Boston chefs bitter about those jerks on Chowhound
From the latest issue of Stuff at Night, a Boston lifestyle biweekly, a piece entitled "What's Cooking?" that interviews eight Boston-area chefs:
"Rebecca Newell (chef at The Beehive): What sucks a little bit about the foodies is that sometimes they have no idea what it takes to put together some of the items and put the menu in a streamlined [manner]. Beehive is known for an eclectic menu, but how to string it all together and how to open up an 80-seat patio and have it collaborate with the menu inside and have two different things going? It’d be great if you published this because I would appreciate it, but someone said on Chowhound, “What kind of idiot is running Beehive kitchen?” And I was like, “You wanna try it on? You can come in and wear this chef coat. You’ll cry in an hour.”
Will Gilson (Garden at the Cellar): That’s the other thing. Chowhound and Citysearch and things ike that make it so hard for you to feel as though you’re in control. For the longest time, it was just the reviewers in the city that were writing those articles. And now anybody can write whatever they want about you and it’s on there.
Mary Dumont (Harvest): You open your restaurant and, boom, up comes a blog.
Gilson: Yeah, up comes a blog [on] Chowhound that says, like, “I went there and everything sucked.” And it’s like, okay, that guy got fired that day, came, and had a really bad time. And now I’ve got to listen to this rant.
Newell: The guy that called me an idiot said, “I have never been to Beehive, but whoever’s running that kitchen must be an idiot.”"
I agree with Newell's comment that it's unfair to get criticized by someone who hasn't tried your restaurant; it's worth noting that the mods swiftly removed the "idiot" comment she's complaining about. But I have to shake my head at the "If you think it's so easy, you try it" comment. The issue most Hounds have with places they don't like isn't that *they* think they could do a better job, but that the chef's competitors are doing a better job.
I continue to be amazed at how restaurateurs overestimate the power of boards like this. If your place isn't full, it's not because some Chowhound bad-mouthed it: it's because of your failure to offer an experience of value equal to your competition. I'm not suggesting it's easy to "make a menu collaborate with the patio", but I don't believe a critic of any stripe can make a restaurant succeed or fail: at least not if you're not Frank Bruni.
MC Slim JB
Jun 22, 2008 04:56AM
A view from the other side of the fence. Chefs are lurking it seems. Although how could they do otherwise? They must be curious as to what people, other than critics, are saying about their restaurants and reading the negative remarks must be demoralizing for them when they think they are doing everything right. But you're correct, MC....when they look out into the dining room and see empty tables don't they consider why?
Permalink | Reply
There are places with fantastic food that have closed in half a year and some really awful tourist traps that've been open since the age of dinosaurs. Having good food isn't the only criterion for a good business.
Permalink | Reply
Sigh. SO true.
Permalink | Reply
If you have ever seen an episode of Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares on BBCA, you'd know the answer. Some of these chef/owners are so completely egotistical and myopic, that they just really can't understand why everyone else doesn't LOVE the overcooked salmon with demiglace, and the side order of minute rice.
But I do agree that it's ridiculous to read this board, and take away from it that the "commoners" just don't understand the business. I may not understand how to RUN a restaurant. But I certainly know what makes me not want to eat at one. Indifferent service, cold food, food that doesn't match what was described on the menu, high prices, etc.
If anything, I think for some of these chefs, it's been too long since they went out to eat at a restaurant around here. They should try it sometime.
Permalink | Reply
When people make comments such as "idiot", it itends to erase the value of the rest of the content of chowhound posts (e.g. comments on course timing, meal prep, atmosphere, etc.). It's just a little defensive psychological tic most people have.
What chefs need to realize with these blogs is that they are not a special persecuted class. Many people are now subject to 'public' review b/c of the internet, and it can be demoralizing (I say this from experience - I am in a profession that has websites where clients can review us).. They have to learn to use the comments when they are good, and discard the ones that are not helpful.
If your restaurant is not full, you should be on Chowhound and other boards trying to figure out why, rather than shooting the messenger. Heck they are LUCKY to have this kind of feedback so that they can work to improve.
Permalink | Reply
Interesting article (it's at http://stuffatnight.com/boston/stuffa... for anyone who wants to read the full article). And I guess some of them don't realize that they've helped make CHers into better eaters - they've put the new, interesting foods out there, and CHers have helped spread the word about the good things going on at X restaurant(s).
