Giant - Jason Vincent and the Glad-Wrap event

Food writers furious after Chicago restaurant secretly served them 3-day-old dinner

This story is bizarre, friends, so buckle up. It begins Monday, when acclaimed Chicago restaurant Giant invited a group of food writers, influencers, and media-types to a complimentary dinner that would unveil some new dishes on its menu. The invitation stated that diners would have to consent to being filmed and photographed during the tasting, and that the meal would include “interesting preservation techniques, and fresh and seasonal ingredients.” What the invite didn’t mention was that the “interesting preservation technique” was actually just Glad-brand plastic wrap, and that some of the food served had been prepared three days prior.

Hoo boy. Reaction was swift, obviously, since the dinner guests were writers and media personalities. Eater Chicago first reported the outrage among invited guests, who were upset not only at being served days-old food, but at being part of a stunt marketing campaign that they knew nothing about. The truth came to light after the first of two seatings, when diners who experienced the post-meal “surprise” expressed their anger. In light of that, Giant revealed the Glad-wrap component of the dinner to the second group before their dishes were served.
...

Sir, are you aware that you are not drinking regular coffee but Columbian decaffeinated coffee crystals?

Jason Vincent eloquently addressed the tempest in a teapot desperately trying to become a Category 5 Hurricane in his Instagram account. -----> Link.

I, for one, am Glad® he did.

Nice followup on Instagram, and most of the comments there were well thought out.

I wish I could get a free meal at Giant the way all those whiners did. Heck, it's hard enough getting a reservation there when you're paying full price!

Huh, I thought the outrage was less over being served old food and more about being used for a garish cash-grab marketing stunt.

This just in: While biting the hand that feeds them, compromised, entitled, self-important food writers demand to choose their own pimps.

=R=

I was invited to this event, but declined, and I'm not sure I'm glad about that. In retrospect, I might have liked to have experienced this myself.

My understanding is that tables were mic-ed without diners' knowledge, and even if they agreed to be recorded, that kind of Soviet-style subterfuge is lamentable, especially when it's connected to a chef of such integrity as Jason Vincent.

Last night, I chatted with one of the vocal "influencers" at the event who said that there was an offer of compensation (not from Giant, but from one of the promoters of the event) to play nice with the facts of this story, which further complicates the situation and is, in a word, stinky.

David Hammond wrote:My understanding is that tables were mic-ed without diners' knowledge, and even if they agreed to be recorded, that kind of Soviet-style subterfuge is lamentable, especially when it's connected to a chef of such integrity as Jason Vincent

Once you're informed that the event will be recorded, well, you've been informed. Where the microphones are placed is just the tail wagging the dog.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:

David Hammond wrote:My understanding is that tables were mic-ed without diners' knowledge, and even if they agreed to be recorded, that kind of Soviet-style subterfuge is lamentable, especially when it's connected to a chef of such integrity as Jason Vincent

Once you're informed that the event will be recorded, well, you've been informed. Where the microphones are placed is just the tail wagging the dog.

=R=

Though perhaps technically true, this is a perception issue, and hidden microphones (or cameras) just makes the situation feel more sneaky and lacking in transparency.

I am with Ronnie, seems an awful lot like "influencers" biting the hand that literally feeds them

Bspar wrote:I am with Ronnie, seems an awful lot like "influencers" biting the hand that literally feeds them

I have mixed emotions about the "influencer" phenomenon, but I don't think we can, on the one hand, accuse influencers of being unduly influenced --themselves -- to write positive things about the places that feed them for free, and then turn around and criticize them for writing negative things about the places that feed them for free.

David Hammond wrote:lacking in transparency.

Kind of like every instagram/whatever post with a bunch of hashtags that doesn't disclose who paid them how much to do it?

Live by the sword of corporate deception, die by it.

