mdt Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Interesting read, nothing too surprising. Here is the Eater story and here is the full text of the secret document. They do discuss bloggers in general and provide this info. Of course there are those places that dislike the non-glowing amateur reviews. With bloggers we will normally know ahead of time that they are coming as their attendance to a media event is prearranged and it's very rare for a blogger to simply show up and attempt to not be recognized. Basically, they're in it for a free meal, which we happily provide for some positive coverage.
zoramargolis Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 All the important local critics, eh? Where's Don's profile? 4
Lori Gardner Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 I'm surprised there aren't more comments on this topic. I'm a food blogger who occasionally attends press events, occasionally gets a free dessert at a restaurant if my identity is known, and always discloses in my posts about whatever freebies I receive. Maybe I'm naive but if there are bloggers who limit their dining to restaurants where they receive comp meals, they must not eat out very often. I've heard this accusation before (including on this board) and it galls me. My husband and I spend a great deal of money at local restaurants. I blog because I enjoy writing about my experiences for whomever feels like reading about them. This seems to be true of the majority of bloggers in the DC area. This secret document is a bit like "House of Cards" for the food world, so if nothing else it is entertaining. 1
jasonc Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 All the important local critics, eh? Where's Don's profile? I'll second that. Don is easily the best food writer in the DC-area and among the best in the US.
DanielK Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Maybe I'm naive but if there are bloggers who limit their dining to restaurants where they receive comp meals, they must not eat out very often. I know more than a couple of bloggers that fall in this category. They eat out multiple times a week and rarely pay. I blog because I enjoy writing about my experiences for whomever feels like reading about them. This seems to be true of the majority of bloggers in the DC area. There's a monthly event, the "DC FoodBlogger Happy Hour", where some restaurant lays out free food and discounted drinks, ostensibly to get some good buzz about the place. Go read the blogs the few days after - many don't disclose what was free or discounted. And the side discussions at the event are galling - many about how to score free food and drink. It's barely short of extortion.
DonRocks Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 I know more than a couple of bloggers that fall in this category. They eat out multiple times a week and rarely pay. There's a monthly event, the "DC FoodBlogger Happy Hour", where some restaurant lays out free food and discounted drinks, ostensibly to get some good buzz about the place. Go read the blogs the few days after - many don't disclose what was free or discounted. And the side discussions at the event are galling - many about how to score free food and drink. It's barely short of extortion. Daniel, would you mind naming names? Some very respected restaurants host free meals for bloggers, that much I'm aware of. It's a tactic that certain PR reps use, and knowing the restaurants who participate in these giveaways might shock people. [Humble-Brag-Gag Alert] I should add that I've accepted two free meals in my life: the first, a one-on-one dinner with Antoine Westermann (*) at The Willard Room (where I had to speak French for two hours); the other, an intimate dinner with Alain Ducasse at Adour (that I thought was going to be a pass-around event for hundreds of people; I did not realize I was going to be seated next to Ducasse in a small, private dining room). I also once accepted an all-expenses-paid, 10-day trip to Galicia. Every whore has his price. (*) Please understand that, as a Francophile, I look at these two chefs and instantly think "Buerehiesel" and "Louis XV" - meeting them was like porcupine having the chance to spend a day driving with Danica Patrick. Incidentally, I might have been the only "journalist" who recognized how sub-par the food was at the meal with Ducasse. He did, however, and he was *pissed* - at one point, he politely excused himself from the table, and I saw the look of death in his eyes as he made his way back towards the kitchen. I would *not* have wanted to be those cooks at that moment.
Lori Gardner Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Some very respected restaurants host free meals for bloggers, that much I'm aware of. It's a tactic that certain PR reps use, and knowing the restaurants who participate in these giveaways might shock people. I am not sure why this is shocking. Some restaurants host dinners for press when there is a chef or menu change, and new restaurants often have opening parties or media dinners. I was at a comp dinner last night at a just-opened restaurant, and I will write about the restaurant (with full disclosure) with some basic facts about the food, decor, chef, etc. I can't judge the experience fairly because it wasn't a typical dining experience. I will go again (on my own dime) to do this. With all of the restaurant competition that exists, I don't think a restaurant can be blamed for wanting publicity. I understand that this is a slippery slope and that's why bottom line- I think full disclosure is critical.
DanielK Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Don: not naming names. Lori, if restaurants are hosting free dinners for bloggers, why isn't the entire DR community invited? No offense meant to your blog, but any SINGLE post on this board gets more hits than pretty much every food blog in this town. So, basically, my 4000+ posts on this board are worth nothing, but if I created a blog and copied my posts there, I am a valued blogger and deserve free meals? Horseshit. 2
deangold Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Don: not naming names. Lori, if restaurants are hosting free dinners for bloggers, why isn't the entire DR community invited? No offense meant to your blog, but any SINGLE post on this board gets more hits than pretty much every food blog in this town. So, basically, my 4000+ posts on this board are worth nothing, but if I created a blog and copied my posts there, I am a valued blogger and deserve free meals? Horseshit. Different PR people have their own lists of influential bloggers, for better or worse. The bloggers who most often get invited have social media followings on Twitter and Facebook in the thousands. DR .com is viewed as a "small world" that is not a way to "create buzz". I am not saying I agree with this, just that if you talk to PR folk, this is their answer. I try to appeal to both worlds. And there are definitely bloggers who eat our free or heavily discounted 2-3 times in good weeks. Some are better than others at disclosing they are eating a freebie.
