No less than three hours after reading News.com's Jan 3, 06 "Why Companies Monitor Blogs," which includes this passage:
[O]nline discussions--be it in forums, on blogs or elsewhere--are a modern replacement for customer satisfaction surveys or focus group reports, which can take months to compile and analyze.
"When you're listening to the Internet, the discussion is taking place in real time," said Intelliseek spokeswoman Sue MacDonald. "We're able very quickly, sometimes in a matter of days, to pick up on what consumers are saying. If there's certain issues, like safety recalls or any mention of a boycott, we can set up an alert, so that we can alert a company or a brand so they can be on their guard and be ready to react, if that's what it takes."
I stumble across DCFoodies' news that Buck's Fishing and Camping served them with a cease-and-desist after the bloggers took photos of the food on Saturday night. Putting aside the whole "Blah blah blah information wants to be free blah blah blah intellectual property blah blah blah are bloggers reporters blah blah blah" business, here's what I found interesting in terms of weblogs and the way they influence customer opinion.
Prior to reading Jason's post, I had no idea there was even a Buck's Fishing and Camping in DC. Within five clicks, I had learned that head chef, Carole Greenwood, allegedly has this philosophy in re: her customers:
"I don't cook to make people happy. I cook because I'm an artist. And food is my medium. I have no need to nurture the world. 'You're in the service industry.' I didn't get into it to serve people. I got into it because it was the least objectionable commercial enterprise I could think of."
Which, frankly, would be enough to turn me as a potential customer, even before reading about the inconsistent treatment that Jason and Amy got at the restaurant. Like it or not, the restaurant industry is a service industry: people can make their own wedge of iceberg with blue cheese dressing* at home, so what they're going out for is the service of having someone else make and plate their food.
Anyway, Jason and Amy's experience illustrates, for me, the value that weblogs have as a vehicle for showing how businesses treat the customer. And it also illustrates the peril of the informed audience: although I travel to DC and like going out, I won't be going to Buck's because I don't like how they treated the paying customers, and I don't like the way the head chef regards all her paying customers. Chef Mario Batali said recently, "When you think about it, all my greatest work is poop, tomorrow." That's work, not customers.
* I am not kidding. This is apparently among Buck's "signature dishes."
Batali is a riot! I hadn't heard that one before.
You know, a lot of art isn't intended to please. Some of it is even intended to shock. I don't know about you, but I don't want my food to be shocking. Good food is artistry at work, surely, but it's art intended please.
Even if Buck's food and service were up to par, their action in feeling the need to serve D.C. Foodies with a cease-and-desist letter would still turn me off. Any organization that wants to appear "good" by suppressing negative commentary isn't worthy of our patronage.
Posted by: Roger | 2006.01.04 at 07:01
What I found interesting from the newest version of that DCFoodies post was this:
"I also don't think that the livelihoods of the employees or business partners of Buck's Fishing and Camping should potentially be affected because of a few bad decisions that were made by the chef."
Because I think that skirts the point entirely. I will go to restaurants with terrible service and/or batshit crazy chefs for many reasons, but to ensure the livelihood of the investors in that restaurant is not one of them.
Posted by: hannah | 2006.01.04 at 12:11
True, Hannah.
What is also worth noting is how the DCFoodies post illustrates one of the Web's fundamental weaknesses: people can pull their content at any time, thus making other people's aggregate information/analysis shaky and incomplete.
Boy, this little saga has everything, doesn't it?
Posted by: Lisa | 2006.01.04 at 14:01
Interesting pick, Hannah. I thoroughly disagree with their sentiment. Business partners who condone or even tolerate a business failing to serve its customers, and proud of that fact, should be financially hurt. That's bad business at its finest. As for the employees, I don't say we should hurt their livelihood, but it would definitely be in their best interests to work somewhere with a bit more business sense - and a better reputation - than this. What better way to help them along that path than hitting the restaurant in the bottom line?
Shoot, if I felt it necessary for me to ensure the livelihood of servers, I'd never get anywhere for stopping at every restaurant I ran into. Food service is a tough way to make a living.
Posted by: Roger | 2006.01.04 at 19:03
After a recent trip to Korea in October, I have really become rather lax in the whole restaurant cuisine-thing. Not to sounds like a jaded food snob, but everything thing seems pretty pedestrian here after I was served a bowl of freshly killed octopus/squid (not too sure). When I say freshly killed I mean --still moving and wiggling in your chopsticks and the suction cups are still sticking to your bowl and mouth-- kind of fresh. And yes, I ate it because I was a guest. And to be honest...I would eat it again. But it pretty much proves I will eat anything anywhere without hesitation. My only rule.. I don't wait more than 20 minutes for a chain restaurant.
However my hubba feels restaurants aren't really in the service industry but rather the convenience industry. Most restaurants make bland food that you can easily replicate at home but don't want to/to tired to -take your pick of excuses. The only restaurants he considers outside of this "convenience industry" are Le Cirque et al. (restaurants with inconvenient prices, I guess?).
Judging from Buck's menu... it looks to be a convenience restaurant.
Posted by: molly | 2006.01.04 at 19:06
Noticed this in the Globe and Mail today:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060107/FOOD07/TPEntertainment/?query=point+and+eat
Posted by: drunken monkey | 2006.01.07 at 18:15