There's a certain cultural consistency in influencers being paid to endorse a product or restaurant. For instance, on billboards (particularly in foreign countries) you'll see big ads featuring Johnny Depp for Tag Heuer watches, Bill Murray for Suntory, or whatever, and you know these celebrity endorsements are paid for and Depp wears a Rolex and Murray prefers Old Grand Dad, but they're just selling their faces to sell a product. We don't think twice about the "bought and paid for" aspect of those endorsements; it's understood.

Not saying any of this is ethically cool, but it's part of our media-saturated lives.

David Hammond wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:

David Hammond wrote:My understanding is that tables were mic-ed without diners' knowledge, and even if they agreed to be recorded, that kind of Soviet-style subterfuge is lamentable, especially when it's connected to a chef of such integrity as Jason Vincent

Once you're informed that the event will be recorded, well, you've been informed. Where the microphones are placed is just the tail wagging the dog.

=R=

Though perhaps technically true, this is a perception issue, and hidden microphones (or cameras) just makes the situation feel more sneaky and lacking in transparency.

Perhaps but in reality, there's no effective difference between this and a plainly-viewed microphone that records sound from across a room (especially if the person being recorded cannot identify the microphone's capabilities by simply looking at it). Complaining about this just a technicality, a pretext. After all, the participants were all informed in advance that they and the event would be recorded. One would have to be pretty naive to walk into such an environment believing that anything said would be "private."

=R=

Ronnie,

A pretext for what? What is the motivating reason for the complaints if not the stated subject of the complaint?

FWIW, my invitation contained no advance warning that the event would be recorded. The reason for this, as far as I can tell, is that different entities worked on this project (ad agencies, pr firms, the restaurant itself, etc.), and some invitations apparently included such information and some did not.

However, even if there were clear warnings to everyone about the recordings, I think there are certain expectations about when you're being recorded and when you're not. What would be the point of hiding mics if not to catch conversation that was intended to be private? Is it cool to put mics in the bathroom. How about the entryway to catch the sotto voce comments of people entering and leaving, murmuring among themselves. Again, though, even if all this were legal and ultimately ethical, it looks fishy and that's a problem for Vincent and team.

David Hammond wrote:Again, though, even if all this were legal and ultimately ethical, it looks fishy and that's a problem for Vincent and team.

That's truly laughable. I doubt this will have any effect on Vincent, Giant or any other venture on which he puts his name. Unfortunately, it probably won't have any effect on the folks who complained about the event, either. Soon, they'll be on to the next freebie feeding event, writing about it afterwards with nary a mention of the fact that it was entirely subsidized. Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . don't hate the player, hate the game, right? I think it's perfectly acceptable -- hell, necessary -- to hate both. It's the players who perpetuate the game.

=R=

According to a late morning Tribune piece by Joseph Hernandez, there were more than just mics on the table: "all the centerpieces in the middle of the table concealed cameras filming reactions from the guests."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/ct ... story.html

ronnie_suburban wrote:I doubt this will have any effect on Vincent, Giant or any other venture on which he puts his name. =R=

I hope you're right, but with the firestorm around this event, it's impossible to say with certainty that there will be no lasting effects.

David Hammond wrote:According to a late morning Tribune piece by Joseph Hernandez, there were more than just mics on the table: "all the centerpieces in the middle of the table concealed cameras filming reactions from the guests."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/ct ... story.html

Only people who felt they were "duped" at the event could possibly care about this. It signifies nothing to an ordinary diner who would never find themselves in a similar situation.

=R=

David Hammond wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:I doubt this will have any effect on Vincent, Giant or any other venture on which he puts his name. =R=

I hope you're right, but with the firestorm around this event, it's impossible to say with certainty that there will be no lasting effects.

If Rick Bayless survived getting in bed with Burger King . . .

=R=

David Hammond wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:I doubt this will have any effect on Vincent, Giant or any other venture on which he puts his name. =R=

I hope you're right, but with the firestorm around this event, it's impossible to say with certainty that there will be no lasting effects.