DonRocks Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Different PR people have their own lists of influential bloggers, for better or worse. The bloggers who most often get invited have social media followings on Twitter and Facebook in the thousands. DR .com is viewed as a "small world" that is not a way to "create buzz". I am not saying I agree with this, just that if you talk to PR folk, this is their answer. I try to appeal to both worlds. And there are definitely bloggers who eat our free or heavily discounted 2-3 times in good weeks. Some are better than others at disclosing they are eating a freebie. The reason PR reps try to view dr.com as a "small world" is a simple one: I don't let them bribe me. An example: several years ago, I recommended a PR rep to a restaurateur asking me for advice, and she subsequently got the contract. The PR rep held a blogger dinner at this restaurant, and the restaurateur asked her, "What about Don Rockwell?" Her response was that inviting me would be a waste of time and money, and she then proceeded to disparage my character to this person (and I reiterate: I got her the contract). Years ago, Dean himself told me, and I quote, "The scope of your community is enormous" (I even remember the accent was on the second syllable), and he followed that by saying the only thing that has more impact on his restaurant is the Cleveland Park Listserv. Now, maybe things have changed, but I can say that from our end, we have only grown - in fact, we had 65,000 unique visitors last quarter, most of whom are from the DC area. The average post gets 100 views in the short term, many more than that in the long term. 25-30% of our membership consists of industry insiders. I, myself, have 2,784 followers on Twitter, and that number is growing by 1-2 people a day even when I do nothing. If I tweet about a post, it brings 100 views in less than an hour. We have never spent one penny on marketing or PR - this community has been built entirely organically using invaluable volunteers like Daniel and Zora. I'll never take our volunteers for granted, and I've got their backs. Forever. But both Dean and Michael Landrum - who built his entire empire using *only* this website as his marketing tool for many years - are our two (and our only two) outliers, whose restaurants have such a disproportionate number of views that they really can't be discussed as being any sort of meaningful example, so let me give you a few that are: Within the past few days, our members have been singularly responsible for changing the name of a restaurant. Things of this magnitude happen on dr.com so often that they are completely overlooked and taken for granted - our members are responsible for breaking major restaurant news, certainly once a week, probably more often than that. Just last night, for example, one of our members announced the closure of a restaurant - as of this writing, this is nowhere else on the web. Things like this happen *all the time* - it actually happened twice last night. * On January 14th, I wrote this post about J.P. Caceres, and was the first person on the internet to do so. I even went so far as to make this a separate forum at the top of the home page to try and help the man out. * On January 15th, PoPVille chimed in. * On January 15th, The Washington Post chimed in. * On January 15th, The City Paper chimed in, citing PoPVille as the first to break the story. * On January 15th, Washingtonian chimed in. * On January 16th, Eater DC chimed in citing The Washington Post. Of course, this could just be coincidence - I mean, just because hundreds of people in the DC restaurant community saw my post doesn't necessarily mean that it would trickle down to these other publications. It could just be dumb luck. * On November 19th, Eric Reid wrote me and told me of this tragic tale. Like I did with J.P. Caceres, I made the event into a separate forum, and put it at the top of the home page because I wanted to help out the family. * On November 19th, Eater DC chimed in. * On November 20th, Del Ray Patch chimed in * On November 21st, The Washington Post chimed in. * On November 22nd, The City Paper chimed in, citing The Washington Post. * On December 15th, The Boston Globe chimed in. I guess It's A Small World After All. 1
RWBooneJr Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 I think we should add a page to the guide for Don, to which I contribute this photo:
DIShGo Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 All the important local critics, eh? Where's Don's profile? I agree. The local media are threatened by Don's expertise and wish they had his followers.
Waitman Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Don: not naming names. Lori, if restaurants are hosting free dinners for bloggers, why isn't the entire DR community invited? No offense meant to your blog, but any SINGLE post on this board gets more hits than pretty much every food blog in this town. So, basically, my 4000+ posts on this board are worth nothing, but if I created a blog and copied my posts there, I am a valued blogger and deserve free meals? Horseshit. Neither your nor Lori's call to make, nor is a value judgment to get knicker-twisted about. Some flack makes a call on how to get the most buzz for the buck. If some sleazy blogger is getting free drinks and you ain't, it's not the content of your character but the quality of your marketing that is being questioned. Pitch yourself better. (hmmmm...how many posts do I have?)
ktmoomau Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 What I find funny is the list itself is pretty much useless, it covers so little and of those people many of those things should be fairly obvious. I mean if I was in that business I would find out those things on my own. I went to three years of school and do tons of continuing legal education, the least you could do for your job is figure out the things on that list. If you are going to have a list, I would expect it to have more information. There are big movers and shaker on the social media world, not to mention magazine editors for more than just Washingtonian. And in the days of Chow, DR and the site which shall not be named) general public reviews have gotten more important. I hope they didn't pay good money for this information, that would be sad. We have people on this site with almost 1,000 twitter followers. Heck SeanMike has 803, not that any of his tweets ever make sense (jk, sort of).
DaveO Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 I have a hard time believing the substantive value of twitter or facebook without a significant level of expertise that accompanies the various posts these people make. The modern world and social media has an immense amount of noise with less and less substance. Old adages suggest there are lots of folks out there with a mile of coverage and only an inch of depth. Who has the tolerance for an inch of depth? And without depth do these folks actually have substantial influence?? I've been on twitter for several years. Without any overt effort to publicize my twitter acct or an effort to follow people to get followers I have something over 1200 followers now. Most of it arose because I have a known expertise in a narrow field of local search. Yet even when I tweet information of value it gets tiny tiny following or response. TINY. A huge chunk of those followers came from a period when I got some free surprising publicity in a major source of seo news w/ a huge following. It surprised me. I sincerely doubt most of those or subsequent followers pay any attention to my bunk (substance). If I really want substance I mass email about 25 substantive knowledgeable tested people on this subject for discussion. That works Fairly recently I made one concerted effort to get twitter reaction....spending about 1 hour tweeting away, tweeting to those I follow in an area with their own large followings. Specifically adding tweets directed at others in twitter with followings. It generated something like 90+ reads, some retweets, some responses. It was directed to people totalling hundreds of thousands of followers total. It is astoundingly ephemeral and transitory. If I'm not on twitter for a period of time I could miss the most important or compelling news of the day there...and can't recapture it. My effort was teeny teeny teeny tiny. Those indicators used by PR people are incredibly light with no substance. They simply tend to float in the wind. On the other hand I can't help but thing that the continuous enormous crowds that hit Rose's Luxury didn't hit until after the WaPo review. Whether one likes the review source or not, WaPo is an "authentic authority with a very very vast following". How many tweeting facebooking bloggers have that???? Meanwhile I suppose getting free food up to 2 or 3 times a week is a danged good racket. my $0.02 for the day.
DaveO Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 I found reading about restaurant PR events with a host of bloggers attending getting a free meal and then expected to blog/ tweet, and post on FB about how "great" this restaurant is to be incredibly disconcerting on so many levels. To the extent that the invited bloggers are writing positively about this restaurant and Not revealing that they attended a PR event with free food they are lying to the public. These are called "false positive reviews". They are deeply deceptive. The public loves reviews. They are a powerful source for all sorts of purchase options. The public relies on reviews. If I purchase something on EBAY do I want to purchase from a buyer who has ripped off a lot of others and gotten terrible reviews. Alternatively do I want to buy from somebody who has faked positive transactions just so he/she can then rip off a lot of future customers? Do I want to buy a car from a lying SOB, or any purchase, and do I want to eat at a restaurant whose food and service is nothing at all like the glowing reviews it received from a lot of bloggers given free food to act as independent reviewers. On a second level do I as a restaurateur want to pay for an initial event wherein the substance of it is dependent on tweeters, bloggers, and FB followings whose posts have an incredibly short life span, can easily be missed, and may have zero following of substance. Does it work? Do I get "buzz"? Are there diners afterwards that appeared because of the buzz I'm paying for? Can I measure it? Now both a disclaimer and a "claim". I've never owned, run, invested in a restaurant. I've never looked at the finances nor do I know what works to vault a restaurant from new to popular or how to maintain popularity, etc etc. OTOH, I/we have been running businesses for years (dare I say decades) both on a distant hands off review the numbers basis and more hands on. They have been of different types. We have reviewed sources of business for (dare I say) decades. We did it religiously decades ago and we work to do it religiously today. It tells us what works and doesn't work and it tells us if we are doing a good job with customers. (we target word of mouth---much as restaurants do) in every type of business. The other thing I find disconcerting is that PR people are selling #'s of tweets, likes, fb and twitter followers as something to spend money on. The value of a like or a tweet is so astonishingly minimal relative to a sale in virtually any business of any sort. Now does it actually work for restaurants? That I don't know. What do the restaurant operators say? I'm sure the PR firms will tell you how great it is...but they don't measure the results.
