, I thought I was simply characterizing what I thought were unreasonable requests as unreasonable requests. If you wish to believe I'm fudging my assessment of what isn't and isn't reasonable because I'm just dying to back up a chef whose food I've never eaten and whose restaurant I've never visited and really don't give a damn about either way, hey, that's your prerogative and I doubt I could change your mind.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:It would seem logical for you to agree with me, If restaurant's acted in accordance with my standard, you would eat better and get better treatment at restaurant.

It's not a question of whether or not I would enjoy better service. Of course I would. It's a question of whether or not I'm willing to be a pain in the ass to get it. I'm not. There are a lot of things I could get in life if I were willing to whine, cry, pout and complain more. But that would make me a person I don't care to be. It's that simple.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:But you want to arguein favor of the restaurant, which ultimately means you get worse treatment. I just don't get that.

You keep saying this, and yet you're the person who seems to have all of these issues with terrible treatment. Do you ever stop to think that maybe the problem is you?

Dmnkly wrote:Actually, I thought I was simply characterizing what I thought were unreasonable requests as unreasonable requests. If you wish to believe I'm fudging my assessment of what isn't and isn't reasonable because I'm just dying to back up a chef whose food I've never eaten and whose restaurant I've never visited and really don't give a damn about either way, hey, that's your prerogative and I doubt I could change your mind.

I am baffled by this. In what way can it be characterized as unreasonable to ask the restauarant for the corn soup that is already on the menu? It is both illogical, as well as bad service, for a restaurant that offers a tasting menu to refuse to serve you a tasting size portion of a dish on the menu, just because the tasting menu has the word "Surprise" in it. In effect, my request comes down to, can you please leave the surprise out of the corn soup (how do I insert a laughing emoticon here.) On what basis would it ever be unreasonable to ask for that and why is asking for that being a pain in the ass? It seems pretty simple and straight forward to me.

The truth of the matter is that it wasn't that the restaurant couldn't do it, or doing it caused them some sort of problem. They simply didn't want to. That is unacceptable for any restaurant.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Actually, I thought I was simply characterizing what I thought were unreasonable requests as unreasonable requests. If you wish to believe I'm fudging my assessment of what isn't and isn't reasonable because I'm just dying to back up a chef whose food I've never eaten and whose restaurant I've never visited and really don't give a damn about either way, hey, that's your prerogative and I doubt I could change your mind.

I am baffled by this. In what way can it be characterized as unreasonable to ask the restauarant for the corn soup that is already on the menu? It is both illogical, as well as bad service, for a restaurant that offers a tasting menu to refuse to serve you a tasting size portion of a dish on the menu, just because the tasting menu has the word "Surprise" in it. In effect, my request comes down to, can you please leave the surprise out of the corn soup (how do I insert a laughing emoticon here.) On what basis would it ever be unreasonable to ask for that and why is asking for that being a pain in the ass? It seems pretty simple and straight forward to me.

The truth of the matter is that it wasn't that the restaurant couldn't do it, or doing it caused them some sort of problem. They simply didn't want to. That is unacceptable for any restaurant.

You have made your position very clear, and... between this and the additional context that you provided on your blog... you've articulated it thoroughly and completely.

I disagree.

So I refer you to my first comment in this thread:

Dmnkly wrote:Important essence: No matter what the price, there are unreasonable requests, and what does or does not constitute unreasonable will never be agreed upon by all.

Hopefully that sums it up and we can move on.

All of that is fine but on balance, in terms of what we are discussing, you are taking an anti-consumer position and I am the one who is articulating the pro-consumer position.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:All of that is fine but on balance, in terms of what we are discussing, you are taking an anti-consumer position and I am the one who is articulating the pro-consumer position.

If you mean that by taking any position against any consumer in any scenario regardless of the circumstances that means I'm anti-consumer, sure, why not. I'm anti-consumer.

Somehow I doubt that's what you meant.

Well let's clarify that a bit. Here is what I believe the standard should be. When it comes to things that a customer requests, restaurants should always comply, providing they can reasonably perform the service. I see no reason why this shouldn't be the standard, and anyone who argues for a different standard is taking a position that is anti-consumer.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Well let's clarify that a bit. Here is what I believe the standard should be. When it comes to things that a customer requests, restaurants should always comply, providing they can ***reasonably*** perform the service. I see no reason why this shouldn't be the standard, and anyone who argues for a different standard is taking a position that is anti-consumer.

Hey, how do you like that! We agree that it all comes down to what is and isn't reasonable.

Dmnkly wrote:Important essence: No matter what the price, there are unreasonable requests, and what does or does not constitute unreasonable will never be agreed upon by all.

Hopefully that sums it up and we can move on.

Actually we don't agree. It has nothing to do with whether the request is reasonable or not, it has to do with whether the restaurant can reasonably perform the service. So when someone says, leave the tomatoes off of my salad, that is a service that a restaurant can reasonably perform because they can easily make the salad without the tomatoes.

Is there a reason for another standard?

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Actually we don't agree. It has nothing to do with whether the request is reasonable or not, it has to do with whether the restaurant can reasonably perform the service. So when someone says, leave the tomatoes off of my salad, that is a service that a restaurant can reasonably perform because they can easily make the salad without the tomatoes.

Is there a reason for another standard?

Yes, yes, Steve, the people at Sona could have reasonably performed the menu you wanted, their failure to do so was purely a matter of snotty unwillingness, and therefore by suggesting that you might have been at least partially in the wrong in this scenario, I'm anti-consumer.

Provided, of course, that your assessment of the situation was correct.

I haven't watched the show, but I have read all the posts in the thread. (Why??!!)

Dept. of Random Thoughts

It's only food

Eat your food quietly and leave (to self; I think)

If this thread isn't kennyzd or plotnickid (can't remember which verb should apply, but I'm pretty sure it's one of those) - another whole week of productivity is Poof! gone, just like that, a simple click for man, a giant trainwreck for the interweb.
So help me god