Agree - I have been disappointed a number of times when a well loved favourite closes in its first years - but that is very much the norm for the industry which has a high failure rate across all categories.
But I don’t think that undermines Passard’s truism as with this category the fuller restaurants will probably be the better ones. “Quality, execution and creativity” are important factors, but you also need good service, a venue that works, food delivered at a decent price point etc etc.
I well remember a restaurant that opened near me that had quality, execution and creativity in spades. The chef was good, the food was interesting, the location was fine (between too very popular restaurants). But they only lasted six months, which I think was down to the weird stemware, crockery, ambiance, and service. Service that assumed all the diners were dumb and didn’t understand food…and as a result was pretty empty after the first month and everybody had given it a go.
You make a good point about what promotes longevity. People tend to try new restaurants for the cooking (or some gimmick?) ; they tend to return for the hospitality.
I disagree – if the food is lousy, the service can never make up for it.
The big exception, @PhilD is tourist areas – anyplace close to a major tourist site (whether it’s Disney, Big Ben, or the Eiffel Tower) will tend to be packed…but this is anything BUT an indication of quality.
The restaurants in tourist zones don’t have to be good – most of the clientele are a one-meal market, so they don’t have to entice anyone back.
Agree if the food is bad it won’t survive. But that said if the food is just OK and the ambiance/hospitality is superb then it may have greater longevity than the great chef in a “bad restaurant”.
Most people eat out for fun, they want a good time and to relax…unfortunately to many great food is a bonus (and for some they wouldn’t know if they tasted it) and its the other factors that make a difference.
Also agree about the tourist zones - but that comes back to my category point i.e. tourist restaurants are not in the same “set” as those off the beaten track…that said even in tourist areas some are more popular than others.
I have experienced too many restaurants with excellent food, great service and anbience which failed. And I have seen way too many popular restaurants which haven’t good food and/or service but good PR agencies. No, as I said before I think Passard has it completely wrong here
My flags of all flags is the “one too many ingredient syndrome.” It is always a sign that they are trying way too hard to be “creative” and the result is that they miss the mark completely.
I think all shellfish in a dish should be listed, and I have to put bacon on that list as well. Of course I ask if the fish has clam juice, but since shellfish is the most common allergy in the US, it only makes sense to indicate that the stuff is in there.
This menu, for Hatchet Hall, has lots of interesting looking dishes. But there’s no description of how they’re cooked. Sauteed? Baked? Steamed? Raw? Sous vide?
I actually like pictures of foods on the menu. Yes, they do take up a lot of space, but they are quite nice for people who are new to a particular cuisine or particular lesser-known dish. Basically, at least offer a visual image of the food. The other advantage is that some customers may remember they like a particular dish and know what they look like, but they forgot the name.
Oh yes, I actually quite enjoy those entree models for Japanese food. In fact, I almost have the opposite reaction. The restaurant just won’t look Japanese if it does not have some of these models at the window.
YES! I was wondering if anyone would mention that. As soon as I see that term on a menu, I know I am going to receive middle-of-the-road, average fare.
[“Perfection is an ideal, not a reality, dumbass,” I mutter to myself as I scan the menu.]
Betty White said- “I don’t understand why people would say “grow some balls”. Balls are weak and sensitive. They should say " Grow a vagina”. Those things can take a pounding."
Oh well, maybe because we men are more visual