jayandstacey Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 The sleeze here is the PR person that leaked this. They were out passing around this info and seems they weren't making enough $$$ on it. So they do what PR people do - they create "buzz". So now (presumably) a few restaurant owners will seek him out and pay for updated info. The suckers here are the restaurant owners who get fooled by this crap. They pay PR people to drum up business, who in turn deliver people looking for freebies. The owner pays the PR person, then gives away food to people who won't be back - because there's free food next week across town. Why can't DR be a part of this? Simple: DR can't/won't create a sudden "rush" of people - either of the freebie-seeking blogger kind that the PR people produce, or of the "gotta be able to talk about the latest hot restaurant" group that the Post and Washingtonian produce from their expansive distribution. Some owners seem to seek these crowds like a junkie after crack. These owners and PR people are mutually dependent and slap each other on the back when there's a 2 hour wait on a Friday night. I'm no expert, but from where I sit, the successful restaurant owners are those who ignore all that and just run their business like a business. One that charges money and delivers quality, in the hopes of repeat customers who are regularly satisified. If they do that, then the Post and Washingtonians will come and go without great impact to the business, good or bad. And the PR people and their beggars need never show up. Now - delivering on that promise is a HARD thing...but that's what matters most. The net: If I were an owner, I'd hope that all my competitors focused on this list and its source; and the blogger buffets and all that go with them. I'd focus on beating them. 1
DonRocks Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 The sleeze here is the PR person that leaked this. They were out passing around this info and seems they weren't making enough $$$ on it. So they do what PR people do - they create "buzz". So now (presumably) a few restaurant owners will seek him out and pay for updated info. The suckers here are the restaurant owners who get fooled by this crap. They pay PR people to drum up business, who in turn deliver people looking for freebies. The owner pays the PR person, then gives away food to people who won't be back - because there's free food next week across town. Why can't DR be a part of this? Simple: DR can't/won't create a sudden "rush" of people - either of the freebie-seeking blogger kind that the PR people produce, or of the "gotta be able to talk about the latest hot restaurant" group that the Post and Washingtonian produce from their expansive distribution. Some owners seem to seek these crowds like a junkie after crack. These owners and PR people are mutually dependent and slap each other on the back when there's a 2 hour wait on a Friday night. I'm no expert, but from where I sit, the successful restaurant owners are those who ignore all that and just run their business like a business. One that charges money and delivers quality, in the hopes of repeat customers who are regularly satisified. If they do that, then the Post and Washingtonians will come and go without great impact to the business, good or bad. And the PR people and their beggars need never show up. Now - delivering on that promise is a HARD thing...but that's what matters most. The net: If I were an owner, I'd hope that all my competitors focused on this list and its source; and the blogger buffets and all that go with them. I'd focus on beating them. A comment on cnn.com about a New Jersey Governmental Agency banning Tesla from selling directly to consumers in NJ due to pressure from the New Jersey Coalition Of Automobile Retailers: "This is how it works. People build an industry..they get rich..they stop innovating and when someone comes along with new ideas and products they spend all their money trying to stop them to protect their cash cow. You see this everywhere. You see this in society. You see it in our politics. It's the number one enemy of progress. We allow money to buy laws. Wanna become a more civilized society where people arent pulling out handguns to solve every dispute? Too bad the gun manufactures need to keep that cash cow alive "You're all in danger! Buy more guns!". Wanna make a move towards cleaner renewable energy? Too bad the oil companies gotta keep that cash cow alive. I can't even play online poker on the largest poker site in the world because people like Sheldon Adelson are spending millions in DC lobbying to keep online gaming from hurting the bottom lines of his brick and mortar casinos. I can buy a gun though..buy some alcohol and cigarettes though...can't play a skill game online with the rest of the world while living in the land of the free. I'm tired of it all. People like Elon were put on this earth to revolutionize it and we let the old guard of elites cuff him because we can't figure out how to be heard as the overwhelming voice of this country."
jayandstacey Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 As I vaguely recall, NJ once heavily taxed the sale of dump trucks in the state with the hopes of raising revenue. Within a year, dump truck sellers in PA and NY had operations near the border, doing brisk business. What had been a stream of $X taxes for NJ, which they hoped would become 3 $X - instead became nearly zero $x and maybe 3 such trucks were sold in the whole state the next year. As they said in Jurassic Park, "life finds a way" - and in this case Tesla cars will be driven by NJ residents, just through some other means than through a sale made in NJ. I'm not sure what "old guard" is keeping you down Don - Yelp and their ilk I suppose - but to the degree you keep plugging away you'll eventually outlast them as they fold under their own weight and greed. That, or you buy a flashy tie and speed up your speech. Then go into a restuarant and promise to fill it with reviewers who "owe you one" and will likely write a positive review. Charge $1000 and let us all know about the free buffet via a semi-cryptic tweet, and how much you love it, and imply how it's the next big thing on the restaurant scene and we better get in early so we can claim how much we loved it before others loved it. But first things first. You need a flashy tie. (this is the second time I've referred to Jurassic Park on this site in the last week. I don't even really like that movie. Shame on me)
SeanMike Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 As someone who is friends with a number of food bloggers I'd recommend remembering not to tarnishing an entire group by the actions of some. Yes, they get invited to events, etc. etc. Not all of them are conniving new ways to get free stuff. Most of them (and admittedly: as am I, for certain things and places) offered them based off past coverage. If you'd like the PR/marketing system to change, yelling about "the bloggers" is about as useful as complaining about Yelpers. It ain't gonna do a thing. Instead, think of how you can beat them at the game.
jayandstacey Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Admittedly, I used the phrase "freebie seeking blogger kind" above. However know that my beef is with the apparent PR people that connect such folk with unwitting restaurant owners. Both the owners and bloggers are being used to the PR person's advantage. This reminds me of PR people in the club scene. The "clubbers" aren't the issue, rather the PR people who go to great lengths to fill a place for a short time without the long-term survival of the place in mind. If anything, the clubbers are being misled as their goal is to find their ideal place and yet they're being led all around town to places that are often missing the boat (as evidenced by their turning to a PR person). I didn't think this was happening in the restaurant biz...but I guess I'm not surprised. I'm sure there are good PR folks out there doing long-term good things for restaurants. And as a former business owner I understand the need to move and make waves and all that. And of course bloggers aren't themselves the issue here most of the time.
