The world of restaurants is a fast paced, low-margin, cut-throat environment. Starting a restaurant is a huge initiative, and keeping one afloat is an even larger endeavor. No wonder then that restaurateurs are eager to shine a positive spotlight on their establishments. Journalists and food bloggers from all over the world review restaurants and write diligently about foie-gras this and bone-marrow that, exposing the strengths and (we hope) the weaknesses of our local fare. But what happens when restaurateurs, like lobbyists to politicians,
start to offer incentives to food bloggers and critics? Does this change the relationship, and the validity of the blogger's word?
That is the question addressed by
Eater Montreal's Ian Harrison, a food writer who recently critiqued the restaurant reviewers who are less-than-transparent about their relationships with restaurant owners. This is a controversial and complicated subject; should credible authors disclose when a meal is comped, or is it a standard and accepted practice? Even if they are transparent, can you trust that their review is unbiased? Does the fact that they received a free meal (one that was likely expensive) instrinsically change their experience? These are just a few of the myriad of questions surrounding the subject.
Harrison takes a firm stance on the issue, and
his article makes some very strong points (it is actually a response to an
earlier post of his). Be sure to check out the source link below for his original article, and let us know what you think! Which reviewers do you trust, and are they transparent about any comped foods & beverages?
Source:
Eater Montreal
Tablebases.com
