How Hunger for Clicks Drives NY’s Brutally Fickle Food Scene

That subject line should have quotes around it because it's the title of an article in the New York Observer. (I couldn't because the software limits the number of spaces in the subject hearing.) Interesting reading. (Note comments from a certain Mr. Kokonas and, further down, Mike Gebert.)

Great read, particularly for the comments, thanks for posting.

From the comment section:

Nick Kokonas wrote:Similarly, Grubstreet, Eater and the like are businesses trying to make money off the back of that industry. Clicks pay for their staff. Advertisers ultimately run the roost. It is up to restaurants to create interesting and relevant content for the internet in the age of the internet in order to remain relevant. Traditional PR is worthless. A press release is a joke these days. But good food and good content -- photos, videos, recipes, interesting profiles of staffers -- never gets old regardless of the format and forum of the day.

What Josh misses, however, and what is becoming more and more obvious every day, is that restaurants do not need these websites if they get into users social streams. There are two reasons that Next does not have a traditional website, only a ticket portal. Those reasons are Twitter and Facebook. If we post content to Facebook and mirror it on Twitter it is common that we reach over 200,000 directly and indirectly. And it requires very little on the part of the customer to see that content... it washes over them passively -- what every advertiser ultimately wants. They can opt in or out... but once in, they tend to stay in if we treat them well.

Don't get me wrong... the 'blogs' are still relevant. But they are not critical anymore just like eGullet is not critical. I appreciate it when they post articles about us... but I worry about social media far more.

I couldn't see any comments to the article. Did they take them down?

The GP wrote:I couldn't see any comments to the article. Did they take them down?

You're right. Very odd. Don't have any idea what happened to them or why they would delete/take them down.

I can still see them...

Hi,

I am able to see the comments. I refreshed thinking it was my cache, but it is still there.

Regards,

You all can probably see dead people too. It's probably something with my work browser. I'll try again from home later.

Is it possible that browsers at work block Facebook and therefore also blook comments-powered-by-Facebook?

In any case, here is Mike's comment:

Mike Gebert wrote:Oh, you New Yorker you, you write all this and you don't even mention the biggest Grub Street story of last week— that they shut down the non-NY blogs. (I was the editor in Chicago.) That was us, the tiny dots on the map of the US by Saul Steinberg over your desk.

I'm sure there are chefs and PR people out here who will read this and have reason to think that the only thing worse than being hyped by Grub Street is not having a Grub Street to hype you at all. But beyond that, I don't know, maybe it's the difference between greasy pole New York and bovine-calm Chicago, but I can say with some authority that if all the media were chasing after the latest hottest thing, the readers were often much more interested in the long haul of the restaurant scene— some of my best traffic numbers, # of Facebook recommends, etc. came for solid chefs who were hot 10 years ago (John Manion represent!) or a book about Wisconsin supper clubs or all kinds of stuff that wouldn't have been out of place in a tweedy magazine two decades ago.

We can blame the reader for making us write stuff that distorts the scene and turns chefs into Lady Gaga, but often as not we're writing what we think will make us look hip to other writers-- and then blaming the reader for wanting the only thing we give them.

Someone misinterpreted Mike's thoughts, which he responded to (and may offer clarification for anyone who came to the wrong conclusion, too):

I just want to say that I completely disagree with the way The Braiser characterized my comments above (or more accurately, a small portion of them) to make it sound like I was bitter and bashing Grub Street. Not at all the case and my point, which I hoped was fairly clear, was that there is room for writers to do more than chase trends if they seize the opportunity-- and I thank Grub St. for letting me do just that.

The Comments section is as interesting as the original article, perhaps more interesting to this board's members, since Chicagoans Kokonas and Gebert posted there.

Ozersky is writing about the business of online food writing. However, what interests me is how Kokonas describes the evolution of the boards* - actually, his analysis suggests that that evolution is more of a dissolution - into individual blogs. I think Kokonas correctly separates what are effectively food press sites - up-to-the-minute heirs of food magazines - from blogs that are person-driven labors of love. At the same time, he seems to see no enduring role for community boards. While I have no data to assert the monetary value of boards such as this one, perhaps the jury is still out on that.

Actually, the commercial value does not matter to me. What matters is the opportunity to share what I have found interesting with the community that I enjoy. This is more like the motivation of a blogger, if Kokonas' view holds true. But most of us, (writers and lurkers alike) find value in discussion and the content provided by the well-informed contributor. Some find entertainment in the banter. Some find a hyper-local insider resource for a niche topic with a niche numbering 2 individuals. Your mileage may vary.

*Kokonas cites eGullet, Opinionated About, and Mouthfuls.org. as examples of community boards.

The article exemplifies itself, doesn't it.

"The top food and restaurant blogs" - how many are there? How many people - what percentage of potential patrons - regularly check more than one? Apparently those who produce copy for the TF&RB visualize themselves as immensely important. But how demonstrably important are they in reality?

I'm not surprised Manhattan has spawned a subculture of dining at only the newest chicest hottest new places that are new. So what? The article itself demonstrates (although the writer doesn't seem to get it) that there aren't enough trendhoppers to maintain all that hotness. Well, too bad for the restaurants that position themselves as challengers for top of the novelty heap. Live by the click, die by the click.