A couple of months ago, lots of local (and not local) Twitterers started talking about Taste Casting, and I got approached to become a member. After reading the materials, I declined. Why? I have some real problems with the way Taste Casting tries to control the voices of their tasters.
I value my network. Though I do occasionally do the PR-sponsored dinner, I state it openly, and make it clear to the PR person or restaurant pitching me that my acceptance does not mean that they will get a positive review. I often request anonymity (blogger dinners, like the one Morton’s had a while ago, are a little different– and I was still critical) — if someone knows you’re writing about them, they’ll put out their best product and be on their best behavior, right? That’s not quite fair. My readers expect me to tell them the good, bad and the ugly– and I do, in a way that (I think, and others have told me) isn’t mean or inappropriate. That’s why there are certain restaurants I can’t (and won’t) review anymore– Bootsy’s, for example– because the staff knows me, and the experience I have there could be different than what you, as a regular reader, have. If I have a business relationship with a restaurant (I am a copywriter, you know), I can’t review them– obviously, that’s unfair, too. I try to only post “news” that my readers will appreciate or care about, and not just every press release that floods my inbox (do you really care about promotions in New York? I didn’t think so!). I try to use good judgement when working with PR folks, and I think you guys (and the PR folks) respect that.
Sites like Urbanspoon and Yelp might also have issues– what you’d present are essentially paid reviews. That’s pretty much against what both of those sites stand for.
It feels like begging. I have seen food bloggers say, “Do you want to promote your restaurant? Email me!” Wow. This seems like pay-for-play to me. That’s not honest, and gives bloggers a really bad name. “Will Tweet for Food” is their tagline– sounds similar, doesn’t it?
You can’t say anything negative. This is my main issue with Taste Casting. From their FAQs:
My goal for this idea is to HELP small business owners not to HURT them. “Social Media and the participants have the power to do both.”
Please remember – Everyone’s tastes, likes, and dislikes are different. If you taste something and you don’t like it, tell the establishment representative. HELP them with your honest opinion. Then try something else.
Because we’re invited guests to the establishment and we are being served the selections – in some cases we may be a focus group for new menu items. It would be unkind to Twitter a “negative” and “harmful” post to our social networks.
Enforcing what TasteCastings twitter about is not something that can be controlled. I strongly encourage anyone who joins the team to be kind and constructive in your communications. As a member of a Twitter Taster Team you will be strongly encouraged to Tweet using the Golden Rule…” If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.”
“Everyone’s tastes, likes and dislikes are different”– true. But what if the meat is over or underdone? The restaurant dirty? The service– even as invited guests– bad? If the restaurant is like this for invited guests, what is the experience like for a regular customer? What if the flavors don’t work together, or I can’t find a single thing I like at the restaurant– that’s right, you’re not supposed to write about it. I find that disingenuous and damaging– both to the restaurant, who could be seen as “paying off” reviewers and to anyone who blogs or tweets that they’re going to a Tastecast– then says nothing about the event. You can be negative without being mean– being able to do that is something I pride myself on– but prohibiting any negativity?
I lose my credibility If people know I’m going to a Taste Cast, and they know the rules– can they trust what I say?
Sometimes, it’s not clear that a blog post is based on a Taste Cast. I’ve seen several where the disclaimer is at the bottom– in tiny print! Obviously, the Taste Caster group can’t police this, but I (and others) truly believe that blogging, tweeting, etc. is about transparancy– and tiny print isn’t transparent. There is much talk of bloggers “replacing” media, like newspapers. I disagree– I think it’s a complementary enterprise (I do have an agreement with the Enquirer, as you may know, but independent of that, I think media outlets have their place, and so do bloggers). I doubt it will pass, but even the FTC has noticed how fuzzy blogger/company relationships can be, and are advocating for full disclosure of things like sponsored blog posts.
A lot of my friends are doing Taste Castings, and I know they have the best intentions (so friends, don’t think I’m calling you out!), but as someone who has worked hard to gain trust of both the restaurant community AND with my readers, I just can’t participate in this venture.
What do you think– do you think less of reviews that are based on the reviewer getting a free meal? Does disclosure make a difference? Do you trust a restaurant that gives bloggers an incentive to try their food?
ETA: Though the creator insists that it’s not a review site (see comments), why does the site have “Reviews” as the first item in the header bar?
