Tuesday’s Epicure in the Age September 25 2012
and Wednesday’s Age in Entertainment 26th September 2012.
It is indeed a pity when self-devotion
to the aggrandisement of the self proclaimed professional
restaurant critic’s expertise [apologies to Dickens] is toppled by Joe the
blogger blob. Food reviewers are crying foul as their level of self proclaimed
importance and vitriol is replaced by the equally self proclaimed but now
collective vitriol of the unsworn albeit anonymous masses. For years so called
food writers have survived on sensation and the negative such as demonstrated by
the dubious literary eulogies of ‘Close ‘em down Downs’ [Stephen Downs – since
fired] or the recent court case against a Sydney newspaper when they had to pay
out millions because of a ‘review’ [Mathew Evans – no longer reviewing] which
closed a restaurant. Something about the pot calling the kettle black comes to
mind.
If nothing else the Evans case solidified defamation and
liable laws where food writers and I suspect bloggers can not just wax lyrical
with impunity from their own egomanic distortions of the real world. Say or
write something untrue and the doo doo bucket just got deeper. We, the
beleaguered restaurateurs, have a precedent!
Coleman Andrews said in his article, “We have to write better
and more intelligently...” when referring to bloggers as competition. May I
ask, “Why hasn’t this been a guiding principle for any article written about
anything, ever?”
We own two restaurants and suffer the same indignities by food
writers and bloggers as everyone else yet we still enjoy blogger ratings of 92%
and 73% which, in the first case, outranks nearly all the hatted restaurants for
a dining experience. We have had extremely negative blogger reviews removed
from Google and Urban Spoon from people who never dined at either restaurant -
having to do this really sucks. A published review on one of our restaurants a
couple of years ago castigated us when the reviewer made some ‘interesting’
claims about a piece of metal the size of a kitchen knife left in his meal but
post publication refused to provide any evidence preferring to hide behind a
legal wall [He has just been given the flick from The Herald Sun]. Fortunately,
after nine years, our business is strong and it made no difference but I wonder
what would have happened to a new venture?. If we had a legal precedent then,
all would have been different. The key change is that food writers can no longer
say what they feel like and feed the malcontents in print just to sell papers.
It got harder. The same publisher as the ‘metal in the food’ review named us as
one of Melbourne’s best restaurants just two weeks later. Doesn’t say much for
‘professional’ food writers me thinks.
The problem for a reviewer and indeed any ‘food guide’
publication is that bloggers are finding the cracks. If a reviewer gives a
restaurant two hats but the blogger collective gives them a mediocre score then
who is right? If democracy is alive and well then the bloggers must be heard
and perhaps the hat system needs to be revised to remove inconsistencies.
As a restaurateur, my challenge is to provide a ‘product’
consisting of the design of a space where people want to be, service which
surpasses expectations and food aimed squarely at our target markets. Add on to
that, making a profit and getting time enough to play golf and go on one of
those strange things called, holidays.
A ‘reviewer’ [as distinct from a blogger] needs a proven level
of expertise, relevant qualifications and must be prepared to take
responsibility as does a ‘trouble shooter’ or a ‘consultant’ for what they do.
It is not good enough to just feed the face and pontificate in print when the
reviewer can destroy a new business costing ‘someone else’ their invested
capital whilst they retain their impunity and ignore contributing factors.
The blogger will be with us forever but hopefully will be seen
as the uneducated and unprofessional opinion albeit, an extremely important
opinion as our efforts as restaurateurs are laid bare by their comments and,
others of like mind will listen and make decisions based on those bloggs. The
challenge is to remove comments by bloggers of low intelligence or whom have not
raised themselves above toilet humour or who think that writing something nasty
will bring them closer to nirvana. The answer is that we can’t remove them in
total but we must make sure the idiots are seen as idiots and we must also make
sure everyone realises that bloggs are manipulated by people seeking advantage –
like advertising the more money you spend the greater the
impact.
The way to do this is to make sure future professional
reviewers are and are seen to be expert, above complicit activity [see article
on Downes by Suzanne Carbonne in The Age September 26th] and support
restaurateurs, not destroy them [see Coco Roco Vs Mathew Evans].
The newspapers and glossies like Gourmet Traveller along with
the rest of us are subject to pressure by media marketing companies and it
really is a joke the amount of free publicity some people receive before
opening, during opening and post opening their next big foodie venture [see
Epicure and Gourmet Traveller current editions]. Or indeed, how the level of
advertising in a particular publication translates into positive publicity or
the level of kickbacks taken to give a positive review [see article by Suzanne
Carbonne].
The reviewer must rise above this underworld of kick-backs,
bribery and bulsch [euphemistic interpretation of doo doo] to become a guiding
light - not a ‘critic’ but a professional ‘reviewer’. Not a reporter but a
journalist with opinions based on expertise, qualifications and a recognisable
face. Just saying you have eaten out for 20 years therefore you are a qualified
reviewer is not good enough. This is blogger territory.
We don’t need the vitriol, we need reviewers who are seen as
honest but supportive and delve into why a particular restaurant is doing what
they are doing. The blogger doesn’t give a toss other than what’s put in front
of them and neither they should as their experience is one dimensional. [But
that singular view is of enormous importance because they are our clients and
like it or not they will have very valid opinions albeit not necessarily
right.]
The reviewer on the other hand must be ‘three’ dimensional and
above the underworld of the holier than thou’s.
Sorry but I’m on a roll now – personally, as restaurateurs, we
don’t pretend to offer multi-hat cuisine [with one cook/dishwasher it’s
impossible] but we do offer reasonable food, great atmosphere and service. We
rank at 93% on blog sites which means 93 people out of 100 liked our total
product and had a great experience. Our ‘blogger’ reviews are for the most
part,sensational and we are full most of the time. This is despite Mr Downes
and despite the fact that neither of our restaurants has featured in any Good
Food Guide [nine plus years in business] and we have no media company selling us
and we do not give kickbacks and we do not advertise and we grudgingly welcome
bloggers.
This is what the reviewer needs to focus on, a total product
but from a professional point of view. It’s not all about the food! It’s about
an individual restaurateur’s investment in a great experience and the review
must be cognisant of the hopes and dreams and indeed strategies of all the
people involved in the restaurant.
Let’s take the review up the food chain a few notches! [pun
intended].
Jon Langevad MBA
Director Cafe Dansk Pty Limited
Trading as:
Mon Ami Restaurant & Gallery - 144 Nicholson Fitzroy
94173220
Deco Bistro - 49 Beach Street Port Melbourne
96461101
Langhill Consulting - langhill.net
Jon Langevad Photography – jonlangevad.com
No comments:
Post a Comment