So yes - while there are always those that will say "I haven't been there, but won't go because I don't like the vibe of the place just from walking past it", they should also look to those that offer appropriate critical comments and potentially take the time to improve on what issues there might be - service, food, whatever. It sounds like some want to live in a little bubble - everything's rosy and wonderful - and aren't looking to why a restaurant isn't successful. If something isn't working, perhaps that should change vs. forcing people to accept what they (the chefs) think the public wants.
Oh - and if chefs/owners *are* reading here? Perhaps they could tell their website designers to get RID of most of the the Javascript or slow-to-load websites. All the fancy bells and whistles, pop-ups, movey-scrolly things are just plain irritating - people want the main site, they want easy links to menus, location and hours. K.I.S.S. when it comes to websites, I say.
Permalink | Reply
Linda, you have described one of my pet peeves to a Tee. Some of them even come with mood music. And for the nuisance and wasted time, I'll have to pay up for the owner to recoup the outrageous cost of website overkill. Tell me what you got and what it costs.
Permalink | Reply
Even worse are the purely Flash based websites. There are restaurants that I have not gone to because their website is done purely in (or grossly overuses) Flash. To me that is a sign that a business does not care about their customers and in a business like a restaurant where customer care is *everything*, then clearly something is lacking.
Permalink | Reply
That's probably what I meant instead of Javascript (can you tell I'm not a technogeek? LOL). My term "movey-scrolly things" meant Flash. :-D
Yes - overuse of Flash is obviously the web designer charging too much for a useless website. As Veggo said - tell me what you got and how much it costs (and where you are and your hours). 'Nuf said.
Permalink | Reply
Ah yeah - rereading your post, you're probably correct. This is likely to get whacked as I can't really think of any way to bring it back to food specifically but the primary problem with those sites are that the only reason to "overuse" it (things like Flash have their uses, but 99% of the time they're overused) is to break standard controls & operation on a site which from a usability standpoint is pretty poor.
The other issue is that not everyone actually can even *see* them. At work, I don't (and "can't" ... in that I *could* but it would be a mega hassle) have Flash so those sites are completely inaccessible to me ... if they did things in a more standard way I could actually see what they're trying to tell me.
Permalink | Reply
Linda - the "movey-scrolly" stuff, is, indeed, called "dancing b***s**t" by the web creators. Its creative, yes, and entertaining, but doesnt really help the person who is going after information. They need to understand that people looking at their website want to see a) pictures of the restaurant, b) a map or at least an address/phone # and especially c) THE MENU. Make it easy, or they will go elsewhere.
Permalink | Reply
Yeah, but that's not INTERESTING to the web designers to just make a static website. So they oversell the "dancing b***sh**t" and the restauranteurs/owners fall for it.
Permalink | Reply
Depends on the web developer. Most of the ones I know are pretty no-nonsense and agree with all of the sentiments in this subthread, as well as make fun of the ones that we're talking about.
The real problem is the customer, they think the flashy (pun partially intended) sites are what they want and the uhh, less good developers are always happy to oblige.
Permalink | Reply
http://www.katzdeli.com/
This has it all: pomposity, needless complexity, time-wasting flash, navigation that is anything but intuitive and that forced me to turn my head on its side, some of the tabs being barely legible. Speaks volumes about customer service.
It's just a deli, for Pete's sake! Gimme location, hours, contact, and menu! After I've found those things quickly and easily, maybe then I'll want to read all about your "story"!
Permalink | Reply
Perfect example. Interesting how there's a "Cut the drama; let me in already" that's slotted 3rd or 4th in the flash after you FINALLY click on the "ENTER" button on the initial page.
And those book spine clickable tabs? Really bad.
I remember reading here on CH awhile back of a restaurant's website that has tons of flash - and if you happened upon it without knowing, you'd *never* know it was a restaurant. No clickable links after several minutes of flash (which you couldn't get out of without closing out of the site), and other than their flashy-flash tell-me-nothing pages, you got *no* information about the restaurant.
Anyone remember who/where that resto is/was?
Permalink | Reply
A perfect example about how a Flashy (again, pun partially intended) site can go horribly wrong: A restaurant was opening up in Boston that had a lot of pre-opening and very early CH buzz. I tried to get my friends to go there with me - they went to the website. Unfortunately, they hired one of "those" web developers, lets just say that I've yet to get them to go because the website portrays a *completely* different image than that which they're trying to hit up.
This was totally based off a Flash spread of pictures which WEREN'T EVEN TAKEN AT THE BAR! Uh, good job guys, you lost yourself a bunch of very well paying customers when a CH was trying to rally the troops!
