Expert Opinion
By Andrew Zimmern
Last week in Jeremy’s blog, he noted the challenges posed by the nature of the Beard Awards’ voting system and how hard it is to get it down to a science. It is maddening, but each year or two, they keep tweaking away. I am eager to hear ideas from anyone on how it could be made more efficient and more representative of awarding excellence. It is tough to figure out. And until they decide to go with a full-time panel of paid reps who fly around the country eating at all the nomination-worthy restaurants in the U.S., no one will ever be happy. Sign me up! Sounds like a good gig. Hey, I’m frustrated, too, but I think it’s as good as we can get it.
Iggers then asked the question that has been asked a lot these days and has been addressed by me both in print and online, but I wanted to open up the idea to this group of readers. Are professional restaurant critics obsolete? Iggers does not come right out and say it, but he seems to be leaning toward saying, “yes, they are going the way of the dinosaur.” He notes that professional critics are expensive to fund for a newspaper or magazine; consumers are becoming better educated about food and, therefore, have less need for ‘experts’ to explain the gastronomic universe to them; and because of the digital revolution, you can instantly ascertain what the last few thousand customers at Porter & Frye thought of the place if you look on the right website. He accurately points out that yes, although one or two people can have a great meal or a bad one, when you look at a larger sample group, you can see a clearer picture of overall quality. That is, if you trust the Average Joe(s).
Here’s my take on this fascinating topic: First, we will always have the need for expert opinion. What Iggers fails to mention is the utter lack of credibility some of the popular dining columnists have in this town because they don’t understand food or how restaurants work, and I think readers want to know what Rick or Dara think about food because we have come to know them through their work—both as experts and, more importantly, as personalities. These are funny, smart people who we want to eat with; we trust their takes because throughout the years, we have come to zero in on what they like that we like and vice versa.
I think Average Joes get to vote with their feet and wallets, and restaurants need to make them happy first and foremost. And most do. I call it Kincaid-itis, so named after a restaurant that I don’t care for one iota but remains doggedly popular with the masses. No one needs an expert to explain that place. But I think people do want to know if the more-popular food writers like it, too. The media is in the business of selling personality in cases such as this; very few entities are in the business of simply selling facts when it comes to movie, theater, or restaurant reviews. But they can sell columnists and their personalities. I think newspapers are slowly going the way of the horse and buggy, and the better food writers will simply find new homes in digital media, and their audience will follow.
I do, like Iggers suggests, think that we need experts to help us put restaurants that challenge convention into perspective. I could care less what anyone thinks about the local grilled salmon and flatbread place. I am probably more influenced about dining by location, hours, convenience issues, and the like. But as dining becomes more and more aspirational, as my dining dollar stretches shorter distances, I want to know what my favorite dining columnists and critics say because I trust them and their expertise.
The one trend that Iggers mentions (but I was sorry to see him pass up the opportunity to explore further) was about judges for the JBA and how rare it is for someone to have eaten in two nominated restaurants in different states in the service category, for example. I agree, but I also think that as we move through the years, we are going to rely more and more on writers with true national and global experience. I remember when Chambers Kitchen opened here a few years ago. I was really eager to see what the restaurant was like and was anxious to see how it measured up to other JGV restaurants in NYC and other cities around the world. When I wrote about my CK experience, I made sure to include that info because I had the frame of reference that some other writers did not and wanted our readers to benefit from that. I think that media companies will always want that type of expertise in their stable for the simple reason that in today’s digital age, even the most casual food fan knows about chefs such as JGV and wants to know if their local outpost is anything like one of his NYC or London eateries. As the food world grows explosively, and the ‘information of the many’ clutter our browsers, we will always need experts to help us sort through the piles of opinions, perhaps even more than we do now.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
(hi Andrew and Jeremy)
I will agree with Jeremy that diners are becoming more educated, but a lot of the reason they've become more educated is because of restaurant reviews.
And while I do my own research on a chef's background, it can be rather time-consuming in comparison to reading a critique that includes a lot of background information.
Sometimes a particular review will get me to try an item that wouldn't normally be on my radar. I may not always agree with the critic, but he or she often helps expand my horizons.
Posted by: Geri on June 17, 2008 at 8:11 AM
Yes we are becoming more educated. By both blogs, TV, and reviews. However, I think the purest form has to be blogs where the individuals are posting personal experiences as opposed to critics with their "refined" pallets telling us how we should be tasting the food. I doubt everyone agrees with movie critics regarding wether they liked a movie or not, the same is true with restaurants.