DonRocks Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 However know that my beef is with the apparent PR people that connect such folk with unwitting restaurant owners. Both the owners and bloggers are being used to the PR person's advantage. While this is true, restaurant owners are not as naive as you're giving them credit for being. They are, at the minimum, complicit in the swindle; more often than not, they're partners in crime. And, in fact, the bloggers (though some are being used as starry-eyed neophytes) make the geography a perfect Bermuda Triangle. But make no mistake about it: a select few of them know exactly what they're doing, and in fact are not bloggers at all; they're marketers posing as bloggers. I've attempted, in the past, to get "journalists" - with much larger audiences than I have - to do some investigative work, but for whatever reason, they refused to pursue the story. Perhaps it's because there is no story; perhaps it's because the story is bigger than people think. Cheers, Serpico.
jayandstacey Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 ok- makes sense. Same with clubs. A self-feeding beast when they link up
ad.mich Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 RELATED: If you haven't seen the recent Frontline on social media, "Generation Like", you should watch it. By the time you reach the end and hear teenage kids with no clue what the phrase "selling out" refers to, you're going to want to take a Silkwood shower and then double check if those new space flights will consider letting anyone just stay in orbit permanently. I snark on the DC blog sewing circle primarily because of the blatant lack of disclosure by many, and the way it steers what otherwise might have been a decent resource into an echo chamber. I've lived in cities where the local blog scene was a resource. For the most part I don't think DC is part of that group. For the record I'm talking independent writers, not WCP, WAPO, and Washingtonian, all of which produce good content, even if they occasionally poach Don's. Maybe we should crash the April food bloggers happy hour? I'll even register a blogspot for us to make it all legit my beef is with the apparent PR people that connect such folk with unwitting restaurant owners. Both the owners and bloggers are being used to the PR person's advantage. Owners --> PR --> Bloggers. If it sounds like a human centipede...
SeanMike Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Right. No one is going into this starry-eyed and naive. As soon as a blogger stops covering the events he or she is invited to, the invites dry up. I could give you a number of great examples from the cocktail blogger world, and if you see me in person, you can ask me. PR folks, as much as we might like to think, are not stupid. They know where they're getting their ROI, and if they don't, then they lose their jobs. Owners know the same thing. If you want to prove them wrong, you have to show WHY it should change first. Complaining about it, whether it be about the owners, the PR machine, or the bloggers, just makes you look whiny and entitled, wondering why someone else got a shiny and you didn't. Well, let me put it this way: I noticed when I started getting invited to fewer and fewer soft openings, promos, etc. And I was mad. And then I realized that I had been going to them, and not writing about them. If you're invited to a party in that kind of situation, your job isn't "eat and drink as much as you can then go home and pass out" - it is "eat and drink AND THEN WRITE ABOUT IT." I've seen this in the video game industry, I've seen it in the food and cocktail industry, I've done it to journalists in my industry. We wine and dine them and they don't put out? They don't get wined and dined again. Nobody is giving food bloggers or any other kind of bloggers free stuff out of naivety or generosity. If the bloggers aren't disclosing it, take them to task for it - with proof, of course, not all situations are black-and-white as even Don has seen - but don't sit back and act like posting somewhere different, ON IT'S OWN, makes you any different. Everyone's comments online have repercussions. It's scary how easy someone can lose their job over an online comment, be it on a blog, on here, on Twitter, whatever. It's also scary how easy you can blow your own credibility with just one remark that you didn't think through before posting. 2
DonRocks Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 This thread is making me angry. Ten years of hard work, and my own money. For what?
DanielK Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 SeanMike - Don't take this the wrong way, because I consider you a friend, and I don't think you're personally guilty of anything unethical at all. But those invites that dry up if you don't write about the events? Also dry up if you write anything critical about the place, whether it's the day after the event or a month or year later. They are buying free POSITIVE publicity, plain and simple.
deangold Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 SeanMike - Don't take this the wrong way, because I consider you a friend, and I don't think you're personally guilty of anything unethical at all. But those invites that dry up if you don't write about the events? Also dry up if you write anything critical about the place, whether it's the day after the event or a month or year later. They are buying free POSITIVE publicity, plain and simple. When is the last time you saw a nagative blurb on a book cover? Or "I hated it from beginning to end, I was ocunting the seconds till I could leave the critics screening of this stinker of a movie" in an ad? 1
SeanMike Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 When is the last time you saw a nagative blurb on a book cover? Or "I hated it from beginning to end, I was ocunting the seconds till I could leave the critics screening of this stinker of a movie" in an ad? Exactly. I first encountered this when writing for a video game site. You'd be given access to an alpha or beta version and supposed to write about it, but if you wrote "man, this game sucks" you'd never see another one again. (Think about it: how often do you see *previews* of things, especially exclusive ones, that pan them?) But there's always ways to write about things that highlight the good parts while downplaying or brushing over the bad parts. "I really enjoyed the game flow, and I'm sure the UI will be tweaked and improved when it releases..." I've said flat out in multiple places that I try to avoid writing bad things about places. I learned that lesson early; there are hundreds of variables that can go into a visit to a restaurant or a bar that you might not know about, and typically, I don't have the budget or time to go to a place multiple times if I don't like it. If I don't like an event, I talk to the organizers before I write anything about it to give them a chance to look into it. (See: the last time I went to a William Grant & Sons party at Tales.) (I also do tell anyone who sends me samples that I don't guarantee a review for unsolicited samples, and I review FAIRLY on any product. Products, IMHO, are a much more static, quantifiable thing to review than a given night at a restaurant or bar.) Yes, PR folks are looking for good publicity. Yes, there are bloggers and other writers out there who only shill to get free shit. As a *READER* you should only be giving your eyeballs to people who you WANT to read. Those bloggers, writers, etc., get tons of views. Complaining about them just makes you look jealous and demeans your own writing ("oh, he only gave them a bad review because he didn't get invited"). Instead, work on making yourself better, and educating people as to why they should be more discriminating in what they read.
mdt Posted March 14, 2014 Author Posted March 14, 2014 When is the last time you saw a nagative blurb on a book cover? Or "I hated it from beginning to end, I was ocunting the seconds till I could leave the critics screening of this stinker of a movie" in an ad? Blurbs on book covers are equivalent to blurbs on a restaurant's web page. Reading a review on some blog that does not disclose the fact that the meal they ate was free or part of some promo is not the same thing. Of course the invitees are not going to criticize a place and lose their future meal ticket, but they can certainly mention it in their write up. Maybe that gets them banned as well. Either way positive comments that are not from a known source typically need to be taken very skeptically as you have no way of knowing if they are real or some form of PR. And this relates to reviews of anything on the web.
