The Michelin Guide and pay-to-play

Food news, food media, and other food-related topics
Post Reply
Sousaphil
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2023 12:09 pm

The Michelin Guide and pay-to-play

Post by Sousaphil »

Hi all,
I'm an ex-resident of the valley of the sun (8 glorious years) who still dreams of the market sandwich from Pane Bianco on Central...anyway, now living in Wisconsin, although I get back to Arizona visiting family a couple times a year.

The Michelin Guide recently issued its stars and other ratings in Colorado. The most interesting thing to me is how local city tourism boards paid for the coverage, which means some parts of Colorado (Colorado Springs, some Denver suburbs) weren't even eligible to have their restaurants reviewed.

I'm curious what you all would do if there was an option to bring Michelin to Arizona. On one hand, a Michelin Star is the most recognizable culinary accomplishment around the globe. On the other hand, I think they have a very narrow view of what a destination-worthy restaurant looks and tastes like.
User avatar
Skillet Doux
Site Admin
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2023 5:10 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: The Michelin Guide and pay-to-play

Post by Skillet Doux »

Sousaphil wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 12:27 pmThe most interesting thing to me is how local city tourism boards paid for the coverage, which means some parts of Colorado (Colorado Springs, some Denver suburbs) weren't even eligible to have their restaurants reviewed.
Is THAT how it works?!

...*rustling papers*...

Well, I'll be damned. That IS how it works.

Colorado will spend $135k a year to promote Michelin Guide to tourists (Denver Post)

I had no idea. On one hand, I'm not surprised. I don't necessarily see an ethical issue so long as it's out in the open and the selections within the covered regions aren't influenced by the money. If those inspectors are free to do their thing within whatever geographical boundary Michelin decides to cover (paid or otherwise), I'm good with it. I'd probably be miffed if I were on the wrong side of the line, but I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere. (Though branding it as the best restaurants in Colorado when you're only covering a sliver of Colorado is kind of shitty.)

Frankly, I'm surprised the Michelin Guide comes that *cheap*. Speaking as somebody who has managed a critic's budget, if you're trying to cover "Denver, Boulder, Aspen, Snowmass Village, Vail and Beaver Creek Resort" for a guide that places extra emphasis on fancypants expensive places, $135k is a pittance. I wonder what portion of their operating budget that's intended to cover. (What the hell *is* the Michelin Guide's revenue stream, anyway?)

Speaking to the larger picture, I'm not sure this says much about Michelin's continued relevance, though. The Bib Gourmands were supposed to be their way of trying to get with the times and stop dinging places for not having freaking fresh flowers on the table. But even setting aside that they're waaaaaay behind the curve on covering the full breadth and depth of noteworthy cuisine, every time a new list of Bib Gourmands comes out it seems like it's always a total head-scratcher for the food folks in that city. Covering fine dining and covering killer Mom and Pop joints require VERY different approaches, and it's hard to say whether or not they're up to the task when their methods are so opaque. But the results sure seem to raise more questions than answers.

I'm deeply ambivalent here, because I really do believe that having SOME form of methodical, anonymous dining criticism is a good thing. I wish it were more feasible. But I wonder if the puzzled reception to the Bib Gourmands demonstrates exactly why it isn't. It's next to impossible to airdrop into a city and get a sample large enough to say anything with authority. Want to cover a handful of fine dining restaurants? Sure, that's easy enough. But getting at the other stuff takes SO MUCH legwork and really requires that you be plugged into the community, I think. Hell, the local press who live and breathe any dining scene can barely cover it all. There's just so much.

As for Phoenix... I dunno? I'm not sure I see the utility, and I'm not sure Phoenix's restaurants would look as good under a Michelin microscope as people might like. Our stars can play, but the bench here has never been deep. And I don't think our strengths are the kind that Michelin starfuckers (did I say that out loud?) tend to care about anyway. I don't see the "I ate fourteen stars on my trip" people giving a damn about what we do well, and I don't think the people who appreciate what we do well care much about Michelin.
-Dom
Sousaphil
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2023 12:09 pm

Re: The Michelin Guide and pay-to-play

Post by Sousaphil »

LOL @ "Michelin starfuckers"!

Thanks for the thoughtful perspective. I absolutely adore the valley food scene, and I miss certain restaurants far more than I miss warm winters. That said, I absolutely agree that Michelin's rubric just doesn't seem like a fit for what Phoenix does well.
JesterOfXanadu
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2023 2:02 pm

Re: The Michelin Guide and pay-to-play

Post by JesterOfXanadu »

Skillet Doux wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2023 11:58 pm What the hell *is* the Michelin Guide's revenue stream, anyway?
Considering the Guide is a way for Michelin to sell more tires...
User avatar
Skillet Doux
Site Admin
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2023 5:10 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: The Michelin Guide and pay-to-play

Post by Skillet Doux »

JesterOfXanadu wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2023 7:31 pm
Skillet Doux wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2023 11:58 pm What the hell *is* the Michelin Guide's revenue stream, anyway?
Considering the Guide is a way for Michelin to sell more tires...
I mean, once upon a time, yeah, but that *can't* be the way it works now, can it? (Can it?) Just marketing for tires? It doesn't stand on its own two feet these days?
-Dom
Post Reply