Good article in Wall Street Journal on food blogging

There is a very interesting article in today's (Saturday) WSJ about restaurant reviews on the Internet. It starts with the story of a place here in Chicago called Dine that provided a free meal to about 75 folks who post on Yelp, and not surprisingly, Dine then got great reviews. The article then explores the many issues that arise out of this.

Jonah

On the WSJ home page, this was under "Free today." I don't know if that means subscribers only tomorrow, but here's a link to the story:

The Price of a Four-Star Rating - WSJ.com

The Price of a Four-Star Rating
Was a free meal behind that glowing online restaurant review? The rising influence of food blogs has chefs plying Web critics with dinners and drinks to avoid bad write-ups.

It is an interesting article. It reminds me that one of the reasons LTH forum is so much more useful is that, because of our many social events, I've personally met a lot of people who post here, and I understand their writing and their opinions better for that.

Also, while there's occasional use for star ratings and capsule reviews, it's harder for that kind of system gaming to happen here where we do things "the ol' fashioned way."

Finally, of course shills (and the occasional innocent bystander ) get their heads bitten off here...

The article make the common naive mistake of conflating food-blogs, food forums (like LTH) and opinion boards like Yelp, because they are all web-based. The three categories are very different entities with completely different focus and dynamics. It is like lumping together magazines, books, newspapers and newsletters because they are all printed on paper.

Hey, I ate lunch at Dine last month with a large group of co-workers and l really liked it and the food we were served - and we all had to pay full price!

It is not a bad article in a number of ways, pointing out some real problems and the natural evolution of sites.

You have the Chowhound problem with not allowing the restaurants to post at all, thus denying them the ability to address factual issues; the Yelp problem with directly organizing free meals for members and then apparently having no policy on how they post; the Zagat problem where you pretty much encourage those with an interest in a restaurant to submit high scores (my guess is that the new system to manage that screens out reviewers who do not rate more than one or two places, just a guess); and the natural evolution blogger reviews to no longer accept freebies once other sources of income become available and the freebies have the potential to jeopardize that income.

All in all, an article we are happy to not to have been included in.

Here's a very similar article in the October issue of Restaurant Business called "Everybody's an Online Critic"
www.restaurantbiz.com/index.php?option= ... w&id=13816

dicksond wrote:...the Yelp problem with directly organizing free meals for members and then apparently having no policy on how they post...

My problem with Yelp (being a poster there) is that I don't get invited to the free meals

No, really, I actually find the review areas kind of a problem, because there's no back and forth like there is here or at Chowhound. And I know that there's at least one restaurant where a reviewer makes very clear that s/he has an interest in the place, but hi/r 3-6 "friends" (who only have one review each, of this restaurant) do not. There's no attempt to deal with shilling.

I've skimmed Yelp occasionally for actual info, as I do Metromix, but the reviews are so random I can't imagine actually making a decision about where to go based on anything there. The review could be by a shill, it could be by someone who's never had Mexican food from anywhere but Taco Bell, it could be somebody just talking smack for fun. There's nothing solid there to put your feet on.

Review sites like Yelp and Metromix are useful for when you know nothing of what happens to be in an area and you'd like to get a sense for whether it seems good or not. I've used them when in new neighbourhoods in the city, at least to gain some idea of whether X restaurant or Y bar is worth dropping into.

I do occasionally post to Yelp, and give my reviews on the Metromix, but honestly I have learned that unless there is a uniform response about trackable issues (for example, complaints of high volume of music; consistently poor service; terrible preparation/wait times for food) then it's really up to me to go in for myself. I prefer word of mouth recommendations from friends before that because they have a vested interest, I hope, in providing an unbiased report rather than gloating because they got a kickback from a restaurant.

I value LTHForum and other sites with such a wealth of individuals with strong culinary backgrounds, experience in the industry, those with a passion for food, and those like me who are just starting to expand our repertoire. You see multiple different viewpoints with which to come to your own conclusions but it's not likely all of one group was solicited to respond favourably about a new restaurant due to advertising, a free meal, gift certificates, or because their editor told them to.

I just read Michael Nagrent's take on this piece and something struck me: don't theater and movie reviewers typically get comped? I seem to recall that theater reviewers are invited to previews, that is, see the show before the general public - usually by invitation and free.

