If I'm not mistaken, the main purpose of remaining anonymous was to get the same service that everyone else gets. That is good enough reason to stay anonymous.

Reply

Anonymity provides the reviewer with the same level of customers service that his/her reader will get. If the owner recognizes them and provides them a different level of service, the review isn't accurate and there is no point in publishing it.

Reply

I think service is a moot point - your service will vary from excellent to terrible with the server you get, even if you are not a food critic. It's a gamble.

Much more important is the quality of the food, which should stay consistent no matter which cook is making it. That's the real challenge.

Reply

I'm gonna have to agree...staying anonymous ensures that you don't get any "special treatment". If the server knows that you are a critic, chances are they are going to be sure to give you great service.

Reply

Mimi Sheraton wrote a great essay about this issue..when asked "what could a restaurant really do in one evening if they spotted a food critic", she basically said "Everything".

Reply

i have had many calls from Local Publications looking to gain free Dinner - everything from bread to wine for free just because they were going to write about my restaurant - with no garuntee that the review would end up positive
why should i as a Buisness man give away free stuff for not apperant gain

stay annonomous and get reimburised by the Publisher if your too cheap to buy a dinner

Reply

Anonymous critiques are greatly useful for everyday experiences since they will give you an idea of what the typical exerience is.

Let me just weigh in on the other side for a moment. Sometimes you also want to know how well an establishment does when they go all out and have their attentions keenly focused for special events, or just special treatments in general. When you're looking to see how well they can hit the high notes, it's good to brush up on some of the more well known or outed food critics.

Reply

Yes, because if everyone knew the critic was around,
the entire restaurant experience would be a show for
his/her benefit. Ever hear of preferential treatment?

Reply

Hell, yes.

Reply

Of course, yes. If a critic does want to see the "all out" style service that Mause is referring to, he or she can go back AFTER he/she has been served like a normal person.

Reply

Mike, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Like a restaurant's food, their service should also be spot on.
Managing a cohesive team that consistantly delivers the best might be one of the hardest aspects of running a restaurant/kitchen-- thus if you see a well-oiled team of workers paired with really great food, then you've got something really special.

It doesn't matter if you give me the greatest food in the world...if my waiter/waitress is rude or just bad at their job it ruins the whole experience.

Reply

Christine said, "Anonymity provides the reviewer with the same level of customers service that his/her reader will get. If the owner recognizes them and provides them a different level of service, the review isn't accurate and there is no point in publishing it."

That is absolutely right. If the critic is not anonymous, then they are bound to receive special treatment and then the review will not reflect the truth of the matter. Getting treated like any other customer is one of the key parts of writing successful restaurant reviews.

In other words, yes!

Reply

We just wrote about this on our blog; we're two restaurant critics and food writers.
http://stlouiseats.typepad.com/st_louis_eats_and_drinks_/2007/09/on-anonymity.html

Reply