D

Live Blog Feed

Dining Critics and Anonymity: Does it Really Matter Anymore?

Posted on October 19th, 2009 11:36am by Nancy Nichols
Filed under Chefs, Food Fight!, Hippie revolutions, Rants, Reviews

: Sometimes you feel like a duck. Sometimes you don’t.

I find it interesting that two high-profile dining critics are changing their tune about the importance of remaining anonymous. Maybe it’s because they are no longer high-profile dining critics. Former New York Times dining critics Ruth Reichl and Frank Bruni have been giving interviews with quotes such as these:

“Dining companions are not good covert operations agents,” Bruni says. It’s one of the many reasons Bruni no longer feels restaurant critics can remain anonymous.

Is Bruni paving the way for his successor Sam Sifton? Before Sifton took over as the Times critic, he was the cultural news editor and deputy dining editor. His head shot was plastered all over the paper and the web. Sifton was forced into wearing disguises before he wrote his first lead review.

I believe anonymity is important—I have a closet full of clothes, glasses, and wigs to prove it. As a magazine editor, I have interviewed a lot of chefs in Dallas. I have even traveled with a few to do feature stories. As a dining critic, I have managed to slip past them in their restaurants and review them. (Hi Avner! Hi Dean!) That said, even when I am recognized (Hi, Kent!), which is not very often, it doesn’t always guarantee the restaurant will provide a perfect dining experience. Just because there is a dining critic in a restaurant doesn’t make the chef a better chef or the menu a better menu. Service might step up a notch, but it has been my experience that servers overcompensate and make more mistakes when they know they are serving a critic.

Most restaurant critics don’t get busted by personal appearance, they are outed by their behavior. Asking too many questions upfront and ordering too much food are dead giveaways to perceptive servers. A critic also has to be careful what they say at the table. You never know who is sitting next to you or what they will say to the manager, chef, or owner.

Servers, what do you think? Chefs? Fire away. Dishers, take your best shot.

(BTW, love this.)

16 Comments to “Dining Critics and Anonymity: Does it Really Matter Anymore?”

Margie @ October 19th, 2009 at 11:51 am

“Just because there is a dining critic in a restaurant doesn’t make the chef a better chef or the menu a better menu.”

I totally agree with this statement. How much better can it be if the restaurant knows you’re going to write about it? Not much, I think. Either it’s good or it isn’t.
luniz @ October 19th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

say you order a steak and they have some good steaks and then a couple that are spectacular…they’re not going to give the spectacular to nobodies when there’s a critic in the room.
joeat @ October 19th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

I would think “knowing” would have a big effect on service and presentation more than the actual preperation of food. I think anonymous is by far the most efective way.

Remember, we once had a citic whose best friends were all chefs and she was a mess and very ineffective.

So, stay in the closet!
good life @ October 19th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

There have been times that my staff have told me there may be a critic in the restaurant. to which I have replied,if you are doing what you have been trained to do, you need not do anything extra.
What else can we do,a dance?
Griffin @ October 19th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

It totally matters.
Chef Dorian Isenberg @ October 19th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

Hi Nancy, I think your anonymity helps keep us honest!!! Chefs and servers should always do their best. I look at everyone of our customers as a “Food Critic.” If they don’t like what you’ve done, they certainly will tell their friends.
Twinwillow @ October 19th, 2009 at 6:13 pm

I agree! Anonymous critics keep restaurants “honest”.
Cellarmaster @ October 20th, 2009 at 2:58 am

