Anonymity: Should I Come Out of the Closet?

I'm the chief dining critic of Chicago magazine, and I have been struggling with the question of anonymity for awhile now. So much so that I convinced my editors to let me write a column about the subject.

http://bit.ly/dKONIr

Call me a troll, call me a dinosaur, call me a self-important navel gazer. Just call me. I really want to know what you folks think.

Thanks,
Jeff Ruby
Chicago magazine

I don't think lack of anonymity has caused any problems for Kevin Pang, but I'd maybe ask him. It might help that his beat is more geared towards smaller and more ethnic restaurants, though.

I vote no on anonymity.

I absolutely envy anyone with the resources and resolve to establish themselves in the food review business while sustaining anonymity. Those that manage to do this without becoming obsessed with their own self importance provide an invaluable service to the dining public.

For a long time, food critic was one of the cushiest jobs one could hope for, and while the rise of food blogs and forums such as LTH have certainly taken some of bloom off the rose of being a professional food reviewer, I don't think there are many out here who wouldn't gladly take the job. Sure, you can't pal around with chefs or score free, sneak preview dinners to the hottest spots, but you still get to eat and write for a living.

If we were to lose the anonymous critic, I think the average diner would be at a great disadvantage. I put far less weight behind a review written by someone known to the house, it's just my cynical nature.

kl1191 wrote:If we were to lose the anonymous critic, I think the average diner would be at a great disadvantage. I put far less weight behind a review written by someone known to the house, it's just my cynical nature.

I agree. When they know you, they never leave you alone. Waiters bring out the manager, they sit and chat with you, they offer free drinks and food and are constantly bugging you about how the food is.

Pie Lady wrote:

kl1191 wrote:If we were to lose the anonymous critic, I think the average diner would be at a great disadvantage. I put far less weight behind a review written by someone known to the house, it's just my cynical nature.

I agree. When they know you, they never leave you alone. Waiters bring out the manager, they sit and chat with you, they offer free drinks and food and are constantly bugging you about how the food is.

Gosh......that sounds just awful!!!!!

As a diner, my feelings about critic anonymity have changed a lot in the last 10 years. Before the rise of blogs and yelp and lthforum, I was only going to get ideas about restaurants from friends or critics, so it was important to me that my experience be similar to that of the critic. Now there are plenty of anonymous diners posting their experiences, so I have plenty of sources to corroborate what is written by a professional critic.

However, from your perspective, I would think that anonymity would still be important. You will not have much credibility if what you write is completely different from what the average diner experiences. If you give up your anonymity, then to some degree you go from critic to features writer. This isnt necessarily bad, as long as you are up front about it, but it is different. I suppose that if you do come out, at least that eliminates the wondering about whether your secret has been comprimised at any particular restaurant.

I am planning to finally go to Alinea this summer, and I love reading Ronnie's posts about his visits there, but, since he acknowledges that he is a friend of the house, I dont really expect my experience to be quite at the level of his. Nonetheless, I have read enough other posts from those who presumably had a more normal experience to know that it probably wont suck.

-Will

I liked the article, and I appreciate the quandary.

It does occur to me that, to a certain degree, no matter how famous you are as a reviewer, no kitchen can produce food on demand that exceeds the talent of the chef and cooks. If you get their best server, then at least some of their customers will get that server. So there is a degree to which being known can only affect the experience so far, and then talent and experience draw a line past which no amount of fear or hope can push them.

That said, I do understand that, even if one is able to produce a totally unbiased review after being cajoled and catered to, readers might doubt the veracity of the opinion. And I understand that, too. As much as I love writing about food, one reason I've always been glad I didn't have to review restaurants regularly is that sometimes, I really like the people but am disappointed by the food. Being known makes that aspect a bit harder -- how do you rip into a place where everyone is charming and eager to please?

I do think that elaborate costumes (I've seen photos of some reviewers going incognito, with wigs and dark glasses and various hats) are a bit dated, but is there some middle ground: use a fake last name but keep your first name, so folks don't have to work too hard to call you the right thing (and you don't have to worry about your wife using the wrong name at night). Jeff isn't such an unusual name that bells would go off if Jeff Jones showed up. No costumes, but no announcements.