Permalink | Reply
This is one of the things that I love about Yelp and menupages.com. Between the two of them, I can get every last bit of info I actually care about w/o actually going to the overproduced (by martin hammet take four, if anyone gets that reference) website.
Permalink | Reply
Agreed, but it IS missing sound. I had pop-ups blocked, so I know I missed something good....
Permalink | Reply
I completely agree with the comments about websites!
1) I want to see the MENU! Prices are a very nice touch. And Pictures of the menu items are a big bonus
2) Location and Directions and Hours
3) Contact for reservations
THATS IT!! Leave out the rest of the flashy stuff.
Permalink | Reply
With blogs and boards, everyone has opinion. I understand how it can annoy chefs to read unflattering things from arm chair quaterbacks. Everyone's a critic ya know. But on the positive side a restaurant can gain a lot of business from a positive buzz about their establishment. I would dismiss a few negative critics but if there was a pattern of negative comments then this could be a way for the restaurant to see what may to be improved. Companies spend a lot of money on focus groups and suggestion box analyzations and with blogs and boards they can get it for free. And we all know what value something free has.
Permalink | Reply
I'm thinking the chefs are confused. They meant to say "Yelp". LMAO!
Permalink | Reply
Without addressing the swipe at Yelp, there are some subtle differences between interaction of the businesses & the people on the site, which come down to the differences between the sites themselves (and to some extent the people using it).
On the negative side for Yelp, I've seen a general sense of "we have a profound affect on businesses, they're listening to us and must cater to us!" that I think is a serious delusion of grandeur (but perhaps I'm wrong) and to a level that I've never really seen here on CH.
OTOH, restaurant/biz owners definitely do interact with the Yelpers more (for better or worse) because they actually can. Here on CH I've seen a ton of posts get wacked by the Mods because an employee/chef/etc comes in to either defend and/or simply try to curry more feedback. CH also has no means (that I know of) to private message or otherwise contact someone unless they post an email address in their profile.
With Yelp it is different, you hear stories of the owners/chefs contacting people based on their reviews ... sometimes in a polite/constructive way and others in a manner that is more like that of a 5 year old child (which even further shows you that the place probably isn't worth frequenting). I've seen stories where people have been recognized by the staff due to their picture on their profile (since Yelp encourages "real pictures", something that I don't particularly care for but to each their own) ... again sometimes dealt with in a polite/constructive way and others very childish.
Permalink | Reply
yelp and chow are my 2 most visited/used/participated in sites. they have very different sensibilities, and are a great compliment to one another.
i'm far more social w/ the people on yelp , i find it more of a social review site, while chow is a discussion about food and food place by foodies
Permalink | Reply
100% agree. The two sites are in my top 2 sites which involve actual participation (I read some news sites/etc more frequently). They're both different in their own ways, have their good & bad points, have slightly diff goals. Its all good.
Permalink | Reply
Am I the only one that chafes when the media refers to messages on Chowhound boards as "blogs?" I mean, I post on Chowhound, and I also write a (non-food related) blog. The two are very different things - the former incorporates my opinions into a hodgepodge of other opinions (some concurrent, others dissenting, others...well...incoherent), while the latter is my opinion, undiluted, for anyone who cares to listen (and I have dozens...yes, DOZENS of readers ;) ). This is what I think is the beauty of a site like Chowhound - the fact that there's always room for debate, and that one person NEVER gets the last word. Any yahoo (myself included) can start a blog and write as though their word is law, but Chowhound readers know who to trust and how to filter out the noise.
Am I being overly fussy about semantics here, or are we being misrepresented?
Permalink | Reply
No, you're right on, Wahooty, but don't expect to win this fight. As people have become more aware of the blogging phenomenon, they've also confused the concepts of blogs and message boards. I can hardly count the number of times I've seen people refer to their posts here on Chowhound as "blogs," or talk about posting on the boards as "blogging." So it's a a widespread problem, and I have a feeling that it won't be easily corrected.
Permalink | Reply
Oh, I don't expect to win - it certainly wouldn't be the first thing that drives me nuts that the rest of the world couldn't care less about. :) I just needed to know I wasn't alone - thanks, Caitlin!
Chowhound: it's not a mere blog - it's a support group for co-dependent anal-retentives like me. :)
Permalink | Reply
I care, I care! I called it a blog above, and you both are absolutely correct in correcting me. I am a novice to the message board world, so please excuse my error. Of course, it has been driving my husband nuts for over 8 years that I still refer to DVDs as "tapes", so this could be an uphill battle for me.