Knowledge of a critic in the dining room can most certainly change an end result. A Chef monitoring every detail of the execution and presentation of a dish versus a line cook can’t be argued. I do think that with personal blogs, yelping, city searchers and all the other blogosphere possibilities that things are drastically changing. Now we all have a voice. Even the regular commentators here in Sidedish can be rather effective! I do say that it does effect the outcome of a review if the critic is recognized, but besides a server with shattered nerves and a chef having a few extra drinks at the end of the night, if everyone is trained the end result will be better for everyone involved. It’s appalling to me the amount of bad yelps and personal attacks I’ve found on blogs(did I mention yelp…”my cheese was room temperature! ICK” “Chef is pompous” My fish was RAW!?!” etc).Critics now are the (irelrlavant?)validation for the average diner to everything they found on their Iphone. Good or bad. And all of us in the restaurants are paying attention. We’ll always be watching out for the major critics, but with more competition and general food nowledge than ever(”isn’t a llapingacho supposed to be fried? why is this one baked?!?”) the modern restaurant should be running at a much higher level of sophistication and execution than ever before. That said, I’m off to yelp about my “burned” burger (that’s not medium!)and fake Moscow mule(how did you make this without ginger beer exactly?!?)at happy hour today, LOL! Happy Eating y’all!
Cecilia Rodriguez @ October 20th, 2009 at 8:12 am

While “good life” may play it cool, Cellarmaster is absolutely right. A restaurant can step up its game for a VIP or critic. They can assign their best waiter to the table. The exec chef can oversee the cooking or even do it himself, tasting everything and making sure it’s perfect before sending it out. Special dishes might be made available that aren’t available to other customers. Portion sizes can be changed. Luxury garnishes can be added or increased. When a major critic is recognized in a restaurant, he’s going to have the best experience the restaurant can deliver that night.
Amy S @ October 20th, 2009 at 10:11 am

Ya’ll need to watch the movie Dinner Rush, Sandra Bernhardt makes the best food reviewer, and she slept with the chef previously.
Dr. Freud @ October 20th, 2009 at 11:44 am

”my cheese was room temperature! ICK”

Hmmm. I wonder if this person was upset that their sashimi was uncooked, too.
snootyfoodie @ October 20th, 2009 at 6:24 pm

Most restaurants have figured out, with all the online review outlets, now more than ever every diner is a critic. Sure some have a much bigger voice than others but I agree you don’t suddenly become a good restaurant just because a critic is spotted. So my filet is 11 oz and super prime when its supposed to be 9 oz and plain ole prime or my raspberries on top of the creme brulee are the size of golf balls…big deal. A kitchen can flip a switch and be something they’re not on a moments notice.
lovestomixitup @ October 20th, 2009 at 6:59 pm

CRITICS CAN BE GOOD AND BAD. Having people not know who they are is their choice but people will find out. I feel critics can be good for business in a way that the restaurant gets exposure and people will be curious to check it out. No if the review is bad it can really hurt a business, especially in this economy, not cool. I just wish critics would say: This is my opinion and my experience, I challenge you to try this place and see what kind of experience you receive. I think critics take it too far and beat down some restaurants that are good. Its just their opinion, good or bad its never stopped me to check a place out. The only thing that stops me from eating at a restaurant is my own bad experiences but I always try a place twice. Another thing I hate VIP’s!!!!! Everyone should be treated equally, restaurants should stay true and consistent with everybody.
Trey Wright @ October 21st, 2009 at 11:13 am

No one said that a restaurant “suddenly becomes a good restaurant just because a critic is spotted.” But good restaurants can become great for a specific table. Great restaurants can become sublime for a specific table. You have to be pretty dense to say that restaurants are incapable of doing more for a critic than they do for the average customer.
snootyfoodie @ October 21st, 2009 at 12:20 pm

Trey Wright…do you mean like flourless chocolate cake dense?? I don’t think I said a restaurant is incapable of doing more for a critic. My point was a good chef can’t become a great one or, to use your term, a great chef can’t become a sublime one as soon as a server runs back and says a critic is at table 29.
louis @ October 21st, 2009 at 6:42 pm

I can’t disagree with lovestomixitup anymore than I do.

Critics and reviewers serve to point me to restaurants where I should spend my limited time, not pull a limpwristed “well, this is what I think, you go do it yourself” act. If the restaurant experience was substandard, I want to know. I may still go. Or I may not.

If a critic is known to the manager/chef/staff, I think that’s fine, but the critic should reveal in his column if s/he was known to the manager/chef/staff (and maybe it would help if the critic/reviewer insisted on a rookie waiter/waitress and a table by the bathroom door).