And then maybe have a fake idea as Jimmy Keyboard, blogger extraordinaire, and go back and chat up chefs and get to see that butchering and so on. No reason the fake ID can't go both ways. Or, if you write a really glowing review, go back as yourself to chat up the chef. No need even then to tell them what the fake name was; no point in blowing your cover. But if you loved the place, they might be happier to have you in the kitchen than even that top blogger you describe.

So I guess it comes down to trying to keep it as close to anonymous as possible, but without really getting too stressed out about it. They might give you a little better service if they recognize you, but they can't suddenly have better ingredients, have a better wine list, or become better cooks.

pnking wrote:

Pie Lady wrote:

kl1191 wrote:If we were to lose the anonymous critic, I think the average diner would be at a great disadvantage. I put far less weight behind a review written by someone known to the house, it's just my cynical nature.

I agree. When they know you, they never leave you alone. Waiters bring out the manager, they sit and chat with you, they offer free drinks and food and are constantly bugging you about how the food is.

Gosh......that sounds just awful!!!!!

Yeah, I was just wondering, how do I muscle in on some of that action

I really enjoyed your column, Jeff, and I think the comments posted there and here have been both throughtful and thought-provoking.

At the risk of aging myself, I took journalism classes at Northwestern from two of Chicago's then-dining critics (one at the Trib, one at Chicago Magazine). Because I was interested in food writing even then, I spent time getting to know them, picking their brains and even got to eat at a few under-review restaurants with one of them. Since then, I've always had a healthy appreciation for the anonymity of restaurant critics. (I can't think of another area of critical journalism where the reviewer is anonymous...is there?)

I know that there are restaurant writers on staff at major publications who aren't anonymous, and many of them do some great writing. But when I'm reading a restaurant write up (and I use that term intentionally), I process it differently depending on whether it's a review done by an incognito critic or an article written by a food journalist who's "out." That said, food writing has evolved significantly in the last 20 years or so. Once up on a time, I think the perception was that all restaurant reviews were anonymous (except, of course, in the case of TV reviews). Is the distinction that clear-cut these days? I pay attention to this stuff and while I know that some writers (you, Vettel) are anonymous, there are many who I'm not sure of. Where as restaurant critics would once note, "I think I was ID'ed during one of my dinners," I've never seen Kevin Pang mention whether he was identified while dining at a restaurant he's writing about...even though he's clearly not incognito.

I like what Dominic Armato's started to do on Skillet Doux: He's now adding a disclosure statement at the start of every blog post. Should there be some similar key on every restaurant-related article in newspapers & magazines, too?

WillG wrote:Now there are plenty of anonymous diners posting their experiences, so I have plenty of sources to corroborate what is written by a professional critic.

This is an interesting point. Does the legion of semi-anonymous critics spawned by the Internet make the anonymity of a professional less important? I would say no.

There is certainly a value to the aggregate opinion of the mostly anonymous diners here & on similar sites, but much of the credibility that I assign to the professional critic is due to the fact that it is their job, and they (usually) have a large corporation standing behind them. Their livelihood is riding on their reviews, and that tends to make them more intelligible and arguably less likely to have been influenced by some sort of quid pro quo.

They are also a single data point, which can be a double edged sword: They can't review as many places or revisit places very often, but with any body of work to look at, it should be easy to discern if your tastes and the critic intersect. Wading through the many users here or Yelp or Chowhound is far more complicated. On any given thread, trying to figure out whose opinion should sway you can be quite difficult.

kl1191 wrote:Does the legion of semi-anonymous critics spawned by the Internet make the anonymity of a professional less important?

No, but it makes the professional him or herself less important. To me, the issue has nothing to do with anonymity and everything to do with "critics" who still define their job by the stars they give out. I say come out of the closet, but stop doling out meaningless stars. Write about the intricacies of a great dish, and the chef's perspective on how the dish was invented. Write about the fact that diners on LTHForum and Yelp seem to dislike a certain restaurant, and explain the reasons in more lucid language than the amateurs can. Write about something else you and your readers find interesting. But get rid of the stars. If your editors insist that you keep the stars, then I think anonymity is a must.

]

pnking wrote:

Pie Lady wrote:

kl1191 wrote:I agree. When they know you, they never leave you alone. Waiters bring out the manager, they sit and chat with you, they offer free drinks and food and are constantly bugging you about how the food is.

Gosh......that sounds just awful!!!!!

Yeah, I was just wondering, how do I muscle in on some of that action

Trust me, it's annoying!

