Jamie Oliver under fire - and his chef doesn't think that's fair

There is nothing quite so amusing as a chef who angrily objects to poor reviews.

Jamie Oliver - yes, the bloke whose whole empire crashed four years ago with debts of £83 million and a reported 1,000 staff out of work - recently opened a new London eatery called Jamie Oliver Catherine Street.

Critics made a beeline for the restaurant as soon as it opened late last year - but chef Chris Shaill has said that those critics should have waited longer before paying a visit.

Shaill wailed that the restaurant still needed to “find its feet” and suggested that critics should have held fire for a while until everything had settled: 

“We’ve been improving since day one and we’re improving every single day," the Drinks Business reported.

So let's get this straight. The chef didn't have his team performing the way he wanted, but the restaurant opened anyway.

Were guests charged a reduced price while Shaill got things up to speed? Err no.

Were diners showered with extras while staff were being trained on the job? Err no.

Writing for the Evening Standard,  reviewer David Ellis gave the restaurant a two-star score and criticised the slow pace of service and called the seafood cocktail “ghoulish” summing the new opening up as “a musical with a star who just can’t sing”.

Tim Hayward in the Financial Times, who visited weeks after the opening was left "sadly flat" by his visit.

But Shaill was unmoved.

"We take [reviews] with a pinch of salt," he said. "We knew what was gonna be coming.

”Lots of people have their own idea of how things should be. As a new opening we got some things wrong. I think it’s the way we deal with it: we’re very humble and we’ll take any criticism on board and we want to be better - but there are plenty of very good reviews.”

So diners who were the victims of things the team "got wrong" were reimbursed? Err no.

Jamie's team - and their high-powered PR operatives - are maybe just a little too cocky for their own good. A little like....

Simple message: Don't open a restaurant until you are ready to offer diners a good experience. Particularly if you are already on the nose.  

Is your wine PR message getting to the right people?

 

Today I received a press release from a winery that said: "You are not important enough to send a sample to, but here is what other wine writers thought about a wine you have not tasted."

Not in so many words, of course, but that was the clear message.

And it was sent by high-profile PR company that no doubt charges handsomely for its services.

I get the message. Some wine writers who saw the wine liked it, and reviewed it favourably. 

"It has captivated wine reviewers," the release said. "It has emerged as an unexpected superstar."

That is a message the winery probably wants to get into the hands of cellar door staff, its reps, its distributors and even to sommeliers. 

But instead this was sent to media. Not the right/write market.

I don't know of a single wine writer who would run a story about what other reviewers think of a wine that they haven't sampled. That just wouldn't make sense and would also be unethical. 

It is, of course, up to wineries who they send samples to. If they send them at all. Understood. 

Budgets are tight and ROI is important. And I am no James Halliday or Huon Hooke, who incidentally scored the wine 91 - hardly a superstar result. 

But here is the kicker: "The wine recently earned a bronze medal at the Langhorne Creek Wine Show, underscoring its exceptional quality and recognition within the industry."

OK. The producer is happy. But the agency should have offered some sage advice to its client.

I have asked this particularly agency not to send me any more of its releases.        

Winemakers and not-so-wily scammers

We are all familiar with the many scammers to be found in today's online environment - and the wine industry is a regular target for these chancers. 

A Victorian winemaker friend recently received an email that raved about his 2018 Pinot Noir, which had been sampled and enjoyed at a Melbourne restaurant. 

Nice. 

Except this person added: "I’m on a social network platform called TIKTOK and I’ve made a video talking about your wines and recommending this particular wine. I have given you a really good plug." 

And raved on: "I’ve put you on a social platform and given you a highly highly wonderful recommendation and are hoping that people will buy your wines."

This person claims to have 10,000 TikTok followers and then gets down to the nitty gritty:

"I’ve given free advertising to a market of 12,000 people worldwide - you can thank me by giving me a dozen bottles, I’m you’re [sic] advocate." 

Even worse, the scammer mentions the winemaker's former partner, who died several years ago. And does not, of course, include a link to the alleged TikTok review. 

There were a couple of giveaways in that the email was full of both spelling and grammatical errors. Bin. 

Many winemakers are also familiar with emails demanding replacement bottles for those that were "corked". 

One winemaker tells me a funny story. 

"There was an email I received in about 2006 complaining that they had a bottle of my wine that was corked. 

"I had stopped using corks a few vintages before the one they claimed was corked. They wanted me to send a replacement bottle to an address in NE Vic that was a vacant block. 

"I emailed a warning to friends who still used cork and found that the person had tried the same scam widely." 

It seems busy winemakers are seen as any easy target. Stay sharp people. 

And if anyone else has been a victim of these, or similar, scams, please drop me a line. 

 

Thai hoteliers resort to legal threats

There is nowhere I would rather be right now than on a beach on Phuket or in Krabi, enjoying some fresh seafood and a cold beer.

I love Thailand. Warm, friendly people, great beaches, beautiful countryside and superb food.

There is, however, a disturbing element to both the Thai hospitality industry - and Thailand in general.

That is that no one is ever at fault - and that no one has the right to criticise.

You may remember a while back that an American blogger was jailed and forced to apologise for online criticism of a Thai hotel. 
Now it is happening again.

An oversensitive Thai hotel owner is threatening to sue a guest over what has been described as "a slightly negative review".

The guest posted a lukewarm 6/10 review on travel site Agoda, although her only serious criticism was that it was overpriced.

Attorney Sittra Biabungkerd has said that his client, a woman identified only as Khing, learned she was being sued in a letter sent by the resort, which he did not name, after she left negative feedback on Agoda.

“Khing was told by the resort to delete the review comment immediately, or else she must pay the resort THB50,000 per day in compensation and THB3 million (that is $125,000 AUS) for the damages,” Stitra wrote.

“Plus, the resort asked her to publish an apology in newspapers for seven days in a row.”

It has since been reported that the hotel involved is the Ozone Hotel in Khao Yai.

The review said the resort was “too expensive” and that “the room did not look new as advertised. I could not call the reception from my room, so I had to walk down by myself. Not clean. Night-shift staffers were not so helpful, but some were welcoming.”

The review subsequently vanished from Agoda, but Sitra said his client did not delete it.

So hotels can demand damages for mild criticism? And does Agoda only publish positive reviews and take down negative ones if a property protests?

Serious questions.

It turns out that defamation is a criminal act in Thailand, and the truth or fair criticism are not absolute defences.

So visitors should be very, very careful. And that the Tourism Authority of Thailand should probably warn hotels that renegade reactions to reviews can be very damaging to the country's global reputation.