DonRocks Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 A point to ponder: Our March 23rd dinner at Amoo's is, essentially, a discounted party. The restaurant will receive plenty of PR for hosting it, and dr.com members will be getting one hell of a good deal, at the restaurant's expense. In the spirit of openness and transparency, I'd like our readers to ask themselves, 'What's the difference between this, and all of these unethical things we've been criticizing?' While I have my own thoughts, I'd like to hear those of others. *Please* speak freely - this is a weighty subject, and merits exploration. I hate hypocrisy, I do not want to be a hypocrite, and I want to entertain a public discussion, with honest thoughts from people, and without fear of reprimand or censorship.
porcupine Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Have a look at the attached. We got this at the end of a meal where we had mysteriously had every one of our courses duplicated (so we got twice as much food as we wanted to eat). I later wrote to the restaurant owner and said, politely, that I don't like that sort of treatment, please knock it off, and "my good opinion is not for sale." I got a nice note in reply and am satisfied; nonetheless it's one of the reasons I rarely write about my restaurant meals. I have no interest in playing that game, and rather regret using my real name in my signature line. 2
DonRocks Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Have a look at the attached. ... We got this at the end of a meal where we had mysteriously had every one of our courses duplicated (so we got twice as much food as we wanted to eat). I later wrote to the restaurant owner and said, politely, that I don't like that sort of treatment, please knock it off, and "my good opinion is not for sale." I got a nice note in reply and am satisfied; nonetheless it's one of the reasons I rarely write about my restaurant meals. I have no interest in playing that game, and rather regret using my real name in my signature line. This is exactly the type of thing that I want to be discussed. Was this a dr. com event that I arranged with a restaurateur? When we have dr.com events, exclusively for dr.com members, I negotiate a fair price with the chef, the owner, etc., and always tell them to "make a fair profit, but don't look at this event as a profit-maker or nobody will come because the price will be too high." As a result, dr.com events are always priced at below market value, but not so much below where the owner doesn't make a profit. I've always tried to make it very clear that dr.com events are bargains that are not available to the general public (and therefore, a strong incentive to join dr.com). Importantly, every single dr.com event is available to every single dr.com member, even if they just joined last week - that has always been the case because I want new members welcomed with open arms (I love an atmosphere of inclusion which embraces strangers who, as soon as they arrive, are no longer strangers; they're among friends). Also, it is generally understood that if people have a good experience, they'll write about it while clearly marking their posts that they're reporting on a special dr.com event (there's certainly incentive here for restaurants to "try and impress"); if they feel ripped off, they'll either remain silent or write something negative (I'm thinking back to a cringeworthy dinner we once had at Galileo - I felt so badly about it that I went in the next week, had dinner, and sent a bottle of wine back to the chef as a gift). One thing I think I may change going forward is the way these dinners are organized on the website: Traditionally, the "planning stages" would go in the Events and Gatherings forum, and the "post-meal report" would go in the restaurant's own thread - this seemed logical because one of my goals has always been to maximize content in the Restaurants forum. And although posts about these events are clearly marked by the authors, I believe that because they're not available to the general public, it might be best, going forward, to leave everything in the Events and Gatherings forum so the entire event is a self-contained, self-limited, clearly defined entity. I have many more thoughts on this issue, and want to be completely open in the way I arrange our dinners, so I encourage anyone with questions to ask. But most importantly, I want other peoples' thoughts - not just my own - on the issue in its entirety. I apologize for using the same word twice in the same post, but thank you to porcupine for this cringeworthy photo. --- Last night, Matt and I were coming home from school, and called in a carryout order. Matt called on his cell phone, and used his name for the order. I waited in the parking garage when he went in and picked up the food. He emerged several minutes later with a handful of items, including an extra salad that they had given him. Incidentally, this restaurant is known for throwing in little extras for their regular guests - whether they're bloggers or not. Restaurant Eve (as an example), in their website, had a lengthy explanation about 'different levels of VIP' for their guests, based (exclusively?) on how often the diner frequented the restaurant. - I see this as being a separate issue, and no more immoral than an airline frequent flier program.
DanielK Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Video game sites and magazines have a sordid history of only posting positive reviews, so take that one out of the comparison. Movie/book review sites/magazines/newspapers/etc. zing movies and books all the time, and they keep getting passes, free books, etc. Blurbs on a book cover are different - they will send the book to 50 authors, and only pick the one quote they like. Many of those 50 will write back "didn't care for it, so no review", and that's fine - they will keep getting books. A friend of mine writes book reviews for a magazine. He writes everything from bombs to raves. He gets dozens of books in the mail every week, including titles from publishers/authors that he's given bad reviews to in the past.
ad.mich Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 DanielK is right. The PR companies in the food world wish they could run things like the video games industry. The video game industry makes the restaurant industry look like a bunch of Disney Princesses. Reviewers get fired if advertisers don't like reviews, PR companies openly threaten to withhold future advance copies for bad reviews, and some are convinced influential magazines are essentially corporate mouthpieces.
DonRocks Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 DanielK is right. The PR companies in the food world wish they could run things like the video games industry. The video game industry makes the restaurant industry look like a bunch of Disney Princesses. Reviewers get fired if advertisers don't like reviews, PR companies openly threaten to withhold future advance copies for bad reviews, and some are convinced influential magazines are essentially corporate mouthpieces. After reading this post, I feel like I need a shower.
porcupine Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 Don, this was NOT a dr.com event. It was at a restaurant where we go often and are known; there's no doubt in my mind that this place keeps records and trains their staff to recognize faces. I don't want to say much more about it. In answer to one of your pm'd questions: I felt dirty when I saw those words.
jayandstacey Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 A point to ponder: Our March 23rd dinner at Amoo's is, essentially, a discounted party. The restaurant will receive plenty of PR for hosting it, and dr.com members will be getting one hell of a good deal, at the restaurant's expense. In the spirit of openness and transparency, I'd like our readers to ask themselves, 'What's the difference between this, and all of these unethical things we've been criticizing?' While I have my own thoughts, I'd like to hear those of others. *Please* speak freely - this is a weighty subject, and merits exploration. I hate hypocrisy, I do not want to be a hypocrite, and I want to entertain a public discussion, with honest thoughts from people, and without fear of reprimand or censorship. I don't see a difference. Maybe someone can point it out for me. Once a favor is gotten from a restaurant, no matter how small, in exchange for a person letting on that they are a critic/blogger/yelper... then the review (and reviewer) is necessarily different and IMHO gets lumped in with the things I've been criticizing. I understand the DR group assembles socially and may comment on the food as a result (that is, after all, the common bond). But why not book as the "Alexandria Fall/Tuesday bowling league" or something like that? If you negotiate a special price, have it be solely based on the size of the group and their negotiating power. Nothing else. Maybe better to just pay whatever prices are offered - they are already set at the profit level the owner wants to make. I understand it may be difficult to fly under the radar. I understand restaurant owners may want to play this game. I would not, ever, even if my reviews mattered.