Congrats on coming out!

There's a great thread here about this exact question that is well worth reading (you may have already read it).

I'm a lazy man and I'll quote myself from that thread:

I'm not sure that anonymity is really that important. I think it's a good practice for reviewers to try and stay anonymous, but there are very few reviewers who are 100% anonymous. Reviewers should use a pseudonym when making a reservation and make sure to order some dishes that have required significant earlier prep (to make sure they are trying some dishes that haven't been crafted just for them). In the end a bad restaurant can't just pull it all together for one customer - a kitchen either works or it doesn't.

I've had good friends invite me repeatedly to places they work at and blatantly promise me very special treatment if I came by (I'm not a reviewer, this is just friendly gesture). A few times special treatment couldn't be pulled off for a variety of reasons (but I would get comped on some things). Other times everything was just a disaster. Most times I just had a great meal, but I never felt that it was significantly different from the meals the people around me were having.

I'm a firm believer that a place works or doesn't (and even on a bad night you can tell the difference). At the end of the day you just need to stay on your toes and not let any kind of special treatment sway your overall judgement. You might get a plate that has been put together a bit more meticulously, but if a place is serving poor quality food to everyone it is unlikely you'll get an exceptional meal while everyone else gets a pile of crap. Always take a look around around to see how well the restaurant is working for every guest, and not just for you.

In my former life as a food critic, I once accidentally outed myself by appearing on TV sans disguise to tout the virtues of a wonderful little pizza parlor in Mystic, CT staffed by some plucky, heart-warming and against-the-odds Portuguese-American girls from the wrong side of the tracks. Whoops!

Matt wrote:In my former life as a food critic, I once accidentally outed myself by appearing on TV sans disguise to tout the virtues of a wonderful little pizza parlor in Mystic, CT staffed by some plucky, heart-warming and against-the-odds Portuguese-American girls from the wrong side of the tracks. Whoops!

Isn't that how we discovered Julia Roberts?

Lots of smart thoughts here. Thanks for commenting and lending kind words.

Couple of things:

I love being a critic, but I have never been comfortable being catered to or fawned over. It uniformly skeezes me out. And it almost never happens. So I guess the question is: Does it never happen because the restaurants really don't know who I am? Or because they are smart enough to play the game, and treat me like anyone else? I'll never know for sure. I just know that the anonymity thing creates all kinds of awkward situations and requires a lot of time and effort - time and effort that could be spent giving my readers better stories and information. And the older I get, the more the deception begins to seem silly.

Kenny, your point about the star ratings is a good one, and well taken. I guess my bosses would say that they're still a meaningful shortcut for casual readers who just want to know whether to go or not. You - and everyone else here - do not want shortcuts. You want the in-depth stuff. I agree, the listings in the back of Chicago magazine do not provide that kind of depth - nor are they meant to. I try to do more detailed food writing in my Dining Out column every month. (And no stars are involved.) Other pages in the magazine's Table section provide that kind of stuff, too, like the Karl Klockars Vs. Bouillabaisse piece in the current (May) issue.

www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May ... llabaisse/

Jeff

dropkickjeffy wrote: Other pages in the magazine's Table section provide that kind of stuff, too, like the Karl Klockars Vs. Bouillabaisse piece in the current (May) issue.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magaz ... llabaisse/

That's a fun read from Karl, and not a bad bouillabaisse effort given all the shoddy advice he got from chefs around town. Now I know why the bouillabaisse I order in this city always sucks.

Interesting dilemma! I enjoy your writing Jeff. I guess I thought anonymity was more a thing of the past (like Reichl’s disguises detailed in Garlic and Sapphires). It seems like it would be hard to be anonymous in this age of social media. But, I would read you regardless. For example, I read everything I see with Kevin Pang’s byline because I love his writing style. If it’s a well-written article about food, I want to hear what you have to say, whether or not you’re incognito.

Entertaining read, thanks Jeff.

I guess I have to preface my opinion by acknowledging that I would be considered to be "old guard", so consider that.

I like that there are critics that are trying to preserve their anonymity. I'm much more inclined to value a review from one over a review from an "outed" critic. We already have product "placement", embedded "journalists", and so on that increasingly blur the lines between objective fact and subsidized opinion - I would dearly miss having access to the reviews of someone that works hard to avoid being faced with such a compromise.