Now, I'd agree that for those of us who don't do this for a living, it's an entirely different animal, and Yelp should really put a stop to that stuff. Paid restaurant reviewers and restaurants have a relationship like theater critics and theaters; you offer comps in order to get your show/kitchen in the paper, and you take your lumps or accolades gracefully when it comes to the review. Every review-ee watches the paper with crossed fingers; I don't think anyone assumes they're buying a good review. I'd agree that plying reviewers with comps on their personal time is easily misconstrued and must be off-putting for the reviewer, (kind of like asking a lawyer for free legal council in a social setting, if you ask me - it's rude) but I trust that the reason a professional is paid is that their judgement is trustworthy and their thinking analytical, regardless of the circumstances.

Any paid reviewer who allows free food to influence their reviews will eventually be exposed by unhappy media customers. It's the reviewer's results that matter: is the restaurant accurately depicted as good, bad, or indifferent? As long as this assessment is accurate, I don't expect the reviewer to be out of pocket for the costs associated with his job - and it's not the reviewer's fault if a restaurant doesn't understand when they're off the clock.

Mhays wrote:I just read Michael Nagrent's take on this piece and something struck me: don't theater and movie reviewers typically get comped? I seem to recall that theater reviewers are invited to previews, that is, see the show before the general public - usually by invitation and free.

I think this varies a lot. I don't have examples handy, but I think many restaurant reviewers make a point of not accepting freebees from restaurants. Many take it a step further and try to conceal their identity when visiting restaurants. I'm sure there are just as many, however, who take full advantage of freebees (and I've heard the Zagats are the king and queen of this).

Mhays wrote:Any paid reviewer who allows free food to influence their reviews will eventually be exposed by unhappy media customers. It's the reviewer's results that matter: is the restaurant accurately depicted as good, bad, or indifferent?

I think this is exactly right. People trust Ebert and Roeper, and Phil Vettel (which isn't the same thing as saying they agree with them, of course). This trust comes with producing a body of work that is viewed as the commentator's true opinion.

Dining out and seeing a play or a movie are fundamentally different. With a play or movie, there's little or nothing the actors, directors, financiers, etc can do to give a reviewer a different experience from a regular customer.

The movie Ebert sees is the same movie you see, for instance. But the meal Phil Vettel eats if he's identified might be very different than what an anonymous diner would get... off menu items, the best piece of meat in the house, an extra shaving of truffle, whatever.

Now, movie studios do try very hard to get favorable reviews by bribing critics with things like junkets in exotic locations, but most reputable news organizations either don't let their critics attend these, or pay for the trip and all expenses, just as they do for their restaurant critic's dinner.

True, but then it's not really about comps but about anonymity which is a completely different issue. That's where amateurs come in to play; if there's a huge disconnect between the internet buzz and reviewers, I'd take note. Preseumably the food biz is now competitive enough that restaurants would lose business by giving their b-game to regular customers and reserving their a-game for celebrities and reviewers.

Having worked in the theater, I'd say that there's a pretty wide difference in a given performance from day to day, especially from previews to opening - though I suppose the tendency is for it to be at its worst for the review.

The movie Ebert sees is the same movie you see, for instance. But the meal Phil Vettel eats if he's identified might be very different than what an anonymous diner would get... off menu items, the best piece of meat in the house, an extra shaving of truffle, whatever.

After reading the reviews of a few LTHers over time and comparing those reviews with my own experience (and the experiences shared by others on LTH) at the same restaurant (and sometimes ordering the same dish) I've sensed that they make it known to the restaurant that they're LTH participants (and will be posting a review/report/photos) and are served meals different and/or better than what anonymous LTHers (or non-LTHers) receive. I understand that regular customers often receive better service than a first-time or infrequent customer - but I'm referring to something I think is different. I now discount the value of all of the comments/reviews of those few persons. A forum such as this, however, presents the opportunity for readers to consider more than just one review of a restaurant or other business over time – whether the buzz is valid, or not - and that should result in a leveling of any heavy-weighting some reviews might receive as the result of an above-standard experience someplace.

Bill wrote:After reading the reviews of a few LTHers over time and comparing those reviews with my own experience (and the experiences shared by others on LTH) at the same restaurant (and sometimes ordering the same dish) I've sensed that they make it known to the restaurant that they're LTH participants (and will be posting a review/report/photos) and are served meals different and/or better than what anonymous LTHers (or non-LTHers) receive.

Although what you describe is not out of the realm of possibility, I've been eating with LTHers for years and I've never seen anyone announce their affiliation or that a "review" would be pending. Of course, during holiday parties and so on the restaurants know who we are, but those instances would be the exception.

I am in full agreement, though, that the very number of posters on a single restaurant tends to balance any extremely positive or negative reviews.