mdt Posted March 17, 2014 Author Posted March 17, 2014 A point to ponder: Our March 23rd dinner at Amoo's is, essentially, a discounted party. The restaurant will receive plenty of PR for hosting it, and dr.com members will be getting one hell of a good deal, at the restaurant's expense. In the spirit of openness and transparency, I'd like our readers to ask themselves, 'What's the difference between this, and all of these unethical things we've been criticizing?' Again there is nothing wrong with it, if the poster mentions they were part of the special outing so future folks know how to read things. Also folks should have no issue about posting legitimate negative comments without it turning into the BS of the Dino close out dinner. The issue is not the fact that folks are getting "something special" it's the fact that they don't disclose it and appear to be doing some unbiased review. If folks don't want to make it look like anything other than a food group dinner they don't have to post anything and therefore no unintended PR. 1
jayandstacey Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Again there is nothing wrong with it, if the poster mentions they were part of the special outing so future folks know how to read things. Also folks should have no issue about posting legitimate negative comments without it turning into the BS of the Dino close out dinner. The issue is not the fact that folks are getting "something special" it's the fact that they don't disclose it and appear to be doing some unbiased review. If folks don't want to make it look like anything other than a food group dinner they don't have to post anything and therefore no unintended PR. It would also have to be disclosed at the front end to the owner - getting additional discount without disclosing that the reviews would all include mention of the discount - would be wrong to the owner, who may be hoping for (even expecting) a review that seemed like it came from an anonymous visit. Who tracks all these disclosures and promises and such? Isn't it easier to just play it clean to begin with - to be anonymous and pay full price - then review what the restaurant delivered under those circumstances; the ones most likely to be encountered by a reader?
Pat Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Who tracks all these disclosures and promises and such? Theoretically, The FTC does.
jayandstacey Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Theoretically, The FTC does. How do FTC advertising regulations relate?
Pat Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 How do FTC advertising regulations relate? They apply to bloggers and social media. Free stuff requires disclosure if you're posting about it.
jayandstacey Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 They apply to bloggers and social media. Free stuff requires disclosure if you're posting about it. I've read this and disagree. On your link, under Part II - applicability: "Accordingly, the Commission's role in protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices encompasses advertising, marketing, and sales online, as well as the same activities in print, television, telephone, and radio." A blogger/reviewer/yelper is not advertising, marketing or selling. One could say that's part of the issue here. But certainly when I comment on a recent restaurant experience, I'm not subject to FTC regulations regarding online advertising and marketing.
cheezepowder Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I've read this and disagree. On your link, under Part II - applicability: "Accordingly, the Commission's role in protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices encompasses advertising, marketing, and sales online, as well as the same activities in print, television, telephone, and radio."A blogger/reviewer/yelper is not advertising, marketing or selling. One could say that's part of the issue here. But certainly when I comment on a recent restaurant experience, I'm not subject to FTC regulations regarding online advertising and marketing. The FTC doc that Pat linked has a blogger example. See p.51, example 21.
Pat Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I've read this and disagree. On your link, under Part II - applicability: "Accordingly, the Commission's role in protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices encompasses advertising, marketing, and sales online, as well as the same activities in print, television, telephone, and radio." A blogger/reviewer/yelper is not advertising, marketing or selling. One could say that's part of the issue here. But certainly when I comment on a recent restaurant experience, I'm not subject to FTC regulations regarding online advertising and marketing. As cheesepowder notes, bloggers are mentioned. More importantly, bloggers have been complying with these guidelines for several years now. The document I linked to is the most up-to-date. I read a lot of food bloggers, and for several years, they have been careful to make explicit mention of things they are given for free, often both at the top and the bottom of relevant posts. From one of the major blogger organizations: http://www.blogher.com/must-read-ftc-clarifies-their-rules-bloggers From a site that facilitates many blogger give-aways: http://blog.rafflecopter.com/2012/07/ftc-blogger-guidelines/ 1
jayandstacey Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 OK, fair enough. I saw the example of being "sponsored" but I guess that's the point - if you get it for free, you are "sponsored" and become a part of the organization's advertising, marketing and sales. So I go back to my original position and add a little weight to it... Should a DR gathering EVER include any discount at all? If it does, and there are 30 people there - is Don able to police his site for everyone complying with the law? Isn't he at legal risk if someone posts a DR review about a dinner where a discount was involved...and that discount is not disclosed? And isn't this ALONE a reason to never allow such discounts?
DonRocks Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 OK, fair enough. I saw the example of being "sponsored" but I guess that's the point - if you get it for free, you are "sponsored" and become a part of the organization's advertising, marketing and sales. So I go back to my original position and add a little weight to it... Should a DR gathering EVER include any discount at all? If it does, and there are 30 people there - is Don able to police his site for everyone complying with the law? Isn't he at legal risk if someone posts a DR review about a dinner where a discount was involved...and that discount is not disclosed? And isn't this ALONE a reason to never allow such discounts? I can only answer your 2nd and 3rd questions; not your 1st or 4th. 2) Is Don able to police his site for everyone complying with the law? Yes. 3) Isn't he at legal risk if someone posts a DR review about a dinner where a discount was involved ... and that discount is not disclosed? No.
jayandstacey Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Kind of a weird turn...OK, clearly I'm missing some understanding here - this is not my universe and I'm out of my element. Certainly not the first time
DonRocks Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Kind of a weird turn...OK, clearly I'm missing some understanding here - this is not my universe and I'm out of my element. Certainly not the first time Not true. You're asking legitimate questions, and if you have them to ask, then it's likely that other reasonable people do as well - keep discussing, please.
hm212 Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 A few independents getting a free meal is not what the FTC or Attorney General has time to go after but both the FTC and Attorney General has determined that this is illegal. "5 Things That Paid Bloggers Should ALWAYS Do" by Heidi Rothert on blogportunity.com "New York Attorney General Cracks Down On Falsified Online Review" by Benjamin Stein on infolawgroup.com The one thing that I do know is that I have a daughter that still talks about Michael Landrum giving giving her a free large ice cream five years ago. Of course there is a difference between giving a free dessert to a semi regular and a standard course of business freebie. It just comes down to degree where the line between smart marketing and payola comes in. As the supreme court said "I can't define it but I know it when I see it"
Waitman Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 I rarely read food bloggers because, for all the enthusiasm they bring to their efforts, they largely serve as PR vehicles and seem to avoid any useful insight regarding the quality of the establishment they're discussing. Maybe that's their role -- maybe the happy, happy, happy talk isn't the result of an urge to lick, rather than bite, the hand that literally feeds them. Maybe the need for freebies isn't what drives their posts. Either way, I just don't find that they provide the kind of information I value. Why are all the cranks in the blogosphere doing politics rather than food?
