Michelin stars seem to have the dynamics of a loss leader. Particularly as it's become known that many of the restaurants are badly unprofitable—and moreso if you think the chefs should earn something commensurate to their presumable talent or passion (you don't have to think this). It seems to be more the case that every award or signal of quality is capable of (and actually being used) this way.
Some people, like Chang, may know it and treat it transactionally as such. $X for a star, which leads to Y amount of exposure. Others, may know it or not, but treat it like a goal in life either way. It's very possible of course that many of the former start as the latter people until they later [realize/sell out/give up].
I guess it makes sense. The world is more competitive. Information is freely available. You need to find some other moat. With information and access to everything, a moat that might have been quality or talent, is more easily captured by buying the signal (which to be clear can include buying and maintaining the quality). Then once you have the signal, well, it's up to you whether you still need or want the quality. When push comes to shove, it's probably the case that the signal is worth more than the quality.
What would the more pedestrian equivalent be for Michelin stars? If you want to treat your middle class family to celebrate your daughter getting a full ride scholarship, whose ratings would you go with?
Maybe we need to just opt out and make our own yardstick.
If you trust the Michelin system and live in a city big enough to support it, Bib Gourmand is a good choice. Otherwise something like Google Maps combined with research related to what you want (something family casual, more upscale, etc.)
> Nobody in their right mind would choose to continue losing money.
In isolation, sure, but losing money in one area to make money (or some other form of currency such as fame) in another sounds a lot more reasonable. That's what a loss leader is.
Exactly! Every restauranteur knows the steak draws the attention but you pay your bills with baked potatoes and creamed spinach. There are only a handful of restaurant that are able to operate on that level, but the food loses money so you can make money on the cook books or merch or other opportunities (or even other restaurants. I promise you craftwich and craft have very different operation budgets/profitability).
When Michelin stars get involved it becomes really intrinsic(not monetary) vs extrinsic values. At certain levels of passion just achieving and keeping a star has value in itself. This then often comes with monetary cost.
Many of the chefs pushing for Michelin stars likely are not in their right mind.
Hi there! Please google “el buli profitable”. “The exception that proves the rule” or proof that some restaurants aren’t about making money through food sales alone.
Also, I spent a decade working in restaurants, I never met a single back of house employee that was in their right mind (myself included). It’s an entirely different breed from the HN set.
Some people, like Chang, may know it and treat it transactionally as such. $X for a star, which leads to Y amount of exposure. Others, may know it or not, but treat it like a goal in life either way. It's very possible of course that many of the former start as the latter people until they later [realize/sell out/give up].
I guess it makes sense. The world is more competitive. Information is freely available. You need to find some other moat. With information and access to everything, a moat that might have been quality or talent, is more easily captured by buying the signal (which to be clear can include buying and maintaining the quality). Then once you have the signal, well, it's up to you whether you still need or want the quality. When push comes to shove, it's probably the case that the signal is worth more than the quality.