The recent controversy surrounding A A Gill and his review that could have ruined a restaurant has really angered me, and I think it's time to decide whether we really need restaurant reviewers or not. Do they actually do more harm than good? It is, after all, only one person's opinion - and the food may not be to his or her taste, but it doesn't mean that it won't be to the paying customers. These reviewers are being paid by their newspaper or magazine, are getting a free meal into the bargain, and wrongly believe that being a critic means that they have to criticise - which is not the case at all. Just as theatre critics can close a show, so restaurant reviewers can destroy someone's livelihood and ruin people..
A A Gill trained in Art and Design, and I am not sure what his qualifications are to judge food anyway. But he seems to deliberately want to provoke and upset people. Gordon Ramsay once ejected Gill from one of his restaurants because he had written in a review that Ramsay was a wonderful chef 'but a second-rate human being'. Gill has equally upset the Welsh, the Manx, Albanians, Germans, the gay community, people from the county of Norfolk, has called the English an embarrassing and ugly race, and formal judgements have been made by the Press Complaints Commission. So his reviews are less about the food and more about deliberately causing offence.
Personally, I feel that all food critics have had their day. TripAdvisor and Facebook etc have taken over, as they can offer genuine reviews from real diners. I would much rather read what the general public has to say about a restaurant than an uninvited overpaid reviewer. It is time to bring an end to pointless food critics, and stop giving them a platform in newspapers and magazines.. They do not bring in any extra business to restaurants. We don't want them and we don't need them.
I couldnt agree less with everything you said.
The big critics are hugely followed, and have the power to make a chefs career. My review by Jay Rayner, has done fantastic things for business and created lots of attention for us/me. Our location is very rural and reviews like this are worth everything, and great for getting customers to our door.
A review from most respected critics is genuine, and they will not go to a restaurant because some PR company has asked them too. It is a completly impartial review. Where as trip advisor is the most unbalanced review sight out there. On tripadvisor we have had bad reviews from our competition, and the amount of negative anonymous reviews shows how poor the website is. How can you trust this as a customer?
Restaurant critics still have a very important place in the industry as far as I am concerned. Food bloggers are becoming 10 a penny, i follow a few bloggs when I respect their opinion and writing style yet they are becoming more and more diluted as there are so many out there now.
Paul
im with paul on this one, a good review can work wonders for any establishment, and the people who do these reviews are mostly qualified to comment on food through a genuine passion for food and eating out.
as a part time blogger, i also feel that it is too easy for someone to start writing their own reviews but few of us have the resources or time to eat out enough to make enough of a following to influence anyone like aa gill, jay rayner, giles coren or marina o'loughlin can.
thymeandplaice
I think this one is going to divide opinion.
I have two thoughts on this.
The role of the critic is to help, guide, interpret and communicate the experience of a restaurant. A lot of what is going on is new, fashionable and needs rationalising and prioritising centrally, which is fine. This is a link between the critic and the consumer.
However, some of the critics, basking in their glory, are now beginning to think they know more about cooking than the the chefs they're charged to report on, which is wrong. Some are becoming pseudo TV chefs which is utterly ghastly. These folk are journos and that's where their influence and expertise should remain.
One such critic posted a dish he'd cooked on Twitter recently. Feedback from professional chefs was totally damming as the dish looked horrendous . Did he take the criticism well? No, his response was to threaten and intimidate one of the chefs on Twitter which I thought was totally outrageous.
Critics can be helpful, but they must not replace their pen with the apron. If they do the industry are likely to jump all over them, as they are beginning to.
Gordon Cartwright:The role of the critic is to help, guide, interpret and communicate the experience of a restaurant.
Actually, the role of the critic is to submit clean copy that fits the tone of the publication and meets the commissioned word count to deadline. The critic's first responsibility is to his editor, then to his readers who he must first and foremost entertain, then inform and maybe even educate to some degree. The critic must report his experience accurately, but has no actual responsibility to the restaurant he is reviewing or the wider industry. However, if he has a soul he will know that his words may carry some weight with the public and will certainly have an impact on those he is writing about and will proceed accordingly while never watering down his opinion.
There are good chefs and bad chefs. In the same way there are good critics and bad critics. Unfortunately the poor critics give the better ones a bad name thus making chefs rather suspicious from the start.
With most food, it is the particular person's own taste that tends to form part of the 'review' rather than taking a deeper look at what has actually gone into a certain dish and analysing its components and the technical ability shown.
I find it rather disheartening that food critics can wield such power when it comes to boosting or destroying levels of restaurant clientele and it is a sad reflection of the times we live in. The general public tends to believe everything various medias through at them rather than forming an opinion for themselves based on personal experience and careful thought.
As Jonathan Meades once said to me: 'Remember, I write to entertain my readers, NOT to provide a free consultancy service for restaurants'. 'Nuff said, really. :-)
ChefBear - That fits perfectly...Amen
To say critics have had their day & then sight Tripadvisor is a massive own goal as it's currently being investigated by the ASA for fraudulent reviews.
Restaurant critics are ultimately about selling copy, yes their opinions will be read by many of which a small percentage will actually go to visit the said establishment. AA Gill / Coren really what are their qualifications?
Well, the fact they they can write rather well & significantly better than the tedium that some bloggers come out with & here in lies the difference. An entertainment value.
As most chefs will know;
"Opinions are like @rseh#les. Everybody has one just some are just sh#ttier than others"
Thanks for all your comments.
The real point I am making here is that I don't feel it is fair that a restaurant should be judged on just one person's opinion. And a person who is writing for 'entertainment' purposes at that. If a restaurant suffered because of that, it would be sad. One might not rate TripAdvisor etc highly, but at least you are getting several people's judgements (and hopefully honest ones!).
Well
Critics will be there forever. Good or bad ones.And we cannot avoid it...food "uses" the 5 senses and it is particulary sensitive to critics.
Nevertheless we have food critics coming know to my restaurant with Groupon vouchers...