416 replies to this topic

[oakapple]

There's a point you've overlooked. At the time Ko's reservation system came along, Internet reservations were not a novelty: OpenTable existed. Ko didn't change the method of reserving; it reduced the number of methods from two (phone or Internet) to one (just Internet).

Back then, hot restaurants weren't on Opentable. This still tends to be true even now (although less so than then). So, back then, for restaurants as in demand as Ko, the only option was to redial until you were put on hold, and then hope against hope, after 45 minutes or so of phone work, that you hadn't wasted your time and you could get a table.

It's funny how much false credit we're giving them. At the time Ko built its reservation system, it hadn't served a crumb. It was declaring its own hotness in advance, and then building a system to cater to it. Of course, I don't grudge them their success, nor the accuracy of their prediction: Chang is, if nothing else, a good self-promoter and a keen judge of the marketplace.

So they didn't drop one of two available options (which I guess in English are called alternatives). They replaced a dysfunctional one with a functional one.

I won't rehash the whole Ko thread, and remember, I like reserving on the net, but there are a whole bunch of reasons why people sometimes prefer the telephone, and Ko doesn't offer that possibility.

With the economics of OpenTable and the limitations, you can hardly blame a restaurant for building their own reservations system.

OpenTable doesn't have any limitations I am aware of. It could have done everything the Ko reservation system does, and in the early days (when the Momo system was buggy), would probably have done it better. The ability to hold back tables (for regulars, telephone reservations, or walk-ins) is a feature of OpenTable, not a bug. Some restaurants (though usually not the hot ones) put ALL their tables on OpenTable; it is simply up to them.

Of course, OpenTable charges them for the service (you expected it to be free???). Chang had to pay a programmer to develop his system and had to pay hosting charges to run it. I assume, in the long run, he returned his investment, but up front it probably cost him more. I think Momofuku and Next are the only restaurants in the country that have developed their own online reservation systems. It's both hard and expensive to do, and replicates an already-solved problem, which is why most just use a service that is already out there (OT isn't the only one).

[robert40]

I think Momofuku and Next are the only restaurants in the country that have developed their own online reservation systems.

I believe Saison in San Francisco has a similar reservation system. Along with its own share of controversy.
http://eater.com/arc...ew-part-two.php

[Sneakeater]

It's funny how much false credit we're giving them. At the time Ko built its reservation system, it hadn't served a crumb. It was declaring its own hotness in advance, and then building a system to cater to it. Of course, I don't grudge them their success, nor the accuracy of their prediction: Chang is, if nothing else, a good self-promoter and a keen judge of the marketplace.

Your anti-Chang prejudice is coming out again.

He was able to foresee that his 14-seat restaurant was going to be a very hot ticket, and planned a reservations system to deal with that situation fairly and fairly painlessly. (The thing about the contemporaneous thread is that the opponents of the system were simply wrong -- and many of them have subsequently admitted it.)

A place like Brooklyn Fare is AT BEST just phumphering around, either or both of not anticipating the high demand it would generate and not doing anything to ameliorate the inconvenience it causes.

It seems to me that, at least in this case, Chang comes out as something close to a model restaurateur. I don't see how you can fault him (or give him only grudging credit) for anticipating a problem and then solving it -- something the BF guys have simply declined to deal with.

[Wilfrid]

Yes.

[Sneakeater]

I want to be clear, BTW, that I'm not really criticizing BF in particular for its failure to deal with this problem. Babbo doesn't. Per se doesn't. The JGV restaurants, by holding back most primetime tables during their opening periods, actively try to exacerbate the problem in order to augment the appearance of hotness. (Although Brooklyn Fare does make the problem even worse by imposing a draconian cancellation deadline and not permitting transfers of reservations.)

I'm just saying that it seems odd to withhold praise from David Chang for actually trying, with some success, to solve the problem.

[TaliesinNYC]

so 6 weeks from next Monday is the week of June 4. sounds perfect especially since I will be on vacation then. funny how these things work out ... well, may the Force be with me.

[Sneakeater]

Hey, sounds like the Force is ALREADY with you.

[GordonCooks]

Here's a question - Has the No Picture and No note taking always been in place?

If not, pretty ironic how he used the food buzz community to build up his reputation and now....slap of the hand.

[TaliesinNYC]

Here's a question - Has the No Picture and No note taking always been in place?

If not, pretty ironic how he used the food buzz community to build up his reputation and now....slap of the hand.

It's the same pattern that occurred with DC and Ko.

No surprise there.

[cstuart]

Call me crazy but I like the no camera or notes at a place like this.

[Sneakeater]

Me, too.

(I guess that's the same thing as saying, "you're crazy.")

[Steve R.]

Call me crazy but I like the no camera or notes at a place like this.

Me, too.

(I guess that's the same thing as saying, "you're crazy.")