DaveO Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Faked or paid reviews are considered False Advertising and deemed illegal. How extensively local authorities might clamp down on this is subject to many considerations...but ....its fake advertisiing. Somebody is paid or compensated to say something nice and doesn't disclose that they were compensated to do so. The problem is that the faked advertising can lead to consumer fraud. The two links by hm212 above are very clear on the topic Personally I'm much more responsive to the advice of people I know and whose comments and suggestions I can weigh and evaluate .....rather than bloggers whom I don't know or whose judgement I might question. I'd also rely more on a wide variety of opinions such as I might find in a review site with many responses and an average weight that is higher than lower. As a business person I've now spent years on the many difficulties with on line reviews and establishing word of mouth. Its a conundrum. The review world is rampant with faked reviews both positive generated by a business and negative generated by competitors. On top of that, yelp, as a major review source decided to take the mafia like plan of action to utilize the power of reviews to generate revenues. Poooooooo on them. (although if one has great reviews on yelp it is a boon to a business) As a business operators long before the web we established a couple of businesses with great service. They live off of that. They generate a remarkable volume of sales based on positive word of mouth. In that regard they are a little like well established restaurants with great word of mouth. Regardless of that word of mouth in the age of the web we need positive reviews. When we are operating at our best we work to establish a "review management process". Generally we are looking for customers that have valued our services. Then we ask them for web reviews. That review management process has generally gained a lot of following over the years and a greater number of smbs try and follow it...but it generally starts with giving great service and/or selling great products at the start. Without that one is doomed. Even with those standards things don't always work out on every sale, every customer experience and every dining experience. Hopefully those are the exceptions and when they occur it is best to apologize and "clean up the mess" If certain industries have managed to operate under the radar screen and have lived off faked reviews for a long time...then so be it. Possibly down the line there will be enough complaints to clean up the process in that industry. Until that occurs though, they'll probably continue to do what they are doing. Personally I have a hard time believing the value of underwriting a lot of free dinners for a lot of food bloggers....but I don't get around to following a lot of food bloggers nor do I see their accumulated noise on a restaurant and the initial publicity it might generate. I suppose I can't really evaluate it. But misleading the public with reviews when being compensated and not revealing that is considered criminal. Meanwhile if I were one of those bloggers its very easy to write that one attended an "industry event" and make that form of compensation clear in any follow up piece. Frankly if I read that piece of information on the blog I would be inclined to trust the blogger more for being transparent.
DaveO Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Found this interesting comment by a reader on a foodie bloggers site concerning a meal that was comped First off the blogger identifies that the meal was comped. The blogger had been invited to an opening party and wasn't able to attend. The blogger later ate there and clearly referenced that the food was comped. Here is the first of two paragraphs by a reader: I wish you'd do fewer of these sponsored/paid-for reviews. After reading one or two paragraphs, I can tell that I'm reading a review of a comped restaurant. You just write more effusively and complimentary. It's annoying and seems insincere. Psychologists have proven that we feel we owe things to people/companies that give us free stuff, and it's impossible to write an impartial review when you've been comped. I left out the 2nd paragraph just to "try" and keep from referencing either the restaurant or the blogger. This particular comment did not get a response.
DonRocks Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Question: Do people fault restaurants for engaging in the practice of "paying" bloggers, either with free meals, or with actual money? Or do they only fault the bloggers? I know of cases where nationally famous food writers were brought into a city, given a free meal, put up in a hotel, and possibly even paid for their time. Yes, a well-placed "review" in a national publication can have so much impact where a $1,000+ expense such as this is worth it. I wonder if, five years from now, things like this are going to come back and bite people in the ass. My hands are clean, that's all I care about.
DaveO Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Don: In my mind, both parties are at fault. Legally, (at least in some states) writing faked reviews or reviews for hire, is illegal. Its fake advertising. Reviews have immense power with the buying public. The restaurants are compensating the reviewers (either at a larger rate) as you described above, or at a smaller rate at the cost of a meal. In either case the restaurants are compensating the writers. The writers are taking the compensation. If nobody discloses this then a glowing review is simply wrong.
DonRocks Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Don: In my mind, both parties are at fault. Legally, (at least in some states) writing faked reviews or reviews for hire, is illegal. Its fake advertising. Reviews have immense power with the buying public. The restaurants are compensating the reviewers (either at a larger rate) as you described above, or at a smaller rate at the cost of a meal. In either case the restaurants are compensating the writers. The writers are taking the compensation. If nobody discloses this then a glowing review is simply wrong. I'm not sure this line is as clearly delineated as you make it out to be. Where does marketing end and illegality begin? It has long been the job of savvy marketers to make advertising, lobbying, image handling, etc., not look like what it really is - and that goes for everything from writing about restaurants, to lip syncing on Saturday Night Live, to spinning a political blunder, to placing a product in a movie. 1
jayandstacey Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 The "pure" case is a reviewer goes in uninvited, eats, pays the stated prices, then writes the review. Any alteration to that formula, to me, casts a shadow of doubt on the review at least. Maybe the reviewer and the restaurant too depending on the alterations. I think it is that simple. And I think most people believe that's the way it normally happens (I do.) When marketing tries to take advantage of that perception to any degree and I find out about it - I'm pretty sure I don't want to dine at a place that's trying to fool me in this or any other way.
DaveO Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 I'm not sure this line is as clearly delineated as you make it out to be. Where does marketing end and illegality begin? It has long been the job of savvy marketers to make advertising, lobbying, image handling, etc., not look like what it really is - and that goes for everything from writing about restaurants, to lip syncing on Saturday Night Live, to spinning a political blunder, to placing a product in a movie. Its wrong. You don't do this. You must believe its wrong. At the least its deceptive. At the worst its criminal. The law doesn't come down on it with a hammer. Its not a grotesque crime compared to others. But it is deceptive. Frankly, I liked the response to the review from the single person above, but I suspect the majority of readers don't read the review with such a discerning eye. If they did they might have a very negative response to the restaurant and the reviewer.
