Ethical Problem Ethical System Restaurant

Ethical Problem

Ethical system

Restaurant ethics: Special treatment for food critics

Food critics are supposed to be anonymous: many have gone to legendary lengths to preserve their incognito status, from donning wigs to adopting funny accents, as well as using phony names on their expense accounts and credit cards. However, in the age of the Internet, it is increasingly difficult for a restaurant critic's face to go unremarked-upon in a dining room. The title of John Colapinto's 2009 New Yorker article "Why restaurant critics need anonymity" suggests that if a reviewer's identity becomes widely known, restaurants will use any means necessary to influence a review. Once a major critic is supposed to be taking over the Dining Out section for the New York Times or another major newspaper, people with camera phones are likely to try to snap his or her picture or find an old, previously photographed image of the critic. This raises the question: if a critic is suspected to be on the premises, is it ethical for the restaurant to alter its quality of service above and beyond the norm, to make a good impression? This often means that the food critic is getting an experience very different from the average diner.

Of course, some might protest that there is only so much a restaurant can alter. However, consider the following anecdote: one prominent restaurant critic was recently eating in a New York restaurant he was about to review. The critic had a Twitter account and tweeted that his chair was uneven. "Seconds later, the maitre d' appeared at the table offering a new chair and his apologies" (Colapinto 2010). A member of the staff had been following the critic on Twitter. Even in the pre-Internet era, when critics have been recognized, "dried-out slices of cake from the dessert wagon were replaced with whole, freshly-iced gateaux;" stale bread replaced with fresh; and the best cuts of meat and fish, of course, are offered to the critic (Colapinto 2010).

Even more ethically dubious is the practice of offering free food to known restaurant critics. This may include free appetizers, desserts, and drinks, some of which may not be on the menu. For less ethical restaurant critics, the restaurant may offer to pay for the meal, and say that it is 'on the house, complements of the chef.' Although for major critics this is not an issue, given that their meals are paid for by their newspaper and they invariably will refuse, for bloggers and part-time critics from smaller newspapers whose meals are not 'comped' by their bosses, this makes the restaurant's behavior even shadier. It is as if the restaurant is paying for a good review that will not specifically be labeled an advertisement.

Of course, it could be argued that it is the critic's responsibility to conceal his or her identity, and the restaurant can do what it likes to receive a good review as part of its on-site advertising campaign. But while providing good service -- like giving a customer on a 'tipping' chair a new seat, or making sure the bread is fresh -- might not cross the ethical line, free food or service above and beyond what the average diner could hope to obtain seems to be a false form of promotion for the establishment.

The solution is to provide good service to every customer, regardless of the patron's identity. The legendary owner of a successful chain of restaurants, Danny Myer, who operates the Union Square Cafe, is famous for treating every customer like a king or queen for the night, including offering complementary umbrellas to diners who must leave during an unexpected shower. (of course, the umbrellas have the name of the restaurant prominently displayed upon them!)