Maybe those who might otherwise review his restaurants will no longer do so -- or maybe they'll just default to negative. With quid pro quo out the window, that would hardly be surprising. But there's nothing about what happened in this case that applies to a typical dining scenario, especially since Vincent posted so eloquently and transparently about what transpired (albeit, after the fact). It seems unlikely that diners would have any reason to hold this against him.

=R=

David Hammond wrote:
FWIW, my invitation contained no advance warning that the event would be recorded. The reason for this, as far as I can tell, is that different entities worked on this project (ad agencies, pr firms, the restaurant itself, etc.), and some invitations apparently included such information and some did not.

Ah, a harebrained scheme quickly organized by a bunch of corporate "yes" men/women. What could possibly go wrong?

stevez wrote:

David Hammond wrote:
FWIW, my invitation contained no advance warning that the event would be recorded. The reason for this, as far as I can tell, is that different entities worked on this project (ad agencies, pr firms, the restaurant itself, etc.), and some invitations apparently included such information and some did not.

Ah, a harebrained scheme quickly organized by a bunch of corporate "yes" men/women. What could possibly go wrong?

I can easily imagine the analogous SNL skit.

=R=

Interesting angle that got brought up at the water cooler today. If this had been general public (but still free) is there the same reaction? Anyone think that perhaps the influencers didnt want to be heard or shown raving about "3 day old" food?

Bspar wrote:Anyone think that perhaps the influencers didnt want to be heard or show raving about "3 day old" food?

Bingo.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:

Bspar wrote:Anyone think that perhaps the influencers didnt want to be heard or show raving about "3 day old" food?

Bingo.

=R=

'

When I first heard about this, my first thought was "what's wrong with properly stored three-day old food?" The quality of the food, however, wasn't the issue

Anyone think that perhaps the influencers didnt want to be heard or show raving about "3 day old" food?

Well, why would they? It's like being the target of a prank show, made a fool of at your expense and to the benefit of someone else. It'd be one thing if it was some opening of a new gimmick restaurant, poking fun at the nature of hype, it's another if it's coming from the esteemed chef of an esteemed restaurant in service of some plastic wrap campaign.

Vitesse98 wrote:

Anyone think that perhaps the influencers didnt want to be heard or show raving about "3 day old" food?

Well, why would they? It's like being the target of a prank show, made a fool of at your expense and to the benefit of someone else. It'd be one thing if it was some opening of a new gimmick restaurant, poking fun at the nature of hype, it's another if it's coming from the esteemed chef of an esteemed restaurant in service of some plastic wrap campaign.

A bunch of shills got caught in the crossfire. I'm sorry but this is a group for which it's virtually impossible for me to have any empathy at all.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:

Vitesse98 wrote:

Anyone think that perhaps the influencers didnt want to be heard or show raving about "3 day old" food?

A bunch of shills got caught in the crossfire. I'm sorry but this is a group for which it's virtually impossible for me to have any empathy at all.

=R=

i think the justifiable criticism of giant's sneaky actions has nothing at all to do with the reactions of the diners. whether they objected or were as silent as the tomb about the experience doesn't influence my objections to this experimental evening. the fact that the dinner was free is, imo, completely irrelevant. what giant and glad wrap did was disrespectful and also unneccessary. i'm sure the diners would have shared their honest opinions about eating 3 day old food if they were asked to without the subterfuge. i marvel at the naivety of Giant in their assumption that they could record and film people without their knowledge (just the first group of diners, but still). i think they screwed up, and it was smart of them to quickly and appropriately 'fess up and then apologize. this fumble doesn't make me, an ordinary diner, hesitate at all to eat at Giant. as others have said, it isn't very relevant to the regular dining experience. but it is a bizarre story....

Really curious how many (or few) people at the second seating left when they were informed in advance what was going on. Very few or none is my guess.

=R=