ETA 7/2; 7 PM: Looks like Dan saw the light and is making some changes to the site’s policies. I’m still not going to be a taste caster, but glad he finally realized that his current practices were unethical. We’ll see how things go in the future, but man, I’m glad I finally posted about this! This goes to show you– marketers need to remember ethics before anything else.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }
kudos to you julie in standing up for what you believe in!
Maureen Jacob´s last blog ..I’ll Take What’s Mine
To be frank, the idea of Taste Casting did entice me at first. But as I have read the well-written Tweets of Taste Casters, I had a briefly considered un-following them because the amount of Tweets about the same things from the same place all sounded like canned ads. It got to be too much. It’s great to promote a product or place, but it appeared obvious that after these events, I could expect numerous plugs from them, knowing they were not honestly sharing their opinion without motives. Thanks for making it clear, Julie.
And if I may add, coming from a young but studied PR background, it does not appear to be transparent or an ethical practice, even if it is fun & easy to eat free food & glorify it!
I honestly don’t have an issue with it. IF it is spelled out front and center of the post. The quotes from the FAQ you pulled do concern me a little (and I obviously missed those as I was reading). I can see avoiding nasty comments, but constructive criticism should be OK. I think the miss an opportunity by not challenging the venues to bring their best and take what we dish.
OK, so now I am seeming a little conflicted.
Bryan Sherman´s last blog ..Five Guys Burger and Fries
I suppose it’s there prerogative to choose their own rules however, it seems a bit counterproductive. I suppose you could be like the female judges on this past season of American Idol and say something like the waiter’s shirt was nicely pressed and his earring wasn’t too big. Or, the Tuscan chicken wasn’t burned and the Mediterranean pasta had kalamata olives in it.
I commend your willingness to stay true to your readers and offering an honest review. These restaurants should be greatfull that they have someone taking the time and help them out.
Christina Baita´s last blog ..Healthy French Baguette
Julie, your genuine assessment brings up some great food for thought (for a lack of a better expression).
With a decade of professional experience as a news journalist, I have long prided my blogging “side career” as a venture that is honest, unbiased and accurate. I have used those same rules of journalistic ethics in my freelance writing gigs – a published restaurant review will carry more weight with the reader if it’s transparent and includes the good, the bad and the ugly.
A few months ago, a magazine I was freelancing for disclosed to a local restaurant that I would be reviewing their establishment. I had top rate food and exceptional service – and I disclosed that in my piece. I also pointed out the poorly cooked lobster along with the divine crafting of their scallops – that’s how restaurant reviewers operate. If everything is nice and great and delicious, then how is a reader supposed to believe you’re being genuine?
Because not every restaurant is nice and great and delicious.
If a PR venture does not encourage or allow bloggers/twitterati to accurately describe their opinions and disclose the truth of their experience, then it is not a truthful and genuine encounter and will likely be disregarded by those diners with discerning tastes and capable of deductive reasoning.
Kate´s last blog ..Scared But Okay
Great read; transparency is paramount in social media and your voice should not be filtered b/c it’s being fed.
I think you said much better than I could exactly why I haven’t gotten involved with our local Tastecasting group. I’ve built up far too much credibility in the restaurant community at large to have it destroyed by even the appearance of a free meal. Even if the “rules” (no negative tweets, etc) didn’t exist, I’d still be uncomfortable with it.
Becke´s last blog ..Farm Fresh and Local Produce 6/27/09
I truly appreciate everyone’s opinion and respect your position. First and foremost I want to go on record on this site that our teams are not “reviewers” we formed the original team to “promote” and “help” restaurants in this down economy. I have several friends who own restaurants, that serve great food, but no one knows about them, or, no one knows about their menu, their location, who they are, or why the started their businesses. We do, and we have, provided restaurants with our comments on how they can improve the experience for diners face to face. In each case the advice was taken and improvements were made. In this world everyone is more focused on spreading the bad and ignoring the good. Everyone knows how quickly negative comments can spread on the Internet.
My purpose is to HELP. There are already so many rate this restaurant sites, leave comment sites, reviews that I feel if we provide information on what is GOOD about a location, a menu, and offer our honest criticism and feedback personally to the restaurant that they can improve in the areas that we discover.
I stongly feel they DESERVE a chance. Running restaurants is an extremely tough business, with long hours, and small margins. In this economy I and the TasteCasting team members who choose to participate are HELPING, not HURTING the restaurants.
By doing this we are not only helping the restaurants, we’re helping those who sell services to the restaurants, those who provide goods and ultimately farmers who produce the goods. In my mind it is a way for anyone interested in kicking this economy back in gear.