Permalink | Reply
Hee hee...Cachetes, I didn't even notice that you did it. :) My comment really wasn't targeted at you...just at those who write an article talking about the "buzz on the blogs" and proceed to quote (and, in the case of the Toronto board, MISquote) selected comments from a single Chowhound thread. I think it's a cop-out on both sides - it does CH a disservice, as well as making the story sound like it's been much better researched than it actually has.
Don't worry...I hear admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery, so you're on your way. ;)
Permalink | Reply
It might not be winnable (some are, some aren't) but it definitely is something worth fighting for. But it is important to remember that we're in a world where there are still lots of folks who believe that "the internet" is the blue "e" on their windows desktop, so ...
Still, I'd think that someone in a position like a chef or owner would want to carefully note the differences between the different forms of internet media because they each have their own plusses and minuses, effects, etc. Perhaps I'm wrong and they just don't care but having the extra precision in their vocabulary could be the difference between them getting worked up over nothing and ranting in a newspaper article about "those durned blogs" and not.
But in general, the mish-mash and messed up terminology that shows up with internet stuff annoys me (and has been for decades now). The one that I see the most (I don't see the 'blog'/'message board'/'newsgroup' thing nearly as often) is using 'wiki' instead of 'Wikipedia' (wikipedia is a wiki - but only *one* out of a gajillion wikis out there)
Permalink | Reply
It's annoying to me, too. I actually had a Boston-area chef who was unhappy about comments made about her place on Chowhound reach out to me at my Chowhound email and complain about "your blog". I responded that: a) Chowhound isn't "my blog", and b) I wasn't the one posting the unflattering comments she took offense to. I pointed out that Chowhound is not a blog, but an Internet bulletin board that she should look to as a valuable source of feedback, and to ignore the most hurtful, extreme-outlier criticisms. Being thin-skinned is not an asset in that business.
Permalink | Reply
What is "Chowhound email"?
Permalink | Reply
It's an email address I set up just for Chowhound-related correspondence; it's in my Chowhound profile under "Real Name".
Permalink | Reply
I, too say right-on (but I don't blog). Here we discuss and disagree. Occasionally the moderators get a little heavy-handed and throw out the dishes with the dishwater, if you will... but, all-in-all I think we are allowed to debate and counter mis-information. I don't think it takes long to sort out who you find credible, either. Sometimes someone will say something like, "end of story" and look how fast they are to be corrected!
Permalink | Reply
Nope. You are not being fussy. It drives me crazy. "Blogging" is the current buzzword. People know that it's a "phenomenon" but don't really know what it is, so they just throw the term around randomly. Of course, when I want to apply for a job that requires blogging experience, I'll probably feel quite differently. Do my thousands of posts on Chowhound -- and on newgroups before there were web-based message boards before that -- count?
One major difference: people beyond your close circle of friends and your mother will actually read your post on chowhound.
Permalink | Reply
Communities like Chowhound haven't actually changed how restaurants create and maintain their reputations, it just happens much faster. Word of mouth has always been essential to restaurants [or any service business actually] and can make or break a new business. A site like Chowhound amplifies the word of mouth to a self-selected group that want good food and good value.
Posters who call chefs idiots and proclaim restaurants awful but haven't eaten there are ignored in the same way that the loud-mouth at the water cooler was ignored when s/he proclaimed Denny's as the best restaurant in town pre-internet.
I would think that sites like Chowhound give chefs and owners honest feedback from real customers in ways that have never been possible before. Chowhound is a passionate focus group without a fee, and I wish it was viewed as another touchstone towards excellence.
Permalink | Reply
Oh, boo hoo wah. If your restaurant sucks, the problem isn't that those meanyheads on the interwebs are telling other people that your restaurant sucks, the problem is that YOUR RESTAURANT SUCKS. But blaming Chowhound is a quick and simple way of absolving yourself of all responsibility for your own failings, so I can see why they're fond of it.
Permalink | Reply
I found one comment to be particularly telling - the bit about how he figured a "this place sucks" review would come from someone who had a bad day. I feel like this sort of attitude is on the rise - I've come across a lot of service professionals who seem to think that any sort of negative reaction on the part of the patron is the fault of the patron and not a reaction to poor service on their part (e.g. a bad tip implies the person was cheap, not the waiter being crappy)
Permalink | Reply
Yeah, I can understand that reaction on the waitstaff's part.
