Wilfrid Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 I'm not disagreeing with you. But I will say that if Chang's unstated concept for Nishi was to "say 'fuck you' to Italian food," that's both a really bad concept for a restaurant (because negative) and extremely arrogant. And I'm saying this as a fan. (This really has nothing to do with that New Yorker article, I guess.) What did he say about this food in San Francisco a few years ago? I seem to remember there was a time he wouldn't give people knives at Ssam Bar. This is Manny being Manny, nothing big. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilfrid Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 I'm no Chang fan, but I can totally sympathize with his getting defensive. Right. And it's not as if Chang took out full-page ads to lambaste the reviewer, a la the Chod and Keith. No, he let the New Yorker do it for him and saved himself the money. He spent 90 minutes ripping Wells while sitting with a journalist who was rolling tape. Nobody plays the media better than Chang. He's been doing it for years. He knew his reaction would get a lot coverage. Yes. Not a crybaby without a cause. And he has well over half a million social media followers so he's got his image working fine for him. The Pooh of Chang. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Creasey Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 The link works for me... http://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a7685/thomas-keller-per-se-new-york-times-review/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Orik Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Yes. Not a crybaby without a cause. And he has well over half a million social media followers so he's got his image working fine for him. The Pooh of Chang. My gut feeling is it's getting a bit old, but then I'm usually too early on that. I'm sure Chang will shift the image gradually if social media metric worsen. (and impressed he still magically shows up when needed) Of course there's the risk he's been method acting for too long. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mongo_jones Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 The link works for me... http://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a7685/thomas-keller-per-se-new-york-times-review/ still can't see it. i hope there's no censorship happening on this site! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
oakapple Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 It's not immoral to apply Bayes's theorem. Like, yeah, the situation isn't great, but it's probably a valid inference that restaurants that don't recognize Wells are more likely to be bad than restaurants that do recognize Wells. Yes, exactly. Although inelegantly phrased, that's what Gordinier is likely getting at. Keller himself has a similar comment in the T&C piece linked above: One red flag was that his staff hadn't recognized Wells, who, unlike some past Times critics, isn't known for wearing disguises. "I told them, 'How can you miss a diner who comes in multiple times, even if they're not a critic?' " Keller says. "Somebody should catch that, because it's our job to track what people like if they come in more than one time. You have to make a connection." A good restaurant staff should recognize any diner who makes repeat visits, regardless of who that diner is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
taion Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 @Peter: Mongo is trolling you. Your link is posting just fine (the apparent second and third times around). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mongo_jones Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 oh, you're no fun anymore! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Anthony Bonner Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Boo. Taion. Boo. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Creasey Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 T, thanks...I had no clue! Interesting sequence! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
voyager Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 It's not immoral to apply Bayes's theorem. Like, yeah, the situation isn't great, but it's probably a valid inference that restaurants that don't recognize Wells are more likely to be bad than restaurants that do recognize Wells. Yes, exactly. Although inelegantly phrased, that's what Gordinier is likely getting at. Keller himself has a similar comment in the T&C piece linked above: One red flag was that his staff hadn't recognized Wells, who, unlike some past Times critics, isn't known for wearing disguises. "I told them, 'How can you miss a diner who comes in multiple times, even if they're not a critic?' " Keller says. "Somebody should catch that, because it's our job to track what people like if they come in more than one time. You have to make a connection." A good restaurant staff should recognize any diner who makes repeat visits, regardless of who that diner is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sneakeater Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 A guy who never reserves under the same name twice and claims to change the way he combs his hair and his glasses on serial visits? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
voyager Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 A guy who never reserves under the same name twice and claims to change the way he combs his hair and his glasses on serial visits? Did that MO work for Ruth Reichl? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Orik Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 I guess you need repeat customers to develop the skill of recognizing them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
taion Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 I guess you need repeat customers to develop the skill of recognizing them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.