A 'Secret Document' Tracks D.C.'s Food Writers

[DonRocks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[jayandstacey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.