I have explained in full disclosure on the site that we are treated to food in exchange for promoting the restaurant. I can tell you from personal experience that the restaurant do take this very seriously and other than an item being to salty, a bun being a bit dry and a rest room that needed attention we (in Columbus) have not had a bad experience.
I appreciate the forum and if anyone reading this has ideas on how I can structure this service and communicate more effectively what I am trying to do please comment here or send me a direct e-mail to info@tastecasting.com I’m open to suggestions.
Warmest Regards,
Dan Harris
Founder, TasteCasting
Columbus, Ohio
@8101Harris
Dan Harris´s last blog ..Dunkin’ Donuts Delighting Central Ohio
Thanks for responding.
Though you’re emphatic that “in this economy” you need to “help” restaurants, and that review sites don’t do that– I disagree. I’ve seen many restaurants flourish due to word-of-mouth– or -web, as it may be– based on Yelp, UrbanSpoon and blog reviews, both locally and in larger markets, like New York and Chicago. Very few people who review with regularity want to hurt restaurants– they want to share their finds and honestly want to help restaurants that they like. Taste Casting blurs the line with reviewers (You say they aren’t “reviewers”, but since some restaurant bloggers participate, they can be seen by the public that way) and PR firms. What you’re doing is PR that uses folks with existing networks and turns them into tweeting advocates for certain restaurants, restaurants who will (according to your model) eventually pay you for the privilege. The Taste Casters can eventually get advertising revenue from these restaurants– which goes far beyond a free meal. As I stated above, I will not endorse a restaurant (besides posting, say, the occasional press release summary) I may have a business relationship with simply because it’s a conflict of interest.
I could go so far to say that customers, once they figure out how a Taste Casting review is done, might not visit a restaurant featured because they had to pay for reviews (whether you consider it a review or not, it comes off as such).
Dan, my problem with the group is that when you receive something for free, it automatically creates an expectation that you’ll review whatever it is favorably. Not only is there that unwritten expectation, but the “rules” state that this is a necessity. As someone who takes their restaurant reviews, etc. seriously, I have a responsibility to my readers to not recommend something I don’t fully stand behind, whether it’s a restaurant, a store, whatever. If there’s 10 bad things about an experience, and only one good thing, then it’s unfair for me to just focus on the one good thing while ignoring the 10 bad.
As a rule, I don’t accept freebies. In the rare cases I have (where a farmer has given me a quart of strawberries, or a few ears of corn, or where I’ve received a press pass for an event, etc), I’ve been more than candid about that. Other food bloggers in the area that I’ve discussed the Tastecasting premise with agree wholeheartedly on why it’s a bad idea for any of us to participate.
I’m not saying that the Tastecasting group shouldn’t exist, or that it’s a bad idea for others to participate, I’m just saying it’s a definite conflict of interest for me personally. It goes against everything people have come to expect from me or from my blog.
And also, as someone who follows the tweets and blog posts of those who do Tastecast, most of the time these things come across to me as blatant advertising, like someone is writing directly from ad copy. As a person (separate from my blog identity), I’m less likely to take these recommendations seriously knowing the objective of the group at large. But then again, maybe I’m not the audience that you’re trying to reach. YMMV, I’m sure.
Becke (Columbus Foodie)´s last blog ..Farm Fresh and Local Produce 6/27/09
tastecasting = cheesy and annoying and yet another example of the total overcommercialization of crappy shit just to get people to buy it. i realize not every restaurant or store that participates is going to suck, but there is no way to tell.
also, the idea that condensing your opinions (and only the nice ones gosh darn it) about an eating experience into a tweet is absurd. it’s all about generating internet noise and publicity, which are pretty much never the signs of a truly good meal.
who cares about the restaurants if they are crappy? they should close. if they really do serve good food and nobody knows about them, they should get in touch with @geekjames who has done a genius job of publicizing take the cake in social media formats, and i am sure could be persuaded to share his magic for the right price.
liz´s last blog ..time for some craigslist
Great dialog here. I really appreciate it.
So if I summarize what is being said…. TasteCasting would be more valuable resource IF, when we experience something like the bathroom, the salt or a lack of freshness – Tell the establishment, and then post it to the profile. In person we frame these as Areas for Improvement based on our experience. I could recommend that the captains in each city take this approach. It helps them now, and if they fix it, change it, or improve it, it will help them in the long term – which is really what this is all about.
