Pete Wells’ Review Of Guy Fieri’s Restaurant Sheds More Heat Than Light

Whoa! I would NOT want to be one of Guy Fieri’s investors. Actually, I take that back. After The New York Times’ Pete Wells gave Guy’s American Kitchen & Bar in Times Square the WORST review in most people’s memory, Guy is stoking PR fires all over the place.

Never has someone (with such spiky hair) taken something so negative and tried to spin it so positively so quickly. The review was in yesterday’s paper. It was also mentionedon the NBC Nightly News that night. Apparently Brian thought it was noteworthy enough to include it on the broadcast the same day as the President’s first news conference in 8 months (and the first one after his reelection). Too bad Obama wasn’t asked about the review.

Then Guy was on the Today show this morning in 2 different segments. The first was when Savannah interviewed him in his restaurant. So what did Guy think of the review? He said, “I just thought it was ridiculous... It went so overboard it really seemed like there was another agenda… I think we all know what’s going on here.” I guess he was referring to Pete Wells welcoming the opportunity to skewer a celebrity chef who is also, yee-gads!, NOT a New Yorker.

But Savannah did mention that Yelp had given him only 2 1/2 stars out of five and she pointed out that it wasn’t really “knocking their socks off”. He said after 2½ months he wouldn’t have expected that to be the case. He added, of course, that they’re TRYING as hard as they can to do things perfectly, but he said, “Let’s see where we are in SIX months.”

That seems a little lackadaisical, which I actually don’t think Guy is. Apparently he brought in his own “team” from California who trained the folks in the New York restaurant, both in front and in back of the house. It seems clear that either they opened too soon or they needed better training or BOTH.

There is one thing I strongly disagree with Guy on. He questioned Pete Wells visiting the restaurant ONLY 4 times before doing his review. Guy’s point was that that was not enough for “a restaurant of this size”.  I think 4 times is a lot, and certainly more time than a regular paying customer would give to a restaurant that had been such a bad experience.

But wait, there’s more. The Today Show said they were going to be taste-testing his food. I was excited. I thought they’d bring on some local chefs or culinary professionals to add their learned opinions to Pete Wells’ blasting of just about every aspect of every dish. (Obviously it couldn’t be anyone with a Food Network connection.)  But, no, they had a doctor (oh wait, it was Dr. PHIL…does that count?), a lawyer and an ad professional. The last one, I get, but the first two?  AND it wasn’t a real food tasting either. They just sat around eating a bit of the dishes before their segment was on.  

What did they think? Donny Deutsch, the ad guy with the tight pants, was thrilled for Guy and the publicity this was bringing him. He said put a big sign in the window for critics to stay out. Lawyer Starrrrrr Jones hated that the review was mean-spirited. That I can’t disagree with. 

And Dr. Phil? He said something about a rabbit hugging a hound and that the review was more about the reviewer than the restaurant. I can’t disagree with that either…except maybe the rabbit part. (That MAY have been his comment on the next story about General Petraeus, but I’m sure it could apply here too.)

Frankly, I could argue bother sides here. A truly crappy restaurant may deserve to be called out, so folks don’t waste their hard earned money on an experience that will clearly disappoint them. But I would also say that I generally read reviews to find places to go and NOT to avoid. (That’s what Yelp is for.)

I can't comment on the accuracy of Pete Wells’ claims, because I haven't been there. But I do think this choice of restaurant to review is a bit odd for the New York Times. 

I don’t NEED a review of a “fast casual” restaurant or whatever they call this segment of the restaurant business. Even though Wells thought the prices were high for the quality of the food, I depend on other palates ESPECIALLY when I’m going to be spending a lot of money and I want to know if it’s going to be worth it. 

Plus I like having a preview of the dining experience and tips as to which dishes are the most successful – again, because if the restaurant is pricey, I don’t want to regret my choice. 

Most of us don’t have unlimited dining dollars. We depend on reviews, especially in New York and in the New York Times, to guide us to reliable places. There is a place in the paper for reviews of less fancy places, so that’s where this should have gone, if it was to be reviewed at all. 

And I do agree that the sarcastic question form that the review was written in felt a little personal. Actually, a lot personal. It included passages like these:

"What exactly about a small salad with four or five miniature croutons makes Guy’s Famous Big Bite Caesar (a) big (b) famous or (c) Guy’s, in any meaningful sense?"

“Hey, did you try that blue drink, the one that glows like nuclear waste? The watermelon margarita? Any idea why it tastes like some combination of radiator fluid and formaldehyde?”

Please! If it was really that bad, then did the review really belong in the pages of the New York Times? (I like this question thing!)  I’m pretty sure that the majority of people reading restaurant reviews are interested in learning about places they SHOULD go, not the opposite. It’s almost like giving a recipe that you know is bad…just to demonstrate that someone gave you a bad recipe. What’s the point?!!

That old expression about something shedding more heat than light applies here. The major purpose of the review seemed to be to stir up controversy and not to provide useful information. We didn’t learn about a great new place to eat; we found instead just how nasty and arrogant a reviewer could be.

Share this post