For me, the analogy is that everyone thinks they're a safe driver; otherwise, they'd drive differently. Similarly, I suspect most waitstaff think they're good enough for good tips (otherwise, they'd drive differently), so are surprised at low tips (and look for some external reason: kitchen mistake, crappy customer, weather).
Permalink | Reply
And the final kicker is that I suspect most customers think they're good customers/tippers and so are surprised if the staff aren't tickled pink at whatever request they make. The cycle is complete.
Permalink | Reply
I dunno - maybe I'm more self-aware (or self-critical) than many, but when I waitressed, many many years ago, I was well aware of when I was off my game, and fully able to distinguish between times when I was tipped poorly for a poor performance and when I was tipped poorly for no evident reason.
Permalink | Reply
The restaurant industry wants it both ways. They want the "buzz" and the traffic from good word of mouth, without the brutally honest criticism that will come when things don't go well. While I agree no one Chowhound review can make a new restaurant, a few reviews on a few sites do have a cumulative effect and WILL influence others to try it. But then you have to take the good with the bad... it can't be all roses and sunshine. That's simply not the reality of the restaurant experience, most especially for a new place working out the kinks.
I'd have to hope that any industry person taking the time to read Chowhound would also take the time to gauge which posters here give feedback worth incorporating into their business. Yeah, there's a lot of hot air blown around, and there's also some uninformed opinions, but there are some people here who really know their shit and are willing to give them that feedback for free. It seems to me that a restaurant owner/chef/manager would be shooting him/herself in the foot by not at least bothering to pay attention to what posters like MC and Limster have to say.
Permalink | Reply
Another point- the chefs in that article are lauding how much better informed Boston diners are these days.... well, at least speaking for myself, the Internet is a BIG part of that. I'm so much more better informed both about food and restaurants as a result of reading Chowhound and similar sites. Being better informed is a dual edged sword- diners are better able to appreciate unique ingredients and preparations, but we also feel more confident about saying "this is NOT good" when a chef makes a stumble on a menu item.
Again, you have to take the bad with the good, but I really do think the good that internet sites like Chowhound does for the restaurant business far outweighs the bad.
Permalink | Reply
As to the restaurant industry wanting it both ways, no restuarant is universally loved. Often I'll wait two months to evaluate a joint ... it is almost clockwork ... the place with the raves on day one ... two months later come the posters who start saying ... eh, not so much ... then we go through a naysaying period.
And visa versa ... bad open ... two months later usually come the positive reports.
It's easier to evaluate the places that have mixed reviews on day one.
So if a restaurant catches the negative swing of the pendulum the forget the good and that the pendulum will swing again.
Permalink | Reply
People can be fickle, no doubt about it, but I think this cyclical theory is more due to the restaurant itself. People clamor to a new restaurant; wait in line to get in, hoping that it is the new mecca. If it is too unusual they don't return. Disillusioned, they go back to the norm of what they know and are comfortable with. Sometimes there's a buzz that lasts.
But month to month I think it is the owner, manager or chef taking their eye off the ball (have you ever been hit in the head when you did that?) with complacency, internal strife or turnover. Then it gets back on track again. I remember having dinner at a top-rated, big city place where the owner was on a long honeymoon overseas; I thought it was nowhere near my previous experience or the norm.
Permalink | Reply
This is a great thread for the Boston area. There are so many factors in play that no one can place blame.
First, growing season! We're in Massachusetts. (i've avoided the Taxachusetts tag because food and politics don't mix). The growing season is from April to October. July is a great month in the Boston area. Lots of fresh ingredients available for local restaurants. But local chefs often don't know what to do with local produce. In Boston, local chefs look for quick hits, big sellers. Until Boston cooks ( I can't even call them chefs at this point.) understand what is available,what is fresh, and what they can cook, Boston will always be a 3rd rate food town,
Permalink | Reply
This is somewhat OT, but I think you're being a bit harsh. Now that I live in Denver, even though I appreciate the dining scene I've got now and am enjoying watching it grow even as we speak, I look back at Boston with longing for chefs who were truly ahead of the curve.
But then, the "Boston's not as good as NY or SF" criticism's been leveled forever. Whatever. You don't have to like to Oringer or (granted, now-departed) Nevins or Shire or Sortun or Adams or Schlesinger or anyone else, but to equate them with home cooks is IMO off-base.
Permalink | Reply