416 replies to this topic

[oakapple]

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.

How did I fault him? I wrote: "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."

And I have said multiple times that BF ought to be online, and that I would far prefer it that way. I don't know how much more explicitly to put it.

[Wilfrid]

Try to wriggle out of it.





:joking:

[TaliesinNYC]

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.

I don't think I need to recount every single detail, only the ones that jump out at me. If I do manage to go, I expect there may very well be at least one thing that makes a good impression.

At $225 before wine -- about $350 after wine, tax and tip, there should be at least a handful of standouts.

Hey you know, UE posted about that crazy place in SF, the one that charges $498 per person PAID IN FULL UP FRONT before you set foot in there. It could be worse.

[TaliesinNYC]

Behind us, an empty fish tank gurgles. The live langoustines, we’re told, will arrive tomorrow. If we reached across the counter, we could plunge our hands into a sous-vide bath. The waiter gives us each a glass, filled with a frothy, electric green liquid. Propped in it is what looks like a sprig on a frosty winter morning: wood sorrel soda and crystallized oxalis root. These are our instructions: Nibble on the root; bolt back the soda. Our man is right. The lemony pop of the combination, softened by the faintest crunch of sugar, is Skin Bracer for the tongue.

http://www.modernlux...e-restaurant-sf

(since some folks probably don't hang out on Facebook)

[Orik]

Hey you know, UE posted about that crazy place in SF, the one that charges $498 per person PAID IN FULL UP FRONT before you set foot in there. It could be worse.

Mind you, it's $498 including tax, tip and wine. The wine component is approximately $130 + tax + tip, I think, so the menu ends up being roughly $260 before tax and tip - more or less the same as BF.

p.s. I can't wait to hear the responses here when people learn that Saison not only sells some tickets upfront, but that it now applies demand-based pricing. Can't wait for them to add charges for checked bags and more legroom.

[cstuart]

Hey you know, UE posted about that crazy place in SF, the one that charges $498 per person PAID IN FULL UP FRONT before you set foot in there. It could be worse.

Mind you, it's $498 including tax, tip and wine. The wine component is approximately $130 + tax + tip, I think, so the menu ends up being roughly $260 before tax and tip - more or less the same as BF.

p.s. I can't wait to hear the responses here when people learn that Saison not only sells some tickets upfront, but that it now applies demand-based pricing. Can't wait for them to add charges for checked bags and more legroom.

I'm not sure they have tickets any more. They use seatme and it's pretty easy to get a reservation actually. And the same price every time. I think there was some confusion with their pricing in the press.

[chopjwu12]

Ive said this here before i think and im almost sure im right. But the cancelation policy thing is now an empty threat. I think 4 or 5 years ago the changed the rules. Now you cant legally charge someone credit card without them actually signing for the charge. This doesnt include say buying on amazon but i believe the signature in that is the little code on the back. So you can dispute any restaurant charge and win. Thats why a lot of places are going to the contract model for holidays like new years eve.

[Sneakeater]

Thing is, though, that dining out is supposed to be a pleasant experience. If the endgame is having to make a successful challenge to a credit card penalty charge if you're unable to show, well . . . that isn't very pleasant.

[Jesikka]

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).

Anyone familiar with CRS systems can speak for hours about the limitations of OpenTable. I don't expect OpenTable to be free, but I think it is prohibitively expensive for many restaurants. I don't think it is actually very hard to build what Momofuku built, but I'm not a computer programmer. I think most restaurateurs don't want to be in the software business and don't have the upfront capital. There are many restaurants using alternate CRS/Booking engines, and OpenTable is well-known for being a really bad business partner. PF Changs is a simple example- this is not just happening at the high end. At very least, you don't have your own customer data housed in your own system and OT has the right to market to your customers however they want.

[Lex]

... and OpenTable is well-known for being a really bad business partner. PF Changs is a simple example- this is not just happening at the high end. At very least, you don't have your own customer data housed in your own system and OT has the right to market to your customers however they want.

Could you provide some links that bear this out? Not the onesey twosey whiny restaurants that could pony up but choose not to and then manufacture reasons why the don't want to. A couple of articles that speak about massive restaurant dissatisfaction would do.

We hear this canard all the time. "Opentable is bleeding us dry." Except that thousands of restaurants have joined OT and managed to stay in business for years. Every 12 months or so another Great White Hope OT alternative surfaces. "We're going to take OT's customers away and our service will be free to restaurants!" Except it never happens, at least not in a significant way.

I understand that restaurants are a low margin business but I'm in no way nostalgic for the good old days of phoning in for a reservation and having the phone ring 15 times, then being told "please hold," then waiting 10 minutes, and then having the line go dead. OT is infinitely more reliable than that and has the added benefit of being available 24x7.

That "OT is stealing our relationship with the customer" line is also specious. I get regular promotional emails from restaurants every week. Almost all of them are the result of the fact that when I made an OT reservation I checked the box that said that I wanted to receive promotional emails from the restaurant.

OT (or a successor service) is here to stay. Restaurants may kick and scream but the world has changed.

[joethefoodie]

I understand that restaurants are a low margin business but I'm in no way nostalgic for the good old days of phoning in for a reservation and having the phone ring 15 times, then being told "please hold," then waiting 10 minutes, and then having the line go dead. OT is infinitely more reliable than that and has the added benefit of being available 24x7.

Right. I'm much more content calling my utility company, cable company, cc company, doctor's office, building management company, et.al. and having that happen.

[porkwah]

there's no problem with technology here - i'm sure there are services restaurants can use just like mouthfulsfood is a service - the tiny pilates studio i go to has a scheduling website which is the same as all the other pilates studios use. the problem OT (and seamless web) solves is marketing, not technology

[Wilfrid]

There are plenty of complaints about Open Table. This is one of those cases where a virtual monopoly is bad for its clients, but good - of course - for us, the customers. Several "Open Tables" might control the cost of restaurants, but would be a pain to have to search.

[Lex]

We have that l-o-n-g "OT Competitors" thread started by Rail Paul about 18 months ago. As I recall, the complaints by restaurants were isolated. It seemed to me that most of the pushback I heard came from restaurants that hated the idea of paying OT a commission on bookings. That's certainly understandable but the world has changed. Chalk those commission up to the cost of doing business.

Every 6 or 8 months some new OT competitor comes out of the woodwork and says they're going to steal OT's business by offering their service free to restaurants. (Those articles never make it clear who's going to actually pay for the systems.) My assumption is that if OT was truly horrible (instead of merely being annoying to restaurants) that they'd jump over the side in droves. That hasn't happened.

[Orik]

We have that l-o-n-g "OT Competitors" thread started by Rail Paul about 18 months ago. As I recall, the complaints by restaurants were isolated. It seemed to me that most of the pushback I heard came from restaurants that hated the idea of paying OT a commission on bookings. That's certainly understandable but the world has changed. Chalk those commission up to the cost of doing business.

Every 6 or 8 months some new OT competitor comes out of the woodwork and says they're going to steal OT's business by offering their service free to restaurants. (Those articles never make it clear who's going to actually pay for the systems.) My assumption is that if OT was truly horrible (instead of merely being annoying to restaurants) that they'd jump over the side in droves. That hasn't happened.

OT has dropped prices, and has dropped then even more for restaurant booking made via the OT widget on the restaurant's own site. I still don't understand the concept of searching using OT. "darling, I'm in the mood for something in downtown manhattan today, in the $$$ range." "1000 points?" "and why not?"