I, like everyone else on this planet, are in a continuous learning cycle and find the commentary and this blog very informative. I’ll take everyone’s comments into consideration over the weekend and see how I can construct this to better serve the members, the restaurants and potential readers.
This has turned into more than promoting restaurants. I have to say that above and beyond the restaurants, TasteCasting has brought together some terrific people. 300+ in less than 4 months all over the country. We’ve all benefited from the friendships, the connections, the instruction and I find it thrilling that people are willing to help make a difference in their community.
Another positive effect is we’re also introducing restaurants and others to social media. They are learning about social media thanks to TasteCasting team members. They are investing in hiring people, building sites, and engaging a their demographic in a new way and it’s working. They are seeing results.
Thanks again all, and thank you Caitlin.
Dan Harris´s last blog ..Dunkin’ Donuts Delighting Central Ohio
And just to emphasize, look at the comments found on the site:
Robb Landon says:
June 17, 2009 at 7:42 am
Great review. I have always been a fan of green tea. Learned from your review
Food Hussy says:
June 13, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Link to my blog review of the Taste Casting. [link redacted]
And your site itself has a toolbar that says “reviews”! Seriously, you say it isn’t a review site… but then you put “review” all over your site. What gives?
Who’s Caitlin?
We have issues far beyond tweeting that a bathroom is dirty.
Introducing people is great, misleading people isn’t. If restaurants get the idea that a barrage of tweets is how to promote their product– they’re going to find out the hard way that they’re wrong.
Thanks, Julie, for your integrity! Dan, no matter what you say, the fact that your reviewers are “paid” in food, makes it hard to believe that you are doing this out of the goodness of your heart to promote restaurants. I don’t mean to be nasty, but you and your reviewers are getting something for writing. I use blogs like julie’s to give me an idea of what is new and to see if I might like a restaurnat. If I see an ad, I may certainly read it and may even go to the restaurant becsue of the ad. But if I see a blog that pretends to be objective but really is just an ad for a restaurant, I am unlikely to go to the restaurant simply becsue I feel that the place must not be really very good if it cannot rely on word of mouth and objective blogs/newpapers etc. to sell it’s product. So for me, your project backfires.
ooops–Sorry for the horrible spelling, I feel pretty passionate about this and so was typing too fast.
Apparently TasteCast operates on the premise that “because the restaurant business is tough, they deserve promotion.” The restaurant business IS tough, no question. But promotion is a marketing function. Every successful business has a successful marketing strategy, and promotion is part of it. Promotion is something a business *pays* to get, and something promoters are *paid* to do. Nothing wrong with it at all. I don’t think anyone objects to business promotion.
TweetCasters who don’t clearly and prominently describe the compensated nature of their tweets do a disservice to their readers, and to other tweeters, reviewers, and writers. They’re being paid to do a job. They’re not “reviewing” a restaurant, they’re “promoting” a restaurant. Any ambiguity about the difference undermines the medium and the credibility of everyone who uses that medium. Just as an “editorial” in a newspaper is (or ought to be) clearly noted as opinion to differentiate it from what is (or ought to be) factual reporting, a promotional message ought to be clearly identified as such so that readers can adjust their interpretations accordingly.
All,
I wanted to let you know I’ll be adding a disclosure policy to the site this weekend. I will also be amending the guidelines and communicating those new guidelines to the teams.
We will still be a “promotional review” site, but I do see the value in several comments mentioned above. Going forward we will no longer govern or influence the opinions of the tasters. I will however ask that reviews both positive and negative be constructive so that the restaurant can learn from, change and improve.
As I said before…I’m am constantly learning. I also had the opportunity to engage with the president of WOMMA who has helped me with a few things and I will be rolling out his suggestions as well. He shared the following links to the womma ethics. This is very helpful. http://www.womma.org/ethics
I respect your opinions, appreciate the guidance, and, I am sure I won’t be able to please everyone. That is not my intent. My intent is to help establishment, team members and most recently in Columbus we are now able to help charities like the Mid Ohio Food Bank.
Have a terrific 4th of July!
Dan Harris
Founder, TasteCasting
Dan Harris´s last blog ..King David Dogs – Indianapolis’ Crowned Head of Hot Dogs
I emailed you privately, but thanks for taking my comments, my readers’ comments, other bloggers’ comments and WOMMA into consideration. I think the changes you make will help your endeavor tremendously. And don’t worry– as I said before, we can’t please everyone all of the time.
Have a great 4th!
