Jump to content


Photo

Food blogger ethics


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#46 Anthony Bonner

Anthony Bonner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,218 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 06:40 PM


I like the way Sneak discloses the comps and special treatment he receives. I just wish he'd disclose more info about his dates.

Like whether they comped him anything?

I don't know. They sure don't sound comped to me.

"This is a battle of who blinks first, and we've cut off our eyelids"


#47 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63,989 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 07:30 PM

I guess it depends how you view the cost of the dinner/opera/theater/whatever.
Bar Loser

MF Old

#48 E.L.A.

E.L.A.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,661 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:50 PM


So if every time a blogger writes about a restaurant, he/she discloses "we were comped" or "my desserts were free" -- then what? Then someone points out that there has never been a critical or negative story about any place where the blogger ate free? 5 times? 30?

How would that be a bad thing?

I think there should always be full disclosure of comps. Then the reader can make up their own mind whether the blogger was unduly influenced.


It would not be a bad thing. However, my question is -- to what end? Do you think this "full disclosure of comps" is the answer? Do you think that solves all of the issues we are talking about? My point was that those who want to will be spending a great deal of time "accounting" and keeping score, and in a sense, it might accomplish nothing. But, again, no it wouldn't be a bad thing.

What about barter? Soft-dollars? Advertising? More? You show me a guy who gets zero in comps and I'll show you a hundred other ways he can benefit. Like I said before, where does it end? No right or wrong answer as far as I am concerned.

#49 hollywood

hollywood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 28,004 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:01 PM

I guess it depends how you view the cost of the dinner/opera/theater/whatever.

I thought that was quid pro quo. Clearly more disclosure is called for from you to your loyal readership.

Then that happened.

 

I traveled to Tijuana to smack the federali

Who packing avocado toast like Mario Batali--Black Thought


#50 hollywood

hollywood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 28,004 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:04 PM



So if every time a blogger writes about a restaurant, he/she discloses "we were comped" or "my desserts were free" -- then what? Then someone points out that there has never been a critical or negative story about any place where the blogger ate free? 5 times? 30?

How would that be a bad thing?

I think there should always be full disclosure of comps. Then the reader can make up their own mind whether the blogger was unduly influenced.


It would not be a bad thing. However, my question is -- to what end? Do you think this "full disclosure of comps" is the answer? Do you think that solves all of the issues we are talking about? My point was that those who want to will be spending a great deal of time "accounting" and keeping score, and in a sense, it might accomplish nothing. But, again, no it wouldn't be a bad thing.

What about barter? Soft-dollars? Advertising? More? You show me a guy who gets zero in comps and I'll show you a hundred other ways he can benefit. Like I said before, where does it end? No right or wrong answer as far as I am concerned.

After all the worries about comps, etc., you still get down to whether the critic gets better food, service, "treatment" than the run of the mill customer. So best to assume all restaurateurs are trying to corrupt the critics and factor that accordingly.

Then that happened.

 

I traveled to Tijuana to smack the federali

Who packing avocado toast like Mario Batali--Black Thought


#51 Lex

Lex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,868 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:04 PM

Perfection is impossible but disclosure of comps is a good start towards transparency. If the blogger has a personal relationship with the chef or the owner that ought to be disclosed too. That's standard practice is print journalism so we're not breaking new ground here.

Ultimately it's an honor system. Unless you follow a blogger around with an undercover detective you're not going to know about free meals, soft cash, hard cash, or whether the restaurant is supplying him with hookers and blow. You rely on the blogger to tell you anything that a disinterested party would consider germane.
"I don't understand what's wrong with thinking of correlation as a pricing convention the way one thinks of Black-Scholes vol. I mean, vol curves aren't "real" anyway, but nobody uses local vol models to price vanilla options." - Taion
 
"But this is blatant ultracrepidarianism on my part." - Taion

I have a dream of a multiplicity of pastramis.

"once the penis came out, there was discussions as to why we didn't order the testicles" - Daniel describing a meal in China

#52 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 86,125 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:42 PM

Actually, it's not an honor system any more - in theory at least. It's obligatory (the problem is enforcement).

FTC

continued

In a nutshell: amateurs must play by the same rules as professionals.

