| A&E Day Panel on Restaurant Reviewing |
|
Panelists discussed guidelines that can be implemented at your paper or used as a launching pad for discussion.
Restaurant Reviews: A Matter of Taste? Why are restaurant reviews important to readers, and what kinds of standards should we have for them? The panelists at a workshop held during AASFE’s Las Vegas convention represented different points of view and, predictably, didn't always agree. But in these notes, paraphrased and summarized from the panelists' comments, you'll find some insights and opinions that might help guide your restaurant coverage. Of course, this only represents a slice of the opinions: Watch AASFE.ORG for critics' guidelines used at other newspapers. The discussion took place Oct. 18, as part of A&E Day. The panelists and moderator:
What do readers want from a review? Max: "I want to be entertaining and I think readers want to be entertained." A review must mention ambience, price ... all the pieces of information that help readers make a decision about whether to dine there. And, it's important to have something to say. Matt: "I think that all that readers really want is a sense that (the reviewer) is doing that review with integrity." The review must have a strong knowledge of food and cuisine. Tom: "I like a reviewer with a strong point of view" and someone who has a track record with the readers. Colicchio also wants the review to tell him something about the wine list, the service, the atmosphere and the hospitality -- noting that service and hospitality are two different things. From a restaurateur's point of view, "there's gold in that review if you (the restaurateur) pay attention to it (what the critic likes and doesn't like) ... there are things you can correct and fix." Also important: The critic needs to be passionate, to show "a love of food." How soon after the restaurant opens should you review it? Overall, two points of view were expressed: 1) Once a restaurant is open and charging full prices, it's fair game. 2) Restaurants often need time to hit their stride, and they often make changes in the first months of operation - changing the menu or even the chef. This point of view argues to wait 2-3 months before reviewing. Max: If it's a big chain, it's OK to go soon. They are big enough to have their act together right away. But for small places, give them a little more time. Matt: You're always paying full price, so why not do a review right away? Tom: "I'm up in the air." What do the readers want? Do they want a picture of a place right now, or of the way it is going to be (when it settles in)? He used as an example the New York Times, which does short no-star reviews of new places in a restaurant column. Those places might or might not get full reviews later. How often should a reviewer visit, and how many companion diners should he/she take? Max: It's usually dictated by the (paper's) expense account. He tries to go about three times and take a total of 8-9 people so as to try many dishes. Matt: Three times, bringing several people the first time. Despite this, he feels he almost always knows after the first meal whether a restaurant is any good and subsequent visits have never changed his initial gut instinct. Tom: If you only have the budget to go once, point that out up front so that the reader knows it. This lets the reader know you have only sampled a limited portion of the menu. A question for Tom: What are your pet peeves about restaurant critics?
What do you look for when you're reviewing a meal? Do you have yardstick dishes or a philosophy that help set your standards? Max: It depends on what kind of restaurant you are reviewing. For instance, a hole-in-the-wall might not have great service but might have terrific food. However, Max thinks the way the customer is greeted says a lot about a restaurant - the humblest establishment can give you the kind of good welcome that makes you want to return. Matt: The most important thing is to be a consumer advocate. Readers should know that we are on their side. So accessing what kind of value is important - across the board, from food to service. Tom: Establish a point of view and be consistent. Your readers will learn to know where you're coming from. Critics hate them, readers love them. How do you feel about star ratings? Overall: There seemed to be a consensus that a multiple-star rating is best, with different ratings for food, service, atmosphere. Max: Some great food can be found in tiny places that might not do well with star ratings. Giving a place one overall star ratings can be too limiting. Should a critic call a chef before writing the review to talk about the restaurant's mission from the owner/chef's point of view? Tom: No, but call after the review is written to say it's coming out and to make sure the same dishes are still on the menu. Restaurants need a heads-up in case they get swamped. What about anonymity? How important is it? Lots of back-and-forth here, with no real consensus, though most agreed that even if you are recognized, there's little a restaurant can do except give bigger portions, make sure the chef is cooking your dish and re-assign better waiters. But the level of cooking is what it is and won't change because a critic arrived, and the basic foods - bread, dessert, stocks, etc. have already been made. The panel questioned how much anonymity a reviewer really has, despite efforts to make reservations under a different name or to use a disguise. And, both Matt and Tom agreed that service can sometimes get worse when a staff knows who you are -- they're nervous. What's your methodology for reviewing? What do you look for during a visit? Overall comments:
|