Eric Asimov is the New York Times wine writer, and wrote an interesting article on restaurant trends. His observations about the New York restaurant scene could almost equally have been written to describe that of our country, in describing popular menu ingredients, the role of the critic, and the impact of Social Media.
Asimov wrote after having taken on the role of ‘analytical eating’ as restaurant critic for his newspaper over a three month period late last year. Writing for the paper for more than seven years already, he observed that while many things have changed and restaurants have come and gone in New York, what they have in common is that they are ‘fragile businesses staffed by dedicated, incredibly hard-working people. Most are passionate enough to accept living on the nightly adrenaline rush that supplements their marginal paydays, except for the few visionary chefs and executives who manage to get very rich’, words that could equally describe our local restaurant scene. He writes that almost all restaurants serve food with a ‘same handful of ingredients’, being pork belly, bacon, ‘eggs on top of everything’, ‘cuts of beef for two… and alleges to have been dry-aged for 28 days, which is meant to rationalize the exorbitant price they fetch’, a change from the salmon and lentils, and seared foie gras of a number of years ago. The quality of ingredients has improved, he observed, and he wrote that it is rare to not see the origin of the produce on the menu, usually coming with a ‘surcharge’ , which he believes restaurant patrons are not always willing to pay. Wine lists have improved, no longer featuring large distributors’ wines, beers and spirits only. Craft beers have been a welcome addition in restaurants, as are creative cocktails.
But it is technology, and Social Media specifically, that has changed. “Social media and smartphones allow the real-time chronicling of any restaurant meal, by anybody, always”. Here restaurant critics face a new dilemma, in that they are expected to review restaurants faster, in competition with ‘instant opinion-givers’ ! He believes that the restaurant critic has a role, given that the social media reviewers and commentators “are not bound by the same standards and ethical obligations that, theoretically at least, give greater weight and credibility to the professionals“! It is clear that Asimov has a dim view of the ethics of bloggers, perhaps feeling threatened by the plethora of blogposts written about restaurants, on blogs which have a strong following given their less technical and often more honest writing.
Staying anonymous as a restaurant critic is far harder, he says, with the greater presence of photographs of critics on the internet, in contrast to the ‘creased copies of ancient photos’ which appear to be common in top restaurant kitchens! Asimov prefers to be treated anonymously, even if recognised by a restaurant, and to not be sent extra dishes to be impressed, even though intended as ‘deeply generous impulses but nonetheless make the task of the analysis more difficult’.
Chris von Ulmenstein, Whale Cottage Portfolio: www.whalecottage.com Twitter:@WhaleCottage
20
3070
27k
20
Hello Chris
” It is clear that Asimov has a dim view of the ethics of bloggers, perhaps feeling threatened by the plethora of blogposts written about restaurants, on blogs which have a strong following given their less technical and often more honest writing.”
I find this statement particularly bizzarre coming from you given your thoughts on Tripadvisor, which to my mind is another avenue of social media. How can you champion Bloggers,twitters,etc…and not Tripadvisor?
A website who advertises the fact that they are hosting the up-to-date feedback from real customers and visitors?
Ethics are definately an issue with all real time feedback forums/social media.
I’d particularly enjoy your reply to this conflict of support.
Dear Ryan
No one would define Tripadvisor ‘reviews’ as Social Media, not being written on a blog, on Facebook or on Twitter. I see no ‘conflict of support’!
You probably are unaware what a dim view the industry has of Tripadvisor, and of the class action which more than 100 hotels are jointly taking against TripAdvisor in the USA, for false ‘reviews’. TripAdvisor is not Social Media, because the ‘reviewer’ is not visible, hiding behind an anonymous name, ‘reviews’ can be made up (both good and bad ones, by owners and competitors, respectively), negative ‘reviews’ (of accommodation establishments) inevitably relate to a cancellation policy/money back issue, TripAdvisor makes it extremely difficult for the establishment manager or owner to respond and present a different perspective, and there is no space for a healthy debate on TripAdvisor as we have on blogs, where you and I, for example, can express opposite points of view as Comments to the blogpost! Bloggers and Tweeters are equally ‘real customers’, but with their real name exposed in most cases (although some, like Spill blog, oddly use a false surname).
Chris
whalespotter is also a pseudonym but still considered social media.
how can you assume the parameters of Social Media being the forum for open debate when it is well documented that you control the debate/or content of the debate on your blog?
again, how different is what you do…from what tripadvisor does?
Dear Ryan
Social Media in my book are mainly Twitter, Facebook and Blogging, as I stated in my previous reply. TripAdvisor does not fall into that definition.
I reveal my name, I observe and write what I experienced in my reviews, and I allow open (non-defamatory and non-disparaging) debate about what I write – all of that differs from TripAdvisor!
Chris