#53 Orik

Orik

    Advanced Member

  • Technocrat
  • PipPipPip
  • 21,863 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:53 PM

I can't wait for FTC vs Fat Guy, FTC vs Eater, FTC vs Amanda Strong...
sandwiches that are large and filling and do not contain tuna or prawns

#54 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 86,125 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:59 PM

Of course that's not going to happen, but the existence of the rules should really cut short all these nice discussions about whether so-and-so needs to disclose x,y or z. Yes she/he does, it's the law.

#55 g.johnson

g.johnson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,881 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 10:00 PM

It would not be a bad thing. However, my question is -- to what end? Do you think this "full disclosure of comps" is the answer? Do you think that solves all of the issues we are talking about? My point was that those who want to will be spending a great deal of time "accounting" and keeping score, and in a sense, it might accomplish nothing. But, again, no it wouldn't be a bad thing.

What about barter? Soft-dollars? Advertising? More? You show me a guy who gets zero in comps and I'll show you a hundred other ways he can benefit. Like I said before, where does it end? No right or wrong answer as far as I am concerned.

It's a simple question of moral nous. If you have a relationship with a restaurateur or receive some material gain from him/her that might be perceived as resulting in a conflict of interest, you reveal it. It really is not difficult for anyone other than Perlow and Shaw.
The Obnoxious Glyn Johnson

#56 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 86,125 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 10:04 PM

Of course, there are countless bloggers who find this difficult. But the discussion should really move on from whether it is necessary to whether or not the law should be changed back again. It's a done deal in the States.

Do the rules have any effect at all? Well, I've had to execute new contracts with my ad supplier because it needs to cover its own corporate ass: it does not want to run foul of the FTC because bloggers are surreptitiously endorsing free gifts from its client advertisers.

#57 E.L.A.

E.L.A.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,661 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 10:51 PM


It would not be a bad thing. However, my question is -- to what end? Do you think this "full disclosure of comps" is the answer? Do you think that solves all of the issues we are talking about? My point was that those who want to will be spending a great deal of time "accounting" and keeping score, and in a sense, it might accomplish nothing. But, again, no it wouldn't be a bad thing.

What about barter? Soft-dollars? Advertising? More? You show me a guy who gets zero in comps and I'll show you a hundred other ways he can benefit. Like I said before, where does it end? No right or wrong answer as far as I am concerned.

It's a simple question of moral nous. If you have a relationship with a restaurateur or receive some material gain from him/her that might be perceived as resulting in a conflict of interest, you reveal it. It really is not difficult for anyone other than Perlow and Shaw.


That's fine. I agree. And I think in simplistic terms, that's enough -- for some. Just not all. But again, I agree.

#58 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63,989 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:04 PM

It's not whether it's enough. It's whether it's a minimum you could reasonably expect.
Bar Loser

MF Old

#59 DHL

DHL

    New member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:11 PM


It would not be a bad thing. However, my question is -- to what end? Do you think this "full disclosure of comps" is the answer? Do you think that solves all of the issues we are talking about? My point was that those who want to will be spending a great deal of time "accounting" and keeping score, and in a sense, it might accomplish nothing. But, again, no it wouldn't be a bad thing.

What about barter? Soft-dollars? Advertising? More? You show me a guy who gets zero in comps and I'll show you a hundred other ways he can benefit. Like I said before, where does it end? No right or wrong answer as far as I am concerned.

It's a simple question of moral nous. If you have a relationship with a restaurateur or receive some material gain from him/her that might be perceived as resulting in a conflict of interest, you reveal it. It really is not difficult for anyone other than Perlow and Shaw.


A simple, "I know the owner and he has comped me on occasion." Or, "we were recognized so our experience might not be typical." Or, "the chef sent out some appetizers for us to try because he knows who I am."

Edited by hollywood, 28 January 2011 - 11:47 PM.
accusations of dishonesty


#60 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 86,125 posts

Posted 28 January 2011 - 11:14 PM

Jason doesn't need me to defend him, but singling him out for attack when the practices you describe (whether he has engaged in them or not) have been so widespread as to require action by the FTC sends me the strong signal that some personal animosity is at work.

Why don't we discuss the topic itself?