However, restaurants are fickle. Subject to the whims and rages of the market and the chefs. Most restaurants don't last 5 years. Not because they don't server good food but because of other issues. Like Trio in Chicago where the chefs went there seperate ways. Or they just don't appeal to the masses. Sure you can serve a great fois gras but you still have to pay the rent. You better have something that lots of people like or you are going under.
Anyways, paid critics flying around the country eating at fine dining. That is a dreamjob. Wether it would truly reflect the taste of the masses, that I highly doubt.
So the Beard awards are great but in matters of taste getting things down to a science may be a bit impracticle. Curious though, is there a People's Choice award for restaurants?
Posted by: davecamaro1994 on June 17, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Yes we need professional food critics, otherwise the "masses" would think Applebee's and The Olive Garden were the best restaurants in the world. Oh wait, they already do. I expect a food critic to really review a restaurant. I could care less who's in the kitchen, do they serve great food, do they care about what goes out the door, do they push the taste envelope enough to challenge me but not make me run for the comfort of said Applebee's! (God forbid) I don't want to read all happy glowing reports of the places that pay for advertising, if a dish lacks polish, if the service sucks, if it's a 2 hour wait for not that good of food, I want to know. I loved Dara for all those reasons, she called crap crap and explained exactly why it was crap. Most average diners are NOT better educated about food, that is a small vocal minority, god love them, but they are not the dominate force of eating. If that was the case, frozen pizza would not outsell virtually everything, people would actually know how to cook. I said COOK, not microwave, not heat up prepared food, not have their kitchens loaded up with processed items. People who love good restaurants usually know how to cook or at the very least understand the process. The poor huddled masses will never get that and their opinions of restaurants will always reflect that lacking of knowledge.
Posted by: Kelly Red on June 17, 2008 at 3:58 PM
This is similar to a discussion being had in the wine world right now, where the power of the critics (be they Robert Parker, Wine Spectator, etc.) has dwindled and the rise of the wine blogs is causing a big change in how people get their information. But I see it as a change in the way the information is presented: the critics vs. the informants.
I would personally define a critic as somebody who attempts to tell you what you will like, regardless of their experience or expertise. Kathy Jenkins is a critic, which proves that anybody can be a critic. Many people with blogs attempt to be critics, and that's fine. The role of the critic has lessened in today's world.
But the reason we enjoy Rick and Dara and Jermey (add Bill Ward to that list) so much is that they are not so much critics but INFORMANTS. They bring knowledge and balance to the table. When an informant, or a good writer in general, writes about a restaurant often times you can't tell if they love it or hate it. In other words, it's balanced. An article by a great informant is a wonderful thing. Like reading R.W. Apple, or Bill Bruford, or Ed Behr, or D.T. Max's article about Grant Achatz. Historical perspective ("I remember the first time I had Doug Flicker's food"), appreciation, personal stories ... these are all the elements that make for a good "informants" story, and in today's world where people are discovering their own tastes (be it fois gras or Pinot Noir) it's these "informants" that are going to endure the test of time.
Posted by: Jason Kallsen on June 18, 2008 at 8:56 AM
I view critics (movie, book, food) in a slightly different way. For me, they act mostly as a way of cutting through the noise. There are so many choices today that I'm leery of "risking" my time/money on an untested option.
That said, I don't automatically check out their raves. Cost/enjoyment factor much more heavily into food than, say, movies or books (which you pay roughly the same for) and so that weighs heavily in our choice of where to visit. Dara's review of say, Brasa, stands out for me much more than a review of a Chamber's Kitchen. It fits our life better. So there's simply a strata of cuisine we're unlikely to aspire to. And it (somewhat) tends to be the strata reviewers rave about most.
Posted by: Dave L on June 19, 2008 at 9:10 AM
I always read Dara's reviews with excitement and hope to do so for the coming years. What she and her ilk provide are a guided tour to places we either don't hear about or wouldn't normally try without her/their recommendation. The business is so competitive and money is so tight that it's hard to take a risk with a night out if you're like me. We get to go out so infrequently that it's difficult for us to pass up a sure bet. Knowing the ins and outs of a new, exciting place, from a person we trust is very valuable content for a website or paper to provide.
Posted by: rob barrett on June 20, 2008 at 7:11 AM
Just back from NYC and a trip to the Stage Deli for a tongue sandwich and a Dr. Brown's Diet Black Cherry soda. All this talk about the JBA winners and restaurant critics matters little after that. Please, someone out there show some vision (and guts too!) and open a truly authentic deli! Pretty please, with spicy deli mustard on it...
Posted by: Russ on June 22, 2008 at 4:46 PM