I think the salient point Mr. Nagrant makes is that sometimes the "old" media tend to depict the "new" media as the only folks who might take comps. Many members of the "old" media have been taking comps for years and not all of them are as up front about disclosing it as others.

=R=

I've never seen someone announce their affiliation either, except of course at official get-togethers.

I do think, however, that people who whip out cameras and take pictures of all of the food will probably be reported to the kitchen, who might put a little extra care into the preparation and presentation of the following courses.

I would say the number of times I've been treated a little better, more attentively, more curiously, whatever because of taking pictures is certainly greater than the number of times I've been treated better because somebody knew I was from LTHForum (and knew what that was).

But at that point, taking pictures isn't much different from simply chatting up folks and them showing you a little appreciation because you're showing greater interest in their work and business. It's like when I went to Baccala, and asked about the lardo, and soon I was given a little plate of it-- not because they knew I was from LTHForum (though, not too much later, a poster who was a waiter there figured it out) but because I was interested in and knowledgable about their food.

So if someone wants to call me a corrupt reviewer for that, I will deny strenuously-- that I'm a reviewer, and thus possible to corrupt. I'm just a customer-- and it's certainly possible to treat me well as one, and I'm comfortable that I'm not pushing it beyond how I, as an attentive and interactive customer, might be treated anyway if this site didn't exist.

Although we did go to Double Li the other day, looked at the menu, realized that nothing we had read about was on the English one, and said "um, hi, we read about this dish that isn't on the menu, we read it on the internet..."

Jazzfood wrote:Here's a very similar article in the October issue of Restaurant Business called "Everybody's an Online Critic"
www.restaurantbiz.com/index.php?option= ... w&id=13816

Just to provide some positive support for the credibility of online restaurant reviews, I am happy to say I had the profound displeasure to dine at the Anaheim White House earlier this year and at the price point (absurdly high) I cannot recall a worse meal in the last 5 years. Laughably bad in some instances.

I think this same article was reprinted in the Trib's RedEye today, it sounded familiar when I picked it up at the dr.'s office. LOL

HI,

I don't try to make waves when I visit a restaurant. I do often come informed from having read posts here or from other sources of information. It is this pre-knowledge that attracts the attention of the waitstaff.

Pre my on-line experiences by many, many years:

1. Walked into a Korean restaurant with my best friend Cathy in Sydney, Australia. Without looking at a menu, we order bulgogi plus some other dishes. The owner inquired if we had ever been to his restaurant before. We hadn't though we had been going to Cho Sun Ok in Chicago for years and knew the drill.

2. Walked into a restaurant in Tuba City, New Mexico at 10:30 PM. Without looking at a menu, I asked if they still offered Indian Tacos. I knew this was their specialty from Jane and Michael Stern's Roadfood books.

Since my on-line experiences:

1. Walked into The Cheese Stands Alone to inquire about the 6 year old Gouda I had read Mike G enjoyed on Chowhound. The owner gave me the once over, then said, "You must be one of those on-line people. It is not 6 but 4 year old Gouda. You all come in asking for the same thing!" It was probably the first time 'my cover' was blown via internet community.

2. I arrived just after closing to Ron's Cajun Connection in Utica, IL. I was being politely turned away until I inquired if I could buy Boudin. While I still couldn't get any dinner there, though I watched it being dumped in the garbage. I did get what I wanted as well as a nice conversation.

When I was there recently, Ron didn't remember me. However I got his attention when I inquired if the rice he was serving originated in Louisiana. He flat out asked, "Yes, but how do you know?" What little I knew was from listening to SurfinSapo waxing poetic over his prized gift of Rice Land popcorn rice. The rice served seem different and I was just simply guessing.

Any attention I draw is from my sincere interest in what they do. I do ask lots of questions, which I do under many other circumstances, too. People do love to talk about their business, I am an interested audience. Sometimes it is as simple as that.

Regards,

Ruhlman posted on his own blog the link to a column he wrote for Restaurant Hospitality magazine, with some good insight on bloggers v. chefs

http://www.restaurant-hospitality.com/article/18162/

Andrea Strong, 38, who has been writing thestrongbuzz since 2003, has been regularly accused of praising the restaurants that comp her (typically by anonymous commenters). In a telephone interview she noted she does accept comps but said, “I would never write something negative because I wasn’t comped. I don’t expect to get comped. My goal is not to tell people where not to eat, it’s to tell people where to eat.” - from the article linked in the post above

The person I remember most clearly who would praise to High Heaven the restaurants that comped him (and probably slammed those who didn't) was Irv Kupcinet. Many people understood the game Kup played, but there probably many more who didn't.