This certainly has been an interesting debate and many of the points raised elevate the food-blog/tate-casting debate to a level I’d not yet considered. But I have to acknowledge I’m extremely put off my the whole tone it took towards the end. What is with the “[he] saw the light” and “his current practices were unethical” language used here? While it’s more than clear Julie doesn’t agree with the current (and perhaps previous) procedures employed by Dan and his fellow Taste Casters, I find this “us” versus “them” language as unpleasant and inappropriate as paid, self-serving, self-promoting restaurant tweets. Maybe I find it so because, at the root of it, I find both the food bloggers and the Taste Casters to be working towards the same end – namely, spreading the word about what each considers to be places to consider patronizing for good food, good service, or some (hoped for) intersection thereof. But I especially find this dialogic troubling when this very blog, while positioning itself as serious.food.blog with serious.food.writing as its content often takes its own opportunities to promote things entirely non-food related and very much in the self-promoting interest of the author of the blog (see numerous entries on theater productions, appearances, or participation in various local events as a named contributor). While promoting one’s play or congratulating one’s self on some new level of blog success isn’t unethical by any means, it certainly does call into question the credibility and intention with regards to food writing – is it about the author’s genuine interest in presenting a critical approach to dining options in Cincinnati, or is it someone’s attempt to achieve some quasi-local-fame to promote herself? It’s one thing to have a blog that purports to be a semi-serious approach to food writing but with a lot of personal matters also discussed (_Get in Mah Belly_, _Veggie Option_, _Westside Foodie Wannabes_, _Cincinnati Nomerati_, among others); it’s another altogether when the blog is positioned as being entirely and extremely focused on food but nearly as much attention is paid to the author as on the subject of food.
I certainly enjoy reading many food blogs in Cincinnati, and most of the time I enjoy _Wine Me, Dine Me_ for its generally informative approach to local food, dining, and restaurant updates; however, I am finding the criticism of one person’s alleged self-promotion and so-called “unethical” behavior a bit hard to take when some of the same behavior (and criticisms thereof) could be directed right back to the author herself.
Sara–
Thanks for voicing your opinion on this, and while I see your points, I disagree with a few of them. Though I admit I may have been a little harsh on Dan with the “he saw the light” comment, from a marketer’s perspective (and Dan is a marketer, and so am I, when I’m not eating), his practices were unethical. I’m very glad that, based on conversation both here (with me, and with commenters) and with the folks at WOMMA, he changed his mind and is making changes that might truly improve his program. That’s great, and that’s what social media is all about: the exchange of ideas.
That said, I find it interesting that you consider any self-promotion I do here to be on par with “pay for play”, and that you separate me from other bloggers in town (most of whom I consider friends, all of whom I respect a great deal). I have always maintained that my blog is “one woman’s opinion”, and though it is based primarily on food, I consider myself a “serious writer”. I make my living writing and marketing, in mostly non-food related ways. I do not consider it inappropriate to talk about other things I am involved in. I try to do this– and there’s that word again– transparently. I even semi-jokingly call them “shameless plugs”. Theater is a big part of my life, and I work with a particular theater company– and every three months or so, talk (in one post) about a show. I don’t think that’s overkill. By mentioning other parts of my life, I’m not doing anything that isn’t standard in blogging circles, and, indeed, something that lends a bit of humanity to the blog– “Look! She does something that doesn’t involve eating!” Whereas others choose to add more about their lives, I deliberately choose to focus only on select parts of my life. You’ll see the same range of personal details in any genre of blogging, from social media bloggers, to parent bloggers, to beauty bloggers, to… you get the idea.
As far as promoting “blogging milestones” is concerned, things such as my partnership with the Enquirer are written about for transparency. I know that if I put up a badge from the Enquirer, people will wonder several things, including (but not limited to) whether it will change what I write about or how I write it. I think that (and any other disclosures) builds trust and isn’t inappropriate self-promotion.
I think “self-promotion” has a negative context. How do you get a job, or get a date, or do anything in life without putting yourself out there, and talking about stuff you do? Again, it’s all about transparency.
I have no interest in being any sort of “local celebrity” (I still wonder what qualifies me to judge dogs, except that I’m friends with someone who runs SSOM, and live in close proximity to Main!), and though my blog has certainly helped me professionally, I derive few other benefits from it.
Again, Sara, I truly appreciate your opinions and am glad you read my blog, and other food blogs in the area. I will never, ever make everyone happy all of the time. I try to do my honest best, being as transparent as possible, all the while keeping folks apprised of food issues in town with a little bit of my own personality thrown in.