No, I think a lot of folks, even some of us food obsessed board folk, would have that preference. And a couple of other preferences as well. But I think that most patrons (and most owners/chefs) temper their own preferences to be able to socialize with folks who have other preferences &/or to get a chance to go some places or to get customers. For example, one of my/Ginny's best friends rolls her eyes whenever we starting talking to the waitstaff about, well about "things" other than the dinner at hand, or when owners/chefs come over to talk to us... for her, she's there to eat and to socialize with us and not with others & doesn't want to know the waiter's name, let alone which neighborhood he lives in, etc. For us, it's a broader event. Another example is me really feeling put out when I'm spending good money on good food in a good environment and have to tolerate being seated at a table next to someone who is dressed for the beach (or worse). Bottom line is I think some behavioral "guides" are okay based on where you are and who you're with, but rigidity gets in the way of an enjoyable experience. Where the line is depends on who is in control.

So, with BF, I really think that Chef Ramirez is probably sincere about his own belief in a full-on "experience" that includes more than the food & is not just yanking our chains for sadistic pleasure (then again, I don't know him). He's trying to create something there that's his "vision" of how to eat high end food (& make a good living and build a great reputation while doing it). And he's now getting more and more full of himself & is thinking that he has the power to enforce all his beliefs (desires?) on how a dinner like his should unfold. And, until he has less than a full house every night, he has every reason to believe he can do this in his own corner of the world. It's one of the few times that I agree with those who say "let the marketplace rule and run its course without interference". Of course I also think that, even though I don't smoke and won't go to a restaurant where it would be allowed, an owner should have every right to choose to run a place where smoking is allowed. Again, bottom line: he has every right to be rigid and alienate some folks (here and elsewhere) and we have every right to not go and participate. Too bad a compromise can't be reached so that I'd be comfortable there and get to eat his food.

And, why do I think that this is just another re-hash of the old DiFara discussion ("he should organize the line better", "who does he think he is charging $5/slice", "the place is filthy")? And the Chang arguments ("everyone must be present to be seated", "we won't cut your dish into pieces", "we have a different reservation system")? So far, Dom, Chang and Ramirez are still doing what they want and I'm sure they could care less as long as their bank accounts have lots of zeros (after the other numbers). That is, if Dom even uses a bank and not many mattresses.

[Sneakeater]

As I said before, Steve, actually I agree with you:

I'm not saying that Brooklyn Fare shouldn't be able to have this reservations policy, if the market allows. I'm saying the market shouldn't allow it.

I'm in full King Canute-mode here.

Basically, my point is that the world would be better if everyone were like me. Who wouldn't say the same thing (although in each case the "me" would be different)?

[Lex]

Surprise. Steve, I mostly agree with you.

Under normal conditions I don't think food photography is a major issue but the counter setting makes it potentially intrusive. It's relatively easy to ignore someone snapping pictures at another table. It's a whole lot harder to disregard someone taking pictures who's sitting right next to you.

Getting a little more specific, small cameras (like Ginny's) aren't particularly intrusive. Giant SLRs which make clearly audible clicks after every shot loudly advertize their presence. At the prices BF charges I suspect the big SLRs would be much more in evidence than at regular restaurants. There might be 2 or 3 people taking 20 shots of every dish. It would sound like photographers at a press conference.

He loses me with his ban on note taking. It's not particularly intrusive at all. Far less than ordinary conversation. (I assume he hasn't banned talking yet.) It's an Internet world. People take notes to aid them in describing dishes when they blog or post. One of the driving forces to the popularization of BF were detailed Internet posts. By banning note taking he's going beyond biting the hand that fed him. He's cutting off the arm at the shoulder. He needs to get the fuck over himself.

I get off the bus entirely with your analogy to Dom. Dom just didn't care about his customers. He doesn't care about keeping the place clean either. If you want to call "not caring" a plan, be my guest. I think it's just random stuff, much like the green paint job on the walls.

[oakapple]

Here's a question - Has the No Picture and No note taking always been in place?

No, and you can certainly find old blog posts with photos from BF's early days.

Under normal conditions I don't think food photography is a major issue but the counter setting makes it potentially intrusive. . . . He loses me with his ban on note taking. It's not particularly intrusive at all. Far less than ordinary conversation. (I assume he hasn't banned talking yet.)

And that's why I'm skeptical that that the ban on photography is for the reason you suggest. As someone suggested upthread, it's more about control. He doesn't want people describing his work on the 'net. If the description is correct, it might be copied. If the description is incorrect, it'll misrepresent what he is doing. He'd ban blogging altogether if it were possible. Instead, he denies you the tools that would allow you to write anything close to a full description.

Some chefs have reversed their no-cameras policy after business tanked (Sam Mason at Tailor, Gordon Ramsay at the London), while others instituted the policy once they realized they could (Ramirez, Chang at Ko). Chang's reasons may be more sensible, since the ban is only at the one restaurant where it might be disruptive. But he was happy (or at least did not object) during the restaurant's early days, when lavishly illustrated blog posts from early adopters helped spread the word about the new restaurant with the funky concept.