| « What's the Future of Locavores and Locapours? | No, Everything is Not OK! » |
On Consumer Review Sites Food is King
Restaurant review sites generally offer valid assessments of venue performance Pantelidis, who is a senior lecturer at the London Metropolitan Business School of London Metropolitan University, conducted a content analysis of 2,471 customer comments on the london-eating.co.uk site, an online restaurant guide. His goal was to determine which factors show up most often in consumers' commentaries. He found that "food is king." "Even though your guests are seeking an experience at your restaurant, it is clear that food is the primary variable that will influence a customer's memory and their behavioral intentions—whether that includes returning or sharing reviews on various internet sites," he wrote. "No matter how good the service or how well priced the menu may be, if the restaurant fails to deliver its primary product, the experience will be tainted and subsequent comments will be negative." The study's content analysis revealed a preference structure model, which suggests that customers consider food, service, ambience, price, menu, and decor (in that order) when reflecting on their experiences. Despite certain notable cases where restaurants have been publicly savaged on the internet, Pantelidis found that favorable comments far outnumbered negative reviews on this site. "The fact that the anonymity of this site does not unleash a negative tsunami and instead allows satisfied customers to give a positive restaurant review is a message of great hope to restaurateurs who might be concerned about such sites," he concluded. Whether your experience on such sites has been positive or negative, the bottom line seem to be that those who engage the customer, regardless of the customer's experience, seem to have the best outcome. 
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly Study: Restaurant Review Comments Tend to Be Fair and Favorable
Ithaca, NY, November 3, 2010 – Contrary to the fears of many restaurateurs, the comments on electronic restaurant review sites tend to be fair and reasonable, according to a hospitality study published in the November 2010 issue of the Cornell Hospitality Quarterly (CQ). The featured article, "Electronic Meal Experience: A Content Analysis of Online Restaurant Comments," by Ioannis S. Pantelidis, can be viewed here, hosted by Sage Publications, which publishes the Cornell Quarterly for the Cornell Center for Hospitality Research.
1 comment
I did not have time to chime in on your previous post on this, but do agree with the article here that food is king.
I track Yelp and Open Table, sometimes Trip Advisor, for the houses where I work, and the competition. Yelpers, are, well, a breed unto themselves, but a necessary evil. It is simple to read between the lines and glean what they are really saying, and is at best entertaining to hear the soapbox reviews. Open Table is much more in line with reality, typically, and I find that restauranteurs take those reviews much more seriously. Trip Advisor/Yahoo/etc are hit and miss.
In general, I value the fact that people can openly comment on their experiences, yet wish that they would have the decency/"balls" to share their views with the restaurant directly at the time of their experience. I find that many negative comments could easily have been addressed to their ultimate satisfaction if they had only been voiced at the moment. My typical response to a guest's dissatifation with a dish that is voiced at the end of the meal is "Had you mentioned this when I asked how you were enjoying your meal 30 min ago, I could have done something about it.". I will follow this with a comped dessert or comping their dish if it seems valid. A clean plate that is cleared with an accompanying negative comment is hard to recompense.
But I do truly value the insight into food and service that these reviews provide. It gives me a good guage of what I need to be on the lookout for. Food comments are especially of interest. If more than one reviewer comments about a dish being too salty, for instance, this is something that can be investigated and addressed. Misfires, miscues, and service issues are just as valid once voiced, and should be addressed, though maybe with a bit of deciphering to clear the soapbox air. For all of us, all of these reviews give us more information than would otherwise be getting from our guests, especially since so many feel more comfortable voicing their good and bad comments after the fact in these forums.
I feel that the general negative attitude about Yelp is unfortunate. We should all be taking Yelp comments seriously, even though a grain of salt may be necessary, but to discount a Yelp review because you deem the reviewer to be an uncouth amateur is an opinion that completely misses the point. These posts are valuable feedback that we are not getting at the table, or with management. To brush them off as not worthy of consideration is foolish.
I always thank people for the feedback they provide, positive and negative, while they are in the restaurant. I encourage people to feel comfortable voicing their concerns to me or to management. I try to make them understand that while mistakes do happen, we are ultimately concerned with their satisfaction and that we want to make every effort to address and resolve any issues they may have while dining with us. I always end the discussion by saying that if we are made aware of something, then at least we have the opportunity to make it right, right now. Saving it all up for a Yelpathon does them no good while they are dining, and is ultimately unfair to the restaurant, as they were not given a chance to respond at the moment.
As far as professional reviewers, I have a love/hate relationship with them as well. Mr. Bauer, whom I have waited on many times, can vary widely in his reviews. Sometimes it seems he is more concerned with interior decorating than a dining experience. Over the 15 years that I have worked in Napa/SF, I have taken issue with many of his reviews, and do not feel that his "expertise" is in line with his power and influence. I do not feel that he is as objective as he used to be. Yet we all live and die by his stars. It is amazing to me though, that after a less than favorable review on his part which is followed by a star on Michelin's part, that suddenly his next review is glowing. It is as if he backpedals to be in alignment with Michelin in order to save face. Like they say on ESPN, "Come on Man!". Stick to your guns, and I can respect you. Backpedal, and, well, there you very well are.
Michelin is another story all together, and likely worthy of a seperate post. I feel there is a significant disparagency in what constitutes a star in Europe vs the US. The fact that only NYC and SF/Napa are included seems odd to me. I would love to hear what Charlie Palmer has to say on the matter, or any number of Chefs in any number of great US food towns. What about Chicago, New Orleans, Portland, Seattle, Charleston, Miami, etc., etc.? Do they really feel that 2 cities are only worthy of their attention? My extensive dining experience in the US and abroad tells me that good food is where you find it. I have had some amazing meals in the most unlikely places, both in the US and in Europe/Mexico/South America.
Bottom line here, we all need to take full advantage of feedback, no matter it's origin or forum. The fact that feedback is now much more readily available, despite it's ultimate validity or relation to reality/truth is an amazing outgrowth of the internet. If any of us want to discount this feedback and rest on our laurels, well, see how far that gets you. Look, listen, evaluate, and act.
Thanks once again for a great topic of discussion.
How goes your take home box situation?
Bret Fenton
This post has 279 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Comment feed for this post