Well said, Sara ^^. I couldn’t agree more. Further, WMDM often promotes the author’s friends, or those whom she wishes to befriend in an almost sycophantic way. I find the site to be extremely self-promoting.
Not that there’s anything wrong with any of this; just kill the self-righteous, pseudo-ethical-intellectual tone already!
Sharon, please see my above response to Sara, particularly the second and third paragraphs.
Of course I promote my friends’ endeavors– and am very open about the fact that they are my friends. I do not promote something of a friend’s if it isn’t somehow relevant to my blog or of interest to my readers. My readers, from what I can tell, do more than just eat. They often go to the theater, or a movie, or some other event before or after a meal.
I never promote anything I don’t believe in, and I stick by that in everything I do– online and off. I get asked to partner with a lot of people, for a lot of things, and have chosen only ones I truly believe in. Is that sycophantic?
Wow! I love the excitement of a good debate.
To the last two ladies who commented. Thank you also for your opinions however, I am not sure what blogs you are reading. They are obviously not personal blog platforms and simply websites? I for one have a medical type blog where I do serious research for people as it is asked of me however, I also keep my readers up to date with what’s going on in my life and my health that that can be quirky. It’s MY blog and my posts and I am not always serious health problem girl. That’s the point.
Wine Me Dine Me is Julie’s blog and a really well written and followed platform because it is her. Her knowledge, expertise, opinions, personality and there is nothing unethical about what she writes just because you don’t like it. I have really enjoyed the back and forth banter though. Thanks. Remember that opinions like her’s although perhaps not liked by all could actually help taste casters to eventually become an even better program!
Christina Baita´s last blog ..Warranty On A Knee Replacement?
i don’t really see the difference between julie and the rest of us food bloggers in cincinnati in terms of how she approaches blogging. if i was in a play or writing for the enquirer you can bet your ass it would be all over my blog.
the reason i don’t write more about my personal or professional lives on my blog is because it’s not something i am that comfortable sharing with a bunch of strangers on the internet. i personally wish to keep my blogging life somewhat separate from my non-blogging life (and i know the same is true for other food bloggers to different degrees, especially veggie option), but nothing julie has done on her blog has ever made me doubt whether i could trust her opinions on food.
i do think all of our personalities come through in our writing. maybe the real problem is that sara and sharon just don’t like julie’s personality.
liz´s last blog ..time for some craigslist
I’ll throw my 2 cents in – even though I’m a few days later…I did one event for TC and it was fine. I gave an honest review of World Market. I didn’t like everything but most of it was fine. After that I decided to remove myself from the list because I didn’t want to be required to write a favorable review. I think it’s fine for non-food bloggers but for me I didn’t want to do that.
I have done one other free item with Morton’s and I said it loud and clear that it was free. I think I might have gotten a titch better service but pretty sure (since I’ve read a few other Power Hour blogs) that the food was identical.
I figure these blogs are our blogs – we write them – we don’t get paid for them – it’s for fun and it’s a hobby. That being the case, I want freedom to say what I want. But that’s just me.
Food Hussy´s last blog ..The hub of Mexican food is of course in West Chester!
I’m a blogger and a TasteCasting team captain from Jacksonville, Florida. Also in the interest of full disclosure, I’m also PR professional AND a former Cincinnati resident. Our team, which was founded after the last post in this debate, works in a more transparent way than has been described here. We have several food bloggers on the team, and we value our credibility. We don’t promise only positive feedback, and we don’t encourage our members to sugar coat their experience. The best way we’ve found to stay true to our code of ethics is to only work with restaurants we would eat in and recommend. If they are our friends’ places, even better. – And Julie – on a personal note – “Crispy pork was just bacon” cracked me up! Maybe 127 should start buying Fire-Roasted Bacon from HoneyBaked Ham!
Nancy White´s last blog ..bb’s – a groovy place to b
It’s great to see that you guys take a different approach– it’s not like that here, or Columbus (check out columbusfoodie.com for a recent post on Tastecasting, if you haven’t already).
It’s been awhile since this post but…my two sense. I go to restaurants for the food. Unless I have a horrific beyond horrific waiter experience, I’ll return if I like the food. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with writing a post about an establishment that is entirely about the food. Experience is nice if you can afford it–we can’t.
Yes, but they’re also putting their best food face forward– what if the food is totally different when you went to eat there?