Speaking of social media, therein lies a bias with far greater influence than whether a restaurant might know that a critic is in the house. Whether it's Facebook friends or Twitter followers, the fact is that restaurants and their chefs often have large numbers of them. A positive review does way more for a critic and his publication than a negative one, because the positive review will be retweeted and wall-posted for thousands of the restaurant's followers. That's good business for a business looking to increase the number of links back to its own website. And the writer himself benefits greatly from the increased exposure. I don't think there's any good way to overcome this powerful bias, which is a large part of why professional reviews have become almost entirely meaningless to me.

Kennyz wrote: A positive review does way more for a critic and his publication than a negative one, because the positive review will be retweeted and wall-posted for thousands of the restaurant's followers.

Believe it or not, I care less if my writing gets retweeted or wall-posted than if what I wrote was true and fair and communicated my point. Sure, I want people to read my stuff, but I'm not sitting there choosing my subjects based on these factors, or pulling my punches in hopes of greater exposure. Anybody who reads my reviews knows this. I don't know which restaurants hate me and I don't care, because I'm paid to serve the readers, not the restaurants.

dropkickjeffy wrote:

Kennyz wrote: A positive review does way more for a critic and his publication than a negative one, because the positive review will be retweeted and wall-posted for thousands of the restaurant's followers.

Believe it or not, I care less if my writing gets retweeted or wall-posted than if what I wrote was true and fair and communicated my point. Sure, I want people to read my stuff, but I'm not sitting there choosing my subjects based on these factors, or pulling my punches in hopes of greater exposure. Anybody who reads my reviews knows this. I don't know which restaurants hate me and I don't care, because I'm paid to serve the readers, not the restaurants.

I'm not calling you out in particular and I have no reason to disbelieve what you say above. But this is how bias works - the people who let it affect what they do or write rarely think they're letting it affect what they do or write, and even those who realize it affects them don't admit it. That's why the mere presence of the bias casts a shadow over all. Saying "it doesn't affect what I write" - true as that may be in your case - doesn't have any real meaning to an outsider.

The real question should be, should the millions of yelp reviewers come out of the closet, since they probably now have more impact than either Chicago Tribunes or Chicago Magazines restaurant reviewers.
However you might have more impact if you declare yourself as the Chicago magazine food reviewer than some guy declaring he is a yelp reviewer.
At least there will be a higher chance of getting better food.

The strongest argument I know against critical anonymity at the professional level is that it's a charade.

It's highly anecdotal, and based on a very small personal sample, but friends who run restaurants scoff at the idea that the local critics are actually anonymous. The consensus among those I've asked is that when a new critic comes on the scene, there might be a short delay until word starts to get around, but we're talking about a matter of months or even weeks, but definitely not years. And then everybody plays along because it's to their advantage to quietly watch out for critics rather than loudly blowing the whistle. How much of this is fact and how much is bluster, I don't know. But I find it plausible.

I respect the concept of the anonymous critic. I like it as an ideal. I'm just not sure that it's as practical or valuable as it once was. If the idea is that that's the only way to get the everyman experience, you don't need a professional critic for that. There are 50 people on Yelp who are all too happy to give you the everyman experience. Of course, it's always been a balance of both, but with the myriad of internet options out there, I feel like the professional critic should be supplying less criticism and more education these days. And the latter certainly doesn't require anonymity.

I agree, an anonymous, educated critic is the ideal. But to me, it comes down to a question of which is better... to read a professional critic who you think is anonymous but isn't, or to read a professional critic who you know isn't anonymous so that you can weigh his experience appropriately, and seek information about the anonymous experience elsewhere? I kind of feel like I prefer the latter.

Or maybe I'm just bitter because when it comes to anonymity, my ship sailed a long time ago.

foodmex wrote:The real question should be, should the millions of yelp reviewers come out of the closet, since they probably now have more impact than either Chicago Tribunes or Chicago Magazines restaurant reviewers.
.

According to . . . ?
The only time I ever visit Yelp is when a poster here has a link to it . . . and even then it depends upon who posted it and the context in which it was posted if I actually click the link.

My casual observation of Yelp is that there's a large collection of people that review places by placing them into one of two categories:
Sucks!
Awesome!

and that's pretty much the meat of the "review".