DonRocks Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 The "pure" case is a reviewer goes in uninvited, eats, pays the stated prices, then writes the review. Any alteration to that formula, to me, casts a shadow of doubt on the review at least. Maybe the reviewer and the restaurant too depending on the alterations. I think it is that simple. And I think most people believe that's the way it normally happens (I do.) When marketing tries to take advantage of that perception to any degree and I find out about it - I'm pretty sure I don't want to dine at a place that's trying to fool me in this or any other way. Its wrong. You don't do this. You must believe its wrong. At the least its deceptive. At the worst its criminal. The law doesn't come down on it with a hammer. Its not a grotesque crime compared to others. But it is deceptive. Frankly, I liked the response to the review from the single person above, but I suspect the majority of readers don't read the review with such a discerning eye. If they did they might have a very negative response to the restaurant and the reviewer. Let me say once again: my hands are clean, and while I "agree" with you both in concept, the curious person in me wants to know where the line is drawn, and not just at restaurants, but with all aspects of advertising. Or is this "pay for play" restaurant concept so unique that it stands alone from all other marketing efforts?
zoramargolis Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 Don't really know if this is a relevant comparison, but movie reviewers and people who it is hoped will provide "word of mouth" are routinely provided comps to screenings of new films.
RWBooneJr Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 Comps are just part of the restaurant culture. I've been getting free beers, tastes, whatever, for most of my adult life at places where I'm a regular. I don't expect it, that's just how it works. Even corporate places give comps, though they generally have strict allowances for it. You can't fault restaurateurs for it. It's certainly not illegal.If I were a restaurateur and wanted to get the word out about my brunch, I'd invite Bitches Who Brunch in to try it out too. And, because I invited them, I'd expect to foot the bill. My guests are free to write about it or not, like it or not. There's no quid pro quo. Kudos to BWB for disclosing the comp. I like their blog; it's a fun read.I guess I don't see the issue, at least not to the extent it's been presented here. The dispassionate reviewer who is somehow apart from and above it all is an artificial construct of the professional media. If you want that, go to Sietsema, Kliman, or Don (which you can now do all in one convenient place! ). Everybody else is basically a Yelper, regardless of the platform they use. You've got to take everything with a grain of salt. The Internet is just the schoolyard writ large.
mdt Posted March 28, 2014 Author Posted March 28, 2014 If I were a restaurateur and wanted to get the word out about my brunch, I'd invite Bitches Who Brunch in to try it out too. And, because I invited them, I'd expect to foot the bill. My guests are free to write about it or not, like it or not. There's no quid pro quo. Kudos to BWB for disclosing the comp. I like their blog; it's a fun read. I don't read that blog, but do they actually write negative reviews of places where they are comped or is everything just the normal only good news write up. Would a blogger that truthfully and accurately panned more than a couple places keep getting invited to other places?
DonRocks Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 I don't read that blog, but do they actually write negative reviews of places where they are comped or is everything just the normal only good news write up. Would a blogger that truthfully and accurately panned more than a couple places keep getting invited to other places? SeanMike provided something close to a real-life example of that scenario here.
RWBooneJr Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 I don't read that blog, but do they actually write negative reviews of places where they are comped or is everything just the normal only good news write up. Would a blogger that truthfully and accurately panned more than a couple places keep getting invited to other places? They don't pan anything - it's not that kind of blog. They have, to date, given out only three grades lower than a "B": Miss Shirley's (C+); 1905 (C+); and GBD ( C ).
jayandstacey Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 This is pretty simple for me- Definitions: - Integrity is the combination of the truthfulness and honesty of motivations. - Doubt is just that - not 100% believed, but not automatically wrong. Comps may be the culture, but with them comes (for me) some doubt about the integrity of the review, maybe the reviewer and maybe the restaurant. I believe that restaurants are businesses and there's ALWAYS a quid pro quo - that if they give something for free, it is either as a repayment for a perceived favor (being a regular customer) or as prepayment for a future favor. I can't know the motivations, but when such a thing happens, there is (for me) some doubt to cast over the integrity of any reviews associated with those freebies/discounts. And yes, I'm consistent about this. Movie reviewers got a comp for NO reason other than the review- I respect friend's opinions who paid to see the movie WAY more than the reviewer, regardless of what movie history PhD they may have. The reviewer may be 100% honest - and remember, I'm only doubting, not calling foul. But it isn't as clean as I'd hope and I'd rather throw out an honest review that was subsidized than risk relying on a review without integrity. Consider the great lengths Consumer Reports takes to remain independent. While they may not be prefect, that's my standard. Don, if you want my 2 cents - DR.com events with folks from this board attending should be booked as bowling banquets paying full price with no connection to DR.com mentioned. If the restaurant happens to recognize anyone once they arrive, so be it, but full price is still paid. Even getting 10% off the check introduces that doubt of any future review. It would, IMHO, be really refreshing and probably unique to actually demand independence from that culture from those here. I also realize it is probably impossible.
DaveO Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 If I were a restaurateur and wanted to get the word out about my brunch, I'd invite Bitches Who Brunch in to try it out too. And, because I invited them, I'd expect to foot the bill. My guests are free to write about it or not, like it or not. There's no quid pro quo. Kudos to BWB for disclosing the comp. I like their blog; it's a fun read. Oh man!!!! and I was trying to be discreet with regard to the blogger and the restaurant. I liked the reader's comment. It was pretty on target. I purposefully left out the 2nd paragraph to try and hide the source, Rich. (but you are too smart for me. ) here it is: Also, a B+ makes no sense. Food was a B and service a C. Decor is nice, but it should barely factor in compared to food and service. Anything more than a B-, maybe a B, makes you seem like you're unconsciously trying to find a way to grade inflate your free meal. Isn't that telling? btw: Most readers don't read the comments on a blog. Some do. They are more discerning, but the percentage of readers who go to the comments on a blog is a fraction of total readers of that blog piece.
SeanMike Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 They don't pan anything - it's not that kind of blog. They have, to date, given out only three grades lower than a "B": Miss Shirley's (C+); 1905 (C+); and GBD ( C ). I haven't read their blog in ages, but didn't they pan Green Pig? I remember a Twitter spat with them over that.
DaveO Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 I'm not sure this line is as clearly delineated as you make it out to be. Where does marketing end and illegality begin? It has long been the job of savvy marketers to make advertising, lobbying, image handling, etc., not look like what it really is - and that goes for everything from writing about restaurants, to lip syncing on Saturday Night Live, to spinning a political blunder, to placing a product in a movie. Don: This process, as others above have referenced, takes place in many industries. I just witnessed an example in a different business. It pains me. I saw what I believe is a very tainted description repeated by a secondary writer. The first writer is articulating issues in a manner that pads his/her income. I don't believe the first writer is transparent. The 2nd writer parroted a description that is totally inappropriatel, imho. I'm struggling with whether and how to respond to what I believe are non transparent "allegations". For transparency's sake I feel beholden to the initial writer (but I think that writer is somewhat beholden to me also). I haven't attacked the initial writer to date. But transparency is often lost in the context of reviews. The public suffers.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now