I suppose you can say Yelpers are not qualified to review restaurant and some actually just rant, however many reviews are actually very poignant and more to the point than professional reviewers nowadays who unfortunately have become trivial.
Internet makes everyone a critic and a professional and when it comes to restaurant reviewers neither is hard to achieve.
I would continue to say an average person is more familiar with Yelp reviewers than any of the local food critics and base their decision on Yelp reviews than a "professional" restaurant reviewer.
Should a restaurant critic come out? Only if they write and article about the essence of the restaurant, since they most likely will be treated special.
Perhaps they can become narrative restaurant writers since the job of restaurant critic is quickly being absorbed by the internet, and if these publications are to remain relevant they need to change their position in order to keep up with the internet food critics, including those from this site.
So Jeff come out, you are ready and write us some good stuff.

Dmnkly wrote: It's highly anecdotal, and based on a very small personal sample, but friends who run restaurants scoff at the idea that the local critics are actually anonymous. The consensus among those I've asked is that when a new critic comes on the scene, there might be a short delay until word starts to get around, but we're talking about a matter of months or even weeks, but definitely not years. And then everybody plays along because it's to their advantage to quietly watch out for critics rather than loudly blowing the whistle. How much of this is fact and how much is bluster, I don't know. But I find it plausible.
.

Dom, you may be right. It is entirely plausible. The problem from my standpoint is I have no way of knowing how "out there" I am; no way of knowing which restaurants are playing along and which really have no clue I am in the house. And while restaurateurs love to say that they know all the critics, if they really do know...then a lot of them are doing a really shitty job. Because I get lousy service, shoddily plated food, and poorly paced meals nearly every time I go out. Based on what you posit here, if they know who I am, then they're either fools or their restaurants are not capable of providing a smooth meal. Which is it? I have no idea.

dropkickjeffy wrote:And while restaurateurs love to say that they know all the critics, if they really do know...then a lot of them are doing a really shitty job. Because I get lousy service, shoddily plated food, and poorly paced meals nearly every time I go out. Based on what you posit here, if they know who I am, then they're either fools or their restaurants are not capable of providing a smooth meal. Which is it? I have no idea.

Maybe this just proves the often-made point (about which I'm still on the fence) that even if a restaurant knows a critic is in the house, there's very little they can do to improve the dining experience. In the end, they are what they are.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:Maybe this just proves the often-made point (about which I'm still on the fence) that even if a restaurant knows a critic is in the house, there's very little they can do to improve the dining experience. In the end, they are what they are. =R=

Maybe. Or maybe it means they have no clue who I am.

In the perfect world, and with respect to pricier restaurants, I prefer anonymity . . . assuming it exists. The skilled and anonymous dining critic protects my hard earned money. Sure, there are plenty of places I dine where I don't expect very good service - I might even expect inconsistent food - but those are places where I'm not dropping a big sum. And you can find them up and down the GNR list - very few "expensive" places on that list. And with no disrespect to Kevin Pang (who's not anonymous) and the like, he's usually not reviewing a restaurant where the average meal costs $75.

But if I'm going to go out for an upscale dinner, a few cocktails and/or some wine, and make an evening of it, I become more concerned with the percentage of likelihood that all aspects of the meal will meet my expectations. I'm not the kind of guy who likes to stand out - no $20 for the maitre d, no extended conversations with the FOH, etc. The anonymous food critic who simply dines at a restaurant multiple times and does not draw any attention to him/herself shows me what kind of experience I can expect with respect to both food and service. Any restaurant can ensure that its favorite/valued customers (including known critics) see the best the restaurant has to offer ("cook for me"), but I know I'm not going to be that customer when I walk in. Yet I'm hoping for at least very good service and great food. And I dine out knowing there may be 30 tables or so occupied at a time on a given Saturday night. So I want to make sure that I can walk into a nice restaurant, when it's packed, not looking like a celebrity, and nonetheless be treated as if I'm important. In these situations, the truly anonymous dining critic is my best friend.

And in terms of impact, I still believe the established and skilled dining critic is more respected by the general public (and more feared by restaurants) than the mass of LTHers, Yelpers, etc. These dining critics are professionally employed as such, have visited the restaurant multiple times, reach a wider audience and tend to write more extensively about their experience than the "average" on-line reviewer. Now I won't get into my thoughts about every "professional" dining critic out there - that's for another day - but if the question is simply whether you should maintain anonymity, I say absolutely yes!